CASE STUDY: Global Ship Lease (GSL)

(Image: Zen Buddha Silence, by Marilyn Barbone)

October 10, 2021

Here is the performance of the Boole Microcap Fund this year and since inception (06/09/20).

follow site go to link go thesis on legalizing euthanasia https://footcaregroup.org/perpill/ijzersupplementen-bijwerkingen-cialis/35/ see 5 mm retrolisthesis see ma thesis title page apriori algorithm research paper enter site sample thesis about electricity crestor generics source link example cover sheet term paper short essay on ozone layer depletion https://eagfwc.org/men/viagra-stickstoff/100/ https://shedbuildermag.com/research/aristotle-theory-ethos-pathos-logos-essay/28/ http www zetia tv cialis diario venezuela alphanumerischen zeichen beispiel essay effexor lexapro a hot summer day essay for class 3 marketing homework help andreas thiel polit satire essay click https://carlgans.org/report/citation-in-paper/7/ http://kanack.org/statement/fracture-thesis/26/ viagra harmful body writing letters in german go to link best research paper writing services   Boole Microcap Fund Russell Microcap Index S&P 500 Index
2021 net return (thru 10/08/21) 42.2% 22.3% 18.7%
2020 net return from inception (06/09/20) 21.1% 31.7% 16.3%
Compounded annual return (net) 31.2% 26.9% 17.5%
Overall gain (net) 72.2% 61.1% 38.0%

Our investment in Global Ship Lease (GSL) has been one of our best ideas thus far.

Shipping is a terrible business.  It is asset-intensive, with low returns on capital.  There are short-lived booms and sustained busts.  Also, the booms are impossible to predict with any precision.  However, if you can be roughly right about when the next boom will start, you can do well investing in shipping.

I first wrote up the idea of GSL in June 2020 here: http://boolefund.com/global-ship-lease-gsl/

At the time, the stock at $4.62 a share was extremely cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 5.28
    • P/E = 1.93
    • P/B = 0.20
    • P/CF = 0.81
    • P/S = 0.29

These figures made Global Ship Lease one of the top ten cheapest companies out of over two thousand that we ranked.

We bought GSL stock in June 2020 at $4.57.  Today the stock is at $21.48.  The position is up 370% so far, which makes it our best-performing idea.

The current price of $21.48 is fairly close to the $23.10 that was our original price target in the mid case scenario.  But things have evolved since then.

What is GSL worth today?  In other words, what is the intrinsic value of GSL?

Shipping rates now are at record highs.  They could stay this way for 6 to 12 months and maybe longer.  That’s because demand is strong, while supply is quite constrained.

Demand

Demand is strong and likely to remain strong because global GDP is strong.

Moreover, 70% of global containerized trade volume is in non-mainline routes—and these routes are growing faster than mainline routes.  As well, these routes are served by mid-sized and smaller containerships.  This is where GSL focuses.

Supply

The supply of container ships is constrained.  Many ports are congested due to covid-related shutdowns.  More importantly, there are not many new ships coming into the market in the next couple of years.  It takes two to three years for shipyards to make a new ship, and there are only 120 shipyards (compared to 300 in 2008).

Furthermore, the supply of mid-sized and smaller containerships is even more constrained that the supply of larger ships.  There are very few orders of mid-sized and smaller containerships coming into the market in the next couple of years.

What is the intrinsic value of GSL today?

EBITDA based on 10-year average rates is about $350 million.  Normalized net income is ~$150 million.  Normalized cash flow is ~$160 million.  Based on normalized figures:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.23
    • P/E = 5.33
    • P/B = 0.46
    • P/CF = 5.00
    • P/S = 1.33

NOTE:  I use P/NAV instead of P/B.  A conservative estimate of NAV is approximately $47 per share.  A more realistic estimate of NAV is around $62 per share.  See this analysis by J. Mintzmyer on Seeking Alpha: https://tinyurl.com/39jx5fey

George Youroukos, Executive Chairman of the Board, recently acquired approximately $10 million of GSL’s stock.  Youroukos clearly believes GSL’s stock is cheap.   This brings Youroukos’ total position to 6.4% of GSL’s outstanding shares, worth over $50 million.

Here is GSL’s Q2 2021 earnings presentation: https://www.globalshiplease.com/static-files/a226750c-bb27-45e2-8017-a0183e07ad26

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: Global Ship Lease may be worth 50% of NAV.  (A conservative estimate of NAV is about $47 per share.)  That works out to $23.50 a share, which is over 9% higher than today’s $21.48.
    • Mid case: Global Ship Lease is likely worth at least NAV of $47 per share.  That’s about 120% higher than today’s $21.48.
    • High case: NAV may be closer to $62, which is over 180% higher than today’s $21.48.

So far in 2021, GSL has increased its fleet by 53%.  It paid prices in the range of 3.6 to 4.0 times EBITDA.  These deals are immediately accretive because most of then already have charters attached.  GSL will have most of its fleet contracted by the end of the year.

The Piotroski F_Score for Global Ship Lease is 6, which is OK.

Bottom Line

GSL is one of our best-performing stocks, up over 370% since we bought it in June of 2020.  The Boole Microcap Fund continues to hold most of the position because GSL is still undervalued compared to NAV.   If GSL hits NAV of $47, it will be up over 925% since we bought it.  That said, NAV may be closer to $62, which is over 1,255% higher than where we bought it.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: TravelCenters of America (TA)

(Image: Zen Buddha Silence, by Marilyn Barbone)

October 3, 2021

Here is the performance of the Boole Microcap Fund this year and since inception (06/09/20).

  Boole Microcap Fund Russell Microcap Index S&P 500 Index
2021 net return (thru 10/01/21) 39.8% 23.6% 17.6%
2020 net return from inception (06/09/20) 21.1% 31.7% 16.3%
Compounded annual return (net) 30.1% 27.6% 16.9%
Overall gain (net) 69.3% 62.8% 36.8%

Our investment in TravelCenters of America (TA) has been one of our best ideas thus far.

I first wrote up the idea of TA in May 2020 here: http://boolefund.com/travelcenters-america-ta/

At the time, the stock at $9.29 a share was extremely cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.55
    • P/E = 2.90
    • P/B = 0.14
    • P/CF = 1.40
    • P/S = 0.01

These figures made TravelCenters of America one of the top ten cheapest companies out of over two thousand that we ranked.

However, just because a stock is quantitatively cheap does not mean that it’s a good investment.  In fact, before launching the Boole Microcap Fund on 6/9/20, I had bought TA at quantitatively cheap prices.  But the company was being chronically mismanaged and so the stock was deservedly cheap.  I ended up selling at a loss.  But this experience is what prepared me to buy TA for the Boole Microcap Fund.

Studies have shown that if you systematically buy quantitatively cheap stocks, then your portfolio will beat the market over time.  This is called deep value investing, which is what the Boole Microcap Fund does.  See this classic paper: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/contrarianinvestment.pdf

However, if you’re doing deep value investing, roughly 57% of your quantitatively cheap stocks will underperform the market.  It’s only because the other 43% increase a great deal that the overall deep value portfolio beats the market over time.

But there are ways to decrease the number of cheap but underperforming stocks in your deep value portfolio.  This will boost your long-term performance.

One example is the Piotroski F_Score, which the Boole Microcap Fund uses.  A high F_Score indicates improving fundamentals.  See: http://boolefund.com/piotroski-f-score/

Another thing that can greatly improve your odds is if new management with a track record of success is brought in to turn around an underperforming company.  This is what happened with TravelCenters of America.

Turnaround specialist Jon Pertchik was named CEO of TravelCenters of America in December 2019.  Pertchik has a track record of significantly improving the performance of underperforming companies.

With Pertchik in charge, it now seemed probable that TravelCenters of America would be worth at least book value of $66.54 per share, which was 615% higher than its May 2020 price of $9.29.

Furthermore, the company could be worth close to $100 a share if Pertchik’s turnaround efforts exceeded expectations.

We bought TA stock in July 2020 at $13.04.  Today the stock is at $53.14.  The position is up over 300% so far.  We sold some along the way, but have kept most of it because Jon Pertchik has set very aggressive goals and is meeting or exceeding those goals.

Normalized EBTIDA is approximately $300 million (trailing EBITDA is $190 million).  Normalized earnings are about $200 million.  Normalized cash flow is close to $300 million.  The current market cap is $657 million while current enterprise value (EV) is $599 million.  That means that:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.0
    • P/E = 3.29
    • P/B = 1.17
    • P/CF = 0.29
    • P/S = 0.14
  • TA stock is still cheap.

But how cheap is it?   What is TA’s intrinsic value?

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: The current book value per share is $45.63.  That is about 14% lower than today’s $53.14.
    • Mid case: Normalized EBITDA is about $300 million.  A conservative EV/EBITDA is 5.0.  That puts EV (enterprise value) at $1,500 million.  The market cap would be $1,558 million, which works out to $106.86 per share.  That’s over 100% higher than today’s $53.14.
    • High case: Normalized EBITDA could reach $350 million.  At an EV/EBITDA of 6.0, the EV would be $2,100 million.  The market cap would be $2,158 million, which works out to $148.01 per share.  That’s over 175% higher than today’s $53.14.

Insider ownership is 15%, which is pretty good.

The Piotroski F_Score is 5, which is mediocre.  But the company is improving fast and is investing heavily to create the best customer experience.

 

BOTTOM LINE

Since the Boole Microcap Fund bought TA stock at $13.04, the stock is up over 300%.

Today, thanks to the great performance of the new CEO Jon Pertchik and everyone at TA, the stock still appears cheap.  $106.86 a share is 100% higher than today’s $53.14.

Also, $106.86 is about 720% higher than $13.04.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

The Best Way to Build Wealth

(Image: Zen Buddha Silence, by Marilyn Barbone)

September 26, 2021

The best way to build wealth is through long-term investing.  The more wealth you have, the more freedom you have to achieve your goals in life.

A smart long-term investment for many investors is an S&P 500 index fund.  It’s just basic arithmetic, as Jack Bogle and Warren Buffett frequently point out: http://boolefund.com/warren-buffett-jack-bogle/

But you can get much higher returns—at least 18% per year (instead of 10% per year)—by investing in cheap, solid microcap stocks.

Because most professional investors have large assets under management, they cannot even consider investing in microcap stocks.  That’s why there continues to be a wonderful opportunity for enterprising investors.  Microcaps are ignored, which causes most of them to become significantly undervalued from time to time.

Warren Buffett obtained the highest returns of his career when he invested primarily in microcap stocks.  Buffett says that he could get 50 percent a year today if he were managing a small enough sum so that he could focus on microcap stocks: http://boolefund.com/buffetts-best-microcap-cigar-butts/

Check out this summary of the CRSP Decile-Based Size and Return Data from 1927 to 2020:

Decile Market Cap-Weighted Returns Equal Weighted Returns Number of Firms (year-end 2020) Mean Firm Size (in millions)
1 9.67% 9.47% 179 145,103
2 10.68% 10.63% 173 25,405
3 11.38% 11.17% 187 12,600
4 11.53% 11.29% 203 6,807
5 12.12% 12.03% 217 4,199
6 11.75% 11.60% 255 2,771
7 12.01% 11.99% 297 1,706
8 12.03% 12.33% 387 888
9 11.55% 12.51% 471 417
10 12.41% 17.27% 1,023 99
9+10 11.71% 15.77% 1,494 199

(CRSP is the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago.  You can find the data for various deciles here:  http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html)

The smallest two deciles—9+10—are microcap stocks, which are stocks with market caps below $500 million.  What jumps out is the equal weighted returns of the 9th and 10th size deciles from 1927 to 2020:

Microcap equal weighted returns = 15.8% per year

Large-cap equal weighted returns = ~10% per year

In actuality, the annual returns from microcap stocks will be 1-2% lower because of the cost of entering and exiting positions.  So it’s better to say that an equal weighted microcap approach has returned 14% per year from 1927 to 2020, versus 10% per year for an equal weighted large-cap approach.

 

VALUE SCREEN: +2-3%

By consistently applying a value screen—e.g., low EV/EBITDA, low P/E, low P/S, etc.—to a microcap strategy, you can add 2-3% per year.

 

IMPROVING FUNDAMENTALS: +2-3%

You can further increase performance by screening for improving fundamentals.  One powerful way to do this is using the Piotroski F_Score, which works best for cheap micro caps.  See:  http://boolefund.com/joseph-piotroski-value-investing/

 

BOTTOM LINE

If you invest in microcap stocks, you can get about 14% a year.  If you also implement a simple screen for value, that adds at least 2% a year.  If you then screen for improving fundamentals, that boosts performance by at least another 2% a year.

In brief, if you invest systematically in undervalued microcap stocks with improving fundamentals, you can get at least 18% a year.  That compares quite well to the 10% a year you could get from an S&P 500 index fund.

What’s the difference between 10% a year and 18% a year?  If you invest $100,000 at 10% a year for 30 years, you end up with $1.7 million, which is quite good.  If you invest $100,000 at 18% a year for 30 years, you end up with $14,3 million, which is significantly better.

Please contact me with any questions or comments.

    • My email: jb@boolefund.com.
    • My cell: 206.518.2519

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

The Psychology of Misjudgment

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

September 19, 2021

In order to reach our potential as human beings, we have to study our mistakes, including what causes or leads to those mistakes.

Psychologists have identified cognitive biases we all have (from evolution) that regularly lead to mistakes.  Here’s a short list: http://boolefund.com/cognitive-biases/

Below is a longer, more comprehensive list of twenty-four psychological tendencies described by Charlie Munger in his talk, “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment.”  See: https://fsmisc.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/great-talks/The+Psychology+of+Human+Misjudment.pdf

Bear in mind this comment by Munger:

Psychological tendencies tend to be both numerous and inseparably intertwined, now and forever, as they interplay in life.

Here are the twenty-four psychological tendencies Munger discusses:

  1.  Reward and Punishment Superresponse Tendency
  2.  Liking/Loving Tendency
  3.  Disliking/Hating Tendency
  4.  Doubt-Avoidance Tendency
  5.  Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency
  6.  Curiosity Tendency
  7.  Kantian Fairness Tendency
  8.  Envy/Jealousy Tendency
  9.  Reciprocation Tendency
  10.  Influence-from-Mere Association Tendency
  11.  Simple, Pain-Avoiding Psychological Denial
  12.  Excessive Self-Regard Tendency
  13.  Overoptimism Tendency
  14.  Deprival Superreaction Tendency
  15.  Social-Proof Tendency
  16.  Contrast-Misreaction Tendency
  17.  Stress-Influence Tendency
  18.  Availability-Misweighing Tendency
  19.  Use-It-or-Lose-It Tendency
  20.  Drug-Misinfluence Tendency
  21.  Senescence-Misinfluence Tendency
  22.  Authority-Misinfluence Tendency
  23.  Twaddle-Tendency
  24.  Reason-Respecting Tendency

(At the end, Munger gives his answers to a couple of excellent questions, plus a list of good examples to remember.)

 

Introduction

Munger introduces his discussion:

Some psychology professors like to demonstrate the inadequacy of contrast-based perception by having students put one hand in a bucket of hot water and one hand in a bucket of cold water.  They are then suddenly asked to remove both hands and place them in a single bucket of room-temperature water.  Now, with both hands in the same water, one hand feels as if it has just been put in cold water and the other hand feels as if it has just been placed in hot water.  When one thus sees perception so easily fooled by mere contrast, where a simple temperature gauge would make no error, and realizes that cognition mimics perception in being misled by mere contrast, he is well on the way toward understanding, not only how magicians fool one, but also how life will fool one.  This can occur, through deliberate human manipulation or otherwise, if one doesn’t take certain precautions against often-wrong effects from generally useful tendencies in his perception and cognition.  (pg. 4)

Our psychological tendencies are generally useful, being the result of evolution.  But in some situations, these tendencies lead to errors.

 

(1)  Reward and Punishment Superresponse Tendency

Munger observes that hardly a year passes when he does not get some surprise from how powerful incentives are.

Never, ever think about something else when you should be thinking about incentives.

Munger:

One of the most important consequences of incentive superpower is what I call ‘incentive caused bias.’  A man has an acculturated nature making him a pretty decent fellow, and yet, driven both consciously and subconsciously by incentives, he drifts into immoral behavior in order to get what he wants, a result he facilitates by rationalizing his bad behavior, like the salesmen at Xerox who harmed customers in order to maximize their sales commissions.  (pg. 6)

Munger gives an example of a surgeon who “over the years sent bushel baskets full of normal gall bladders down to the pathology lab in the leading hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska.”  One of the doctors who participated in the removals was a family friend (of the Mungers), so Munger asked him if the surgeon in question thought, ‘Here’s a way for me to exercise my talents and make a high living by doing a few maimings and murders every year in the course of routine fraud.’  Munger’s friend answered: ‘Hell no, Charlie.  He thought that the gall bladder was the source of all medical evil, and, if you really loved your patients, you couldn’t get that organ out rapidly enough.’

Munger comments:

Now that’s an extreme case, but in lesser strength, the cognitive drift of that surgeon is present in every profession and in every human being.  And it causes perfectly terrible behavior.  Consider the presentations of brokers selling commercial real estate and businesses.  I’ve never seen one that I thought was even with hailing distance of objective truth….

On the other hand, you can use the power of incentives – even using as rewards things you already possess! – to manipulate your own behavior for the better.  The business version of ‘Granny’s Rule’ is to force yourself daily to do the unpleasant and necessary tasks first, before rewarding yourself by proceeding to the pleasant tasks.

 

(2)  Liking/Loving Tendency

Munger:

One very practical consequence of Liking/Loving Tendency is that it acts as a conditioning device that makes the liker or lover tend (1) to ignore faults of, and comply with wishes of, the object of his affection, (2) to favor people, products, and actions merely associated with the object of his affection (as we shall see when we get to ‘Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency,’) and (3) to distort other facts to facilitate love.  (pg. 9)

We’re naturally biased, so we have to be careful in some situations.

On the other hand, Munger points out that loving admirable persons and ideas can be very beneficial.

…a man who is so constructed that he loves admirable persons and ideas with a special intensity has a huge advantage in life.  This blessing came to both Buffett and myself in large measure, sometimes from the same persons and ideas.  One common, beneficial example for us both was Warren’s uncle, Fred Buffett, who cheerfully did the endless grocery-store work that Warren and I ended up admiring from a safe distance.  Even now, after I have known so many other people, I doubt if it is possible to be a nicer man than Fred Buffett was, and he changed me for the better.

Warren Buffett:

If you tell me who your heroes are, I’ll tell you how you’re gonna turn out.  It’s really important in life to have the right heroes.  I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve probably had a dozen or so major heroes.  And none of them have ever let me down.  You want to hang around with people that are better than you are.  You will move in the direction of the crowd that you associate with.

 

(3)  Disliking/Hating Tendency

Munger notes that Switzerland and the United States have clever political arrangements to “channel” the hatreds and dislikings of individuals and groups into nonlethal patterns including elections.

But the dislikings and hatreds never go away completely…  And we also get the extreme popularity of very negative political advertising in the United States.

Munger explains:

Disliking/Hating Tendency also acts as a conditioning device that makes the disliker/hater tend to (1) ignore virtues in the object of dislike, (2) dislike people, products, and actions merely associated with the object of dislike, and (3) distort other facts to facilitate hatred.

Distortion of that kind is often so extreme that miscognition is shockingly large.  When the World Trade center was destroyed, many Muslims concluded that the Hindus did it, while many Arabs concluded that the Jews did it.  Such factual distortions often make mediation between opponents locked in hatred either difficult or impossible.  Mediations between Israelis and Palestinians are difficult because facts in one side’s history overlap very little with facts from the other side’s.

 

(4)  Doubt-Avoidance Tendency

Munger says:

The brain of man is programmed with a tendency to quickly remove doubt by reaching some decision.  It is easy to see how evolution would make animals, over the course of eons, drift toward such quick elimination of doubt.  After all, the one thing that is surely counterproductive for a prey animal that is threatened by a predator is to take a long time in deciding what to do.  And so man’s Doubt Avoidance Tendency is quite consistent with the history of his ancient, nonhuman ancestors.

Munger then observes:

What triggers Doubt-Avoidance Tendency?  Well, an unthreatened man, thinking of nothing in particular, is not being prompted to remove doubt through rushing to some decision.  As we shall see later when we get to Social-Proof Tendency and Stress-Influence Tendency, what usually triggers Doubt-Avoidance Tendency is some combination of puzzlement and stress.  Both of these factors naturally occur in facing religious issues.  (page 10)

 

(5)  Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency

Munger explains:

The brain of man conserves programming space by being reluctant to change, which is a form of inconsistency avoidance.  We see this in all human habits, constructive and destructive.  Few people can list a lot of bad habits that they have eliminated, and some people cannot identify even one of these.  Instead, practically everyone has a great many bad habits he has long maintained despite their being known as bad….  chains of habit that were too light to be felt before they became too heavy to be broken.

If you’re wise, self-improvement is lifelong:

The rare life that is wisely lived has in it many good habits maintained and many bad habits avoided or cured.

Munger:

It is easy to see that a quickly reached conclusion, triggered by Doubt-Avoidance Tendency, when combined with a tendency to resist any change in that conclusion, will naturally cause a lot of errors in cognition for modern man.  And so it observably works out.  We all deal much with others whom we correctly diagnose as imprisoned in poor conclusions that are maintained by mental habits they formed early and will carry to their graves.

So great is the bad-decision problem caused by Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency that our courts have adopted important strategies against it.  For instance, before making decisions, judges and juries are required to hear long and skillful presentations of evidence and argument from the side they will not naturally favor, given their ideas in place.  And this helps prevent considerable bad thinking from ‘first conclusion bias.’  Similarly, other modern decision makers will often force groups to consider skillful counterarguments before making decisions. 

And proper education is one long exercise in high cognition so that our wisdom becomes strong enough to destroy wrong thinking, maintained by resistance to change.

Munger points out that, as humans, we collect many attitudes and conclusions that are wrong:

And so, people tend to accumulate large mental holdings of fixed conclusions and attitudes that are not often reexamined or changed, even though there is plenty of good evidence that they are wrong.

But we can develop good mental habits by modeling people who excel at minimizing their biases.  Munger:

One of the most successful users of an antidote to first conclusion bias was Charles Darwin.  He trained himself, early, to intensively consider any evidence tending to disconfirm any hypothesis of his, more so if he thought his hypothesis was a particularly good one.  The opposite of what Darwin did is now called confirmation bias, a term of opprobrium.  Darwin’s practice came from his acute recognition of man’s natural cognitive faults arising from Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency.  He provides a great example of psychological insight correctly used to advance some of the finest mental work ever done. 

 

(6)  Curiosity Tendency

There is a lot of innate curiosity in mammals, but its nonhuman version is highest among apes and monkeys.  Man’s curiosity, in turn, is much stronger than that of his simian relatives.  In advanced human civilization, culture greatly increases the effectiveness of curiosity in advancing knowledge…  Curiosity, enhanced by the best of modern education… much helps man to prevent or reduce bad consequences arising from other psychological tendencies.  The curious are also provided with much fun and wisdom long after formal education has ended.

Munger has long maintained that you should be a learning machine:

I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines.  They go to bed every night a little wiser than they were when they got up and boy does that help, particularly when you have a long run ahead of you.

 

(7)  Kantian Fairness Tendency

Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ – a sort of ‘golden rule’ – “that required all humans to follow those behavior patterns that, if followed by all others, would make the surrounding human system work best for everybody.  And it is not too much to say that modern acculturated man displays, and expects from others, a lot of fairness as thus defined by Kant.”  (page 12)

Munger gives an example:

In a small community having a one-way bridge or tunnel for autos, it is the norm in the United States to see a lot of reciprocal courtesy, despite the absence of signs or signals.

 

(8)  Envy/Jealousy Tendency

Envy/jealousy is extreme in myth, religion, and literature wherein, in account after account, it triggers hatred and injury…

And envy/jealousy is also extreme in modern life… 

Munger has pointed out that envy is particularly stupid because there’s no upside.  Buffett has agreed with Munger on this, adding:

Gluttony is a lot of fun.  Lust has its place, too, but we won’t get into that.

Buffett:

It is not greed that drives the world, but envy.

 

(9)  Reciprocation Tendency

Munger:

The automatic tendency of humans to reciprocate both favors and disfavors has long been noticed as it is in apes, monkeys, dogs, and many less cognitively gifted animals.  The tendency facilitates group cooperation for the benefit of members.

Unfortunately, hostility can get extreme.  But we have the ability to train ourselves.  Munger:

The standard antidote to one’s overactive hostility is to train oneself to defer reaction.  As my smart friend Tom Murphy so frequently says, ‘You can always tell the man off tomorrow, if it is such a good idea.’  (page 13)

Munger then notes that the tendency to reciprocate favor for favor is also very intense.  He mentions strange pauses in fighting during wars, caused by some minor courtesy or favor by one side which was then reciprocated by the other side.  Furthermore:

It is obvious that commercial trade, a fundamental cause of modern prosperity, is enormously facilitated by man’s innate tendency to reciprocate favors.  In trade, enlightened self-interest joining with Reciprocation Tendency results in constructive conduct.

Reciprocation Tendency operates largely subconsciously, like the other tendencies.

Munger mentions an experiment conducted by the psychology professor Robert Cialdini:

…Cialdini caused his ‘compliance practitioners’ to wander around his campus and ask strangers to supervise a bunch of juvenile delinquents on a trip to a zoo… one person in six out of a large sample actually agreed to do this… His practitioners next wandered around the campus asking strangers to devote a big chunk of time every week for two years to the supervision of juvenile delinquents.  This ridiculous request got him a one hundred percent rejection rate.  But the practitioner had a follow-up question:  ‘Will you at least spend one afternoon taking juvenile delinquents to a zoo?’  This raised Cialdini’s former acceptance rate of 1/6 to 1/2 – a tripling.

What Cialdini’s ‘compliance practitioners’ had done was make a small concession, which was reciprocated by a small concession from the other side.

Munger gives an important example from the real world:

The importance and power of reciprocate-favor tendency was also demonstrated in Cialdini’s explanation of the foolish decision of the attorney general of the United States to authorize the Watergate burglary.  There, an aggressive subordinate made some extreme proposal for advancing Republican interests… When this ridiculous request was rejected, the subordinate backed off, in gracious concession, to merely asking for consent to a burglary, and the attorney general went along.  Cialdini believes that subconscious Reciprocation Tendency thus became one important cause of the resignation of a United States president in the Watergate debacle, and so do I.  Reciprocation Tendency subtlely causes many extreme and dangerous consequences, not just on rare occasions but pretty much all the time.  (page 14)

But, while the Reciprocation Tendency is often dangerous, on the whole it causes more good than bad, says Munger:

Overall, both inside and outside religions, it seems clear to me that Reciprocation Tendency’s constructive contributions to man far outweigh its destructive effects.  In cases of psychological tendencies being used to counter or prevent bad results from one or more other psychological tendencies – for instance, in the case of interventions to end chemical dependency – you will usually find Reciprocation Tendency performing strongly on the constructive side.

And the very best part of human life probably lies in relationships of affection wherein parties are more interested in pleasing than being pleased – a not uncommon outcome in display of reciprocate-favor tendency.

Guilt is also rooted in evolution.  But Munger views it as a positive, on the whole:

…To the extent the feeling of guilt has an evolutionary base, I believe the most plausible cause is the mental conflict triggered in one direction by reciprocate-favor tendency and in the opposite direction by reward superresponse tendency pushing one to enjoy one hundred percent of some good thing.  Of course, human culture has often greatly boosted the genetic tendency to suffer from feeling of guilt.  Most especially, religious culture has imposed hard-to-follow ethical and devotional demands on people…  And if you, like me… believe that, averaged out, feelings of guilt do more good than harm, you may join in my special gratitude for reciprocate-favor tendency, no matter how unpleasant you find feelings of guilt.

 

(10)  Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency

Munger observes that advertisers know the power of mere association.  For instance, Coca-Cola advertisements strive to associate Coke with happiness.

However, our minds can be misled by random association, as Munger explains:

Some of the most important miscalculations come from what is accidentally associated with one’s past success, or one’s liking and loving, or one’s disliking and hating, which includes a natural hatred for bad news.  (page 15)

Munger continues:

To avoid being misled by the mere association of some fact with past success, use this memory clue.  Think of Napoleon and Hitler when they invaded Russia after using their armies with much success elsewhere.  And there are plenty of mundane examples of results like those of Napoleon and Hitler.  For instance, a man foolishly gambles in a casino and yet wins.  This unlikely correlation causes him to try the casino again, or again and again, to his horrid detriment.  Or a man gets lucky in an odds-against venture headed by an untalented friend.  So influenced, he tries again what worked before – with terrible results.

Munger advises:

The proper antidotes to being made such a patsy by past success are (1) to carefully examine each past success, looking for accidental, non-causative factors associated with such success that will tend to mislead as one appraises odds implicit in a proposed new undertaking and (2) to look for dangerous aspects of the new undertaking that were not present when past success occurred.

Hating and disliking also cause miscalculation triggered by mere association.  In business, I commonly see people underappraise both the competency and the morals of competitors they dislike.  This is a dangerous practice, usually disguised because it occurs on a subconscious basis. 

Munger later comments on “Persian Messenger Syndrome”:

…Persian Messenger Syndrome is alive and well in modern life, albeit in less lethal versions.  It is actually dangerous in many careers to be a carrier of unwelcome news.  Union negotiators and employer representatives often know this, and it leads to many tragedies in labor relations.  Sometimes lawyers, knowing their clients will hate them if they recommend an unwelcome but wise settlement, will carry on to disaster…

CBS, in its late heyday, was famous for occurrence of Persian Messenger Syndrome because Chairman Paley was hostile to people who brought him bad news.  The result was that Paley lived in a cocoon of unreality, from which he made one bad deal after another, even exchanging a large share of CBS for a company that had to be liquidated shortly thereafter.

 

(11)  Simple, Pain-Avoiding Psychological Denial

Munger says:

This phenomenon first hit me hard in World War II when the superathlete, superstudent son of a family friend flew off over the Atlantic Ocean and never came back.  His mother, who was a very sane woman, then refused to believe he was dead.  That’s Simple, Pain-Avoiding Psychological Denial.  The reality is too painful to bear, so one distorts the facts until they become bearable.  We all do that to some extent, often causing terrible problems.  The tendency’s most extreme outcomes are usually mixed up with love, death, and chemical dependency.

 

(12)  Excessive Self-Regard Tendency

Excessive self-regard is one of the more obvious tendencies.

We all commonly observe the excessive self-regard of man.  He mostly misappraises himself on the high side, like the ninety percent of Swedish drivers that judge themselves to be above average.  Such misappraisals also apply to a person’s major ‘possessions.’  One spouse usually overappraises the other spouse.  And a man’s children are likewise appraised to be higher by him than they are likely to be in a more objective view.  Even man’s minor possessions tend to be overappraised.  Once owned, they suddenly become worth more to him than he would pay if they were offered for sale to him and he didn’t already own them.  There is a name in psychology for this overappraise-your-own-possessions phenomenon: the ‘endowment effect.’  And all man’s decisions are suddenly regarded by him as better than would have been the case just before he made them.

Man’s excess of self-regard typically makes him strongly prefer people like himself…  (page 16)

Munger continues:

Some of the worse consequences in modern life come when dysfunctional groups of cliquish persons, dominated by Excessive Self-Regard Tendency, select as new members of their organizations persons who are very much like themselves…

Well, naturally, all forms of excess of self-regard cause much error.  How could it be otherwise?

Moreover, says Munger:

Intensify man’s love of his own conclusions by adding the possessory wallop from the ‘endowment effect,’ and you will find that a man who has already bought a pork-belly future on a commodity exchange now foolishly believes, even more strongly than before, in the merits of his speculative bet.

And foolish sports betting, by people who love sports and think they know a lot about relative merits of teams, is a lot more addictive than race track betting – partly because of man’s automatic overappraisal of his own complicated conclusions.

Also extremely counterproductive is man’s tendency to be, time after time, in games of skill, like golf or poker, against people who are obviously much better players.  Excessive Self-Regard Tendency diminishes the foolish bettor’s accuracy in appraising his relative degree of talent.

Munger then adds:

More counterproductive yet are man’s appraisals, typically excessive, of the quality of the future service he is to provide to his business.  His overappraisal of these prospective contributions will frequently cause disaster.

There is a famous passage somewhere in Tolstoy that illuminates the power of Excessive Self-Regard Tendency.  According to Tolstoy, the worst criminals don’t appraise themselves as all that bad.  They come to believe either (1) that they didn’t commit their crimes or (2) that, considering the pressures and disadvantages of their lives, it is understandable and forgivable that they behaved as they did and become what they became.  (pg. 17)

Munger comments:

The second half of the ‘Tolstoy effect’, where the man makes excuses for his fixable poor performance, instead of providing the fix, is enormously important.  Because a majority of mankind will try to get along by making way too many unreasonable excuses for fixable poor performance, it is very important to have personal and institutional antidotes limiting the ravages of such folly.  On the personal level a man should try to face the two simple facts:

  • fixable but unfixed bad performance is bad character and tends to create more of itself, causing more damage to the excuse giver with each tolerated instance, and
  • in demanding places, like athletic teams and General Electric, you are almost sure to be discarded in due course if you keep giving excuses instead of behaving as you should.

The best antidote to folly from an excess of self-regard is to force yourself to be more objective when you are thinking about yourself, your family and friends, your property, and the value of your past and future activity.  This isn’t easy to do well and won’t work perfectly, but it will work much better than simply letting psychological nature take its normal course.

Most of the time, excessive self-regard harms our ability to make a good decision.  If you have an important decision, you have to learn to slow yourself down and be humble.  Munger:

You’re less pleasing than you think you are.  You know less than you think you do.

It’s easy for us to see the shortcomings in others, but it’s much harder for us to see our own flaws clearly.  It’s good to be able to laugh at yourself.

 

(13)  Overoptimism Tendency

Demosthenes:

Nothing is easier than self-deceit.  For what a man wishes, that also he believes to be true.

Munger suggests:

One standard antidote to foolish optimism is trained, habitual use of the simple probability math of Fermat and Pascal, taught in my youth to high school sophomores.  The mental rules of thumb that evolution gives you are not adequate.  They resemble the dysfunctional golf grip you would have if you relied on a grip driven by evolution instead of golf lessons.  (page 18)

 

(14)  Deprival-Superreaction Tendency

Munger states:

The quantity of man’s pleasure from a ten dollar gain does not exactly match the quantity of his displeasure from a ten dollar loss.  That is, the loss seems to hurt much more than the gain seems to help.  Moreover, if a man almost gets something he greatly wants and has it jerked away from him at the last moment, he will react much as if he had long owned the reward and had it jerked away.  I include the natural human reactions to both kinds of loss experience – the loss of the possessed reward and the loss of the almost possessed reward – under one description, Deprival Superreaction Tendency.

In displaying Deprival Superreaction Tendency, man frequently incurs disadvantage by misframing his problems.  He will often compare what is near instead of what truly matters.  For instance, a man with $10 million in his brokerage account will often be extremely irritated by the loss of $100 out of the $300 in his wallet.

Munger observes:

…A man ordinarily reacts with irrational intensity to even a small loss, or threatened loss, of property, love, friendship, dominated territory, opportunity, status, or any other valued thing.  As a natural result, bureaucratic infighting over the threatened loss of dominated territory often causes immense damage to an institution as a whole.  This factor among others, accounts for much of the wisdom of Jack Welch’s long fight against bureaucratic ills at General Electric.  Few business leaders have ever conducted wiser campaigns.

Deprival-Superreaction Tendency often protects ideological or religious views by triggering dislike and hatred directed toward vocal nonbelievers.  This happens, in part, because the ideas of the nonbelievers, if they spread, will diminish the influence of views that are now supported by a comfortable environment including a strong belief-maintenance system.  University liberal arts departments, law schools, and business organizations all display plenty of such ideology-based groupthink that rejects almost all conflicting inputs…

It is almost everywhere the case that extremes of ideology are maintained with great intensity and with great antipathy to non-believers, causing extremes of cognitive dysfunction.  This happens, I believe, because two psychological tendencies are usually acting concurrently toward this same sad result: (1) Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency, plus (2) Deprival-Superreaction Tendency.

One antidote to intense, deliberate maintenance of groupthink is an extreme culture of courtesy, kept in place despite ideological differences, like the behavior of the justices now serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Another antidote is to deliberately bring in able and articulate disbelievers of incumbent groupthink….

Even a one-degree loss from a 180-degree view will sometime create enough Deprival-Superreaction Tendency to turn a neighbor into an enemy, as I once observed when I bought a house from one of two neighbors locked into hatred by a tiny tree newly installed by one of them.

Moreoever, says Munger:

Deprival-Superreaction Tendency and Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency often join to cause one form of business failure.  In this form of ruin, a man gradually uses up all his good assets in a fruitless attempt to rescue a big venture going bad.  One of the best antidotes to this folly is good poker skill learned young.  The teaching value of poker demonstrates that not all effective teaching occurs on a standard academic path.

Deprival-Superreaction Tendency is also a huge contributor to ruin from compulsion to gamble.  First, it causes the gambler to have a passion to get even once he has suffered loss, and the passion grows with each loss.  Second, the most addictive forms of gambling provide a lot of near misses and each one triggers Deprival-Superreaction Tendency.  Some slot machine creators are vicious in exploiting this weakness of man.  Electronic machines enable these creators to produce a lot of meaningless bar-bar-lemon results that greatly increase play by fools who think they have very nearly won large rewards.  (page 19)

 

(15)  Social-Proof Tendency

Munger notes:

The otherwise complex behavior of man is much simplified when he automatically thinks and does what he observes to be thought and done around him.  And such followership often works fine…

Psychology professors love Social-Proof Tendency because in their experiments it causes ridiculous results.  For instance, if a professor arranges for some stranger to enter an elevator wherein ten ‘compliance practitioners’ are all standing so that they face the rear of the elevator, the stranger will often turn around and do the same.

Of course, like the other tendencies, Social-Proof has an evolutionary basis.  If the crowd was running in one direction, typically your best response was to follow.

But, in today’s world, simply copying others often doesn’t make sense.  Munger:

And in the highest reaches of business, it is not at all uncommon to find leaders who display followership akin to that of teenagers.  If one oil company foolishly buys a mine, other oil companies often quickly join in buying mines.  So also if the purchased company makes fertilizer.  Both of these oil company buying fads actually bloomed, with bad results.

Of course, it is difficult to identify and correctly weigh all the possible ways to deploy the cash flow of an oil company.  So oil company executives, like everyone else, have made many bad decisions that were triggered by discomfort from doubt.  Going along with social proof provided by the action of other oil companies ends this discomfort in a natural way.  (page 20)

Munger remarks:

When will Social-Proof Tendency be most easily triggered?  Here the answer is clear from many experiments:  Triggering most readily occurs in the presence of puzzlement or stress, and particularly when both exist. 

Because stress intensifies Social-Proof Tendency, disreputable sales organizations, engaged, for instance, in such action as selling swampland to schoolteachers, manipulate targets into situations combining isolation and stress.  The isolation strengthens the social proof provided by both the knaves and the people who buy first, and the stress, often increased by fatigue, augments the targets’ susceptibility to the social proof.  And, of course, the techniques of our worst ‘religious’ cults imitate those of the knavish salesmen.  One cult even used rattlesnakes to heighten the stress felt by conversion targets.

Munger points out that Social-Proof can sometimes be constructive:

Because both bad and good behavior are made contagious by Social-Proof Tendency, it is highly important that human societies (1) stop any bad behavior before it spreads and (2) foster and display all good behavior.

Often people find it difficult to resist the social contagion of bad behavior.  Munger:

…And, therefore, we get “Serpico Syndrome,” named to commemorate the state of a near-totally corrupt New York police division joined by Frank Serpico.  He was then nearly murdered by gunfire because of his resistance to going along with the corruption in the division.  Such corruption was being driven by social proof plus incentives, the combination that creates Serpico Syndrome.  The Serpico story should be taught more than it now is because the didactic power of its horror is aimed at a very important evil, driven substantially by a very important force:  social proof.

Munger gives another example:

In social proof, it is not only action by others that misleads but also their inaction.  In the presence of doubt, inaction by others becomes social proof that inaction is the right course.  Thus, the inaction of a great many bystanders led to the death of Kitty Genovese in a famous incident much discussed in introductory psychology courses.

In the ambit of social proof, the outside directors on a corporate board usually display the near ultimate form of inaction.  They fail to object to anything much short of an axe murder until some public embarrassment of the board finally causes their intervention…

Typically there are many psychological tendencies operating at the same time – such as Liking/Loving, Disliking/Hating, Doubt-Avoidance, Inconsistency-Avoidance, and Social-Proof.  Unchecked, a confluence of such tendencies can lead to extreme situations.  Munger gives an example:

…By now the resources spent by Jews, Arabs, and all others over a small amount of disputed land if divided arbitrarily among land claimants, would have made every one better off, even before taking into account any benefit from reduced threat of war, possibly nuclear.  (pg. 21)

 

(16)  Contrast-Misreaction Tendency

Munger asserts:

Because the nervous system of man does not naturally measure in absolute scientific units, it must rely instead on something simpler.  The eyes have a solution that limits their programming needs: the contrast in what is seen is registered.  And as in sight, so does it go, largely, in the other senses.  Moreover, as perception goes, so goes cognition.  The result is man’s Contrast-Misreaction Tendency.  Few psychological tendencies do more damage to correct thinking.  Small-scale damages involve instances such as man’s buying an overpriced $1,000 leather dashboard merely because the price is so low compared to this concurrent purchase of a $65,000 car.  Large-scale damages often ruin lives, as when a wonderful woman having terrible parents marries a man who would be judged satisfactory only in comparison to her parents.  Or as when a man takes wife number two who would be appraised all right only in comparison to wife number one.

A particularly reprehensible form of sales practice occurs in the offices of some real estate brokers.  A buyer from out of the city, perhaps needing to shift his family there, visits the office with little time available.  The salesman deliberately shows the customer three awful houses at ridiculously high prices.  Then he shows him a merely bad house at a price only moderately too high.  And, boom, the broker often makes an easy sale.

Munger continues:

Contrast-Misreaction Tendency is routinely used to cause disadvantage for customers buying merchandise and services.  To make an ordinary price seem low, the vendor will very frequently create a highly artificial price that is much higher than the price always sought, then advertise his standard price as a big reduction from his phony price.  Even when people know that this sort of customer manipulation is being attempted, it will often work to trigger buying… [It demonstrates that] being aware of psychological ploys is not a perfect defense.  When a man’s steps are consecutively taken toward disaster, with each step being very small, the brain’s Contrast-Misreaction Tendency will often let the man go too far toward disaster to be able to avoid it.  This happens because each step presents so small a contrast from his present position.

 

(17)  Stress-Influence Tendency

Munger reflects:

Everyone recognizes that sudden stress, for instance from a threat, will cause a rush of adrenaline in the human body, prompting faster and more extreme reaction.  And everyone who has taken Psych 101 knows that stress makes Social-Proof Tendency more powerful.

 

(18)  Availability-Misweighing Tendency

Munger observes:

Man’s imperfect, limited-capacity brain easily drifts into working with what’s easily available to it.  And the brain can’t use what it can’t remember or what it is blocked from recognizing because it is heavily influenced by one or more psychological tendencies bearing strongly on it, as the fellow is influenced by the nearby girl in the song.  And so the mind overweighs what is easily available and thus displays Availability-Misweighing Tendency.

Munger mentions antidotes:

The main antidote to miscues from Availability-Misweighing Tendency often involve procedures, including use of checklists, which are almost always helpful. 

Another antidote is to behave somewhat like Darwin did when he emphasized disconfirming evidence.  What should be done is to especially emphasize factors that don’t produce reams of easily available numbers, instead of drifting mostly or entirely into considering factors that do produce such numbers.  Still another antidote is to find and hire some skeptical, articulate people with far-reaching minds to act as advocates for notions that are opposite to the incumbent notions.

If some event is vivid or recent, it will generally be more available.  Munger:

One consequence of this tendency is that extra-vivid evidence, being so memorable and thus more available in cognition, should often consciously be underweighed while less vivid evidence should be overweighed.

Munger offers a suggestion:

The great algorithm to remember in dealing with this tendency is simple:  An idea or a fact is not worth more merely because it is easily available to you.

 

(19)  Use-It-or-Lose-It Tendency

Munger discusses the importance of practice:

All skills attenuate with disuse… The right antidote to such a loss is to make use of the functional equivalent of the aircraft simulator employed in pilot training.  This allows a pilot to continuously practice all of the rarely used skills that he can’t afford to lose.

Throughout his life, a wise man engages in practice of all his useful, rarely used skills, many of them outside his discipline, as a sort of duty to his better self.  If he reduces the number of skills he practices and, therefore, the number of skills he retains, he will naturally drift into error from man with a hammer tendency.  His learning capacity will also shrink as he creates gaps in the latticework of theory he needs as a framework for understanding new experience.  It is also essential for a thinking man to assemble his skills into a checklist that he routinely uses.  Any other mode of operation will cause him to miss much that is important.  (page 23)

If the skill in question is important enough, gaining fluency is wise, says Munger:

The hard rule of Use-It-or-Lose-It Tendency tempers its harshness for the diligent.  If a skill is raised to fluency, rather than merely being crammed in briefly to enable one to pass some test, then the skill (1) will be lost more slowly and (2) will come back faster when refreshed with new learning.  These are not minor advantages, and a wise man engaged in learning some important skill will not stop until he is really fluent in it.

 

(20)  Drug-Misinfluence Tendency

“This tendency’s destructive power is so widely known to be intense, with frequent tragic consequences for cognition and the outcome of life, that it needs no discussion here to supplement that previously given under ‘Simple, Pain-Avoiding Psychological Denial’.”

 

(21)  Senescence-Misinfluence Tendency

All of us naturally decay over time.  Munger points out:

But some people remain pretty good in maintaining intensely practiced old skills until late in life, as one can notice in many a bridge tournament. 

Loving to learn can help:

Continuous thinking and learning, done with joy, can somewhat help delay what is inevitable.

 

(22)  Authority-Misinfluence Tendency

A disturbingly significant portion of copilots will not correct obvious errors made by the pilot during simulation exercises.  There are also real world examples of copilots crashing planes because they followed the pilot mindlessly.  Munger states:

…Such cases are also given attention in the simulator training of copilots who have to learn to ignore certain really foolish orders from boss pilots because boss pilots will sometimes err disastrously.  Even after going through such a training regime, however, copilots in simulator exercises will too often allow the simulated plane to crash because of some extreme and perfectly obvious simulated error of the chief pilot.

Psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why so many seemingly normal and decent people engaged in horrific, unspeakable acts during World War II.  Munger:

After Corporal Hitler had risen to dominate Germany, leading a bunch of believing Lutherans and Catholics into orgies of genocide and other mass destruction, one clever psychology professor, Stanley Milgram, decided to do an experiment to determine exactly how far authority figures could lead ordinary people into gross misbehavior.  In this experiment, a man posing as an authority figure, namely a professor governing a respectable experiment, was able to trick a great many ordinary people into giving what they had every reason to believe were massive electric shocks that inflicted heavy torture on innocent fellow citizens.  This experiment did demonstrate a terrible result contributed to by Authority-Misinfluence Tendency, but it also demonstrated extreme ignorance in the psychology professoriate right after World War II.

Almost any intelligent person with my checklist of psychological tendencies in his hand would, by simply going down the checklist, have seen that Milgram’s experiment involved about six powerful psychological tendencies acting in confluence to bring about his extreme experimental result.  For instance, the person pushing Milgram’s shock lever was given much social proof from presence of inactive bystanders whose silence communicated that his behavior was okay…

 

(23)  Twaddle Tendency

Munger mentions:

Man, as a social animal who has the gift of language, is born to prattle and to pour out twaddle that does much damage when serious work is being attempted.  Some people produce copious amounts of twaddle and others very little.  (page 24)

 

(24)  Reason-Respecting Tendency

People naturally love thinking, reasoning, and learning:

There is in man, particularly one in an advanced culture, a natural love of accurate cognition and a joy in its exercise.  This accounts for the widespread popularity of crossword puzzles, other puzzles, and bridge and chess columns, as well as all games requiring mental skill.

Always trying to understand WHY things happen is a central part of the learning process, says Munger:

In general, learning is most easily assimilated and used when, life long, people consistently hang their experience, actual and vicarious, on a latticework of theory answering the question: Why?  Indeed, the question ‘Why?’ is a sort of Rosetta stone opening up the major potentiality of mental life.

But often we don’t notice when meaningless or incorrect reasons are given:

Unfortunately, Reason-Respecting Tendency is so strong that even a person’s giving of meaningless or incorrect reasons will increase compliance with his orders and requests.  This has been demonstrated in psychology experiments wherein ‘compliance practitioners’ successfully jump to the head of the lines in front of copying machines by explaining their reason: ‘I have to make some copies.’  This sort of unfortunate byproduct of Reason-Respecting Tendency is a conditioned reflex, based on a widespread appreciation of the importance of reasons.  And, naturally, the practice of laying out various claptrap reasons is much used by commercial and cult ‘compliance practitioners’ to help them get what they don’t deserve.

 

Can you supply a real world model, instead of a Milgram-type controlled psychology experiment, that uses your system to illustrate multiple psychological tendencies interacting in a plausibly diagnosable way?

The answer is yes.  One of my favorite cases involves the McDonnell Douglas airliner evacuation test.  Before a new airliner can be sold, the government requires that it pass an evacuation test, during which a full load of passengers must get out in some short period of time.  The government directs that the test be realistic.  So you can’t pass by evacuating only twenty-year-old athletes.  So McDonnell Douglas scheduled such a test in a darkened hangar using a lot of old people as evacuees.  The passenger cabin was, say, twenty feet above the concrete floor of the hangar and was to be evacuated through moderately flimsy rubber chutes.  The first test was made in the morning.  There were about twenty very serious injuries, and the evacuation took so long it flunked the time test.  So what did McDonnell Douglas next do?  It repeated the test in the afternoon, and this time there was another failure, with about twenty more serious injuries, including one case of permanent paralysis.

What psychological tendencies contributed to this terrible result?  Well, using my tendency list as a checklist, I come up with the following explanation.  Reward-Superresponse Tendency drove McDonnell Douglas to act fast.  It couldn’t sell its airliner until it passed the test.  Also pushing the company was Doubt-Avoidance Tendency with its natural drive to arrive at a decision and run with it.  Then the government’s direction that the test be realistic drove Authority-Misinfluence Tendency into the mischief of causing McDonnell Douglas to overreact by using what was obviously too dangerous a test method.  By now the course of action had been decided, so Inconsistency Avoidance Tendency helped preserve the near idiotic plan.  When all the old people got to the dark hangar, with its high airline cabin and concrete floor, the situation must have made McDonnell Douglas employees very queasy, but they saw other employees and supervisors not objecting.  Social Proof Tendency, therefore, swamped the queasiness.  And this allowed continued action as planned, a continuation that was aided by more Authority-Misinfluence Tendency.  Then came the disaster of the morning test with its failure, plus serious injuries.  McDonnell Douglas ignored the strong disconfirming evidence from the failure of the first test because confirmation bias, aided by the triggering of strong Deprival Superreaction Tendency favored maintaining the original plan.  McDonnell Douglas’ Deprival Superreaction Tendency was now like that which causes a gambler, bent on getting even after a huge loss, to make his final big bet.  After all, McDonnell Douglas was going to lose a lot if it didn’t pass its test as scheduled.  More psychology-based explanation can probably be made, but the foregoing discussion is complete enough to demonstrate the utility of my system when used in checklist mode.  (page 26)

 

In the practical world, what good is the thought system laid out in this list of tendencies?  Isn’t practical benefit prevented because these psychological tendencies are so thoroughly programmed into the human mind by broad evolution [the combination of genetic and cultural evolution] that we can’t get rid of them?

Well, the answer is that the tendencies are probably more good than bad.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be there, working pretty well for man, given his condition and his limited brain capacity.  So the tendencies can’t be simply washed out automatically, and they shouldn’t be.  Nevertheless, the psychological thought system described, when properly understood and used, enables the spread of wisdom and good conduct and facilitates the avoidance of disaster.  Tendency is not always destiny, and knowing the tendencies and their antidotes can often help prevent trouble that would otherwise occur.

 

Here is a short list of examples reminding us of the great utility of elementary psychological knowledge.

  • Carl Braun’s communication practices.
  • The use of simulators in pilot training.
  • The system of Alcoholics Anonymous.
  • Clinical training methods in medical schools.
  • The rules of the U.S. Constitutional Convention:  totally secret meetings, no recorded vote by name until the final vote, votes reversible at any time before the end of the convention, then just one vote on the whole Constitution.  These are very clever psychology-respecting rules.  If the founders had used a different procedure, many people would have been pushed by various psychological tendencies into inconsistent, hardened positions.  The elite founders got our Constitution through by a whisker only because they were psychologically acute.
  • The use of Granny’s incentive-driven rule to manipulate oneself toward better performance of one’s duties.
  • The Harvard Business School’s emphasis on decision trees.  When I was young and foolish I used to laugh at the Harvard Business School.  I said, ‘They’re teaching twenty-eight year-old people that high school algebra works in real life?’  But later, I wised up and realized that it was very important that they do that to counter some bad effects from psychological tendencies.  Better late than never.
  • The use of autopsy equivalents at Johnson & Johnson.  At most corporations, if you make an acquisition and it turns out to be a disaster, all the people, paperwork, and presentations that caused the foolish acquisition are quickly forgotten.  Nobody wants to be associated with the poor outcome by mentioning it.  But at Johnson & Johnson, the rules make everybody revisit old acquisitions, comparing predictions with outcomes.  That is a very smart thing to do.
  • The great example of Charles Darwin as he avoided confirmation bias, which has morphed into the extreme anti-confirmation-bias method of the “double blind” studies wisely required in drug research by the FDA.
  • The Warren Buffett rule for open-outcry auctions:  Don’t go.

 

Aren’t there factual and reasoning errors in this talk?

The answer is yes, almost surely yes.  The final revision was made from memory over about fifty hours by a man eighty-one years old, who never took a course in psychology and has read none of it, except one book on developmental psychology, for nearly fifteen years.  Even so.  I think the totality of my talk will stand up very well, and I hope all my descendants and friends will carefully consider what I have said.  I even hope that more psychology professors will join me in:

  • making heavy use of inversion;
  • driving for a complete description of the psychological system so that it works better as a checklist;  and
  • especially emphasizing effects from combinations of psychological tendencies.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Compound Interest Will Change Your Life

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

September 12, 2021

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said:

Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.  He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn’t, pays it.

If you invest today and stay invested, there are two factors that determine how much that investment will be worth in the future:

    • The length of time over which you invest.
    • The average annual rate of return on your investment.

The earlier you start investing, the more time you have to let the magic of compounding work for you.

Also, the higher the average annual rate of return you can get on your investment, the greater the sum you will have later.

 

WHAT IS COMPOUND INTEREST?

If you earn interest on an investment and then reinvest that interest; and if you then earn interest on the new balance (the original principal plus the reinvested interest); and if you then reinvest that interest, etc., that is compound interest.

For example, say you invest $1,000 and say you can earn 4% a year consistently for thirty years.

First, let’s say that you DO NOT reinvest interest.

    • That means each year you will get $40 in interest on your principal of $1,000.
    • At the end of thirty years, you will have gotten $40 in interest thirty times for a total of $1,200 in interest.
    • Your principal plus interest after thirty years will be $2,200.

Now, let’s say you DO reinvest interest.

    • At the end of the first year, you’ll get $40 in interest.  Your principal plus interest will be $1,040.
    • Since you reinvest the $40, then in the second year, instead of getting 4% interest on $1,000, you’ll get 4% interest on $1,040.  So instead of getting another $40 in interest (4% of $1,000), you’ll get $41.60 in interest (4% of $1,040).
    • At the end of the second year, instead of $1,080 ($1,o00 in principal plus $80 in interest), you’ll have $1,081.60 ($1,o00 in principal plus $81.60 in interest).
    • Since you reinvest the new $41.60, then in the third year, instead of getting $40 in interest  (4% of $1,000), you’ll get $43.30 in interest (4% of $1,081.60).
    • At the end of the third year, instead of $1,120 ($1,000 in principal plus $120 in interest), you’ll have $1,124.90 ($1,000 in principal plus $124.90 in interest).
    • So it continues.
    • After thirty years of reinvesting the interest, instead of $1,200 in interest, you’ll have $2,243.40 in interest.  So instead of a total of $2,200 ($1,000 in principal plus $1,200 in interest), you’ll have $3,243.40 ($1,000 in principal plus $2,243.40 in interest).

 

THE LENGTH OF TIME OVER WHICH YOU INVEST

The earlier you start investing—that is, the longer the period of time over which you invest—the greater the sum you will end up with.

Consider this example:

    • If you invest $50,000 at 10% a year for twenty years, you will end up with about $336,000.
    • If you invest $50,000 at 10% a year for thirty years, you will end up with about $872,000.

 

THE AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF RETURN

The higher the average annual rate of return you get, the greater the sum you will end up with.

Consider this example:

    • If you invest $50,000 at 10% a year for thirty years, we already saw that you will end up with about $872,000.
    • If you invest $50,000 at 20% a year for thirty years, you will end up with about $11,869,000.

$11.87 million vs. $872,000: This is a stunning difference.

 

WHERE CAN  YOU GET 20% A YEAR?

If you invest in an S&P 500 index fund, then over the very long term, you can get approximately 9-10% a year.   That is solid.

If you invest systematically in undervalued microcap stocks with improving fundamentals, then you can get approximately 18-20% a year.  This is much better, especially if you invest over a long period of time.  See: http://boolefund.com/how-to-get-rich/

 

OUR PERFORMANCE SO FAR

  Boole Microcap Fund Russell Microcap Index S&P 500 Index
2021 net return (thru 09/15/21) 38.2% 22.2% 21.1%
2020 net return from inception (06/09/21) 21.1% 31.7% 16.3%
Compounded annual return (net) 29.4% 26.9% 18.7%
Overall gain (net) 67.4% 60.9% 40.8%

Please contact me if you would like to learn more.

    • My email: jb@boolefund.com.
    • My cell: 206.518.2519

I highly recommend reading this short post: http://boolefund.com/how-to-get-rich/

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Cognitive Biases

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

September 5, 2021

In the great book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), Daniel Kahneman explains in detail two different ways of thinking that human beings use.  Kahneman refers to them as System 1 and System 2, which he defines as follows:

System 1:   Operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort or sense of voluntary control.  Makes instinctual or intuitive decisions – typically based on heuristics.

System 2:   Allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations involving logic, math, or statistics.  The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration.

Heuristics are simple rules we use – via System 1 – to form judgments or make decisions.  Heuristics are mental shortcuts whereby we simplify a complex situation in order to jump to a quick conclusion.

Most of the time, heuristics work well.  We can immediately notice a shadow in the grass, alerting us to the possible presence of a lion.  And we can automatically read people’s faces, drive a car on an empty road, do easy math, or understand simple language.  (For more on System 1, see the last section of this blog post.)

However, if we face a situation that requires the use of logic, math, or statistics to reach a good judgment or decision, heuristics lead to systematic errors.  These errors are cognitive biases.

Let’s examine some of the main cognitive biases:

  • anchoring effect
  • availability bias, vividness bias, recency bias
  • confirmation bias
  • hindsight bias
  • overconfidence
  • narrative fallacy
  • information and overconfidence
  • self-attribution bias

 

ANCHORING EFFECT

anchoring effect:   people tend to use any random number as a baseline for estimating an unknown quantity, despite the fact that the unknown quantity is totally unrelated to the random number.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky did one experiment where they spun a wheel of fortune, but they had secretly programmed the wheel so that it would stop on 10 or 65.   After the wheel stopped, participants were asked to estimate the percentage of African countries in the UN.   Participants who saw “10” on the wheel guessed 25% on average, while participants who saw “65” on the wheel guessed 45% on average, a huge difference.

Behavioral finance expert James Montier has run his own experiment on anchoring.   People are asked to write down the last four digits of their phone number.   Then they are asked whether the number of doctors in their capital city is higher or lower than the last four digits of their phone number.   Results:  Those whose last four digits were greater than 7000 on average report 6762 doctors, while those with telephone numbers below 2000 arrived at an average 2270 doctors.  (James Montier, Behavioural Investing, Wiley 2007, page 120)

Those are just two experiments out of many.  The anchoring effect is “one of the most reliable and robust results of experimental psychology” (page 119, Kahneman).  Furthermore, Montier observes that the anchoring effect is one reason why people cling to financial forecasts, despite the fact that most financial forecasts are either wrong, useless, or impossible to time.

When faced with the unknown, people will grasp onto almost anything.  So it is little wonder that an investor will cling to forecasts, despite their uselessness.  (Montier, page 120)

 

AVAILABILITY BIAS, VIVIDNESS BIAS, RECENCY BIAS

availability bias:   people tend to overweight evidence that comes easily to mind.

Related to the availability bias are vividness bias and recency bias.  People typically overweight facts that are vivid (e.g., plane crashes or shark attacks).   People also overweight facts that are recent (partly because they are more vivid).

Note:  It’s also natural for people to assume that hard-won evidence or insight must be worth more.  But often that’s not true, either.

 

CONFIRMATION BIAS

confirmation bias:   people tend to search for, remember, and interpret information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.

Confirmation bias makes it quite difficult for many people to improve upon or supplant their existing beliefs or hypotheses.   This bias also tends to make people overconfident about existing beliefs or hypotheses, since all they can see are supporting data.

We know that our System 1 (intuition) often errors when it comes to forming and testing hypotheses. First of all, System 1 always forms a coherent story (including causality), irrespective of whether there are truly any logical connections at all among various things in experience.  Furthermore, when System 1 is facing a hypothesis, it automatically looks for confirming evidence.

But even System 2 – the logical and mathematical system that humans possess and can develop – by nature uses a positive test strategy:

A deliberate search for confirming evidence, known as positive test strategy, is also how System 2 tests a hypothesis.  Contrary to the rules of philosophers of science, who advise testing hypotheses by trying to refute them, people (and scientists, quite often) seek data that are likely to be compatible with the beliefs they currently hold.  (page 81, Kahneman)

Thus, the habit of always looking for disconfirming evidence of our hypotheses – especially our “best-loved hypotheses” – is arguably the most important intellectual habit we could develop in the never-ending search for wisdom and knowledge.

Charles Darwin is a wonderful model for people in this regard.  Darwin was far from being a genius in terms of IQ.  Yet Darwin trained himself always to search for facts and evidence that would contradict his hypotheses.  Charlie Munger explains in “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment” (see Poor Charlie’s Alamanack: The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T.  Munger, expanded 3rd edition):

One of the most successful users of an antidote to first conclusion bias was Charles Darwin.  He trained himself, early, to intensively consider any evidence tending to disconfirm any hypothesis of his, more so if he thought his hypothesis was a particularly good one… He provides a great example of psychological insight correctly used to advance some of the finest mental work ever done. 

 

HINDSIGHT BIAS

Hindsight bias:   the tendency, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting the event prior to its occurrence.

Hindsight bias is also called the “knew-it-all-along effect” or “creeping determinism.”  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias)

Kahneman writes about hindsight bias as follows:

Your inability to reconstruct past beliefs will inevitably cause you to underestimate the extent to which you were surprised by past events.   Baruch Fischhoff first demonstrated this ‘I-knew-it-all-along’ effect, or hindsight bias, when he was a student in Jerusalem.  Together with Ruth Beyth (another of our students), Fischhoff conducted a survey before President Richard Nixon visited China and Russia in 1972.   The respondents assigned probabilities to fifteen possible outcomes of Nixon’s diplomatic initiatives.   Would Mao Zedong agree to meet with Nixon?   Might the United States grant diplomatic recognition to China?   After decades of enmity, could the United States and the Soviet Union agree on anything significant?

After Nixon’s return from his travels, Fischhoff and Beyth asked the same people to recall the probability that they had originally assigned to each of the fifteen possible outcomes.  The results were clear.  If an event had actually occurred, people exaggerated the probability that they had assigned to it earlier.  If the possible event had not come to pass, the participants erroneously recalled that they had always considered it unlikely.   Further experiments showed that people were driven to overstate the accuracy not only of their original predictions but also of those made by others.   Similar results have been found for other events that gripped public attention, such as the O.J. Simpson murder trial and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.   The tendency to revise the history of one’s beliefs in light of what actually happened produces a robust cognitive illusion.  (pages 202-3, my emphasis)

Concludes Kahneman:

The sense-making machinery of System 1 makes us see the world as more tidy, simple, predictable, and coherent that it really is.  The illusion that one has understood the past feeds the further illusion that one can predict and control the future.  These illusions are comforting.   They reduce the anxiety we would experience if we allowed ourselves to fully acknowledge the uncertainties of existence.  (page 204-5, my emphasis)

 

OVERCONFIDENCE

Overconfidence is such as widespread cognitive bias among people that Kahneman devotes Part 3 of his book entirely to this topic.  Kahneman says in his introduction:

The difficulties of statistical thinking contribute to the main theme of Part 3, which describes a puzzling limitation of our mind:  our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in.   We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events.   Overconfidence is fed by the illusory certainty of hindsight.   My views on this topic have been influenced by Nassim Taleb, the author of The Black Swan.  (pages 14-5)

Several studies have shown that roughly 90% of drivers rate themselves as above average.  For more on overconfidence, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect

 

NARRATIVE FALLACY

In The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb writes the following about the narrative fallacy:

The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them.  Explanations bind facts together.  They make them all the more easily remembered;  they help them make more sense.  Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding.  (page 63-4)

The narrative fallacy is central to many of the biases and misjudgments mentioned by Daniel Kahneman and Charlie Munger.  The human brain, whether using System 1 (intuition) or System 2 (logic), always looks for or creates logical coherence among random data.  Often System 1 is right when it assumes causality; thus, System 1 is generally helpful, thanks to evolution.  Furthermore, System 2, by searching for underlying causes or coherence, has, through careful application of the scientific method over centuries, developed a highly useful set of scientific laws by which to explain and predict various phenomena.

The trouble comes when the data or phenomena in question are “highly random” – or inherently unpredictable (at least for the time being).  In these areas, System 1 makes predictions that are often very wrong.  And even System 2 assumes necessary logical connections when there may not be any – at least, none that can be discovered for some time.

Note:  The eighteenth century Scottish philosopher (and psychologist) David Hume was one of the first to clearly recognize the human brain’s insistence on always assuming necessary logical connections in any set of data or phenomena.

 

INFORMATION AND OVERCONFIDENCE

In Behavioural Investing, James Montier explains a study done by Paul Slovic (1973).  Eight experienced bookmakers were shown a list of 88 variables found on a typical past performance chart on a horse.  Each bookmaker was asked to rank the piece of information by importance.

Then the bookmakers were given data for 40 past races and asked to rank the top five horses in each race.  Montier:

Each bookmaker was given the past data in increments of the 5, 10, 20, and 40 variables he had selected as most important.  Hence each bookmaker predicted the outcome of each race four times – once for each of the information sets.  For each prediction the bookmakers were asked to give a degree of confidence ranking in their forecast.  (page 136)

RESULTS:

Accuracy was virtually unchanged, regardless of the number of pieces of information the bookmaker was given (5, 10, 20, then 40).

But confidence skyrocketed as the number of pieces of information increased (5, 10, 20, then 40).

This same result has been found in a variety of areas.  As people get more information, the accuracy of their judgments or forecasts typically does not change at all, while their confidence in the accuracy of their judgments or forecasts tends to increase dramatically.

 

SELF-ATTRIBUTION BIAS

self-attribution bias:   people tend to attribute good outcomes to their own skill, while blaming bad outcomes on bad luck.

This ego-protective bias prevents people from recognizing and learning from their mistakes.  This bias also contributes to overconfidence.

 

MORE ON SYSTEM 1

When we are thinking of who we are, we use System 2 to define ourselves.  But, writes Kahneman, System 1 effortlessly originates impressions and feelings that are the main source of the explicit beliefs and deliberate choices of System 2.

Kahneman lists, “in rough order of complexity,” examples of the automatic activities of System 1:

  • Detect that one object is more distant than another.
  • Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
  • Complete the phrase “Bread and…”
  • Make a “disgust face” when shown a horrible picture.
  • Detect hostility in a voice.
  • Answer 2 + 2 = ?
  • Read words on large billboards.
  • Drive a car on an empty road.
  • Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master).
  • Understand simple sentences.
  • Recognize that “a meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail” resembles an occupational stereotype.

Kahneman writes that System 1 and System 2 work quite well generally:

The division of labor between System 1 and System 2 is highly efficient:  it minimizes effort and optimizes performance.   The arrangement works well most of the time because System 1 is generally very good at what it does:  its models of familiar situations are accurate, its short-term predictions are usually accurate as well, and its initial reactions to challenges are swift and generally appropriate.

“Thinking fast” usually works fine.  System 1 is remarkably good at what it does, thanks to evolution.  Kahneman:

System 1 is designed to jump to conclusions from little evidence.

However, when we face situations that are unavoidably complex, System 1 systematically jumps to the wrong conclusions.  In these situations, we have to train ourselves to “think slow” and reason our way to a good decision.

For the curious, here’s the most comprehensive list of cognitive biases I’ve seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Who Else Wants to Get Rich?

(Image: Zen Buddha Silence, by Marilyn Barbone)

August 29, 2021

There are many ways to get rich.  One of the best ways is through long-term investing.

A wise long-term investment for most investors is an S&P 500 index fund.  It’s just simple arithmetic, as Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle frequently observe: http://boolefund.com/warren-buffett-jack-bogle/

But you can do significantly better—roughly 18% per year (instead of 10% per year)—by systematically investing in cheap, solid microcap stocks.

Most professional investors never consider microcaps because their assets under management are too large.  Microcaps aren’t as profitable for them.  That’s why there continues to be a compelling opportunity for savvy investors.  Because microcaps are largely ignored, many get quite cheap on occasion.

Warren Buffett earned the highest returns of his career when he could invest in microcap stocks.  Buffett says he’d do the same today if he were managing small sums: http://boolefund.com/buffetts-best-microcap-cigar-butts/

Look at this summary of the CRSP Decile-Based Size and Return Data from 1927 to 2020:

Decile Market Cap-Weighted Returns Equal Weighted Returns Number of Firms (year-end 2020) Mean Firm Size (in millions)
1 9.67% 9.47% 179 145,103
2 10.68% 10.63% 173 25,405
3 11.38% 11.17% 187 12,600
4 11.53% 11.29% 203 6,807
5 12.12% 12.03% 217 4,199
6 11.75% 11.60% 255 2,771
7 12.01% 11.99% 297 1,706
8 12.03% 12.33% 387 888
9 11.55% 12.51% 471 417
10 12.41% 17.27% 1,023 99
9+10 11.71% 15.77% 1,494 199

(CRSP is the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago.  You can find the data for various deciles here:  http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html)

The smallest two deciles—9+10—comprise microcap stocks, which typically are stocks with market caps below $500 million.  What stands out is the equal weighted returns of the 9th and 10th size deciles from 1927 to 2020:

Microcap equal weighted returns = 15.8% per year

Large-cap equal weighted returns = ~10% per year

In practice, the annual returns from microcap stocks will be 1-2% lower because of the difficulty (due to illiquidity) of entering and exiting positions.  So we should say that an equal weighted microcap approach has returned 14% per year from 1927 to 2020, versus 10% per year for an equal weighted large-cap approach.

 

VALUE SCREEN: +2-3%

By systematically implementing a value screen—e.g., low EV/EBITDA or low P/E—to a microcap strategy, you can add 2-3% per year.

 

IMPROVING FUNDAMENTALS: +2-3%

You can further boost performance by screening for improving fundamentals.  One excellent way to do this is using the Piotroski F_Score, which works best for cheap micro caps.  See:  http://boolefund.com/joseph-piotroski-value-investing/

 

BOTTOM LINE

If you invest in microcap stocks, you can get about 14% a year.  If you also use a simple screen for value, that adds at least 2% a year.  If, in addition, you screen for improving fundamentals, that adds at least another 2% a year.  So that takes you to 18% a year, which compares quite well to the 10% a year you could get from an S&P 500 index fund.

What’s the difference between 18% a year and 10% a year?  If you invest $50,000 at 10% a year for 30 years, you end up with $872,000, which is good.  If you invest $50,000 at 18% a year for 30 years, you end up with $7.17 million, which is much better.

Please contact me if you would like to learn more.

    • My email: jb@boolefund.com.
    • My cell: 206.518.2519

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Business Adventures

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

August 22, 2021

In 1991, when Bill Gates met Warren Buffett, Gates asked him to recommend his favorite business book.  Buffett immediately replied, “It’s Business Adventures, by John Brooks.  I’ll send you my copy.”  Gates wrote in 2014:

Today, more than two decades after Warren lent it to me—and more than four decades after it was first published—Business Adventures remains the best business book I’ve ever read.  John Brooks is still my favorite business writer.

It’s certainly true that many of the particulars of business have changed.  But the fundamentals have not.  Brooks’s deeper insights about business are just as relevant today as they were back then.  In terms of its longevity, Business Adventures stands alongside Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor, the 1949 book that Warren says is the best book on investing that he has ever read.

See:  https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Business-Adventures

I’ve had the enormous pleasure of reading Business Adventures twice.  John Brooks is quite simply a terrific business writer.

Each chapter of the book is a separate business adventure.  Outline:

  • The Fluctuation
  • The Fate of the Edsel
  • A Reasonable Amount of Time
  • Xerox Xerox Xerox Xerox
  • Making the Customers Whole
  • The Impacted Philosophers
  • The Last Great Corner
  • A Second Sort of Life
  • Stockholder Season
  • One Free Bite

 

THE FLUCTUATION

Brooks recounts J.P. Morgan’s famous answer when an acquaintance asked him what the stock market would do:  “It will fluctuate.”  Brooks then writes:

Apart from the economic advantages and disadvantages of stock exchanges – the advantage that they provide a free flow of capital to finance industrial expansion, for instance, and the disadvantage that they provide an all too convenient way for the unlucky, the imprudent, and the gullible to lose their money – their development has created a whole pattern of social behavior, complete with customs, language, and predictable responses to given events.

Brooks explains that the pattern emerged fully at the first important stock exchange in 1611 in Amsterdam.  Brooks mentions that Joseph de la Vega published, in 1688, a book about the first Dutch stock traders.  The book was aptly titled, Confusion of Confusions.

And the pattern persists on the New York Stock Exchange.  (Brooks was writing in the 1960’s, but many of his descriptions still apply.)  Brooks adds that a few Dutchmen haggling in the rain might seem to be rather far from the millions of participants in the 1960’s.  However:

The first stock exchange was, inadvertently, a laboratory in which new human reactions were revealed.  By the same token, the New York Stock Exchange is also a sociological test tube, forever contributing to the human species’ self-understanding.

On Monday, May 28, 1962, the Dow Jones Average dropped 34.95 points, or more than it had dropped on any day since October 28, 1929.  The volume was the seventh-largest ever.  Then on Tuesday, May 29, after most stocks opened down, the market reversed itself and surged upward with a large gain of 27.03.  The trading volume on Tuesday was the highest ever except for October 29, 1929.  Then on Thursday, May 31, after a holiday on Wednesday, the Dow rose 9.40 points on the fifth-greatest volume ever.

Brooks:

The crisis ran its course in three days, but needless to say, the post-mortems took longer.  One of de la Vega’s observations about the Amsterdam traders was that they were ‘very clever in inventing reasons’ for a sudden rise or fall in stock prices, and the Wall Street pundits certainly needed all the cleverness they could muster to explain why, in the middle of an excellent business year, the market had suddenly taken its second-worst nose dive ever up to that moment.

Many rated President Kennedy’s April crackdown on the steel industry’s planned price increase as one of the most likely causes.  Beyond that, there were comparisons to 1929.  However, there were more differences than similarities, writes Brooks.  For one thing, margin requirements were far higher in 1962 than in 1929.  Nonetheless, the weekend before the May 1962 crash, many securities dealers were occupied sending out margin calls.

In 1929, it was not uncommon for people to have only 10% equity, with 90% of the stock position based on borrowed money.  (The early Amsterdam exchange was similar.)  Since the crash in 1929, margin requirements had been raised to 50% equity (leaving 50% borrowed).

Brooks says the stock market had been falling for most of 1962 up until crash.  But apparently the news before the May crash was good.  Not that news has any necessary relationship with stock movements, although most financial reporting services seem to assume otherwise.  After a mixed opening – some stocks up, some down – on Monday, May 28, volume spiked as selling became predominant.  Volume kept going up thereafter as the selling continued.  Brooks:

Evidence that people are selling stocks at a time when they ought to be eating lunch is always regarded as a serious matter.

One problem in this crash was that the tape – which records the prices of stock trades – got delayed by 55 minutes due to the huge volume.  Some brokerage firms tried to devise their own systems to deal with this issue.  For instance, Merrill Lynch floor brokers – if they had time – would shout the results of trades into a floorside telephone connected to a “squawk box” in the firm’s head office.

Brooks remarks:

All that summer, and even into the following year, security analysts and other experts cranked out their explanations of what had happened, and so great were the logic, solemnity, and detail of these diagnoses that they lost only a little of their force through the fact that hardly any of the authors had had the slightest idea what was going to happen before the crisis occurred.

Brooks then points out that an unprecedented 56.8 percent of the total volume in the crash had been individual investors.  Somewhat surprisingly, mutual funds were a stabilizing factor.  During the Monday sell-off, mutual funds bought more than they sold.  And as stocks surged on Thursday, mutual funds sold more than they bought.  Brooks concludes:

In the last analysis, the cause of the 1962 crisis remains unfathomable;  what is known is that it occurred, and that something like it could occur again.

 

THE FATE OF THE EDSEL

1955 was the year of the automobile, writes Brooks.  American auto makers sold over 7 million cars, a million more than in any previous year.  Ford Motor Company decided that year to make a new car in the medium-price range of $2,400 to $4,000.  Brooks continues:

[Ford] went ahead and designed it more or less in comformity with the fashion of the day, which was for cars that were long, wide, low, lavishly decorated with chrome, liberally supplied with gadgets… Two years later, in September, 1957, Ford put its new car, the Edsel, on the market, to the accompaniment of more fanfare than had attended the arrival of any new car since the same company’s Model A, brought out thirty years earlier.  The total amount spent on the Edsel before the first specimen went on sale was announced as a quarter of a billion dollars;  its launching… was more costly than any other consumer product in history.  As a starter toward getting its investment back, Ford counted on selling at least 200,000 Edsels the first year.

There may be an aborigine somewhere in a remote rainforest who hasn’t yet heard that things failed to turn out that way… on November 19, 1959, having lost, according to some outside estimates, around $350 million on the Edsel, the Ford Company permanently discontinued its production.

Brooks asks:

How could this have happened?  How could a company so mightily endowed with money, experience, and, presumably, brains have been guilty of such a monumental mistake?

Many claimed that Ford had paid too much attention to public-opinion polls and the motivational research it conducted.  But Brooks adds that some non-scientific elements also played a roll.  In particular, after a massive effort to come up with possible names for the car, science was ignored at the last minute and the Edsel was named for the father of the company’s president.  Brooks:

As for the design, it was arrived at without even a pretense of consulting the polls, and by the method that has been standard for years in the designing of automobiles – that of simply pooling the hunches of sundry company committees.

The idea for the Edsel started years earlier.  The company noticed that owners of cars would trade up to the medium-priced car as soon as they could.  The problem was that Ford owners were not trading up to the Mercury, Ford’s medium-priced car, but to the medium-priced cars of its rivals, General Motors and Chrysler.

Late in 1952, a group called the Forward Product Planning Committee gave much of the detailed work to the Lincoln-Mercury Division, run by Richard Krafve (pronounced “Kraffy”).  In 1954, after two years’ work, the Forward Product Planning Committee submitted to the executive committee a six-volume report.  In brief, the report predicted that there would be seventy million cars in the U.S. by 1965, and more than 40 percent of all cars sold would be in the medium-price range.  Brooks:

On the other hand, the Ford bosses were well aware of the enormous risks connected with putting a new car on the market.  They knew, for example, that of the 2,900 American makes that had been introduced since the beginning of the automobile age… only about twenty were still around.

But Ford executives felt optimistic.  They set up another agency, the Special Products Division, again with Krafve in charge.  The new car was referred to as the “E”-Car among Ford designers and workers.  “E” for Experimental.  Roy A. Brown was in charge of the E-car’s design.  Brown stated that they sought to make a car that was unique as compared to the other nineteen cars on the road at the time.

Brooks observes that Krafve later calculated that he and his associates would make at least four thousand decisions in designing the E-Car.  He thought that if they got every decision right, they could create the perfectly designed car.  Krafve admitted later, however, that there wasn’t really enough time for perfection.  They would make modifications, and then modifications of those modifications.  Then time would run out and they had to settle on the most recent modifications.

Brooks comments:

One of the most persuasive and frequently cited explanations of the Edsel’s failure is that it was a victim of the time lag between the decision to produce it and the act of putting it on the market.  It was easy to see a few years later, when smaller and less powerful cars, euphemistically called “compacts,” had become so popular as to turn the old automobile status-ladder upside down, that the Edsel was a giant step in the wrong direction, but it far from easy to see that in fat, tail-finny 1955.

As part of the marketing effort, the Special Products Division tapped David Wallace, director of planning for market research.  Wallace:

‘We concluded that cars are a means to a sort of dream fulfillment.  There’s some irrational factor in people that makes them want one kind of car rather than another – something that has nothing to do with the mechanism at all but with the car’s personality, as the customer imagines it.  What we wanted to do, naturally, was to give the E-Car the personality that would make the greatest number of people want it.’

Wallace’s group decided to get interviews of 1,600 car buyers.  The conclusion, in a nutshell, was that the E-Car could be “the smart car for the younger executive or professional family on its way up.”

As for the name of the car, Krafve had suggested to the members of the Ford family that the new car be named the Edsel Ford – the name of their father.  The three Ford brothers replied that their father probably wouldn’t want the car named after him.  Therefore, they suggested that the Special Products Division look for another name.

The Special Products Division conducted a large research project regarding the best name for the E-Car.  At one point, Wallace interviewed the poet Marianne Moore about a possible name.  A bit later, the Special Products Division contacted Foote, Cone & Belding, an advertising agency, to help with finding a name.

The advertising agency produced 18,000 names, which they then carefully pruned to 6,000.  Wallace told them that was still way too many names from which to pick.  So Foote, Cone & Belding did an all-out three-day session to cut the list down to 10 names.  They divided into two groups for this task.  By chance, when each group produced its list of 10 names, 4 of the names were the same:  Corsair, Citation, Pacer, and Ranger.

Wallace thought that Corsair was clearly the best name.  However, the Ford executive committee had a meeting at a time when all three Ford brothers were away.  Executive vice-president Ernest R. Breech, chairman of the board, led the meeting.  When Breech saw the final list of 10 names, he said he didn’t like any of them.

So Breech and the others were shown another list of names that hadn’t quite made the top 10.  The Edsel had been kept on this second list – despite the three Ford brothers being against it – for some reason, perhaps because it was the originally suggested name.  When the group came to the name “Edsel,” Breech firmly said, “Let’s call it that.”  Breech added that since there were going to be four models of the E-Car, the four favorite names – Corsair, Citation, Pacer, and Ranger – could still be used as sub-names.

Brooks writes that Foote, Cone & Belding presumably didn’t react well to the chosen name, “Edsel,” after their exhaustive research to come up with the best possible names.  But the Special Products Division had an even worse reaction.  However, there were a few, including Krafve, would didn’t object to the name.

Krafve was named Vice-President of the Ford Motor Company and General Manager, Edsel Division.  Meanwhile, Edsels were being road-tested.  Brown and other designers were already working on the subsequent year’s model.  A new set of retail dealers was already being put together.  Foote, Cone & Belding was hard at work on strategies for advertising and selling Edsels.  In fact, Fairfax M. Cone himself was leading this effort.

Cone decided to use Wallace’s idea of “the smart car for the younger executive or professional family on its way up.”  But Cone amended it to: “the smart car for the younger middle-income family or professional family on its way up.”  Cone was apparently quite confident, since he described his advertising ideas for the Edsel to some reporters.  Brooks notes with amusement:

Like a chess master that has no doubt that he will win, he could afford to explicate the brilliance of his moves even as he made them.

Normally, a large manufacturer launches a new car through dealers already handling some of its other makes.  But Krafve got permission to go all-out on the Edsel.  He could contact dealers for other car manufacturers and even dealers for other divisions of Ford.  Krafve set a goal of signing up 1,200 dealers – who had good sales records – by September 4, 1957.

Brooks remarks that Krafve had set a high goal, since a dealer’s decision to sell a new car is major.  Dealers typically have one hundred thousand dollars – more than 8x that in 2019 dollars – invested in their dealerships.

J. C. (Larry) Doyle, second to Krafve, led the Edsel sales effort.  Doyle had been with Ford for 40 years.  Brooks records that Doyle was somewhat of a maverick in his field.  He was kind and considerate, and he didn’t put much stock in the psychological studies of car buyers.  But he knew how to sell cars, which is why he was called on for the Edsel campaign.

Doyle put Edsels into a few dealerships, but kept them hidden from view.  Then he went about recruiting top dealers.  Many dealers were curious about what the Edsel looked like.  But Doyle’s group would only show dealers the car if they listened to a one-hour pitch.  This approach worked.  It seems that quite a few dealers were so convinced by the pitch that they signed up without even looking at the car in any detail.

C. Gayle Warnock, director of public relations at Ford, was in charge of keeping public interest in the Edsel – which was already high – as strong as possible.  Warnock told Krafve that public interest might be too strong, to the extent that people would be disappointed when they discovered that the Edsel was a car.  Brooks:

It was agreed that the safest way to tread the tightrope between overplaying and underplaying the Edsel would be to say nothing about the car as a whole but to reveal its individual charms a little at a time – a sort of automotive strip tease…

Brooks continues:

That summer, too, was a time of speechmaking by an Edsel foursome consisting of Krafve, Doyle, J. Emmet Judge, who was Edsel’s director of merchandise and product planning, and Robert F. G. Copeland, its assistant general sales manager for advertising, sales promotion, and training.  Ranging separately up and down and across the nation, the four orators moved around so fast and so tirelessly, that Warnock, lest he lost track of them, took to indicating their whereabouts with colored pins on a map in his office.  ‘Let’s see, Krafve goes from Atlanta to New Orleans, Doyle from Council Bluffs to Salt Lake City,’ Warnock would muse of a morning in Dearborn, sipping his second cup of coffee and then getting up to yank the pins out and jab them in again.

Needless to say, this was by far the largest advertising campaign ever conducted by Ford.  This included a three-day press preview, with 250 reporters from all over the country.  On one afternoon, the press were taken to the track to see stunt drivers in Edsels doing all kinds of tricks.  Brooks quotes the Foote, Cone man:

‘You looked over this green Michigan hill, and there were those glorious Edsels, performing gloriously in unison.  It was beautiful.  It was like the Rockettes.  It was exciting.  Morale was high.’

Brooks then writes about the advertising on September 3 – “E-Day-minus-one”:

The tone for Edsel Day’s blizzard of publicity was set by an ad, published in newspapers all over the country, in which the Edsel shared the spotlight with the Ford Company’s President Ford and Chairman Breech.  In the ad, Ford looked like a dignified young father, Breech like a dignified gentleman holding a full house against a possible straight, the Edsel just looked like an Edsel.  The accompanying text declared that the decision to produce the car had been ‘based on what we knew, guessed, felt, believed, suspected – about you,’ and added, ‘YOU are the reason behind the Edsel.’  The tone was calm and confident.  There did not seem to be much room for doubt about the reality of that full house.

The interior of the Edsel, as predicted by Krafve, had an almost absurd number of push-buttons.

The two larger models – the Corsair and the Citation – were 219 inches long, two inches longer than the biggest of the Oldsmobiles.  And they were 80 inches wide, “or about as wide as passenger cars ever get,” notes Brooks.  Each had 345 horsepower, making it more powerful than any other American car at the time of launching.

Brooks records that the car received mixed press after it was launched.  In January, 1958, Consumer Reports wrote:

The Edsel has no important basic advantage over other brands.  The car is almost entirely conventional in construction…

Three months later, Consumer Reports wrote:

[The Edsel] is more uselessly overpowered… more gadget bedecked, more hung with expensive accessories than any other car in its price class.

This report gave the Corsair and the Citation the bottom position in its competitive ratings.

Brooks says there were several factors in the downfall of the Edsel.  It wasn’t just that the design fell short, nor was it simply that the company relied too much on psychological research.  For one, many of the early Edsels suffered from a surprising variety of imperfections.  It turned out that only about half the early Edsels functioned properly.

Brooks recounts:

For the first ten days of October, nine of which were business days, there were only 2,751 deliveries – an average of just over three hundred cars a day.  In order to sell the 200,000 cars per year that would make the Edsel operation profitable the Ford Motor Company would have to move an average of between six and seven hundred each business day – a good many more than three hundred a day.  On the night of Sunday, October 13th, Ford put on a mammoth television spectacular for Edsel, pre-empting the time ordinarily allotted to the Ed Sullivan show, but though the program cost $400,000 and starred Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, it failed to cause any sharp spurt in sales.  Now it was obvious that things were not going well at all.

Among the former executives of the Edsel Division, opinions differ as to the exact moment when the portents of doom became unmistakable… The obvious sacrificial victim was Brown, whose stock had gone through the roof at the time of the regally accoladed debut of his design, in August, 1955.  Now, without having done anything further, for either better or worse, the poor fellow became the company scapegoat…

Ford re-committed to selling the Edsel in virtually every way that it could.  Sales eventually increased, but not nearly enough.  Ultimately, the company had to stop production.  The net loss for Ford was roughly $350 million.

Krafve rejects that the Edsel failed due to a poor choice of the name.  He maintains that it was a mistake of timing.  Had they produced the car two years earlier, when medium-sized cars were still highly popular, the Edsel would have been a success.  Brown agrees with Krafve that it was a mistake of timing.

Doyle says it was a buyers’ strike.  He claims not to understand at all why the American public suddenly switched its taste from medium-sized cars to smaller-sized cars.

Wallace argued that the Russian launch of the sputnik had caused many Americans to start viewing Detroit products as bad, especially medium-priced cars.

Brooks concludes by noting that Ford did not get hurt by this setback, nor did the majority of people associated with the Edsel.  In 1958, net income per share dropped from $5.40 to $2.12, and Ford stock dropped from a 1957 high of $60 to a low of $40.  However, by 1959, net income per-share jumped to $8.24 and the stock hit $90.

The Ford executives associated with the Edsel advanced in their careers, for the most part.  Moreover, writes Brooks:

The subsequent euphoria of these former Edsel men did not stem entirely from the fact of their economic survival;  they appear to have been enriched spiritually.  They are inclined to speak of their Edsel experience – except for those still with Ford, who are inclined to speak of it as little as possible – with the verve and garrulity of old comrades-in-arms hashing over their most thrilling campaign.

 

A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME

Brooks:

Most nineteenth-century American fortunes were enlarged by, if they were not actually founded on, the practice of insider trading…

Not until 1934 did Congress pass the Securities Exchange Act, which forbids insider trading.  Later, a 1942 rule 10B-5 held that no stock trader could “make any untrue statement of a material fact or… omit to state a material fact.”  However, observes Brooks, this rule had basically been overlooked for the subsequent couple of decades.  It was argued that insiders needed the incentive of being able to profit in order to bring forth their best efforts.  Further, some authorities said that insider trading helped the markets function more smoothly.  Finally, it was held that most stock traders “possess and conceal information of one sort or another.”

In short, the S.E.C. seemed to be refraining from doing anything regarding insider trading.  But this changed when a civil complaint was made against Texas Gulf Sulphur Company.  The case was tried in the United States District Court in Foley Square May 9 to June 21, 1966.  The presiding judge was Dudley J. Bonsal, says Brooks, who remarked at one point, “I guess we all agree that we are plowing new ground here to some extent.”

In March 1959, Texas Gulf, a New York-based company and the world’s leader producer of sulphur, began conducting aerial surveys over a vast area of eastern Canada.  They weren’t looking for sulphur or gold, but for sulphides – sulphur in combination with other useful minerals such as zinc and copper.  Texas Gulf wanted to diversify its production.

These surveys took place over two years.  Many areas of interest were noted.  The company concluded that several hundred areas were most promising, including a segment called Kidd-55, which was fifteen miles north of Timmins, Ontario, an old gold-mining town several hundred miles northwest of Toronto.

The first challenge was to get title to do exploratory drilling on Kidd-55.  It wasn’t until June, 1963, that Texas Gulf was able to begin exploring on the northeast quarter of Kidd-55.  After Texas Gulf engineer, Richard H. Clayton, completed a ground electromagnetic survey and was convinced the area had potential, the company decided to drill.  Drilling began on November 8.  Brooks writes:

The man in charge of the drilling crew was a young Texas Gulf geologist named Kenneth Darke, a cigar smoker with a rakish gleam in his eye, who looked a good deal more like the traditional notion of a mining prospector than that of the organization man that he was.

A cylindrical sample an inch and a quarter in diameter was brought out of the earth.  Darke studied it critically inch by inch using only his eyes and his knowledge.  On November 10, Darke telephoned his immediate superior, Walter Holyk, chief geologist of Texas Gulf, to report the findings at that point.

The same night, Holyk called his superior, Richard D. Mollison, a vice president of Texas Gulf.  Mollison then called his superior, Charles F. Fogarty, executive vice president and the No. 2 man at the company.  Further reports were made the next day.  Soon Holyk, Mollison, and Fogarty decided to travel to Kidd-55 to take a look for themselves.

By November 12, Holyk was on site helping Darke examine samples.  Holyk was a Canadian in his forties with a doctorate in geology from MIT.  The weather had turned bad.  Also, much of the stuff came up covered in dirt and grease, and had to be washed with gasoline.  Nonetheless, Holyk arrived at an initial estimate of the core’s content.  There seemed to be average copper content of 1.15% and average zinc content of 8.64%.  If true and if it was not just in one narrow area, this appeared to be a huge discovery.  Brooks:

Getting title would take time if it were possible at all, but meanwhile there were several steps that the company could and did take.  The drill rig was moved away from the site of the test hole.  Cut saplings were stuck in the ground around the hole, to restore the appearance of the place to a semblance of its natural state.  A second test hole was drilled, as ostentatiously as possible, some distance away, at a place where a barren core was expected – and found.  All of these camouflage measures, which were in conformity with long-established practice among miners who suspect that they have made a strike, were supplemented by an order from Texas Gulf’s president, Claude O. Stephens, that no one outside the actual exploration group, even within the company, should be told what had been found.  Late in November, the core was shipped off, in sections, to the Union Assay Office in Salt Lake City for scientific analysis of its contents.  And meanwhile, of course, Texas Gulf began discreetly putting out feelers for the purchase of the rest of Kidd-55.

Brooks adds:

And meanwhile other measures, which may or may not have been related to the events of north of Timmins, were being taken.  On November 12th, Fogarty bought three hundred shares of Texas Gulf stock;  on the 15th he added seven hundred more shares, on November 19th five hundred more, and on November 26th two hundred more.  Clayton bought two hundred on the 15th, Mollison one hundred on the same day; and Mrs. Holyk bought fifty on the 29th and one hundred more on December 10th.  But these purchases, as things turned out, were only the harbingers of a period of apparently intense affection for Texas Gulf stock among certain of its officers and employees, and even some of their friends.

The results of the sample test confirmed Holyk’s estimates.  Also found were 3.94 ounces of silver per ton.  In late December, while in the Washington, D.C. area, Darke recommended Texas Gulf stock to a girl he knew there and her mother.  They later became known as “tippees,” while a few people they later told naturally became “sub-tippees.”  Between December 30 and February 17, Darke’s tippees and sub-tippees purchased 2,100 shares of Texas Gulf stock and also bought calls on another 1,500 shares.

In the first three months of 1964, Darke bought 300 shares of Texas Gulf stock, purchased calls on 3,000 more shares, and added several more persons to his burgeoning list of tippees.  Holyk and his wife bought a large number of calls on Texas Gulf stock.  They’d hardly heard of calls before, but calls “were getting to be quite the rage in Texas Gulf circles.”

Finally in the spring, Texas Gulf had the drilling rights it needed and was ready to proceed.  Brooks:

After a final burst of purchases by Darke, his tippees, and his sub-tippees on March 30th and 31st (among them all, six hundred shares and calls on 5,100 more shares for the two days), drilling was resumed in the still-frozen muskeg at Kidd-55, with Holyk and Darke both on the site this time.

While the crew stayed on site, the geologists almost daily made the fifteen-mile trek to Simmins.  With seven-foot snowdrifts, the trip took three and a half to four hours.

At some stage – later a matter of dispute – Texas Gulf realized that it had a workable mine of large proportions.  Vice President Mollison arrived on site for a day.  Brooks:

But before going he issued instructions for the drilling of a mill test hole, which would produce a relatively large core that could be used to determine the amenability of the mineral material to routine mill processing.  Normally, a mill test hole is not drilled until a workable mine is believed to exist.  And so it may have been in this case;  two S.E.C. mining experts were to insist later, against contrary opinions of experts for the defense, that by the time Mollison gave his order, Texas Gulf had information on the basis of which it could have calculated that the ore reserves at Kidd-55 had a gross assay value of at least two hundred million dollars.

Brooks notes:

The famous Canadian mining grapevine was humming by now, and in retrospect the wonder is that it had been relatively quiet for so long.

On April 10, President Stephens had become concerned enough to ask a senior member of the board – Thomas S. Lamont of Morgan fame – whether Texas Gulf should issue a statement.  Lamont told him he could wait until the reports were published in U.S. papers, but then he should issue a statement.

The following day, April 11, the reports poured forth in the U.S. papers.  The Herald Tribune called it “the biggest ore strike since gold was discovered more than 60 years ago in Canada.”  Stephens instructed Fogarty to begin preparing a statement to be issued on Monday, April 13.  Meanwhile, the estimated value of the mine seemed to be increasing by the hour as more and more copper and zinc ore was brought to the surface.  Brooks writes:

However, Fogarty did not communicate with Timmins after Friday night, so the statement that he and his colleagues issued to the press on Sunday afternoon was not based on the most up-to-the-minute information.  Whether because of that or for some other reason, the statement did not convey the idea that Texas Gulf thought it had a new Comstock Lode.  Characterizing the published reports as exaggerated and unreliable, it admitted that recent drilling on ‘one property near Timmins’ had led to ‘preliminary indications that more drilling would be required for proper evaluation of the prospect;’  went on to say that ‘the drilling done to date has not been conclusive;’  and then, putting the same thought in what can hardly be called another way, added that ‘the work done to date has not been sufficient to reach definitive conclusions.’

The wording of this press release was sufficient to put a damper on any expectations that may have arisen due to the newspaper stories the previous Friday.  Texas Gulf stock had gone from around $17 the previous November to around $30 just before the stories.  On Monday, the stock went to $32, but then came back down and even dipped below $29 in the subsequent two days.

Meanwhile, at Kidd-55, Mollison, Holyk, and Darke talked with a visiting reporter who had been shown around the place.  Brooks:

The things they told the reporter make it clear, in retrospect, that whatever the drafters of the release may have believed on Sunday, the men at Kidd-55 knew on Monday that they had a mine and a big one.  However, the world was not to know it, or at least not from that source, until Thursday morning, when the next issue of the Miner would appear in subscribers’ mail and on newstands.

Mollison and Holyk flew to Montreal Tuesday evening for the annual convention of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.  They had arranged for that Wednesday, in the company of the Minister of Mines of the Province of Ontario and his deputy, to attend the convention.  En route, they briefed the minister on Kidd-55.  The minister decided he wanted to make an announcement as soon as possible.  Mollison helped the minister draft the statement.

According to the copy Mollison kept, the announcement stated that “the information now in hand… gives the company confidence to allow me to announce that Texas Gulf Sulphur has a mineable body of zinc, copper, and silver ore of substantial dimensions that will be developed and brought to production as soon as possible.”  Mollison and Holyk believed that the minister would make the announcement that evening.  But for some reason, the minister didn’t.

Texas Gulf was to have a board of directors meeting that Thursday.  Since better and better news had been coming in from Kidd-55, the company officers decided they should write a new press release, to be issued after the Thursday morning board meeting.  This statement was based on the very latest information and it read, in part, “Texas Gulf Sulphur Company has made a major strike of zinc, copper, and silver in the Timmins area… Seven drill holes are now essentially complete and indicate an ore body of at least 800 feet in length, 300 feet in width, and having a vertical depth of more than 800 feet.  This is a major discovery.  The preliminary data indicate a reserve of more than 25 million tons of ore.”

The statement also noted that “considerably more data has been accumulated,” in order to explain the difference between this statement and the previous one.  Indeed, the value of the ore was not the two hundred million dollars alleged to have been estimable a week earlier, but many times that.

The same day, engineer Clayton and company secretary Crawford bought 200 and 300 shares, respectively.  The next morning, Crawford doubled his order.

The directors’ meeting ended at ten o’clock.  Then 22 reporters entered the room.  President Stephens read the new press release.  Most reporters rushed out before he was finished to report the news.

The actions of two Texas Gulf directors, Coates and Lamont, during the next half hour were later to lead to the most controversial part of the S.E.C.’s complaint.  As Brooks writes, the essence of the controversy was timing.  The Texas Gulf news was released by the Dow Jones News Service, the well-known spot-news for investors.  In fact, a piece of news is considered to be public the moment it crosses “the broad tape.”

The morning of April 16, 1964, a Dow Jones reporter was among those who attended the Texas Gulf press conference.  He left early and called in the news around 10:10 or 10:15, according to his recollection.  Normally, a news item this important would be printed on the Dow Jones machines two or three minutes after being phoned in.  But for reasons unknown, the Texas Gulf story did not appear on the tape until 10:54.  This delay was left unexplained during the trial based on irrelevance, says Brooks.

Coates, the Texan, around the end of the press conference, called his son-in-law, H. Fred Haemisegger, a stockbroker in Houston.  Coates told Haemisegger about the Texas Gulf discovery, also saying that he waited to call until “after the public announcement” because he was “too old to get in trouble with the S.E.C.”  Coates next placed an order for 2,000 shares of Texas Gulf stock for four family trusts.  He was a trustee, but not a beneficiary.  The stock had opened at $30.  Haemisegger, by acting quickly, was able to buy a bit over $31.

Lamont hung around the press conference area for 20 minutes or so.  He recounts that he “listened to chatter” and “slapped people on the back.”  Then at 10:39 or 10:40, he called a friend at Morgan Guaranty Trust Company – Longstreet Hinton, the bank’s executive vice president and head of its trust department.  Hinton had asked Lamont earlier in the week if he knew anything about the rumors of an ore discovery made by Texas Gulf.  Lamont had said no then.

But during this phone call, Lamont told Hinton that he had some news now.  Hinton asked whether it was good.  Lamont replied either “pretty good” or “very good.”  (Brooks notes that they mean the same thing in this context.)  Hinton immediately called the bank’s trading department, got a quote on Texas Gulf, and placed an order for 3,000 shares for the account of the Nassau Hospital, of which he was treasurer.  Hinton never bothered to look at the tape – despite being advised to do so by Lamont – because Hinton felt he already had the information he needed.  (Lamont didn’t know about the inexplicable forty minute delay before the Texas Gulf news appeared on the tape.)

Then Hinton went to the office of the Morgan Guaranty officer in charge of pension trusts.  Hinton recommended buying Texas Gulf.  In less than half an hour, the bank had ordered 7,000 shares for its pension fund and profit-sharing account.

An hour after that – at 12:33 – Lamont purchased 3,000 shares for himself and his family, paying $34 1/2 for them.  The stock closed above $36.  It hit a high of over $58 later that month.  Brooks:

…and by the end of 1966, when commercial production of ore was at last underway at Kidd-55 and the enormous new mine was expected to account for one-tenth of Canada’s total annual production of copper and one-quarter of its total annual production of zinc, the stock was selling at over 100.  Anyone who had bought Texas Gulf between November 12th, 1963 and the morning (or even the lunch hour) of April 16th, 1964 had therefore at least tripled his money.

Brooks then introduces the trial:

Perhaps the most arresting aspect of the Texas Gulf trial – apart from the fact that a trial was taking place at all – was the vividness and variety of the defendants who came before Judge Bonsal, ranging as they did from a hot-eyed mining prospector like Clayton (a genuine Welchman with a degree in mining from the University of Cardiff) through vigorous and harried corporate nabobs like Fogarty and Stephens to a Texas wheeler-dealer like Coates and a polished Brahmin of finance like Lamont.

Darke did not appear at the trial, claiming his Canadian nationality.  Brooks continues:

The S.E.C., after its counsel, Frank E. Kennamer Jr. had announced his intention to “drag to light and pillory the misconduct of these defendants,” asked the court to issue a permanent injunction forbidding Fogarty, Mollison, Clayton, Holyk, Darke, Crawford, and several other corporate insiders who had bought stock or calls between November 8th, 1963 and April 15th, 1964, from ever again “engaging in any act… which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with purchase or sale of securities”;  further – and here it was breaking entirely new ground – it prayed that the court order the defendants to make restitution to the persons they had allegedly defrauded by buying stock or calls from them on the basis of inside information.  The S.E.C. also charged that the pessimistic April 12th press release was deliberately deceptive, and asked that because of it Texas Gulf be enjoined from “making any untrue statement of material fact or omitting to state a material fact.”  Apart from any question of loss of corporate face, the nub of the matter here lay in the fact that such a judgment, if granted, might well open the way for legal action against the company by any stockholder who had sold his Texas Gulf stock to anybody in the interim between the first press release and the second one, and since the shares that had changed hands during that period had run into the millions, it was a nub indeed.

Regarding the November purchases, the defense argued that a workable mine was far from a sure thing based only on the first drill hole.  Some even argued that the hole could have turned out to be a liability rather than an asset for Texas Gulf, based on what was known then.  The people who bought stock or calls during the winter claimed that the hole had little or nothing to do with their decision.  They stated that they thought Texas Gulf was a good investment in general.  Clayton said his sudden appearance as a large investor was because he had just married a well-to-do wife.  Brooks:

The S.E.C. countered with its own parade of experts, maintaining that the nature of the first core had been such as to make the existence of a rich mine an overwhelming probability, and that therefore those privy to the facts about it had possessed a material fact.

The S.E.C. also made much of the fact that Fogarty based the initial press release on information that was two days old.  The defense countered that the company had been in a sensitive position.  If it had issued an optimistic report that later turned out to be false, it could well be accused of fraud for that.

Judge Bonsal concluded that the definition of materiality must be conservative.  He therefore decided that up until April 9th, when three converging drill holes positively established the three-dimensionality of the ore deposit, material information had not been in hand.  Therefore, the decisions of insiders to buy stock before that date, even if based on initial drilling results, were legal “educated guesses.”

Case was thus dismissed against all educated guessers who had bought stock or calls, or recommended others do so, before the evening of April 9th.  Brooks:

With Clayton and Crawford, who had been so injudicious as to buy or order stock on April 15th, it was another matter.  The judge found no evidence that they had intended to deceive or defraud anyone, but they had made their purchases with the full knowledge that a great mine had been found and that it would be announced the next day – in short, with material private information in hand.  Therefore they were found to have violated Rule 10B-5, and in due time would presumably be enjoined from doing such a thing again and made to offer restitution to the persons they bought their April 15th shares from – assuming, of course, that such persons can be found…

On the matter of the April 12th press release, the judge found that it was not false or misleading.

Still to be settled was the matter of Coates and Lamont making their purchases.  The question was when it can be said that the information has officially been made public.  This was the most important issue and would likely set a legal precedent.

The S.E.C. argued that the actions of Coates and Lamont were illegal because they occurred before the ore strike news had crossed the Dow Jones broad tape.  The S.E.C. argued, furthermore, that even if Coates and Lamont had acted after the “official” announcement, it still would be illegal unless enough time had passed so that those who hadn’t attended the press conference, or even those who hadn’t seen the initial news cross the broad tape, had enough time to absorb the information.

Defense argued first that Coates and Lamont had every reason to believe that the news was already out, since Stephens said it had been released by the Ontario Minister of Mines the previous evening.  So Coates and Lamont acted in good faith.  Second, counsel argued that for all practical purposes, the news was out, via osmosis and The Northern Miner.  Brokerage offices and the Stock Exchange had been buzzing all morning.  Lamont’s lawyers also argued that Lamont had merely told Hinton to look at the tape, not to buy any stock.  Defense argued that the S.E.C. was asking the court to write new rules and then apply them retroactively, while the plaintiff was merely asking that an old rule 10B-5, be applied broadly.

As for Lamont’s waiting for two hours, until 12:33, before buying stock for himself, the S.E.C. took issue, as Brooks records:

‘It is the Commission’s position that even after corporate information has been published in the news media, insiders, are still under a duty to refrain from securities transactions until there had elapsed a reasonable amount of time in which the securities industry, the shareholders, and the investing public can evaluate the development and make informed investment decisions… Insiders must wait at least until the information is likely to have reached the average investor who follows the market and he has had some opportunity to consider it.’

In the Texas Gulf case, the S.E.C. argued that one hour and thirty-nine minutes was not “a reasonable amount of time.”  What, then, is “a reasonable amount of time,” the S.E.C. was asked?  The S.E.C.’s counsel, Kennamer, said it “would vary from case to case.”  Kennamer added that it would be “a nearly impossible task to formulate a rigid set of rules that would apply in all situations of this sort.”

Brooks sums it up with a hint of irony:

Therefore, in the S.E.C.’s canon, the only way an insider could find out whether he had waited long enough before buying his company’s stock was by being hauled into court and seeing what the judge would decide.

Judge Bonsal rejected this argument by the S.E.C.  Moreover, he took a narrower view that, based on legal precedent, the key moment was when the press release was read.  The judge admitted that a better rule might be formulated according to which insiders had to wait at least some amount time after the initial press release so that other investors could absorb it.  However, he didn’t think he should write such a rule.  Nor should this matter be left up to the judge on a case-by-base basis.  Thus, the complaints against Coates and Lamont were dismissed.

The S.E.C. appealed all the dismissals.  Brooks concludes:

…in August, 1968, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a decision which flatly reversed Judge Bonsal’s findings on just about every score except the findings against Crawford and Clayton, which were affirmed.  The Appeals Court found that the original November drill hole had provided material evidence of a valuable ore deposit, and that therefore Fogarty, Mollison, Darke, Holyk, and all other insiders who had bought Texas Gulf stock or calls on it during the winter were guilty of violations of the law;  that the gloomy April 12th press release had been ambiguous and perhaps misleading;  and that Coates had improperly and illegally jumped the gun in placing his orders right after the April 16th press conference.  Only Lamont – the charges against whom had been dropped following his death shortly after the lower court decision – and a Texas Gulf office manager, John Murray, remained exonerated.

 

XEROX XEROX XEROX XEROX

There was no economical and practical way of making copies until after 1950.  Brooks writes that the 1950’s were the pioneering years for mechanized office copying.  Although people were starting to show a compulsion to make copies, the early copying machines suffered from a number of problems.  Brooks:

…What was needed for the compulsion to flower into a mania was a technological breakthrough, and the breakthrough came at the turn of the decade with the advent of a machine that worked on a new principle, known as xerography, and was able to make dry, good-quality, permanent copies on ordinary paper with a minimum of trouble.  The effect was immediate.  Largely as a result of xerography, the estimated number of copies (as opposed to duplicates) made annually in the United States sprang from some twenty million in the mid-fifties to nine and a half billion in 1964, and to fourteen billion in 1966 – not to mention billions more in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.  More than that, the attitude of educators towards printed textbooks and of business people toward written communication underwent a discernable change;  avant-garde philosophers took to hailing xerography as a revolution comparable in importance to the invention of the wheel;  and coin-operated copy machines began turning up in candy stores and beauty parlors…

The company responsible for the great breakthrough and the one on whose machines the majority of these billions of copies were made was of course, the Xerox Corporation, of Rochester, New York.  As a result, it became the most spectacular big-business success of the nineteen-sixties.  In 1959, the year the company – then called Haloid Xerox, Inc. – introduced its first automatic xerographic office copier, its sales were thirty-three million dollars.  In 1961, they were sixty-six million, in 1963 a hundred and seventy-six million, and in 1966 over half a billion.

The company was extremely profitable.  It ranked two hundred and seventy-first in Fortune’s ranking in 1967.  However, in 1966 the company ranked sixty-third in net profits and probably ninth in the ratio of profits to sales and fifteenth in terms of market value.  Brooks continues:

…Indeed, the enthusiasm the investing public showed for Xerox made its shares the stock market Golconda of the sixties.  Anyone who bought its stock toward the end of 1959 and held on to it until early 1967 would have found his holding worth about sixty-six times its original price, and anyone who was really fore-sighted and bought Haloid in 1955 would have seen his original investment grow – one might almost say miraculously – a hundred and eighty times.  Not surprisingly, a covey of “Xerox millionaires” sprang up – several hundred of them all told, most of whom either lived in the Rochester area or had come from there.

The Haloid company was started in Rochester in 1906.  It manufactured photographic papers.  It survived OK.  But after the Second World War, due to an increase in competition and labor costs, the company was looking for new products.

More than a decade earlier, in 1938, an obscure thirty-two year-old inventor, Chester F. Carlson, was spending his spare time trying to invent an office copying machine.  Carlson had a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology.  Carlson had hired Otto Kornei, a German refugee physicist, to help him.  Their initial copying machine was unwieldy and produced much smoke and stench.  Brooks:

The process, which Carlson called electrophotography, had – and has – five basic steps:  sensitizing a photoconductive surface to light by giving it an electrostatic charge (for example, by rubbing it with fur);  exposing this surface to a written page to form an electrostatic image;  developing the latest image by dusting the surface with a powder that will adhere only to the charged areas;  transferring the image to some sort of paper;  and fixing the image by the application of heat.

Although each individual step was already used in other technologies, this particular combination of steps was new.  Carlson carefully patented the process and began trying to sell it.  Over the ensuing five years, Carlson tried to sell the rights to every important office-equipment company in the country.  He was turned down every time.  In 1944, Carlson finally convinced Battelle Memorial Institute to conduct further development work on the process in exchange for three-quarters of any future royalties.

In 1946, various people at Haloid, including Joseph C. Wilson – who was about to become president – had noticed the work that Battelle was doing.  Wilson asked a friend of his, Sol M. Linowitz, a smart, public-spirited lawyer just back from service in the Navy, to research the work at Battelle as a “one-shot” job.  The result was an agreement giving Haloid the rights to the Carlson process in exchange for royalties for Battelle and Carlson.

At one point in the research and development process, the Haloid people got so discouraged that they considered selling most of their xerography rights to International Business Machines.  The research process became quite costly.  But Haloid committed itself to seeing it through.  It took full title of the Carlson process and assumed the full cost of development in exchange for shares in Haloid (for Battelle and Carlson).  Brooks:

…The cost was staggering.  Between 1947 and 1960, Haloid spent about seventy-five million dollars [over $800 million in 2019 dollars] on research in xerography, or about twice what it earned from its regular operations during that period;  the balance was raised through borrowing and through the wholesale issuance of common stock to anyone who was kind, reckless, or prescient enough to take it.  The University of Rochester, partly out of interest in a struggling local industry, bought an enormous quantity for its endowment fund at a price that subsequently, because of stock splits, amounted to fifty cents a share.  ‘Please don’t be mad at us if we have to sell our Haloid stock in a couple of years to cut our losses on it,’ a university official nervously warned Wilson.  Wilson promised not to be mad.  Meanwhile, he and other executives of the company took most of their pay in the form of stock, and some of them went as far as to put up their savings and the mortgages on their houses to help the cause along.

In 1961, the company changed its name to Xerox Corporation.  One unusual aspect to the story is that Xerox became rather public-minded.  Brooks quotes Wilson:

‘To set high goals, to have almost unattainable aspirations, to imbue people with the belief that they can be achieved – these are as important as the balance sheet, perhaps more so.’

This rhetoric is not uncommon.  But Xerox followed through by donating one and a half percent of its profits to educational and charitable institutions in 1965-1966.  In 1966, Xerox committed itself to the “one-per-cent program,” also called the Cleveland Plan, according to which the company gives one percent of its pre-tax income annually to educational institutions, apart from any other charitable activities.

Furthermore, President Wilson said in 1964, “The corporation cannot refuse to take a stand on public issues of major concern.”  As Brooks observes, this is “heresy” for a business because it could alienate customers or potential customers.  Xerox’s chief stand was in favor of the United Nations.  Brooks:

Early in 1964, the company decided to spend four million dollars – a year’s advertising budget – on underwriting a series of network-television programs dealing with the U.N., the programs to be unaccompanied by commercials or any other identification of Xerox apart from a statement at the beginning and end of each that Xerox had paid for it.

Xerox was inundated with letters opposing the company’s support of the U.N.  Many said that the U.N. charter had been written by American Communists and that the U.N. was an instrument for depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights.  Although only a few of these letters came from the John Birch Society, it turned out later that most of the letters were part of a meticulously planned Birch campaign.  Xerox officers and directors were not intimidated.  The U.N. series appeared in 1965 and was widely praised.

Furthermore, Xerox consistently committed itself to informing the users of its copiers of their legal responsibilities.  It took this stand despite their commercial interest.

Brooks visited Xerox in order to talk with some of its people.  First he spoke with Dr. Dessauer, a German-born engineer who had been in charge of the company’s research and engineering since 1938.  It was Dessauer who first brought Carlson’s invention to the attention of Joseph Wilson.  Brooks noticed a greeting card from fellow employees calling Dessauer the “Wizard.”

Dr. Dessauer told Brooks about the old days.  Dessauer said money was the main problem.  Many team members gambled heavily on the xerox project.  Dessauer himself mortgaged his house.  Early on, team members would often say the damn thing would never work.  Even if it did work, the marketing people said there was only a market for a few thousand of the machines.

Next Brooks spoke with Dr. Harold E. Clark, who had been a professor of physics before coming to Haloid in 1949.  Dr. Clark was in charge of the xerography-development program under Dr. Dessauer.  Dr. Clark told Brooks that Chet Carlson’s invention was amazing.  Also, no one else invented something similar at the same time, unlike the many simultaneous discoveries in scientific history.  The only problem, said Dr. Clark, was that it wasn’t a good product.

The main trouble was that Carlson’s photoconductive surface, which was coated with sulphur, lost its qualities after it had made a few copies and became useless.  Acting on a hunch unsupported by scientific theory, the Battelle researchers tried adding to the sulphur a small quantity of selenium, a non-metallic element previously used chiefly in electrical resistors and as a coloring material to redden glass.  The selenium-and-sulphur surface worked a little better than the all-sulphur one, so the Battelle men tried adding a little more selenium.  More improvement.  They gradually kept increasing the percentage until they had a surface consisting entirely of selenium – no sulphur.  That one worked best of all, and thus it was found, backhandedly, that selenium and selenium alone could make xerography practical.

Dr. Clark went on to tell Brooks that they basically patented one of the elements, of which there are not many more than one hundred.  What is more, they still don’t understand how it works.  There are no memory effects – no traces of previous copies are left on the selenium drum.  A selenium-coated drum in the lab can last a million processes, or theoretically an infinite number.  They don’t understand why.  Dr. Clark concluded that they combined “Yankee tinkering and scientific inquiry.”

Brooks spoke with Linowitz, who only had a few minutes because he had just been appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States.  Linowitz told him:

…the qualities that made for the company’s success were idealism, tenacity, the courage to take risks, and enthusiasm.

Joseph Wilson told Brooks that his second major had been English literature.  He thought he would be a teacher or work in administration at a university.  Somehow he ended up at Harvard Business School, where he was a top student.  After that, he joined Haloid, the family business, something he’d never planned on doing.

Regarding the company’s support of the U.N., Wilson explained that world cooperation was the company’s business, because without it there would be no world and thus no business.  He went on to explain that elections were not the company’s business.  But university education, civil rights, and employment of African-Americans were their business, to name just a few examples.  So far, at least, Wilson said there hadn’t been a conflict between their civic duties and good business.  But if such a conflict arose, he hoped that the company would honor its civic responsibilities.

 

MAKING THE CUSTOMERS WHOLE

On November 19th, 1963, the Stock Exchange became aware that two of its member firms – J. R. Williston & Beane, Inc., and Ira Haupt & Co. – were in serious financial trouble.  This later became a crisis that was made worse by the assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963.  Brooks:

It was the sudden souring of a speculation that these two firms (along with various brokers not members of the Stock Exchange) had become involved in on behalf of a single customer – the Allied Crude Vegetable Oil & Refining Co., of Bayonne, New Jersey.  The speculation was in contracts to buy vast quantities of cotton-seed oil and soybean oil for future delivery.

Brooks then writes:

On the two previous business days – Friday the fifteenth and Monday the eighteenth – the prices had dropped an average of a little less than a cent and a half per pound, and as a result Haupt had demanded that Allied put up about fifteen million dollars in cash to keep the account seaworthy.  Allied had declined to do this, so Haupt – like any broker when a customer operating on credit has defaulted – was faced with the necessity of selling out the Allied contracts to get back what it could of its advances.  The suicidal extent of the risk that Haupt had undertaken is further indicated by the fact that while the firm’s capital in early November had amounted to only about eight million dollars, it had borrowed enough money to supply a single customer – Allied – with some thirty-seven million dollars to finance the oil speculations.  Worse still, as things turned out it had accepted as collateral for some of these advances enormous amounts of actual cottonseed oil and soybean oil from Allied’s inventory, the presence of which in tanks at Bayonne was attested to by warehouse receipts stating the precise amount and kind of oil on hand.  Haupt had borrowed the money it supplied Allied from various banks, passing along most of the warehouse receipts to the banks as collateral.  All this would have been well and good if it had not developed later that many of the warehouse receipts were forged, that much of the oil they attested to was not, and probably never had been, in Bayonne, and that Allied’s President, Anthony De Angelis (who was later sent to jail on a whole parcel of charges), had apparently pulled off the biggest commercial fraud since that of Ivar Kreuger, the match king.

What began to emerge as the main issue was that Haupt had about twenty thousand individual stock-market customers, who had never heard of Allied or commodity trading.  Williston & Beane had nine thousand individual customers.  All these accounts were frozen when the two firms were suspended by the Stock Exchange.  (Fortunately, the customers of Williston & Beane were made whole fairly rapidly.)

The Stock Exchange met with its member firms.  They decided to make the customers of Haupt whole.  G. Keith Funston, President of the Stock Exchange, urged the member firms to take over the matter.  The firms replied that the Stock Exchange should do it.  Funston replied, “If we do, you’ll have to repay us the amount we pay out.”  So it was agreed that the payment would come out of the Exchange’s treasury, to be repaid later by the member firms.

Funston next led the negotiations with Haupt’s creditor banks.  Their unanimous support was essential.  Chief among the creditors were four local banks – Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, First National City, and Manufacturers Hanover Trust.  Funston proposed that the Exchange would put up the money to make the Haupt customers whole – about seven and a half million dollars.  In return, for every dollar the Exchange put up, the banks would agree to defer collection on two dollars.  So the banks would defer collection on about fifteen million.

The banks agreed to this on the condition that the Exchange’s claim to get back any of its contribution would come after the banks’ claims for their loans.  Funston and his associates at the Exchange agreed to that.  After more negotiating, there was a broad agreement on the general plan.

Early on Saturday, the Exchange’s board met and learned from Funston what was proposed.  Almost immediately, several governors rose to state that it was a matter of principle.  And so the board agreed with the plan.  Later, Funston and his associates decided to put the Exchange’s chief examiner in charge of the liquidation of Haupt in order to ensure that its twenty thousand individual customers were made whole as soon as the Exchange had put up the cash.  (The amount of cash would be at least seven and a half million, but possibly as high as twelve million.)

Fortunately, the American banks eventually all agreed to the final plan put forth by the Exchange.  Brooks notes that the banks were “marvels of cooperation.”  But agreement was still needed from the British banks.  Initially, Funston was going to make the trip to England, but he couldn’t be spared.

Several other governors quickly volunteered to go, and one of them, Gustave L. Levy, was eventually selected, on the ground that his firm, Goldman, Sachs & Co., had had a long and close association with Kleinwort, Benson, one of the British banks, and that Levy himself was on excellent terms with some of the Kleinwort, Benson partners.

The British banks were very unhappy.  But since their loans to Allied were unsecured, they didn’t have any room to negotiate.  Still, they asked for time to think the matter over.  This gave Levy an opportunity to meet with this Kleinwort, Benson friends.  Brooks:

The circumstances of the reunion were obviously less than happy, but Levy says that his friends took a realistic view of their situation and, with heroic objectivity, actually helped their fellow-Britons to see the American side of the question.

The market was closed Monday for JFK’s funeral.  Funston was still waiting for the call from Levy.  After finally getting agreement from all the British banks, Levy placed the call to Funston.

Funston felt at this point that the final agreement had been wrapped up, since all he needed was the signatures of the fifteen Haupt general partners.  The meeting with the Haupt partners ended up taking far longer than expected.  Brooks:

One startling event broke the even tenor of this gloomy meeting… someone noticed an unfamiliar and strikingly youthful face in the crowd and asked its owner to identify himself.  The unhesitating reply was, ‘I’m Russell Watson, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.’  There was a short, stunned silence, in recognition of the fact that an untimely leak might still disturb the delicate balance of money and emotion that made up the agreement.  Watson himself, who was twenty-four and had been on the Journal for a year, has since explained how he got into the meeting, and under what circumstances he left it.  ‘I was new on the Stock Exchange beat then,’ he said afterward.  ‘Earlier in the day, there had been word that Funston would probably hold a press conference sometime that evening, so I went over to the Exchange.  At the main entrance, I asked a guard where Mr. Funston’s conference was.  The guard said it was on the sixth floor, and ushered me into an elevator.  I suppose he thought I was a banker, a Haupt partner, or a lawyer.  On the sixth floor, people were milling around everywhere.  I just walked off the elevator and into the office where the meeting was – nobody stopped me.  I didn’t understand much of what was going on.  I got the feeling that whatever was at stake, there was general agreement but still a lot of haggling over details to be done.  I didn’t recognize anybody there but Funston.  I stood around quietly for about five minutes before anybody noticed me, and then everybody said, pretty much at once, “Good God, get out of here!”  They didn’t exactly kick me out, but I saw it was time to go.’

At fifteen minutes past midnight, finally all the parties signed an agreement.

As soon as the banks opened on Tuesday, the Exchange deposited seven and a half million dollars in an account on which the Haupt liquidator – James P. Mahony – could draw.  The stock market had its greatest one-day rise in history.  A week later, by December 2, $1,750,000 had been paid out to Haupt customers.  By December 12, it was $5,400,000.  And by Christmas, it was $6,700,000.  By March 11, the pay-out had reached nine and a half million dollars and all the Haupt customers had been made whole.

  • Note:  $9.5 million in 1963 would be approximately $76 million dollars today (in 2018), due to inflation.

Brooks describes the reaction:

In Washington, President Johnson interrupted his first business day in office to telephone Funston and congratulate him.  The chairman of the S.E.C., William L. Cary, who was not ordinarily given to throwing bouquets at the Stock Exchange, said in December that it had furnished ‘a dramatic, impressive demonstration of its strength and concern for the public interest.’

Brooks later records:

Oddly, almost no one seems to have expressed gratitude to the British and American banks, which recouped something like half of their losses.  It may be that people simply don’t thank banks, except in television commercials.

 

THE IMPACTED PHILOSOPHERS

Brooks opens this chapter by observing that communication is one of the biggest problems in American industry.  (Remember he was writing in the 1960’s).  Brooks:

This preoccupation with the difficulty of getting a thought out of one head and into another is something the industrialists share with a substantial number of intellectuals and creative writers, more and more of whom seemed inclined to regard communication, or the lack of it, as one of the greatest problems not just of industry, but of humanity.

Brooks then adds:

What has puzzled me is how and why, when foundations sponsor one study of communication after another, individuals and organizations fail so consistently to express themselves understandably, or how and why their listeners fail to grasp what they hear.

A few years ago, I acquired a two-volume publication of the United States Government Printing Office entitled Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-Seventh Congress, First Session, Pursuant to S. Res. 52, and after a fairly diligent perusal of its 1,459 pages I thought I could begin to see what the industrialists are talking about.

The hearings were conducted in April, May, and June of 1961 under the chairmanship of Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee.  They concerned price-fixing and bid-rigging in conspiracies in the electrical-manufacturing industry.  Brooks:

…Senator Kefauver felt that the whole matter needed a good airing.  The transcript shows that it got one, and what the airing revealed – at least within the biggest company involved – was a breakdown in intramural communication so drastic as to make the building of the tower of Babel seem a triumph of organizational rapport.

Brooks explains a bit later:

The violations, the government alleged, were committed in connection with the sale of large and expensive pieces of apparatus of a variety that is required chiefly by public and private electric-utility companies (power transformers, switchgear assemblies, and turbine-generator units, among many others), and were the outcome of a series of meetings attended by executives of the supposedly competing companies – beginning at least as early as 1956 and continuing into 1959 – at which noncompetitive price levels were agreed upon, nominally sealed bids on individual contracts were rigged in advance, and each company was allocated a certain percentage of the available business.

Brooks explains that in an average year at the time of the conspiracies, about $1.75 billion – $14 billion in 2019 dollars – was spent on the sorts of machines in question, with nearly a quarter of that local, state, and federal government spending.  Brooks gives a specific example, a 500,000-kilowatt turbine-generator, which sold for about $16 million (nearly $130 million in 2019 dollars), but was often discounted by 25 percent.  If the companies wanted to, they could effectively charge $4 million extra (nearly $32 million extra in 2019 dollars).  Any such additional costs as a result of price-fixing would, in the case of government purchases, ultimately fall on the taxpayer.

Brooks again:

To top it all off, there was a prevalent suspicion of hypocrisy in the very highest places.  Neither the chairman of the board nor the president of General Electric, the largest of the corporate defendants, had been caught on the government’s dragnet, and the same was true of Westinghouse Electric, the second-largest;  these four ultimate bosses let it be known that they had been entirely ignorant of what had been going on within their commands right up to the time the first testimony on the subject was given to the Justice Department.  Many people, however, were not satisfied by these disclaimers, and, instead, took the position that the defendant executives were men in the middle, who had broken the law only in response either to actual orders or to a corporate climate favoring price-fixing, and who were now being allowed to suffer for the sins of their superiors.  Among the unsatisfied was Judge Ganey himself, who said at the time of the sentencing, ‘One would be most naive indeed to believe that these violations of the law, so long persisted in, affecting so large a segment of the industry, and, finally, involving so many millions upon millions of dollars, were facts unknown to those responsible for the conduct of the corporation… I am convinced that in the great number of these defendants’ cases, they were torn between conscience and approved corporate policy, with the rewarding objectives of promotion, comfortable security, and large salaries.’

General Electric got most of the attention.  It was, after all, by far the largest of those companies involved.  General Electric penalized employees who admitted participation in the conspiracy.  Some saw this as good behavior, while others thought it was G.E. trying to save higher-ups by making a few sacrifices.

G.E. maintained that top executives didn’t know.  Judge Ganey thought otherwise.  But Brooks realized it couldn’t be determined:

…For, as the testimony shows, the clear waters of moral responsibility at G.E. became hopelessly muddied by a struggle to communicate – a struggle so confused that in some cases, it would appear, if one of the big bosses at G.E. had ordered a subordinate to break the law, the message would somehow have been garbled in its reception, and if the subordinate had informed the boss that he was holding conspiratorial meetings with competitors, the boss might well have been under the impression that the subordinate was gossiping idly about lawn parties or pinochle lessons.

G.E., for at least eight years, has had a rule, Directive Policy 20.5, which explicitly forbids price-fixing, bid-rigging, and similar anticompetitive practices.  The company regularly reissued 20.5 to new executives and asked them to sign their names to it.

The problem was that many, including those who signed, didn’t take 20.5 seriously.  They thought it was just a legal device.  They believed that meeting illegally with competitors was the accepted and standard practice.  They concluded that if a superior told them to comply with 20.5, he was actually ordering him to violate it.  Brooks:

Illogical as it might seem, this last assumption becomes comprehensible in light of the fact that, for a time, when some executives orally conveyed, or reconveyed, the order, they were apparently in the habit of accompanying it with an unmistakable wink.

Brooks gives an example of just such a meeting of sales managers in May 1948.  Robert Paxton, an upper-level G.E. executive who later became the company’s president, addressed the group and gave the usual warnings about antitrust violations.  William S. Ginn, a salesman under Paxton, interjected, “We didn’t see you wink.”  Paxton replied, “There was no wink.  We mean it, and these are the orders.”

Senator Kefauver asked Paxton how long he had known about such winks.  Paxton said that in 1935, he saw his boss do it following an order.  Paxton recounts that he became incensed.  Since then, he had earned a reputation as an antiwink man.

In any case, Paxton’s seemingly unambiguous order in 1948 failed to get through to Ginn, who promptly began pricing-fixing with competitors.  When asked about it thirteen years later, Ginn – having recently gotten out of jail and having lost his $135,000 a year job at G.E. – said he had gotten a contrary order from two other superiors, Henry V. B. Erben and Francis Fairman.  Brooks:

Erben and Fairman, Ginn said, had been more articulate, persuasive, and forceful in issuing their order than Paxton had been in issuing his;  Fairman, especially, Ginn stressed, had proved to be ‘a great communicator, a great philosopher, and, frankly, a great believer in stability of prices.’  Both Erben and Fairman had dismissed Paxton as naive, Ginn testified, and, in further summary of how he had been led astray, he said that ‘the people who were advocating the Devil were able to sell me better than the philosophers that were selling me the Lord.’

Unfortunately, Erben and Fairman had passed away before the hearing.  So we don’t have their testimonies.  Ginn consistently described Paxton as a philosopher-salesman on the side of the Lord.

In November, 1954, Ginn was made general manager of the transformer division.  Ralph J. Cordiner, chairman of the board at G.E. since 1949, called Ginn down to New York to order him to comply strictly with Directive 20.5.  Brooks:

Cordiner communicated this idea so successfully that it was clear enough to Ginn at the moment, but it remained so only as long as it took him, after leaving the chairman, to walk to Erben’s office.

Erben, Ginn’s direct superior, countermanded Cordiner’s order.

Erben’s extraordinary communicative prowess carried the day, and Ginn continued to meet with competitors.

At the end of 1954, Paxton took over Erben’s job and was thus Ginn’s direct superior.  Ginn kept meeting with competitors, but he didn’t tell Paxton about it, knowing his opposition to the practice.

In January 1957, Ginn became general manager of G.E.’s turbine-generator division.  Cordiner called him down again to instruct him to follow 20.5.  This time, however, Ginn got the message.  Why?  “Because my air cover was gone,” Ginn explained to the Subcommittee.  Brooks:

If Erben, who had not been Ginn’s boss since late in 1954, had been the source of his air cover, Ginn must have been without its protection for over two years, but, presumably, in the excitement of the price war he had failed to notice its absence.

In any case, Ginn apparently had reformed.  Ginn circulated copies of 20.5 among all his division managers.  He then instructed them not to even socialize with competitors.

It appears that Ginn had not been able to impart much of his shining new philosophy to others, and that at the root of his difficulty lay that old jinx, the problem of communicating.

Brooks quotes Ginn:

‘I have got to admit that I made a communication error.  I didn’t sell this thing to the boys well enough… The price is so important in the complete running of a business that, philosophically, we have got to sell people not only just the fact that it is against the law, but… that it shouldn’t be done for many, many reasons.  But it has got to be a philosophical approach and a communication approach…’

Frank E. Stehlik was general manager of the low-voltage-switchgear department from May, 1956 to February, 1960.  Stehlik not only heard 20.5 directly from his superiors in oral and written communications.  But, in addition, Stehlik was open to a more visceral type of communication he called “impacts.”  Brooks explains:

Apparently, when something happened within the company that made an impression on him, he would consult an internal sort of metaphysical voltmeter to ascertain the force of the jolt he had received, and, from the reading he got, would attempt to gauge the true drift of company policy.

In 1956, 1957, and for most of 1958, Stehlik believed that company policy clearly required compliance with 20.5.  But in the fall of 1958, Stehlik’s immediate superior, George E. Burens, told him that Paxton had told him (Burens) to have lunch with a competitor.  Paxton later testified that he categorically told Burens not to discuss prices.  But Stehlik got a different impression.

In Stehlik’s mind, this fact made an “impact.”  He felt that company policy was now in favor of disobeying 20.5.  So, late in 1958, when Burens told him to begin having price meetings with a competitor, he was not at all surprised.  Stehlik complied.

Brooks next describes the communication problem from the point of view of superiors.  Raymond W. Smith was general manager of G.E.’s transformer division, while Arthur F. Vinson was vice-president in charge G.E.’s apparatus group.  Vinson ended up becoming Smith’s immediate boss.

Smith testified that Cordiner gave him the usual order on 20.5.  But late in 1957, price competition for transformers was so intense that Smith decided on his own to start meeting with competitors to see if prices could be stabilized.  Smith thought company policy and industry practice both supported his actions.

When Vinson became Smith’s boss, Smith felt he should let him know what he was doing.  So on several occasions, Smith told Vinson, “I had a meeting with the clan this morning.”

Vinson, in his testimony, said he didn’t even recall Smith use the phrase, “meeting of the clan.”  Vinson only recalled that Smith would say things like, “Well, I am going to take this new plan on transformers and show it to the boys.”  Vinson testified that he thought Smith meant the G.E. district salespeople and the company’s customers.  Vinson claimed to be shocked when he learned that Smith was referring to price-fixing meetings with competitors.

But Smith was sure that his communication had gotten through to Vinson.  “I never got the impression that he misunderstood me,” Smith testified.

Senator Kefauver asked Vinson if he was so naive as to not know to whom “the boys” referred.  Vinson replied, “I don’t think it is too naive.   We have a lot of boys… I may be naive, but I am certainly telling the truth, and in this kind of thing I am sure I am naive.”

Kefauver pressed Vinson, asking how he could have become vice-president at $200,000 a year if he were naive.  Vinson:  “I think I could well get there by being naive in this area.  It might help.”

Brooks asks:

Was Vinson really saying to Kefauver what he seemed to be saying – that naivete about antitrust violations might be a help to a man in getting and holding a $200,000-a-year job at General Electric?  It seems unlikely.  And yet what else could he have meant?

Vinson was also implicated in another part of the case.  Four switchgear executives – Burens, Stehlik, Clarence E. Burke, and H. Frank Hentschel – testified before the grand jury (and later before the Subcommittee) that in mid-1958, Vinson had lunch with them in Dining Room B of G.E.’s switchgear works in Philadelphia, and that Vinson told them to hold price meetings with competitors.

This led the four switchgear executives to hold a series of meetings with competitors.  But Vinson told prosecutors that the lunch never took place and that he had had no knowledge at all of the conspiracy until the case broke.  Regarding the lunch, Burens, Stehlik, Burke, and Hentschel all had lie-detector tests, given by the F.B.I., and passed them.

Brooks writes:

Vinson refused to take a lie-detector test, at first explaining that he was acting on advice of counsel and against his personal inclination, and later, after hearing how the four other men had fared, arguing that if the machine had not pronounced them liars, it couldn’t be any good.

It was shown that there were only eight days in mid-1958 when Burens, Stehlik, Burke, and Hentschel all had been together at the Philadelphia plant and could have had lunch together.  Vinson produced expense accounts showing that he had been elsewhere on each of those eight days.  So the Justice Department dropped the case against Vinson.

The upper level of G.E. “came through unscathed.”  Chairman Cordiner and President Paxton did seem to be clearly against price-fixing, and unaware of all the price-fixing that had been occurring.  Paxton, during his testimony, said that he learned from his boss, Gerard Swope, that the ultimate goal of business was to produce more goods for people at lower cost.  Paxton claimed to be deeply impacted by this philosophy, explaining why he was always strongly against price-fixing.

Brooks concludes:

Philosophy seems to have reached a high point at G.E., and communication a low one.  If executives could just learn to understand one another, most of the witnesses said or implied, the problem of antitrust violations would be solved.  But perhaps the problem is cultural as well as technical, and has something to do with a loss of personal identity that comes with working in a huge organization.  The cartoonist Jules Feiffer, contemplating the communication problem in a nonindustrial context, has said, ‘Actually, the breakdown is between the person and himself.  If you’re not able to communicate successfully between yourself and yourself, how are you supposed to make it with the strangers outside?’  Suppose, purely as a hypothesis, that the owner of a company who orders his subordinates to obey the antitrust laws has such poor communication with himself that he does not really know whether he wants the order to be complied with or not.  If his order is disobeyed, the resulting price-fixing may benefit his company’s coffers;  if it is obeyed, then he has done the right thing.  In the first instance, he is not personally implicated in any wrongdoing, while in the second he is positively involved in right doing.  What, after all, can he lose?  It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that such an executive will communicate his uncertainty more forcefully than his order.

 

THE LAST GREAT CORNER

Piggly Wiggly Stores – a chain of retail self-service markets mostly in the South and West, and headquartered in Memphis – was first listed on the New York Stock Exchange in June, 1922.  Clarence Saunders was the head of Piggly Wiggly.  Brooks describes Saunders:

…a plump, neat, handsome man of forty-one who was already something of a legend in his home town, chiefly because of a house he was putting up there for himself.  Called the Pink Palace, it was an enormous structure faced with pink Georgia marble and built around an awe-inspiring white-marble Roman atrium, and, according to Saunders, it would stand for a thousand years.  Unfinished though it was, the Pink Palace was like nothing Memphis had ever seen before.  Its grounds were to include a private golf course, since Saunders liked to do his golfing in seclusion.

Brooks continues:

The game of Corner – for in its heyday it was a game, a high-stakes gambling game, pure and simple, embodying a good many of the characteristics of poker – was one phase of the endless Wall Street contest between bulls, who want the price of a stock to go up, and bears, who want it to go down.  When a game of Corner was underway, the bulls’ basic method of operation was, of course, to buy stock, and the bears’ was to sell it.

Since most bears didn’t own the stock, they would have to conduct a short sale.  This means they borrow stock from a broker and sell it.  But they must buy the stock back later in order to return it to the broker.  If they buy the stock back at a lower price, then the difference between where they initially sold the stock short, and where they later buy it back, represents their profit.  If, however, they buy the stock back at a higher price, then they suffer a loss.

There are two related risks that the short seller (the bear) faces.  First, the short seller initially borrows the stock from the broker in order to sell it.  If the broker is forced to demand the stock back from the short seller – either because the “floating supply” needs to be replenished, or because the short seller has insufficient equity (due to the stock price moving to high) – then the short seller can be forced to take a loss.  Second, technically there is no limit to how much the short seller can lose because there is no limit to how high a stock can go.

The danger of potentially unlimited losses for a short seller can be exacerbated in a Corner.  That’s because the bulls in a Corner can buy up so much of the stock that there is very little supply of it left.  As the stock price skyrockets and the supply of stock shrinks, the short seller can be forced to buy the stock back – most likely from the bulls – at an extremely high price.  This is precisely what the bulls are trying to accomplish in a Corner.

On the other hand, if the bulls end up owning most of the publicly available stock, and if the bears can ride out the Corner, then to whom can the bulls sell their stock?  If there are virtually no buyers, then the bulls have no chance of selling most of their holding.  In this case, the bulls can get stuck with a mountain of stock they can’t sell.  The achievable value of this mountain can even approach zero in some extreme cases.

Brooks explains that true Corners could not happen after the new securities legislation in the 1930’s.  Thus, Saunders was the last intentional player of the game.

Saunders was born to a poor family in Amherst County, Virginia, in 1881.  He started out working for practically nothing for a local grocer.  He then worked for a wholesale grocer in Clarksville, Tennessee, and then for another one in Memphis.  Next, he organized a retail food chain, which he sold.  Then he was a wholesale grocer before launching the retail self-service food chain he named Piggly Wiggly Stores.

By the fall of 1922, there were over 1,200 Piggly Wiggly Stores.  650 of these were owned outright by Saunders’ Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc.  The rest were owned independently, but still paid royalties to the parent company.  For the first time, customers were allowed to go down any aisle and pick out whatever they wanted to buy.  Then they paid on their way out of the store.  Saunders didn’t know it, but he had invented the supermarket.

In November, 1922, several small companies operating Piggly Wiggly Stores in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut went bankrupt.  These were independently owned, having nothing to do with Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc.  Nonetheless, several stock-market operators saw what they believed was a golden opportunity for a bear raid.  Brooks:

If individual Piggly Wiggly stores were failing, they reasoned, then rumors could be spread that would lead the uninformed public to believe that the parent firm was failing, too.  To further this belief, they began briskly selling Piggly Wiggly short, in order to force the price down.  The stock yielded readily to their pressure, and within a few weeks its price, which earlier in the year had hovered around fifty dollars a share, dropped to below forty.

Saunders promptly announced to the press that he was going to “beat the Wall Street professionals at their own game” through a buying campaign.  At that point, Saunders had no experience at all with owning stock, Piggly Wiggly being the only stock he had ever owned.  Moreover, there is no reason to think Saunders was going for a Corner at this juncture.  He merely wanted to support his stock on behalf of himself and other stockholders.

Saunders borrowed $10 million dollars – about $140 million in 2019 dollars – from bankers in Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Chattanooga, and St. Louis.  Brooks:

Legend has it that he stuffed his ten million-plus, in bills of large denomination, into a suitcase, boarded a train for New York, and, his pockets bulging with currency that wouldn’t fit in the suitcase, marched on Wall Street, ready to do battle.

Saunders later denied this, saying he conducted his campaign from Memphis.  Brooks continues:

Wherever he was at the time, he did round up a corp of some twenty brokers, among them Jesse L. Livermore, who served as his chief of staff.  Livermore, one of the most celebrated American speculators of this century, was then forty-five years old but was still occasionally, and derisively, referred to by the nickname he had earned a couple of decades earlier – the Boy Plunger of Wall Street.  Since Saunders regarded Wall Streeters in general and speculators in particular as parasitic scoundrels intent only on battering down his stock, it seemed likely that his decision to make an ally of Livermore was a reluctant one, arrived at simply with the idea of getting the enemy chieftain into his own camp.

Within a week, Saunders had bought 105,000 shares – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding.  By January 1923, the stock hit $60 a share, its highest level ever.  Reports came from Chicago that the stock was cornered.  The bears couldn’t find any available supply in order to cover their short positions by buying the stock back.  The New York Stock Exchange immediately denied the rumor, saying ample amounts of Piggly Wiggly stock were still available.

Saunders then made a surprising but exceedingly crafty move.  The stock was pushing $70, but Saunders ran advertisements offering to sell it for $55.  Brooks explains:

One of the great hazards in Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory.  Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, that is, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck;  by pushing it all back into the market in one shove, he would drive its price down close to zero.  And if, like Saunders, he had had to borrow heavily to get into the game in the first place, his creditors could be expected to close in on him and perhaps not only divest him of his gains but drive him into bankruptcy.  Saunders apparently anticipated this hazard almost as soon as a corner was in sight, and accordingly made plans to unload some of his stock before winning instead of afterward.  His problem was to keep the stock he sold from going right back into the floating supply, thus breaking his corner;  and his solution was to sell his fifty-five-dollar shares on the installment plan.

Crucially, the buyers on the installment plan wouldn’t receive the certificates of ownership until they had paid their final installment.  This meant they couldn’t sell their shares back into the floating supply until they had finished making all their installment payments.

By Monday, March 19, Saunders owned nearly all of the 200,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly stock.  Livermore had already bowed out of the affair on March 12 because he was concerned about Saunders’ financial position.  Nonetheless, Saunders asked Livermore to spring the bear trap.  Livermore wouldn’t do it.  So Saunders himself had to do it.

On Tuesday, March 20, Saunders called for delivery all of his Piggly Wiggly stock.  By the rules of the Exchange, stock so called for had to be delivered by 2:15 the following afternoon.  There were a few shares around owned in small amounts by private investors.  Short sellers were frantically trying to find these folks.  But on the whole, there were basically no shares available outside of what Saunders himself owned.

This meant that Piggly Wiggly shares had become very illiquid – there were hardly any shares trading.  A nightmare, it seemed, for short sellers.  Some short sellers bought at $90, some at $100, some at $110.  Eventually the stock reached $124.  But then a rumor reached the floor that the governors of the Exchange were considering a suspension of trading in Piggly Wiggly, as well as an extension of the deadline for short sellers.  Piggly Wiggly stock fell to $82.

The Governing Committee of the Exchange did, in fact, made such an announcement.  They claimed that they didn’t want to see a repeat of the Northern Pacific panic.  However, many wondered whether the Exchange was just helping the short sellers, among whom were some members of the Exchange.

Saunders still hadn’t grasped the fundamental problem he now faced.  He still seemed to have several million in profits.  But only if he could actually sell his shares.

Next, the Stock Exchange announced a permanent suspension of trading in Piggly Wiggly stock and a full five day extension for short sellers to return their borrowed shares.  Short sellers had until 2:15 the following Monday.

Meanwhile, Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc., released its annual financial statement, which revealed that sales, profits, and assets had all sharply increased from the previous year.  But everyone ignored the real value of the company.  All that mattered at this point was the game.

The extension allowed short sellers the time to find shareholders in a variety of locations around the country.  These shareholders were of course happy to dig out their stock certificates and sell them for $100 a share.  In this way, the short sellers were able to completely cover their short positions by Friday evening.  And instead of paying Saunders cash for some of his shares, the short sellers gave him more shares to settle their debt, which is the last thing Saunders wanted just then.  (A few short sellers had to pay Saunders directly.)

The upshot was that all the short sellers were in the clear, whereas Saunders was stuck owning nearly every single share of Piggly Wiggly stock.  Saunders, who had already started complaining loudly, repeated his charge that Wall Street had changed its own rule in order to let “a bunch of welchers” off the hook.

In response, the Stock Exchange issued a statement explaining its actions:

‘The enforcement simultaneously of all contracts for the return of stock would have forced the stock to any price that might be fixed by Mr. Saunders, and competitive bidding for the insufficient supply might have brought about conditions illustrated by other corners, notably the Northern Pacific corner in 1901.’

Furthermore, the Stock Exchange pointed out that its own rules allowed it to suspend trading in a stock, as well as to extend the deadline for the return of borrowed shares.

It is true that the Exchange had the right to suspend trading in a stock.  But it is unclear, to say the least, about whether the Exchange had any right to postpone the deadline for the delivery of borrowed shares.  In fact, two years after Saunders’ corner, in June, 1925, the Exchange felt bound to amend its constitution with an article stating that “whenever in the opinion of the Governing Committee a corner has been created in a security listed on the Exchange… the Governing Committee may postpone the time for deliveries on Exchange contracts therein.”

 

A SECOND SORT OF LIFE

According to Brooks, other than FDR himself, perhaps no one typified the New Deal better than David Eli Lilienthal.  On a personal level, Wall Streeters found Lilienthal a reasonable fellow.  But through his association with Tennessee Valley Authority from 1933 to 1946, Lilienthal “wore horns.”  T.V.A. was a government-owned electric-power concern that was far larger than any private power corporation.  As such, T.V.A. was widely viewed on Wall Street as the embodiment of “galloping Socialism.”

In 1946, Lilienthal became the first chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which he held until February, 1950.

Brooks was curious what Lilienthal had been up to since 1950, so he did some investigating.  He found that Lilienthal was co-founder and chairman of Development & Resources Corporation.  D. & R. helps governments set up programs similar to the T.V.A.  Brooks also found that as of June, 1960, Lilienthal was a director and major shareholder of Minerals & Chemicals Corporation of America.

Lastly, Brooks discovered Lilienthal had published his third book in 1953, “Big Business: A New Era.”  In the book, he argues that:

  • the productive superiority of the United States depends on big business;
  • we have adequate safeguards against abuses by big business;
  • big businesses tend to promote small businesses, not destroy them;
  • and big business promotes individualism, rather than harms it, by reducing poverty, disease, and physical insecurity.

Lilienthal later agreed with his family that he hadn’t spent enough time on the book, although its main points were correct.  Also, he stressed that he had conceived of the book before he ever decided to transition from government to business.

In 1957, Lilienthal and his wife Helen Lamb Lilienthal had settled in a house in Princeton.  It was a few years later, at this house, that Brooks went to interview Lilienthal.  Brooks was curious to hear about how Lilienthal thought about his civic career as compared to his business career.

Lilienthal had started out as a lawyer in Chicago and he done quite well.  But he didn’t want to practice the law.  Then – in 1950 – his public career over, he was offered various professorship positions at Harvard.  He didn’t want to be a professor.  Then various law firms and businesses approached Lilienthal.  He still had no interest in practicing law.  He also rejected the business offers he received.

In May, 1950, Lilienthal took a job as a part-time consultant for Lazard Freres & Co., whose senior partner, Andre Meyer, he had met through Albert Lasker, a mutual friend.  Through Lazard Freres and Meyer, Lilienthal became a consultant and then an executive of a small company, the Minerals Separation North American Corporation.  Lazard Freres had a large interest in the concern.

The company was in trouble, and Meyer thought Lilienthal was the man to solve the case.  Through a series of mergers, acquisitions, etc., the firm went through several name changes ending, in 1960, with the name, Minerals & Chemicals Philipp Corporation.  Meanwhile, annual sales for the company went from $750,000 in 1952 to more than $274,000,000 in 1960.  (In 2019 dollars, this would be a move from $6,750,000 to $2,466,000,000.)  Brooks writes:

For Lilienthal, the acceptance of Meyer’s commission to look into the company’s affairs was the beginning of a four-year immersion in the day-to-day problems of managing a business;  the experience, he said decisively, turned out to be one of his life’s richest, and by no means only in the literal sense of that word.

Minerals Separation North American, founded in 1916 as an offshoot from a British company, was a patent firm.  It held patents on processes used to refine copper ore and other nonferrous minerals.  In 1952, Lilienthal became the president of the company.  In order to gain another source of revenue, Lilienthal arranged a merger between Minerals Separation and Attapulgus Clay Company, a producer of a rare clay used in purifying petroleum products and also a manufacturer of various household products.

The merger took place in December, 1952, thanks in part to Lilienthal’s work to gain agreement from the Attapulgus people.  The profits and stock price of the new company went up from there.  Lilienthal managed some of the day-to-day business.  And he helped with new mergers.  One in 1954, with Edgar Brothers, a leading producer of kaolin for paper coating.  Two more in 1955, with limestone firms in Ohio and Virginia.  Brooks notes that the company’s net profits quintupled between 1952 and 1955.

Lilienthal received stock options along the way.  Because the stock went up a great deal, he exercised his options and by August, 1955, Lilienthal had 40,000 shares.  Soon the stock hit $40 and was paying a $0.50 annual dividend.  Lilienthal’s financial worries were over.

Brooks asked Lilienthal how all of this felt.  Lilienthal:

‘I wanted an entrepreneurial experience.  I found a great appeal in the idea of taking a small and quite crippled company and trying to make something of it.  Building.  That kind of building, I thought, is the central thing in American free enterprise, and something I’d missed in all my government work.  I wanted to try my hand at it.  Now, about how it felt.  Well, it felt plenty exciting.  It was full of intellectual stimulation, and a lot of my old ideas changed.  I conceived a great new respect for financiers – men like Andre Meyer.  There’s a correctness about them, a certain high sense of honor, that I’d never had any conception of.  I found that business life is full of creative, original minds – along with the usual number of second-guessers, of course.  Furthermore, I found it seductive.  In fact, I was in danger of becoming a slave… I found that the things you read – for instance, that acquiring money for its own sake can become an addiction if you’re not careful – are literally true.  Certain good friends helped keep me on track… Oh, I had my problems.  I questioned myself at every step.  It was exhausting.’

A friend of Lilienthal’s told Brooks that Lilienthal had a marvelous ability to immerse himself totally in the work.  The work may not always be important.  But Lilienthal becomes so immersed, it’s as if the work becomes important simply because he’s doing it.

On the matter of money, Lilienthal said it doesn’t make much difference as long as you have enough.  Money was something he never really thought about.

Next Brooks describes Lilienthal’s experience at Development & Resources Corporation.  The situation became ideal for Lilienthal because it combined helping the world directly with the possibility of also earning a profit.

In the spring of 1955, Lilienthal and Meyer had several conversations.  Lilienthal told Meyer that he knew dozens of foreign dignitaries and technical personnel who had visited T.V.A. and shown strong interest.  Many of them told Lilienthal that at least some of their own countries would be interested in starting similar programs.

The idea for D. & R. was to accomplish very specific projects and, incidentally, to make a profit.  Meyer liked the idea – although he expected no profit – so they went forward, with Lazard Freres owning half the firm.  The executive appointments for D.& R. included important alumni from T.V.A., people with deep experience and knowledge in management, engineering, dams, electric power, and related areas.

In September, 1955, Lilienthal was at a World Bank meeting in Istanbul and he ended up speaking with Abolhassan Ebtehaj, head of a 7-year development plan in Iran.  Iran had considerable capital with which to pay for development projects, thanks to royalties from its nationalized oil industry.  Moreover, what Iran badly needed was technical and professional guidance.  Lilienthal and a colleague later visited Iran as guests of the Shah to see what could be done about Khuzistan.

Lilienthal didn’t know anything about the region at first.  But he learned that Khuzistan was in the middle of the Old Testament Elamite kingdom and later of the Persian Empire.  The ruins of Persepolis are close by.  The ruins of Susa, where King Darius had a winter palace, are at the center of Khuzistan.  Brooks quotes Lilienthal (in the 1960’s):

Nowadays, Khuzistan is one of the world’s richest oil fields  – the famous Abadan refinery is at its southern tip – but the inhabitants, two and a half million of them, haven’t benefited from that.  The rivers have flowed unused, the fabulously rich soil has lain fallow, and all but a tiny fraction of the people have continued to live in desperate poverty.

D. & R. signed a 5-year agreement with the Iranian government.  Once the project got going, there were 700 people working on it – 100 Americans, 300 Iranians, and 300 others (mostly Europeans).  In addition, 4,700 Iranian-laborers were on the various sites.  The entire project called for 14 dams on 5 different rivers.  After D. & R. completed its first 5-year contract, they signed a year-and-a-half extension including an option for an additional 5 years.

Brooks records:

While the Iranian project was proceeding, D. & R. was also busy lining up and carrying out its programs for Italy, Colombia, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and Puerto Rico, as well as programs for private business groups in Chile and the Philippines.  A job that D. & R. had just taken on from the United States Army Corps of Engineers excited Lilienthal enormously – an investigation of the economic impact of power from a proposed dam on the Alaskan sector of the Yukon, which he described as ‘the river with the greatest hydroelectric potential remaining on this continent.’  Meanwhile, Lazard Freres maintained its financial interest in the firm and now very happily collected its share of a substantial annual profit, and Lilienthal happily took to teasing Meyer about his former skepticism as to D. & R. financial prospects.

Lilienthal wrote in his journal about the extreme poverty in Ahwaz, Khuzistan:

…visiting villages and going into mud ‘homes’ quite unbelievable – and unforgettable forever and ever.  As the Biblical oath has it:  Let my right hand wither if I ever forget how some of the most attractive of my fellow human beings live – are living tonight, only a few kilometres from here, where we visited them this afternoon…

And yet I am as sure as I am writing these notes that the Ghebli area, of only 45,000 acres, swallowed in the vastness of Khuzistan, will become as well known as, say, the community of Tupelo… became, or New Harmony or Salt Lake City when it was founded by a handful of dedicated men in a pass of the great Rockies.

 

STOCKHOLDER SEASON

The owners of public businesses in the United States are the stockholders.  But many stockholders don’t pay much attention to company affairs when things are going well.  Also, many stockholders own small numbers of shares, making it not seem worthwhile to exercise their rights as owners of the corporations.  Furthermore, many stockholders don’t understand or follow business, notes Brooks.

Brooks decided to attend several annual meetings in the spring of 1966.

What particularly commended the 1966 season to me was that it promised to be a particularly lively one.  Various reports of a new “hard-line approach” by company managements to stockholders had appeared in the press.  (I was charmed by the notion of a candidate for office announcing his new hard-line approach to voters right before an election.)

Brooks first attended the A. T. & T. annual meeting in Detroit.  Chairman Kappel came on stage, followed by eighteen directors who sat behind him, and he called the meeting to order.  Brooks:

From my reading and from annual meetings that I’d attended in past years, I knew that the meetings of the biggest companies are usually marked by the presence of so-called professional stockholders… and that the most celebrated members of this breed were Mrs. Wilma Soss, of New York, who heads an organization of women stockholders and votes the proxies of its members as well as her own shares, and Lewis D. Gilbert, also of New York, who represents his own holdings and those of his family – a considerable total.

Brooks learned that, apart from prepared comments by management, many big-company meetings are actually a dialogue between the chairman and a few professional stockholders.  So professional stockholders can come to represent, in a way, many other shareholders who might otherwise not be represented, whether because they own few shares, don’t follow business, or other reasons.

Brooks notes that occasionally some professional stockholders get boorish, silly, on insulting.  But not Mrs. Soss or Mr. Gilbert:

Mrs. Soss, a former public-relations woman who has been a tireless professional stockholder since 1947, is usually a good many cuts above this level.  True, she is not beyond playing to the gallery by wearing bizarre costumes to meetings;  she tries, with occasional success, to taunt recalcitrant chairmen into throwing her out;  she is often scolding and occasionally abusive;  and nobody could accuse her of being unduly concise.  I confess that her customary tone and manner set my teeth on edge, but I can’t help recognizing that, because she does her homework, she usually has a point.  Mr. Gilbert, who has been at it since 1933 and is the dean of them all, almost invariably has a point, and by comparison with his colleagues he is the soul of brevity and punctilio as well as of dedication and diligence.

At the A. T. & T. meeting, after the management-sponsored slate of directors had been duly nominated, Mrs. Soss got up to make a nomination of her own, Dr. Frances Arkin, a psychoanalyst.  Mrs. Soss said A. T. & T. ought to have a woman on its board and, moreover, she thought some of the company’s executives would have benefited from periodic psychiatric examinations.  (Brooks comments that things were put back into balance at another annual meeting when the chairman suggested that some of the firm’s stockholders should see a psychiatrist.)  The nomination of Dr. Arkin was seconded by Mr. Gilbert, but only after Mrs. Soss nudged him forcefully in the ribs.

A professional stockholder named Evelyn Y. Davis complained about the meeting not being in New York, as it usually is.  Brooks observed that Davis was the youngest and perhaps the best-looking, but “not the best-informed or the most temperate, serious-minded, or worldly-wise.”  Davis’ complaint was met with boos from the largely local crowd in Detroit.

After a couple of hours, Mr. Kappel was getting testy.  Soon thereafter, Mrs. Soss was complaining that while the business affiliations of the nominees for director were listed in the pamphlet handed out at the meeting, this information hadn’t been included in the material mailed to stockholders, contrary to custom.  Mrs. Soss wanted to know why.  Mrs. Soss adopted a scolding tone and Mr. Kappel an icy one, says Brooks.  “I can’t hear you,” Mrs. Soss said at one point.  “Well, if you’d just listen instead of talking…”, Mr. Kappel replied.  Then Mrs. Soss said something (Brooks couldn’t hear it precisely) that successfully baited the chairman, who got upset and had the microphone in front of Mrs. Soss turned off.  Mrs. Soss marched towards the platform and was directly facing Mr. Kappel.  Mr. Kappel said he wasn’t going to throw her out of the meeting as she wanted.  Mrs. Soss later returned to her seat and a measure of calm was restored.

Later, Brooks attended the annual meeting of Chas. Pfizer & Co., which was run by the chairman, John E. McKeen.  After the company announced record highs on all of its operational metrics, and predicted more of the same going forward, “the most intransigent professional stockholder would have been hard put to it to mount much of a rebellion at this particular meeting,” observes Brooks.

John Gilbert, brother of Lewis Gilbert, may have been the only professional stockholder present.  (Lewis Gilbert and Mrs. Davis were at the U.S. Steel meeting in Cleveland that day.)

John Gilbert is the sort of professional stockholder the Pfizer management deserves, or would like to think it does.  With an easygoing manner and a habit of punctuating his words with self-deprecating little laughs, he is the most ingratiating gadly imaginable (or was on this occasion; I’m told he isn’t always), and as he ran through what seemed to be the standard Gilbert-family repertoire of questions – on the reliability of the firms’s auditors, the salaries of its officers, the fees of its directors – he seemed almost apologetic that duty called on him to commit the indelicacy of asking such things.

The annual meeting of Communications Satellite Corporation had elements of farce, recounts Brooks.  (Brooks refers to Comsat as a “glamorous space-age communications company.”)  Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Soss, and Lewis Gilbert were in attendance.  The chairman of Comsat, who ran the meeting, was James McCormack, a West Point graduate, former Rhodes Scholar, and retired Air Force General.

Mrs. Soss made a speech which was inaudible because her microphone wasn’t working.  Next, Mrs. Davis rose to complain that there was a special door to the meeting for “distinguished guests.”  Mrs. Davis viewed this as undemocratic.  Mr. McCormack responded, “We apologize, and when you go out, please go by any door you want.”  But Mrs. Davis went on speaking.  Brooks:

And now the mood of farce was heightened when it became clear that the Soss-Gilbert faction had decided to abandon all efforts to keep ranks closed with Mrs. Davis.  Near the height of her oration, Mr. Gilbert, looking as outraged as a boy whose ball game is being spoiled by a player who doesn’t know the rules or care about the game, got up and began shouting, ‘Point of order!  Point of order!’  But Mr. McCormack spurned this offer of parliamentary help;  he ruled Mr. Gilbert’s point of order out of order, and bade Mrs. Davis proceed.  I had no trouble deducing why he did this.  There were unmistakable signs that he, unlike any other corporate chairman I had seen in action, was enjoying every minute of the goings on.  Through most of the meeting, and especially when the professional stockholders had the floor, Mr. McCormack wore the dreamy smile of a wholly bemused spectator.

Mrs. Davis’ speech increased in volume and content, and she started making specific accusations against individual Comsat directors.  Three security guards appeared on the scene and marched to a location near Mrs. Davis, who then suddenly ended her speech and sat down.

Brooks comments:

Once, when Mr. Gilbert said something that Mrs. Davis didn’t like and Mrs. Davis, without waiting to be recognized, began shouting her objection across the room, Mr. McCormack gave a short irrepressible giggle.  That single falsetto syllable, magnificently amplified by the chairman’s microphone, was the motif of the Comsat meeting.

 

ONE FREE BITE

Brooks writes about Donald W. Wohlgemuth, a scientist for B. F. Goodrich Company in Akron, Ohio.

…he was the manager of Goodrich’s department of space-suit engineering, and over the past years, in the process of working his way up to that position, he had had a considerable part in the designing and construction of the suits worn by our Mercury astronauts on their orbital and suborbital flights.

Some time later, the International Latex Corporation, one of Goodrich’s three main competitors in the space-suit field, contacted Wohlgemuth.

…Latex had recently been awarded a subcontract, amounting to some three-quarters of a million dollars, to do research and development on space suits for the Apollo, or man-on-the-moon, project.  As a matter of fact, Latex had won this contract in competition with Goodrich, among others, and was thus for the moment the hottest company in the space-suit field.

Moreover, Wohlgemuth was not particularly happy at Goodrich for a number of reasons.  His salary was below average.  His request for air-conditioning had been turned down.

Latex was located in Dover, Delaware.  Wohlgemuth went there to meet with company representatives.  He was given a tour of the company’s space-suit-development facilities.  Overall, he was given “a real red-carpet treatment,” as he later desribed.  Eventually he was offered the position of manager of engineering for the Industrial Products Division, which included space-suit development, at an annual salary of $13,700 (over $109,000 in 2019 dollars) – solidly above his current salary.  Wohlgemuth accepted the offer.

The next morning, Wohlgemuth informed his boss at Goodrich, Carl Effler, who was not happy.  The morning after that, Wohlgemuth told Wayne Galloway – with whom he had worked closely – of his decision.

Galloway replied that in making the move Wohlgemuth would be taking to Latex certain things that did not belong to him – specifically, knowledge of the processes that Goodrich used in making space suits.

Galloway got upset with Wohlgemuth.  Later Effler called Wohlgemuth to his office and told him he should leave the Goodrich offices as soon as possible.  Then Galloway called him and told him the legal department wanted to see him.

While he was not bound to Goodrich by the kind of contract, common in American industry, in which an employee agrees not to do similar work for any competing company for a stated period of time, he had, on his return from the Army, signed a routine paper agreeing ‘to keep confidential all information, records, and documents of the company of which I may have knowledge because of my employment’ – something Wohlgemuth had entirely forgotten until the Goodrich lawyer reminded him.  Even if he had not made that agreement, the lawyer told him now, he would be prevented from going to work on space suits for Latex by established principles of trade-secrets law.  Moreover, if he persisted in his plan, Goodrich might sue him.

To make matters worse, Effler told Wohlgemuth that if he stayed at Goodrich, this incident could not be forgotten and might well impact his future.  Wohlgemuth then informed Latex that he would be unable to accept their offer.

That evening, Wohlgemuth’s dentist put him in touch with a lawyer.  Wohlgemuth talked with the lawyer, who consulted another lawyer.  They told Wohlgemuth that Goodrich was probably bluffing and wouldn’t sue him if he went to work for Latex.

The next morning – Thursday – officials of Latex called him back to assure him that their firm would bear his legal expenses in the event of a lawsuit, and, furthermore, would indemnify him against any salary losses.

Wohlgemuth decided to work for Latex, after all, and left the offices of Goodrich late that day, taking with him no documents.

The next day, R. G. Jeter, general counsel of Goodrich, called Emerson P. Barrett, director of industrial relations for Latex.  Jeter outlined Goodrich’s concern for its trade secrets.  Barrett replied that Latex was not interested in Goodrich trade secrets, but was only interested in Wohlgemuth’s “general professional abilities.”

That evening, at a farewell dinner given by forty or so friends, Wohlgemuth was called outside.  The deputy sheriff of Summit County handed him two papers.

One was a summons to appear in the Court of Common Pleas on a date a week or so off.  The other was a copy of a petition that had been filed in the same court that day by Goodrich, praying that Wohlgemuth be permanently enjoined from, among other things, disclosing to any unauthorized person any trade secrets belonging to Goodrich, and ‘performing any work for any corporation… other than plaintiff, relating to the design, manufacture and/or sale of high-altitude pressure suits, space suits and/or similar protective garments.’

For a variety of reasons, says Brooks, the trial attracted much attention.

On one side was the danger that discoveries made in the course of corporate research might become unprotectable – a situation that would eventually lead to the drying up of private research funds.  On the other side was the danger that thousands of scientists might, through their very ability and ingenuity, find themselves permanently locked in a deplorable, and possibly unconstitutional, kind of intellectual servitude – they would be barred from changing jobs because they knew too much.

Judge Frank H. Harvey presided over the trial, which took place in Akron from November 26 to December 12.  The seriousness with which Goodrich took this case is illustrated by the fact that Jeter himself, who hadn’t tried a case in 10 years, headed Goodrich’s legal team.  The chief defense counsel was Richard A. Chenoweth, of Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs – an Akron law firm retained by Latex.

From the outset, the two sides recognized that if Goodrich was to prevail, it had to prove, first, that it possessed trade secrets;  second, that Wohlgemuth also possessed them, and that a substantial peril of disclosure existed;  and, third, that it would suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief was not granted.

Goodrich attorneys tried to establish that Goodrich had a good number of space-suit secrets.  Wohlgemuth, upon cross-examination from his counsel, sought to show that none of these processes were secrets at all.  Both companies brought their space suits into the courtroom.  Goodrich wanted to show what it had achieved through research.  The Latex space suit was meant to show that Latex was already far ahead of Goodrich in space-suit development, and so wouldn’t have any interest in Goodrich secrets.

On the second point, that Wohlgemuth possessed Goodrich secrets, there wasn’t much debate.  But Wohlgemuth’s lawyers did argue that he had taken no papers with him and that he was unlikely to remember the details of complex scientific processes, even if he wanted to.

On the third point, seeking injunctive relief to prevent irreparable injury, Jeter argued that Goodrich was the clear pioneer in space suits.  It made the first full-pressure flying suit in 1934.  Since then, it has invested huge amounts in space suit research and development.  Jeter characterized Latex as a newcomer intent on profiting from Goodrich’s years of research by hiring Wohlgemuth.

Furthermore, even if Wohlgemuth and Latex had the best of intentions, Wohlgemuth would inevitably give away trade secrets.  But good intentions hadn’t been demonstrated, since Latex deliberately sought Wohlgemuth, who in turn justified his decision in part on the increase in salary.  The defense disagreed that trade secrets would be revealed or that anyone had bad intentions.  The defense also got a statement in court from Wohlgemuth in which he pledged not to reveal any trade secrets of B. F. Goodrich Company.

Judge Harvey reserved the decision for a later date.  Meanwhile, the lawyers for each side fought one another in briefs intended to sway Judge Harvey.  Brooks:

…it became increasingly clear that the essence of the case was quite simple.  For all practical purposes, there was no controversy over facts.  What remained in controversy was the answer to two questions:  First, should a man be formally restrained from revealing trade secrets when he has not yet committed any such act, and when it is not clear that he intends to?  And, secondly, should a man be prevented from taking a job simply because the job presents him with unique temptations to break the law?

The defense referred to “Trade Secrets,” written by Ridsdale Ellis and published in 1953, which stated that usually it is not until there is evidence that the employee has not lived up to the contract, written or implied, that the former employer can take action.  “Every dog has one free bite.”

On February 20, 1963, Judge Harvey delivered his decision in a 9-page essay.  Goodrich did have trade secrets.  And Wohlgemuth could give these secrets to Latex.  Furthermore, there’s no doubt Latex was seeking to get Wohlgemuth for his specialized knowledge in space suits, which would be valuable for the Apollo contract.  There’s no doubt, wrote the judge, that Wohlgemuth would be able to disclose confidential information.

However, the judge said, in keeping with the one-free-bite principle, an injunction against disclosure of trade secrets cannot be issued before such disclosure has occurred unless there is clear and substantial evidence of evil intent on the part of the defendant.  In the view of the court, Wohlgemuth did not have evil intent in this case, therefore the injunction was denied.

On appeal, Judge Arthur W. Doyle partially reversed the decision.  Judge Doyle granted an injunction against Wohlgemuth from disclosing to Latex any trade secrets of Goodrich.  On the other hand, Wohlgemuth had the right to take a job in a competitive industry, and he could use his knowledge and experience – other than trade secrets – for the benefit of his employer.  Wohlgemuth was therefore free to work on space suits for Latex, provided he didn’t reveal any trade secrets of Goodrich.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

August 15, 2021

Michael Mauboussin wrote a great book called The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing (Harvard Business Press, 2012).

Here’s an outline for this blog post:

  • Understand were you are on the skill-luck continuum
  • Assess sample size, significance, and swans
  • Always consider a null hypothesis
  • Think carefully about feedback and rewards
  • Make use of counterfactuals
  • Develop aids to guide and improve your skill
  • Have a plan for strategic interactions
  • Make reversion to the mean work for you
  • Know your limitations

 

UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE ON THE SKILL-LUCK CONTINUUM

If an activity is mostly skill or mostly luck, it’s generally easy to classify it as such.  But many activities are somewhere in-between the two extremes, and it’s often hard to say where it falls on the continuum between pure skill and pure luck.

An activity dominated by skill means that results can be predicted reasonably well.  (You do need to consider the rate at which skill changes, though.)  A useful statistic is one that is persistent—the current outcome is highly correlated with the previous outcome.

An activity dominated by luck means you need a very large sample to detect the influence of skill.  The current outcome is not correlated with the previous outcome.

Obviously the location of an activity on the continuum gives us guidance on how much reversion to the mean is needed in making a prediction.  In an activity that is mostly skill, the best estimate for the next outcome is the current outcome.  In an activity that is mostly luck, the best guess for the next outcome is close to the base rate (the long-term average), i.e., nearly a full reversion to the mean.

Our minds by nature usually fail to regress to the mean as much as we should.  That’s because System 1—the automatic, intuitive part of our brain—invents coherent stories based on causality.  This worked fine during most of our evolutionary history.  But when luck plays a significant role, there has to be substantial reversion to the mean when predicting the next outcome.

 

ASSESS SAMPLE SIZE, SIGNIFICANCE, AND SWANS

Even trained scientists have a tendency to believe that a small sample of a population is representative of the whole population.  But a small sample can deviate meaningfully from the larger population.

If an activity is mostly skill, then a small sample will be representative of the larger population from which it is drawn.  If an activity is mostly luck, then a small sample can be significantly different from the larger population.  A small sample is not reliable when an activity is mostly luck—we need a large sample in this case in order to glean information.

In business, it would be an error to create a sample of all the companies that used a risky strategy and won, without also taking into account all the companies that used the same strategy and lost.  A narrow sample of just the winners would obviously be a biased view of the strategy’s quality.

Also be careful not to confuse statistical significance with economic significance.  Mauboussin quotes Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak: “Tell me the oomph of your coefficient; and do not confuse it with mere statistical significance.”

Lastly, it’s important to keep in mind that some business strategies can produce a long series of small gains, followed by a huge loss.  Most of the large U.S. banks pursued such a strategy from 2003-2007.  It would obviously be a big mistake to conclude that a long series of small gains is safe if in reality it is not.

Another example of ignoring black swans is Long-Term Capital Management.  The fund’s actual trades were making about 1% per year.  But LTCM argued that these trades had infintessimally small risk, and so they levered the trades at approximately 40:1.  Many banks didn’t charge LTCM anything for the loan because LTCM was so highly regarded at the time, having a couple of Nobel Prize winners, etc.  Then a black swan arrived—the Asian financial crisis in 1998.  LTCM’s trades went against them, and because of the astronomically high leverage, the fund imploded.

 

ALWAYS CONSIDER A NULL HYPOTHESIS

Always compare the outcomes to what would have been generated under the null hypothesis.  Many streaks can easily be explained by luck alone.

Mauboussin gives the example of various streaks of funds beating the market.  Andrew Mauboussin and Sam Arbesman did a study on this.  They assumed that the probability a given fund would beat the S&P 500 Index was equal to the fraction of active funds that beat the index during a given year.  For example, 52 percent of funds beat the S&P 500 in 1993, so the null model assigns the same percentage probability that any given fund would beat the market in that year.  Mauboussin and Arbesman then ran ten thousand random simulations.

They determined that, under the null model—pure luck and no skill—146.9 funds would have a 5-year market-beating streak, 53.6 funds would have a 6-year streak, 21.4 funds would have a 7-year streak, 7.6 funds would have an 8-year streak, and 3.0 funds would have a 9-year streak.  They compared these figures to the actual empirical frequencies:  206 funds had 5-year streaks, 119 had 6-year streaks, 75 had 7-year streaks, 23 had 8-year streaks, and 28 had 9-year streaks.

So there were many more streaks in the empirical data than the null model generated.  This meant that some of those streaks involved the existence of skill.

 

THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT FEEDBACK AND REWARDS

Everybody wants to improve.  The keys to improving performance include high-quality feedback and proper rewards.

Only a small percentage of people achieve expertise through deliberate practice.  Most people hit a performance plateau and are satisfied to stay there.  Of course, for many activities—like driving—that’s perfectly fine.

The deliberate practice required to develop true expertise involves a great deal of hard and tedious work.  It is not pleasant.  It requires thousands of hours of very focused effort.  And there must be a lot of timely and accurate feedback in order for someone to keep improving and eventually attain expertise.

Even if you’re not pursuing expertise, the keys to improvement are still focused practice and high-quality feedback.

In activities where skill plays a significant role, actual performance is a reasonable measure of progress.  Where luck plays a strong role, the focus must be on the process.  Over shorter periods of time—more specifically, over a relatively small number of trials—a good process can lead to bad outcomes, and a bad process can lead to good outcomes.  But over time, with a large number of trials, a good process will yield good outcomes overall.

The investment industry struggles in this area.  When a strategy does well over a short period of time, quite often it is marketed and new investors flood in.  When a strategy does poorly over a short period of time, very often investors leave.  Most of the time, these strategies mean revert, so that the funds that just did well do poorly and the funds that just did poorly do well.

Another area that’s gone off-track is rewards for executives.  Stock options have become a primary means of rewarding executives.  But the payoff from a stock option involves a huge amount of randomness.  In the decade of the 1990’s, even poor-performing companies saw their stocks increase a great deal.  In the decade of the 2000’s, many high-performing companies saw their stocks stay relatively flat.  So stock options on the whole have not distinguished between skill and luck.

A solution would involve having the stock be measured relative to an index or relative to an appropriate peer group.  Also, the payoff from options could happen over longer periods of time.

Lastly, although executives—like the CEO—are much more skillful than their junior colleagues, often executive success depends to a large extent on luck while the success of those lower down can be attributed almost entirely to skill.  For instance, the overall success of a company may only have a 0.3 correlation with the skill of the CEO.  And yet the CEO would be paid as if the company’s success was highly correlated with his or her skill.

 

MAKE USE OF COUNTERFACTUALS

Once we know what happened in history, hindsight bias naturally overcomes us and we forget how unpredictable the world looked beforehand.  We come up with reasons to explain past outcomes.  The reasons we invent typically make it seem as if the outcomes were inevitable when they may have been anything but.

Mauboussin says a good way to avoid hindsight bias is to engage in counterfactual thinking—a careful consideration of what could have happened but didn’t.

Mauboussin gives an example in Chapter 6 of the book: MusicLab.  Fourteen thousand people were randomly divided into 8 groups—each 10% of the total number of people—and one independent group—20% of the total number of people.  There were forty-eight songs from unknown bands.  In the independent group, each person could listen to each song and then decide to download it based on that alone.  In the other 8 groups, for each song, a person would see how many other people in his or her group had already downloaded the song.

You could get a reasonable estimate for the “objective quality” of a song by looking at how the independent group rated them.

But in the 8 “social influence” groups, strange things happened based purely on luck—or which songs were downloaded early on and which were not.  For instance, a song “Lockdown” was rated twenty-sixth in the independent group.  But it was the number-one hit in one of the social influence worlds and number forty in another.

In brief, to maintain an open mind about the future, it is very helpful to maintain an open mind about the past.  We have to work hard to overcome our natural tendency to view what happened as having been inevitable.  System 1 always creates a story based on causality—System 1 wants to explain simply what happened and close the case.

If we do the Rain Dance and it rains, then to the human brain, it looks like the dance caused the rain.

But when we engage System 2 (the logical, mathematical part of our brain)—which requires conscious effort—we can come to realize that the Rain Dance didn’t cause the rain.

 

DEVELOP AIDS TO GUIDE AND IMPROVE YOUR SKILL

Depending on where an activity lies on the pure luck to pure skill continuum, there are different ways to improve skill.

When luck predominates, to improve our skill we have to focus on learning the process for making good decisions.  A good process must be well grounded in three areas:

  • analytical
  • psychological
  • organizational

In picking an undervalued stock, the analytical part means finding a discrepancy between price and value.

The psychological part of a good process entails an identification of the chief cognitive biases, and techniques to mitigate the influence of these cognitive biases.  For example, we all tend to be wildly overconfident when we make predictions.  System 1 automatically makes predictions all the time.  Usually this is fine.  But when the prediction involves a probabilistic area of life—such as an economy, a stock market, or a political situation—System 1 makes errors systematically.  In these cases, it is essential to engage System 2 in careful statistical thinking.

The organizational part of a good process should align the interests of principals and agents—for instance, shareholders (principals) and executives (agents).  If the executives own a large chunk of stock, then their interests are much more aligned with shareholder interests.

Now consider the middle of the continuum between luck and skill.  In this area, a checklist can be very useful.  A doctor caring for a patient is focused on the primary problem and can easily forget about the simple steps required to minimize infections.  Following the suggestion of Peter Pronovost, many hospitals have introduced simple checklists.  Thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars have been saved, as the checklists have significantly reduced infections and deaths related to infections.

A checklist can also help in a stressful situation.  The chemicals of stress disrupt the functioning of the frontal lobes—the seat of reason.  So a READ-DO checklist gets you to take the concrete, important steps even when you’re not thinking clearly.

Writes Mauboussin:

Checklists have never been shown to hurt performance in any field, and they have helped results in a great many instances.

Finally, anyone serious about improving their performance should write down—if possible—the basis for every decision and then measure honestly how each decision turned out.  This careful measurement is the foundation for continual improvement.

The last category involves activities that are mostly skill.  The key to improvement is deliberate practice and good feedback.  A good coach can be a great help.

Even experts benefit from a good coach.  Feedback is the single most powerful way to improve skill.  Being open to honest feedback is difficult because it means being willing to admit where we need to change.

Mauboussin concludes:

One simple and inexpensive technique for getting feedback is to keep a journal that tracks your decisions.  Whenever you make a decision, write down what you decided, how you came to that decision, and what you expect to happen.  Then, when the results of that decision are clear, write them down and compare them with what you thought would happen.  The journal won’t lie.  You’ll see when you’re wrong.  Change your behavior accordingly.

 

HAVE A PLAN FOR STRATEGIC INTERACTIONS

The weaker side won more conflicts in the twentieth century than in the nineteenth.  This is because the underdogs learned not to go toe-to-toe with a stronger foe.  Instead, the underdogs pursued alternative tactics, like guerrilla warfare.  If you’re an underdog, complicate the game by injecting more luck.

Initially weaker companies almost never succeed by taking on established companies in their core markets.  But, by pursuing disruptive innovation—as described by Professor Clayton Christensen—weaker companies can overcome stronger companies.  The weaker companies pursue what is initially a low-margin part of the market.  The stronger companies have no incentive to invest in low-margin innovation when they have healthy margins in more established areas.  But over time, the low-margin technology improves to the point where demand for it increases and profit margins typically follow.  By then, the younger companies are already ahead by a few of years, and the more established companies usually are unable to catch up.

 

MAKE REVERSION TO THE MEAN WORK FOR YOU

Mauboussin writes:

We are all in the business of forecasting.

Reversion to the mean is difficult for our brains to understand.  As noted, System 1 always invents a cause for everything that happens.  But often there is no specific cause.

Mauboussin cites an example given by Daniel Kahneman: Julie is a senior in college who read fluently when she was four years old.  Estimate her GPA.

People often guess a GPA of around 3.7.  Most people assume that being precocious is correlated with doing well in college.  But it turns out that reading at a young age is not related to doing well in college.  That means the best guess for the GPA would be much closer to the average.

Mauboussin adds:

Reversion to the mean is most pronounced at the extremes, so the first lesson is to recognize that when you see extremely good or bad results, they are unlikely to continue that way.  This doesn’t mean that good results will necessarily be followed by bad results, or vice versa, but rather that the next thing that happens will probably be closer to the average of all things that happen.

 

KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS

There is always a great deal that we simply don’t know and can’t know.  We must develop and maintain a healthy sense of humility.

Predictions are often difficult in many situations.  The sample size and the length of time over which you measure are essential.  And you need valid data.

Moreover, things can change.  If fiscal policy has become much more stimulative than it used to be, then bear markets may—or may not—be shallower and shorter.  And stocks may generally be higher than previously, as Ben Graham pointed out in a 1963 lecture, “Securities in an Insecure World”: http://jasonzweig.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BG-speech-SF-1963.pdf

If monetary policy is much more stimulative than before—including a great deal of money-printing and zero or negative interest rates—then the long-term average of stock prices could conceivably make another jump higher.

The two fundamental changes just mentioned are part of why most great value investors never try to time the market.  As Buffett has said:

  • Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster;  they tell you nothing about the future.
  • I make no effort to predict the course of general business or the stock market.  Period.
  • I don’t invest a dime based on macro forecasts.

Henry Singleton—who has one of the best capital allocation records of all time—perhaps put it best:

I don’t believe all this nonsense about market timing.  Just buy very good value and when the market is ready that value will be recognized.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Heads, I win; tails, I don’t lose much!

(Image:  Zen Buddha Silence by Marilyn Barbone.)

August 8, 2021

Value investor Mohnish Pabrai wrote The Dhandho Investor: The Low-Risk Value Method to High Returns (Wiley, 2007).  It’s an excellent book that captures the essence of value investing:

The lower the price you pay relative to the probable intrinsic value of the business, the higher your returns will likely be if you’re right and the lower your losses will likely be if you’re wrong.

If you have a good investment process as a value investor—whether it’s quantitative and statistical, or it involves stock-picking—then typically you’ll be right on about 60 percent of the positions.  Because losses are minimized on the other 40 percent, the portfolio is likely to do well over time.

Mohnish sums up the Dhandho approach as:

Heads, I win;  tails, I don’t lose much!

There is one very important additional idea that Mohnish focused on in his recent (October 2016) lecture at Peking University (Guanghua School of Management):

10-BAGGERS TO 100-BAGGERS

A 10-bagger is an investment that goes up 10x after you buy it.  A 100-bagger is an investment that goes up 100x after you buy it.  Mohnish gives many examples of stocks—a few of which he kept holding and many of which he sold—that later became 10-baggers, 20-baggers, up to a few 100-baggers.  If you own a stock that has already been a 2-bagger, 3-bagger, 5-bagger, etc., and you sell and the stock later turns out to be a 20-bagger, 50-bagger, or 100-bagger, often you have made a huge mistake by selling too soon.

Link to Mohnish’ lecture at Peking University:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1XgDJCkh4

Here’s the outline for this blog post:

    • Patel Motel Dhandho
    • Manilal Dhandho
    • Virgin Dhandho
    • Mittal Dhandho
    • The Dhandho Framework
    • Dhandho 101: Invest in Existing Businesses
    • Dhandho 102: Invest in Simple Businesses
    • Dhandho 201: Invest in Distressed Businesses in Distressed Industries
    • Dhandho 202: Invest in Businesses with Durable Moats
    • Dhandho 301: Few Bets, Big Bets, Infrequent Bets
    • Dhandho 302: Fixate on Arbitrage
    • Dhandho 401: Margin of Safety—Always!
    • Dhandho 402: Invest in Low-Risk, High-Uncertainty Businesses
    • Dhandho 403: Invest in the Copycats rather than the Innovators
    • A Short Checklist
    • Be Generous

 

PATEL MOTEL DHANDHO

(Mohnish published the book in 2007.  I will use the present tense in this blog post.)

Mohnish notes that Asian Indians make up about 1 percent of the population of the United States.  Of these three million, a small subsection hails from the Indian state of Gujarat—the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi.  The Patels are from a tiny area in Southern Gujarat.  Mohnish:

Less than one in five hundred Americans is a Patel.  It is thus amazing that over half of all the motels in the entire country are owned and operated by Patels… What is even more stunning is that there were virtually no Patels in the United States just 35 years ago.  They started arriving as refugees in the early 1970s without much in the way of capital or education.  Their heavily accented, broken-English speaking skills didn’t improve their prospects either.  From that severely handicapped beginning, with all the odds stacked against them, the Patels triumphed.  Patels, as a group, today own over $40 billion in motel assets in the United States, pay over $725 million a year in taxes, and employ nearly a million people.  How did this small, impoverished ethnic group come out of nowhere and end up controlling such vast resources?  There is a one word explanation:  Dhandho.

Dhandho means a low-risk, high-return approach to business.  It means the upside is much larger than the downside, which is the essence of value investing.

Dhandho is all about the minimization of risk while maximizing the reward… Dhandho is thus best described as endeavors that create wealth while taking virtually no risk.

Mohnish gives a brief history of the Patels.  Some Patels had gone to Uganda and were doing well there as entrepreneurs.  But when General Idi Amin came to power as a dictator in 1972, things changed.  The Ugandan state seized all of the businesses held by Patels and other non-natives.  These businesses were nationalized, and the previous owners were paid nothing.

Because India was already dealing with a severe refugee crisis in 1972-1973, the Indian-origin population that had been tossed out of Uganda was not allowed back into India.  Many Patels settled in England and Canada, and a few thousand were accepted in the United States.

In 1973, many nondescript motels were being foreclosed and then sold at distressed prices.  “Papa Patel” realized that a motivated seller or bank might finance 90% of the purchase.  If Papa Patel could put $5,000 down, he could get a motel on the cheap.  The Patel family would run things and also live there.  So they had no salaries to pay, and no rent to pay.  With rock-bottom expenses, they could then offer the lowest nightly rates.  This would lead to higher occupancy and high profits over time, given the very low cost structure.

As long as the motel didn’t fail, it would likely be a highly profitable venture relative to the initial $5,000 investment.  If the motel did fail, Papa Patel reasoned that he and his wife could bag groceries and save close to $5,000 in a couple of years.  Then Papa Patel could find another cheap motel and make the same bet.  If the probability of failure is 10%, then the odds of two failures in a row would be 1%, while nearly every other scenario would involve a high return on investment.  Once the first motel was solidly profitable, Papa Patel could let his oldest son take over and look for the next one to buy.

The Patels kept repeating this basic approach until they owned over half the motels in the United States.

 

MANILAL DHANDHO

The Patel formula is repeatable.  It’s not just a one-time opportunity based on unique circumstances.  Consider Manilal Chaudhari, also from Gujarat, says Mohnish.

Manilal had worked hard as an accountant in India.  In 1991, with sponsorship from his brother, he migrated to the United States.  His English was not good, and he couldn’t find a job in accounting.

His first job was working 112 hours a week at a gas station at minimum wage.  Later, he got a job at a power supply manufacturing company, Cherokee International, owned by a Patel.  Manilal worked full-time at Cherokee, and kept working at the gas station as much as possible.  The Persian owner of the gas station, recognizing Manilal’s hard work, gave him a 10 percent stake in the business.

In 1998, Manilal decided he wanted to buy a business.  One of the employees at Cherokee (a Patel) told Manilal that he wanted to invest with him in whatever business he found.  In 2001, the travel industry went into a slump and motel occupancy and prices plummeted.  Manilal found a Best Western motel on sale at a terrific location.  Since everyone in the extended family had been working non-stop and saving, Manilal – along with a few Patels from Cherokee – were able to buy the Best Western.

Four years later, the Best Western had doubled in value to $9 million.  The $1.4 million invested by Manilal and a few Patels was now worth $6.7 million, an annualized return of 48 percent.  This doesn’t include annual free cash flow.  Mohnish concludes:

Now, that’s what I’d call Manilal Dhandho.  He worked hard, saved all he could, and then bet it all on a single no-brainer bet.  Reeling from the severe impact of 9/11 on travel, the motel industry was on its knees.  As prices and occupancy collapsed, Manilal stepped in and made his play.  He was on the hunt for three years.  He patiently waited for the right deal to materialize.  Classically, his story is all about Few Bets, Big Bets, Infrequent Bets.  And it’s all about only participating in coin tosses where:

Heads, I win;  tails, I don’t lose much!

 

VIRGIN DHANDHO

The year was 1984 and Richard Branson knew nothing about the airline business.  He started his entrepreneurial journey at 15 and was very successful in building an amazing music recording and distribution business.

Somebody sent Branson a business plan about starting an all business class airline flying between London and New York.  Branson noted that when an executive in the music business received a business plan to start an airline involving a 747 jumbo jet, he knew that the business plan had been turned down in at least three thousand other places before landing on his desk…

Branson decided to offer a unique dual-class service.  But when he presented the idea to his partners and senior executives at the music business, they told him he was crazy.  Branson persisted and discovered that he could lease a 747 jumbo jet from Boeing.  Branson calculated that Virgin Atlantic Airlines, if it failed, would cost $2 million.  His record company was going to earn $12 million that year and about $20 million the following year.

Branson also realized that tickets get paid about 20 days before the plane takes off.  But fuel is paid 30 days after the plane lands.  Staff wages are paid 15 to 20 days after the plane lands.  So the working capital needs of the business would be fairly low.

Branson had found a service gap and Virgin Atlantic ended up doing well.  Branson would repeat this formula in many other business opportunities:

Heads, I win;  tails, I don’t lose much!

 

MITTAL DHANDHO

Mohnish says Rajasthan is the most colorful state of India.  Marwar is a small district in the state, and the Marwaris are seen as excellent businesspeople.  Lakshmi Mittal, a Marwari entrepreneur, went from zero to a $20 billion net worth in about 30 years.  And he did it in an industry with terrible economics:  steel mills.

Take the example of the deal he created to take over the gigantic Karmet Steel Works in Kazakhstan.  The company had stopped paying its workforce because it was bleeding red ink and had no cash.  The plant was on the verge of closure with its Soviet-era managers forced to barter for steel food for its workers.  The Kazakh government was glad to hand Mr. Mittal the keys to the plant for nothing.  Not only did Mr. Mittal retain the entire workforce and run the plant, he paid all the outstanding wages and within five years had turned it into a thriving business that was gushing cash.  The workers and townsfolk literally worship Mittal as the person who saved their town from collapse.

…The same story was repeated with the Sidek Steel plant in Romania, and the Mexican government handed him the keys to the Sibalsa Mill for $220 million in 1992.  It had cost the Mexicans over $2 billion to build the plant.  Getting dollar bills at 10 cents—or less—is Dhandho on steroids.  Mittal’s approach has always been to get a dollar’s worth of assets for far less than a dollar.  And then he has applied his secret sauce of getting these monolith mills to run extremely efficiently.

Mohnish recounts a dinner he had with a Marwari friend.  Mohnish asked how Marwari businesspeople think about business.  The friend replied that they expect their entire investment to be returned as dividends within three years, with the principal still being worth at least the initial amount invested.

 

THE DHANDHO FRAMEWORK

Mohnish lays out the Dhando framework, including:

  • Invest in existing businesses.
  • Invest in simple businesses.
  • Invested in distressed businesses in distressed industries.
  • Invest in businesses with durable moats.
  • Few bets, big bets, and infrequent bets.
  • Fixate on arbitrage.
  • Margin of safety—always.
  • Invest in low-risk, high-uncertainty businesses.
  • Invest in the Copycats rather than the Innovators.

Let’s look at each point.

 

DHANDHO 101: INVEST IN EXISTING BUSINESSES

Over a long period of time, owning parts of good businesses via the stock market has been shown to be one of the best ways to preserve and grow wealth.  Mohnish writes that there are six big advantages to investing in stocks:

  • When you buy stock, you become a part owner of an existing business. You don’t have to do anything to create the business or to make the business run.
  • You can get part ownership of a compounding machine. It is simple to buy your stake, and the business is already fully staffed and running.
  • When people buy or sell entire businesses, both buyer and seller typically have a good idea of what the business is worth. It’s hard to find a bargain unless the industry is highly distressed.  In the public stock market, however, there are thousands and thousands of businesses.  Many stock prices change by 50% or more in any given year, but the intrinsic value of most businesses does not change by 50% in a given year.  So a patient investor can often find opportunities.
  • Buying an entire business usually takes serious capital. But buying part ownership via stock costs very little by comparison.  In stocks, you can get started with a tiny pool of capital.
  • There are likely over 100,000 different businesses in the world with public stock available.
  • For a long-term value investor, the transaction costs are very low (especially at a discount broker) over time.

 

DHANDHO 102: INVEST IN SIMPLE BUSINESSES

As Warren Buffett has noted, you generally do not get paid extra for degree of difficulty in investing.  There is no reason, especially for smaller investors, not to focus on simple businesses.  By patiently looking at hundreds and hundreds of microcap stocks, eventually you can find a 10-bagger, 20-bagger, or even a 100-bagger.  And the small business in question is likely to be quite simple.  With such a large potential upside, there is no reason, if you’re a small investor, to look at larger or more complicated businesses.  (The Boole Microcap Fund that I manage focuses exclusively on micro caps.)

It’s much easier to value a simple business because it usually is easier to estimate the future free cash flows.  The intrinsic value of any business—what the business is worth—is the sum of all future free cash flows discounted back to the present.  This is called the discounted cash flow (DCF) approach.  (Intrinsic value could also mean liquidation value in some cases.)

You may need to have several scenarios in your DCF analysis—a low case, a mid case, and a high case.  (What you’re really looking for is a high case that involves a 10-bagger, 20-bagger, or 100-bagger.)  But you’re still nearly always better off limiting your investments to simple businesses.

Only invest in businesses that are simple—ones where conservative assumptions about future cash flows are easy to figure out.

 

DHANDHO 201: INVEST IN DISTRESSED BUSINESSES IN DISTRESSED INDUSTRIES

The stock market is usually efficient, meaning that stock prices are usually accurate representations of what businesses are worth.  It is very difficult for an investor to do better than the overall stock market, as represented by the S&P 500 Index or another similar index.

Stock prices, in most instances, do reflect the underlying fundamentals.  Trying to figure out the variance between prices and underlying intrinsic value, for most businesses, is usually a waste of time.  The market is mostly efficient.  However, there is a huge difference between mostly and fully efficient.

Because the market is not always efficient, value investors who patiently examine hundreds of different stocks eventually will find a few that are undervalued.  Because public stock markets are highly liquid, if an owner of shares becomes fearful, he or she can quickly sell those shares.  For a privately held business, however, it usually takes months for an owner to sell the position.  Thus, a fearful owner of public stock is often more likely to sell at an irrationally low price because the sale can be completed right away.

Where can you find distressed businesses or industries?  Mohnish offers some suggestions:

  • Business headlines often include articles about distressed businesses or industries.
  • You can look at prices that have dropped the most in the past 52 weeks. You can also look at stocks trading at low price-to-earnings ratios (P/Es), low price-to-book ratios (P/Bs), high dividend yields, and so on.  Not every quantitatively cheap stock is undervalued, but some are.  There are various services that offer screening such as Value Line.
  • You can follow top value investors by reading 13-F Forms or through different services. I would only note that the vast majority of top value investors are not looking at microcap stocks.  If you’re a small investor, your best opportunities are very likely to be found among micro caps.  Very few professional investors ever look there, causing microcap stocks to be much more inefficiently priced than larger stocks.  Also, micro caps tend to be relatively simple, and they often have far more room to grow.  Most 100-baggers start out as micro caps.
  • Value Investors Club (valueinvestorsclub.com) is a club for top value investors. You can get free guest access to all ideas that are 45 days old or older.  Many cheap stocks stay cheap for a long time.  Often good ideas are still available after 45 days have elapsed.

 

DHANDHO 202: INVEST IN BUSINESSES WITH DURABLE MOATS

A moat is a sustainable competitive advantage.  Moats are often associated with capital-light businesses.  Such businesses (if successful) tend to have sustainably high ROIC (return on invested capital)—the key attribute of a sustainable competitive advantage.  Yet sometimes moats exist elsewhere and sometimes they are hidden.

Sometimes the moat is hidden.  Take a look at Tesoro Corporation.  It is in the oil refining business—which is a commodity.  Tesoro has no control over the price of its principle raw material, crude oil.  It has no control [of the price] over its principal finished good, gasoline.  Nonetheless, it has a fine moat.  Tesoro’s refineries are primarily on the West Coast and Hawaii.  Refining on the West Coast is a great business with a good moat.  There hasn’t been a refinery built in the United States for the past 20 years.  Over that period, the number of refineries has gone down from 220 to 150, while oil demand has gone up about 2 percent a year.  The average U.S. refinery is operating at well over 90 percent of capacity.  Anytime you have a surge in demand, refining margins escalate because there is just not enough capacity.

…How do we know when a business has a hidden moat and what that moat is?  The answer is usually visible from looking at its financial statements.  Good businesses with good moats… generate high returns on capital deployed in the business.  (my emphasis)

But the nature of capitalism is that any company that is earning a high return on invested capital will come under attack by other businesses that want to earn a high return on invested capital.

It is virtually a law of nature that no matter how well fortified and defended a castle is, no matter how wide or deep its moat is, no matter how many sharks or piranhas are in that moat, eventually it is going to fall to the marauding invaders.

Mohnish quotes Charlie Munger:

Of the fifty most important stocks on the NYSE in 1911, today only one, General Electric, remains in business… That’s how powerful the forces of competitive destruction are.  Over the very long term, history shows that the chances of any business surviving in a manner agreeable to a company’s owners are slim at best.

Mohnish adds:

There is no such thing as a permanent moat.  Even such invincible businesses today like eBay, Google, Microsoft, Toyota, and American Express will all eventually decline and disappear.

…It takes about 25 to 30 years from formation for a highly successful company to earn a spot on the Fortune 500… it typically takes many blue chips less than 20 years after they get on the list to cease to exist.  The average Fortune 500 business is already past its prime by the time it gets on the list.

If you’re a small investor, searching for potential 10-baggers or 100-baggers among microcap stocks makes excellent sense.  You want to find tiny companies that much later reach the Fortune 500.  You don’t want to look at companies that are already on the Fortune 500 because the potential returns are far more likely to be mediocre going forward.

 

DHANDHO 301: FEW BETS, BIG BETS, INFREQUENT BETS

Claude Shannon was a fascinating character—he often rode a unicycle while juggling, and his house was filled with gadgets.  Shannon’s master’s thesis was arguably the most important and famous master’s thesis of the twentieth century.  In it, he proposed binary digit or bit, as the basic unit of information.  A bit could have only two values—0 or 1, which could mean true or false, yes or no, or on or off.  This allowed Boolean algebra to represent any logical relationship.  This meant that the electrical switch could perform logic functions, which was the practical foundation for all digital circuits and computers.

The mathematician Ed Thorp, a colleague of Shannon’s at MIT, had discovered a way to beat the casinos at blackjack.  But Thorp was trying to figure out how to size his blackjack bets as a function of how favorable the odds were.  Someone suggested to Thorp that he talk to Shannon about it.  Shannon recalled a paper written by a Bell Labs colleague of his, John Kelly, that dealt with this question.

The Kelly criterion can be written as follows:

  • F = p – [q/o]

where

  • F = Kelly criterion fraction of current capital to bet
  • o = Net odds, or dollars won per $1 bet if the bet wins (e.g., the bet may pay 5 to 1, meaning you win $5 per each $1 bet if the bet wins)
  • p = probability of winning
  • q = probability of losing = 1 – p

The Kelly criterion has a unique mathematical property: if you know the probability of winning and the net odds (payoff), then betting exactly the percentage determined by the Kelly criterion leads to the maximum long-term compounding of capital, assuming that you’re going to make a long series of bets.  Betting any percentage that is not equal to that given by the Kelly criterion will inevitably lead to lower compound growth over a long period of time.

Thorp proceeded to use the Kelly criterion to win quite a bit of money at blackjack, at least until the casinos began taking countermeasures such as cheating dealers, frequent reshuffling, and outright banning.  But Thorp realized that the stock market was also partly inefficient, and it was a far larger game.

Thorp launched a hedge fund that searched for little arbitrage situations (pricing discrepancies) involving warrants, options, and convertible bonds.  In order to size his positions, Thorp used the Kelly criterion.  Thorp evolved his approach over the years as previously profitable strategies were copied.  His multi-decade track record was terrific.

Ed Thorp examined Buffett’s career and concluded that Buffett has used the essential logic of the Kelly criterion by concentrating his capital into his best ideas.  Buffett’s concentrated value approach has produced an outstanding, unparalleled 65-year track record.

Thorp has made several important points about the Kelly criterion as it applies to long-term value investing.  The Kelly criterion was invented to apply to a very long series of bets.  Value investing differs because even a concentrated value investing approach will usually have at least 5-8 positions in the portfolio at the same time.  Thorp argues that, in this situation, the investor must compare all the current and prospective investments simultaneously on the basis of the Kelly criterion.

Mohnish gives an example showing how you can use the Kelly criterion on your top 8 ideas, and then normalize the position sizes.

Say you look at your top 8 investment ideas.  You use the Kelly criterion on each idea separately to figure out how large the position should be, and this is what you conclude about the ideal bet sizes:

  • Bet 1 – 80%
  • Bet 2 – 70%
  • Bet 3 – 60%
  • Bet 4 – 55%
  • Bet 5 – 45%
  • Bet 6 – 35%
  • Bet 7 – 30%
  • Bet 8 – 25%

Of course, that adds up to 400%.  Yet for a value investor, especially running a concentrated portfolio of 5-8 positions, it virtually never makes sense to buy stocks on margin.  Leverage cannot make a bad investment into a good investment, but it can turn a good investment into a bad investment.  So you don’t need any leverage.  It’s better to compound at a slightly lower rate than to risk turning a good investment into a bad investment because you lack staying power.

So the next step is simply to normalize the position sizes so that they add up to 100%.  Since the original portfolio adds up to 400%, you just divide each position by 4:

  • Bet 1 – 20%
  • Bet 2 – 17%
  • Bet 3 – 15%
  • Bet 4 – 14%
  • Bet 5 – 11%
  • Bet 6 – 9%
  • Bet 7 – 8%
  • Bet 8 – 6%

(These percentages are rounded for simplicity.)

As mentioned earlier, if you truly know the odds of each bet in a long series of bets, the Kelly criterion tells you exactly how much to bet on each bet in order to maximize your long-term compounded rate of return.  Betting any other amount will lead to lower compound returns.  In particular, if you repeatedly bet more than what the Kelly criterion indicates, you eventually will destroy your capital.

It’s nearly always true when investing in a stock that you won’t know the true odds or the true future scenarios.  You usually have to make an estimate.  Because you never want to bet more than what the Kelly criterion says, it is wise to bet one half or one quarter of what the Kelly criterion says.  This is called half-Kelly or quarter-Kelly betting.  What is nice about half-Kelly betting is that you will earn three-quarters of the long-term returns of what full Kelly betting would deliver, but with only half the volatility.

So in practice, if there is any uncertainty in your estimates, you want to bet half-Kelly or quarter-Kelly.  In the case of a concentrated portfolio of 5-8 stocks, you will frequently end up betting half-Kelly or quarter-Kelly because you are making 5-8 bets at the same time.  In Mohnish’s example, you end up betting quarter-Kelly in each position once you’ve normalized the portfolio.

Mohnish quotes Charlie Munger again:

The wise ones bet heavily when the world offers them that opportunity.  They bet big when they have the odds.  And the rest of the time, they don’t.  It’s just that simple.

When running the Buffett Partnership, Warren Buffett invested 40% of the partnership in American Express after the stock had been cut in half following the salad oil scandal.  American Express had to announce a $60 million loss, a huge hit given its total market capitalization of roughly $150 million at the time.  But Buffett determined that the essential business of American Express—travelers’ checks and charge cards—had not been permanently damaged.  American Express still had a very valuable moat.

Buffett explained his reasoning in several letters to limited partners, as quoted by Mohnish here:

We might invest up to 40% of our net worth in a single security under conditions coupling an extremely high probability that our facts and reasoning are correct with a very low probability that anything could change the underlying value of the investment.

We are obviously only going to go to 40% in very rare situations—this rarity, of course, is what makes it necessary that we concentrate so heavily, when we see such an opportunity.  We probably have had only five or six situations in the nine-year history of the partnerships where we have exceeded 25%.  Any such situations are going to have to promise very significant superior performance… They are also going to have to possess such superior qualitative and/or quantitative factors that the chance of serious permanent loss is minimal…

There’s virtually no such thing as a sure bet in the stock market.  But there are situations where the odds of winning are very high or where the potential upside is substantial.

One final note:  In constructing a concentrated portfolio of 5-8 stocks, if at least some of the positions are non-correlated or even negatively correlated, then the volatility of the overall portfolio can be reduced.  Some top investors prefer to have about 15 positions with low correlations.

Once you get to at least 25 positions, specific correlations typically tend not to be an issue, although some investors may end up concentrating on specific industries.  In fact, it often may make sense to concentrate on industries that are deeply out-of-favor.

Mohnish concludes:

…It’s all about the odds.  Looking out for mispriced betting opportunities and betting heavily when the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor is the ticket to wealth.  It’s all about letting the Kelly Formula dictate the upper bounds of these large bets.  Further, because of multiple favorable betting opportunities available in equity markets, the volatility surrounding the Kelly Formula can be naturally tamed while still running a very concentrated portfolio.

In sum, top value investors like Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, and Mohnish Pabrai—to name just a few out of many—naturally concentrate on their best 5-8 ideas, at least when they’re managing a small enough amount of money.  (These days, Berkshire’s portfolio is massive, which makes it much more difficult to concentrate, let alone to find hidden gems among micro caps.)

You have to take a humble look at your strategy and your ability before deciding on your level of concentration.  The Boole Microcap Fund that I manage is designed to focus on the top 15-25 ideas.  This is concentrated enough so that the best performers—whichever stocks they turn out to be—can make a difference to the portfolio.  But it is not so concentrated that it misses the best performers.  In practice, the best performers very often turn out to be idea #9 or idea #17, rather than idea #1 or idea #2.  Many top value investors—including Peter Cundill, Joel Greenblatt, and Mohnish Pabrai—have found this to be true.

 

DHANDHO 302: FIXATE ON ARBITRAGE

The example often given for traditional commodity arbitrage is that gold is selling for $1,500 in London and $1,490 in New York.  By buying gold in New York and selling it in London, the arbitrageur can make an almost risk-free profit.

In merger arbitrage, Company A offers to buy Company B at, say, $20 per share.  The stock of Company B may move from $15 to $19.  Now the arbitrageur can buy the stock in Company B at $19 in order to capture the eventual move to $20.  By doing several such deals, the arbitrageur can probably make a nice profit, although there is a risk for each individual deal.

In what Mohnish calls Dhandho arbitrage, the entrepreneur risks a relatively small amount of capital relative to the potential upside.  Just look at the earlier examples, including Patel Motel Dhandho, Virgin Dhandho, and Mittal Dhandho.

Heads, I win;  tails, I don’t lose much!

 

DHANDHO 401: MARGIN OF SAFETY—ALWAYS!

Nearly every year, Buffett has hosted over 30 groups of business students from various universities.  The students get to ask questions for over an hour before going to have lunch with Buffett.  Mohnish notes that students nearly always ask for book or reading recommendations, and Buffett’s best recommendation is always Ben Graham’s The Intelligent Investor.  As Buffett told students from Columbia Business School on March 24, 2006:

The Intelligent Investor is still the best book on investing.  It has the only three ideas you really need:

  • Chapter 8—The Mr. Market analogy.  Make the stock market serve you.  The C section of the Wall Street Journal is my business broker—it quotes me prices every day that I can take or leave, and there are no called strikes.
  • Chapter 8—A stock is a piece of a business.  Never forget that you are buying a business which has an underlying value based on how much cash goes in and out.
  • Chapter 20—Margin of Safety.  Make sure that you are buying a business for way less than you think it is conservatively worth.

The heart of value investing is an idea that is directly contrary to economic and financial theory:

  • The bigger the discount to intrinsic value, the lower the risk.
  • The bigger the discount to intrinsic value, the higher the return.

Economic and financial theory teaches that higher returns always require higher risk.  But Ben Graham, the father of value investing, taught just the opposite:  The lower the price you pay below intrinsic value, the lower your risk and the higher your potential return.

Mohnish argues that the Dhandho framework embodies Graham’s margin of safety idea.  Papa Patel, Manilal, and Branson all have tried to minimize the downside while maximizing the upside.  Again, most business schools, relying on accepted theory, teach that low returns come from low risk, while high returns require high risk.

Mohnish quotes Buffett’s observations about Berkshire’s purchase of Washington Post stock in 1973:

We bought all of our [Washington Post (WPC)] holdings in mid-1973 at a price of not more than one-fourth of the then per-share business value of the enterprise.  Calculating the price/value ratio required no unusual insights.  Most security analysts, media brokers, and media executives would have estimated WPC’s intrinsic business value at $400 to $500 million just as we did.  And its $100 million stock market valuation was published daily for all to see.  Our advantage, rather, was attitude:  we had learned from Ben Graham that the key to successful investing was the purchase of shares in good businesses when market prices were at a large discount from underlying business value.

…Through 1973 and 1974, WPC continued to do fine as a business, and intrinsic value grew.  Nevertheless, by year-end 1974 our WPC holding showed a loss of about 25%, with a market value of $8 million against our cost of $10.6 million.  What we had bought ridiculously cheap a year earlier had become a good bit cheaper as the market, in its infinite wisdom, marked WPC stock down to well below 20 cents on the dollar of intrinsic value.

As of 2007 (when Mohnish wrote his book), Berkshire’s stake in the Washington post had grown over 33 years from the original $10.6 million to a market value of over $1.3 billion—more than 124 times the original investment.  Moreover, as of 2007, the Washington Post was paying a modest dividend (not included in the 124 times figure).  The dividend alone (in 2007) was higher than what Berkshire originally paid for its entire position.  Buffett:

Most institutional investors in the early 1970s, on the other hand, regarded business value as of only minor relevance when they were deciding the prices at which they would buy or sell.  This now seems hard to believe.  However, these institutions were then under the spell of academics at prestigious business schools who were preaching a newly-fashioned theory:  the stock market was totally efficient, and therefore calculations of business value—and even thought, itself—were of no importance in investment activities.  (We are enormously indebted to those academics:  what could be more advantageous in an intellectual contest—whether it be bridge, chess, or stock selection—than to have opponents who have been taught that thinking is a waste of energy?)

At any given time, a business is in either of two states:  it has problems or it will have problems.  Virtually every week there are companies or whole industries where stock prices collapse.  Many business problems are temporary and not permanent.  But stock investors on the whole tend to view business problems as permanent, and they mark down the stock prices accordingly.

You may be wondering:  Due to capitalist competition, nearly all businesses eventually fail, so how can many business problems be temporary?  When we look at businesses experiencing problems right now, many of those problems will be solved over the next three to five years.  Thus, considering the next three to five years, many business problems are temporary.  But the fate of a given business over several decades is a different matter entirely.

 

DHANDHO 402: INVEST IN LOW-RISK, HIGH-UNCERTAINTY BUSINESSES

The future is always uncertain.  And that’s even more true for some businesses.  Yet if the stock price is low enough, high uncertainty can create a good opportunity.

Papa Patel, Manilal, Branson, and Mittal are all about investing in low-risk businesses.  Nonetheless, most of the businesses they invested in had a very wide range of possible outcomes.  The future performance of these businesses was very uncertain.  However, these savvy Dhandho entrepreneurs had thought through the range of possibilities and drew comfort from the fact that very little capital was invested and/or the odds of a permanent loss of capital were extremely low… Their businesses had a common unifying characteristic—they were all low-risk, high-uncertainty businesses.

In essence, says Mohnish, these were all simple bets:

Heads, I win;  tails, I don’t lose much!

Wall Street usually hates high uncertainty, and often does not distinguish between high uncertainty and high risk.  But there are several distinct situations, observes Mohnish, where Wall Street tends to cause the stock price to collapse:

  • High risk, low uncertainty
  • High risk, high uncertainty
  • Low risk, high uncertainty

Wall Street loves the combination of low risk and low uncertainty, but these stocks nearly always trade at high multiples.  On the other hand, Dhandho entrepreneurs and value investors are only interested in low risk and high uncertainty.

Mohnish discusses an example of a company he was looking at in the year 2000:  Stewart Enterprises (STEI), a funeral service business.  Leading companies such as Stewart Enterprises, Loewen, Service Corp. (SRV), and Carriage Services (CSV) had gone on buying sprees in the 1990s, acquiring mom-and-pop businesses in their industry.  These companies all ended up with high debt as a result of the acquisitions.  They made the mistake of buying for cash—using debt—rather than buying using stock.

Loewen ended up going bankrupt.  Stewart had $930 million of long-term debt with $500 million due in 2002.  Wall Street priced all the funeral service giants as if they were going bankrupt.  Stewart’s price went from $28 to $2 in two years.  Stewart kept coming up on the Value Line screen for lowest price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios.  Stewart had a P/E of less than three, a rarity.  Mohnish thought that funeral services must be a fairly simple business to understand, so he started doing research.

Mohnish recalled reading an article in the mid-1990s in the Chicago Tribune about the rate of business failure in various industries.  The lowest rate of failure for any type of business was funeral homes.  This made sense, thought Mohnish.  It’s not the type of business that aspiring entrepreneurs would dream about, and pre-need sales often make up about 25 percent of total revenue.  It’s a steady business that doesn’t change much over time.

Stewart had roughly $700 million in annual revenue and owned around 700 cemeteries and funeral homes.  Most of its business was in the United States.  Stewart’s tangible book value was $4 per share, and book value was probably understated because hard assets like land were carried at cost.  At less than $2 per share, Stewart was trading at less than half of stated tangible book value.  By the time the debt was due, the company would generate over $155 million in free cash flow, leaving a shortfall of under $350 million.

Mohnish thought through some scenarios and estimated the probability for each scenario:

  • 25% probability: The company could sell some funeral homes.  Selling 100 to 200 might take care of the debt.  Equity value > $4 per share.
  • 35% probability: Based on the company’s solid and predictable cash flow, Stewart’s lenders or bankers might decide to extend the maturities or refinance the debt—especially if the company offered to pay a higher interest rate.  Equity value > $4 per share.
  • 20% probability: Based on Stewart’s strong cash flows, the company might find another lender—especially if it offered to pay a higher interest rate.  Equity value > $4 per share.
  • 19% probability: Stewart enters bankruptcy.  Even assuming distressed asset sales, equity value > $2 per share.
  • 1% probability: A 50-mile meteor comes in or Yellowstone blows or some other extreme event takes place that destroys the company.  Equity value = $0.

The bottom line, as Mohnish saw it, was that the odds were less than 1% that he would end up losing money if he invested in Stewart at just under $2 per share.  Moreover, there was an 80% chance that the equity would be worth at least $4 per share.  So Mohnish invested 10 percent of Pabrai Funds in Stewart Enterprises at under $2 per share.

A few months later, Stewart announced that it had begun exploring sales of its international funeral homes.  Stewart expected to generate $300 to $500 million in cash from this move.  Mohnish:

The amazing thing was that management had come up with a better option than I had envisioned.  They were going to be able to eliminate the debt without any reduction in their cash flow.  The lesson here is that we always have a free upside option on most equity investments when competent management comes up with actions that make the bet all the more favorable.

Soon the stock hit $4 and Mohnish exited the position with more than 100% profit.

It’s worth repeating what investor Lee Ainslee has said:  Good management tends to surprise on the upside, while bad management tends to surprise on the downside.

Frontline

In 2001, Mohnish noticed two companies with a dividend yield of more than 15 percent.  Both were crude oil shippers:  Knightsbridge (VLCC) and Frontline (FRO).  Mohnish started reading about this industry.

Knightsbridge had been formed a few years earlier when it ordered several tankers from a Korean shipyard.  A very large crude carrier (VLCC) or Suezmax at the time cost $60 to $80 million and would take two to three years to be built and delivered.  Knightsbridge would then lease the ships to Shell Oil under long-term leases.  Shell would pay Knightsbridge a base lease rate (perhaps $10,000 a day per tanker) regardless of whether it used the ships or not.  On top of that, Shell paid Knightsbridge a percentage of the difference between a base rate and the spot market price for VLCC rentals, notes Mohnish.  So if the spot price for a VLCC was $30,000 per day, Knightsbridge might receive $20,000 a day.  If the spot was $50,000, it would get perhaps $35,000 a day.  Mohnish:

At the base rate, Knightbridge pretty much covered its principal and interest payments for the debt it took on to pay for the tankers.  As the rates went above $10,000, there was positive cash flow;  the company was set up to just dividend all the excess cash out to shareholders, which is marvelous…

Because of this unusual structure and contract, when tanker rates go up dramatically, this company’s dividends go through the roof.

Mohnish continues:

In investing, all knowledge is cumulative.  I didn’t invest in Knightsbridge, but I did get a decent handle on the crude oil shipping business.  In 2001, we had an interesting situation take place with one of these oil shipping companies called Frontline.  Frontline is the exact opposite business model of Knightsbridge.  It has the largest oil tanker fleet in the world, among all the public companies.  The entire fleet is on the spot market.  There are very few long-term leases.

Because it rides on the spot market on these tankers, there is no such thing as earnings forecasts or guidance.  The company’s CEO himself doesn’t know what the income will be quarter to quarter.  This is great, because whenever Wall Street gets confused, it means we likely can make some money.  This is a company that has widely gyrating earnings.

Oil tanker rates have ranged historically from $6,000 a day to $100,000 a day.  The company needs about $18,000 a day to breakeven… Once [rates] go above $30,000 to $35,000, it is making huge profits.  In the third quarter of 2002, oil tanker rates collapsed.  A recession in the United States and a few other factors caused a drop in crude oil shipping volume.  Rates went down to $6,000 a day.  At $6,000 a day Frontline was bleeding red ink, badly.  The stock went from $11 a share to around $3, in about three months.

Mohnish notes the net asset value of Frontline:

Frontline had about 70 VLCCs at the time.  While the daily rental rates collapsed, the price per ship hadn’t changed much, dropping about 10 percent or 15 percent.  There is a fairly active market in buying and selling oil tankers.  Frontline had a tangible book value of about $16.50 per share.  Even factoring in the distressed market for ships, you would still get a liquidation value north of $11 per share.  The stock price had gone from $15 to $3… Frontline was trading at less than one-third of liquidation value.

Keep in mind that Frontline could sell a ship for about $60 million, and the company had 70 ships.  Frontline’s annual interest payments were $150 million.  If it sold two to three ships a year, Frontline could sustain the business at the rate of $6,000 a day for several years.

Mohnish also discovered that Frontline’s entire fleet was double hull tankers.  All new tankers had to be double hull after 2006 due to regulations following the Exxon Valdez spill.  Usually single hull tankers were available at cheaper day rates than double hull tankers.  But this wasn’t true when rates dropped to $6,000 a day.  Both types of ship were available at the same rate.  In this situation, everyone would rent the double hull ships and no one rented the single hull ships.

Owners of the single hull ships were likely get jittery and to sell the ships as long as rates stayed at $6,000 a day.  If they waited until 2006, Mohnish explains, the ability to rent single hull ships would be much lower.  And by 2006, scrap rates might be quite low if a large number of single hull ships were scrapped at the same time.  The net result is that there is a big jump in scrapping for single hulled tankers whenever rates go down.  Mohnish:

It takes two to three years to get delivery of a new tanker.  When demand comes back up again, inventory is very tight because capacity has been taken out and it can’t be added back instantaneously.  There is a definitive cycle.  When rates go as low as $6,000 and stay there for a few weeks, they can rise to astronomically high levels, say $60,000 a day, very quickly.  With Frontline, for about seven or eight weeks, the rates stayed under $10,000 a day and then spiked to $80,000 a day in fourth quarter 2002.  The worldwide fleet of VLCCs in 2002 was about 400 ships.  Over the past several decades, worldwide oil consumption has increased by 2 percent to 4 percent on average annually.  This 2 percent to 4 percent is generally tied to GDP growth.  Usually there are 10 to 12 new ships added each year to absorb this added demand.  When scrapping increases beyond normal levels, the fleet is no longer increasing by 2 percent to 4 percent.  When the demand for oil rises, there just aren’t enough ships.  The only thing that’s adjustable is the price, which skyrockets.

Pabrai Funds bought Frontline stock in the fall of 2002 at $5.90 a share, about half of liquidation value of $11 to $12.  When the stock moved up to $9 to $10, Mohnish sold the shares.  Because he bought the stock at roughly half liquidation value, this was a near risk-free bet:  Heads, I win a lot;  tails, I win a little!

Mohnish gives a final piece of advice:

Read voraciously and wait patiently, and from time to time amazing bets will present themselves.

Important Note:  Had Mohnish kept the shares of Frontline, they would have increased dramatically.  The shares approached $120 within a few years, so Mohnish would have made 20x his initial investment at $5.90 per share had he simply held on for a few years.

As noted earlier, Mohnish recently gave a lecture at Peking University (Guanghua School of Management) about 10-baggers to 100-baggers, giving many examples of stocks like Frontline that he had actually owned but sold way too soon.  Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1XgDJCkh4

 

DHANDHO 403: INVEST IN THE COPYCATS RATHER THAN THE INNOVATORS

What Mohnish calls copycats are businesses that simply copy proven innovations.  The first few Patels figured out the economics of motel ownership.  The vast majority of Patels who came later simply copied what the first Patels had already done successfully.

Mohnish writes:

Most entrepreneurs lift their business ideas from other existing businesses or from their last employer.  Ray Kroc loved the business model of the McDonald brothers’ hamburger restaurant in San Bernardino, California.  In 1954, he bought the rights to the name and know-how, and he scaled it, with minimal change.  Many of the subsequent changes or innovations did not come from within the company with its formidable resources—they came from street-smart franchisees and competitors.  The company was smart enough to adopt them, just as they adopted the entire concept at the outset.

 

A SHORT CHECKLIST

Mohnish gives a list of good questions to ask before buying a stock:

  • Is it a business I understand very well—squarely within my circle of competence?
  • Do I know the intrinsic value of the business today and, with a high degree of confidence, how it is likely to change over the next few years?
  • Is the business priced at a large discount to its intrinsic value today and in two to three years?  Over 50 percent?
  • Would I be willing to invest a large part of my net worth into this business?
  • Is the downside minimal?
  • Does the business have a moat?
  • Is it run by able and honest managers?

If the answers to these questions are yes, buy the stock.  Furthermore, writes Mohnish, hold the stock for at least two to three years before you think about selling.  This gives enough time for conditions to normalize and thus for the stock to approach intrinsic value.  One exception:  If the stock increases materially in less than two years, you can sell, but only after you have updated your estimate of intrinsic value.

In any scenario, you should always update your estimate of intrinsic value.  If intrinsic value is much higher than the current price, then continuing to hold is almost always the best decision.  One huge mistake to avoid is selling a stock that later becomes a 10-bagger, 20-bagger, or 100-bagger.  That’s why you must always update your estimate of intrinsic value.  And don’t get jittery just because a stock is hitting new highs.

A few more points:

  • If you have a good investment process, then about 2/3 of the time the stock will approach intrinsic value over two to three years.  1/3 of the time, the investment won’t work as planned—whether due to error, bad luck, or unforeseeable events—but losses should be limited due to a large margin of safety having been present at the time of purchase.
  • In the case of distressed equities, there may be much greater potential upside as well as much greater potential downside.  A few value investors can use this approach, but it’s quite difficult and typically requires greater diversification.
  • For most value investors, it’s best to stick with companies with low or no debt.  You may grow wealth a bit more slowly this way, but as Buffett and Munger always ask, what’s the rush?  Buffett and Munger had a friend Rick Guerin who owned a huge number of Berkshire Hathaway shares, but many of the shares were on margin.  When Berkshire stock got cut in half—which will happen occasionally to almost any stock, no matter how good the company—Guerin was forced to sell much of his position.  Had Guerin not been on margin, his non-margined shares in Berkshire would later have been worth a fortune (approaching $1 billion).
  • Your own mistakes are your best teachers, explains Mohnish.  You’ll get better over time by studying your own mistakes:

While it is always best to learn vicariously form the mistakes of others, the lessons that really stick are ones we’ve stumbled through ourselves.

 

BE GENEROUS

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are giving away most of their fortune to help many people who are less fortunate.  Bill and Melinda Gates devote much of their time and energy (via the Gates Foundation) to saving or improving as many human lives as possible.

Mohnish Pabrai and his wife started the Dakshana Foundation in 2005.  Mohnish:

I do urge you to leverage Dhandho techniques fully to maximize your wealth.  But I also hope that… you’ll use some time and some of that Dhandho money to leave this world a little better place than you found it.  We cannot change the world, but we can improve this world for one person, ten people, a hundred people, and maybe even a few thousand people.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time.  See the historical chart here:  http://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps.  Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals.  We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio.  The size of each position is determined by its rank.  Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost).  Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approaches intrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods.  We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net).  The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.