TOP PERSONAL FINANCE -->

 

What I Learned from Warren Buffett | How Warren Buffett decides if something is a good investment.

by Bill Gates.

arren Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, Roger Lowenstein (New York: Random House, 1995).

Roger Lowenstein begins his new biography of Warren Buffett with a disclaimer. He reveals that he is a longtime investor in Berkshire Hathaway, the company that under Buffett’s guidance has seen its share price rise in 33 years from $7.60 to approximately $30,000.

In reviewing Lowenstein’s book, I must begin with a disclaimer, too. I can’t be neutral or dispassionate about Warren Buffett, because we’re close friends. We recently vacationed together in China with our wives. I think his jokes are all funny. I think his dietary practices—lots of burgers and Cokes—are excellent. In short, I’m a fan.

It’s easy to be a fan of Warren’s, and doubtless many readers of Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist will join the growing ranks. Lowenstein’s book is a straightforward account of Buffett’s remarkable life. It doesn’t fully convey what a fun, humble, charming guy Warren is, but his uniqueness comes across. No one is likely to come away from it saying, “Oh, I’m like that guy.”

The broad outlines of Warren’s career are well known, and the book offers enjoyable detail. Lowenstein traces Warren’s life from his birth in Omaha, Nebraska in 1930 to his first stock purchase at age 11, and from his study of the securities profession under Columbia University’s legendary Benjamin Graham to his founding of the Buffett Partnership at age 25. The author describes Buffett’s secretiveness about the stocks he picked for the partnership, and his contrasting openness about his guiding principle, which is to buy stocks at bargain-basement prices and hold them patiently. As Warren once explained in a letter to his partners, “This is the cornerstone of our investment philosophy: Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good results.”

Lowenstein describes how Warren took control of Berkshire Hathaway and cash-cowed its dying textile business in order to purchase stock in other companies. The book traces how Berkshire evolved into a holding company and how its investment philosophy evolved as Warren learned to look beyond financial data and recognize the economic potential of unique franchises like dominant newspapers. Today Berkshire owns companies such as See’s Candy Shops, the Buffalo News, and World Book International, as well as major positions in companies such as American Express, Capital Cities/ABC (now Disney), Coca-Cola, Gannett, Gillette, and the Washington Post Company. It also is a major insurer that includes GEICO Corporation in its holdings.

Readers are likely to come away from the book’s description of Buffett’s life and investment objectives feeling better educated about investing and business, but whether those lessons will translate into great investment results is less than certain. Warren’s gift is being able to think ahead of the crowd, and it requires more than taking Warren’s aphorisms to heart to accomplish that—although Warren is full of aphorisms well worth taking to heart.

For example, Warren likes to say that there are no called strikes in investing. Strikes occur only when you swing and miss. When you’re at bat, you shouldn’t concern yourself with every pitch, nor should you regret good pitches that you don’t swing at. In other words, you don’t have to have an opinion about every stock or other investment opportunity, nor should you feel bad if a stock you didn’t pick goes up dramatically. Warren says that in your lifetime you should swing at only a couple dozen pitches, and he advises doing careful homework so that the few swings you do take are hits.
For example, Warren likes to say that there are no called strikes in investing. Strikes occur only when you swing and miss.

Warren follows his own advice: When he invests in a company, he likes to read all of its annual reports going back as far as he can. He looks at how the company has progressed and what its strategy is. He investigates thoroughly and acts deliberately—and infrequently. Once he has purchased a company or shares in a company, he is loath to sell.

His penchant for long-term investments is reflected in another of his aphorisms: “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.”

He doesn’t believe in businesses that rely for their success on every employee being excellent. Nor does he believe that great people help all that much when the fundamentals of a business are bad. He says that when good management is brought into a fundamentally bad business, it’s the reputation of the business that remains intact.

Warren likes to say that a good business is like a castle and you’ve got to think every day, Is the management growing the size of the moat? Or is the moat shrinking? Great businesses are not all that common, and finding them is hard. Unusual factors combine to create the moats that shelter certain companies from some of the rigors of competition. Warren is superb at recognizing these franchises.

Warren installs strong managers in the companies Berkshire owns and tends to leave them pretty much alone. His basic proposition to managers is that to the degree that a company spins off cash, which good businesses do, the managers can trust Warren to invest it wisely. He doesn’t encourage managers to diversify. Managers are expected to concentrate on the businesses they know well so that Warren is free to concentrate on what he does well: investing.

My own reaction upon meeting Warren took me by surprise. Whenever somebody says to me, “Meet so-and-so; he’s the smartest guy ever” or “You’ve got to meet my friend so-and-so; he’s the best at such and such,” my defenses go up. Most people are quick to conclude that someone or something they encounter personally is exceptional. This is just human nature. Everybody wants to know someone or something superlative. As a result, people overestimate the merit of that to which they’ve been exposed. So the fact that people called Warren Buffett unique didn’t impress me much.

In fact, I was extremely skeptical when my mother suggested I take a day away from work to meet him on July 5, 1991. What were he and I supposed to talk about, P/E ratios? I mean, spend all day with a guy who just picks stocks? Especially when there’s lots of work to do? Are you kidding?

I said to my mom, “I’m working on July fifth. We’re really busy. I am sorry.”
She said, “Kay Graham will be there.”

Now, that caught my attention. I had never met Graham, but I was impressed with how well she had run the Washington Post Company and by her newspaper’s role in political history. As it happened, Kay and Warren had been great friends for years, and one of Warren’s shrewdest investments was in Post stock. Kay, Warren, and a couple of prominent journalists happened to be in the Seattle area together, and owing to an unusual circumstance they all squeezed into a little car that morning for a long drive to my family’s weekend home, which is a couple of hours outside the city. Some of the people in the car were as skeptical as I was. “We’re going to spend the whole day at these people’s house?” someone in the cramped car asked. “What are we going to do all day?”

My mom was really hard core that I come. “I’ll stay a couple of hours, and then I’m going back,” I told her.

When I arrived, Warren and I began talking about how the newspaper business was being changed by the arrival of retailers who did less advertising. Then he started asking me about IBM: “If you were building IBM from scratch, how would it look different? What are the growth businesses for IBM? What has changed for them?”

He asked good questions and told educational stories. There’s nothing I like so much as learning, and I had never met anyone who thought about business in such a clear way. On that first day, he introduced me to an intriguing analytic exercise that he does. He’ll choose a year—say, 1970—and examine the ten highest market-capitalization companies from around then. Then he’ll go forward to 1990 and look at how those companies fared. His enthusiasm for the exercise was contagious. I stayed the whole day, and before he drove off with his friends, I even agreed to fly out to Nebraska to watch a football game with him.

When you are with Warren, you can tell how much he loves his work. It comes across in many ways. When he explains stuff, it’s never “Hey, I’m smart about this and I’m going to impress you.” It’s more like “This is so interesting and it’s actually very simple. I’ll just explain it to you and you’ll realize how dumb it was that it took me a long time to figure it out.” And when he shares it with you, using his keen sense of humor to help make the point, it does seem simple.

Warren and I have the most fun when we’re taking the same data that everybody else has and coming up with new ways of looking at them that are both novel and, in a sense, obvious. Each of us tries to do this all the time for our respective companies, but it’s particularly enjoyable and stimulating to discuss these insights with each other.

We are quite candid and not at all adversarial. Our business interests don’t overlap much, although his printed World Book Encyclopedia competes with my electronic Microsoft Encarta. Warren stays away from technology companies because he likes investments in which he can predict winners a decade in advance—an almost impossible feat when it comes to technology. Unfortunately for Warren, the world of technology knows no boundaries. Over time, most business assets will be affected by technology’s broad reach—although Gillette, Coca-Cola, and See’s should be safe.
One area in which we do joust now and then is mathematics. Once Warren presented me with four unusual dice, each with a unique combination of numbers (from 0 to 12) on its sides. He proposed that we each choose one of the dice, discard the third and fourth, and wager on who would roll the highest number most often. He graciously offered to let me choose my die first.

“Okay,” Warren said, “because you get to pick first, what kind of odds will you give me?”

I knew something was up. “Let me look at those dice,” I said.

After studying the numbers on their faces for a moment, I said, “This is a losing proposition. You choose first.”

Once he chose a die, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out which of the three remaining dice to choose in response. Because of the careful selection of the numbers on each die, they were nontransitive. Each of the four dice could be beaten by one of the others: die A would tend to beat die B, die B would tend to beat die C, die C would tend to beat die D, and die D would tend to beat die A. This meant that there was no winning first choice of a die, only a winning second choice. It was counterintuitive, like a lot of things in the business world.

Warren is great with numbers, and I love math, too. But being good with numbers doesn’t necessarily correlate with being a good investor. Warren doesn’t outperform other investors because he computes odds better. That’s not it at all. Warren never makes an investment where the difference between doing it and not doing it relies on the second digit of computation. He doesn’t invest—take a swing of the bat—unless the opportunity appears unbelievably good.

One habit of Warren’s that I admire is that he keeps his schedule free of meetings. He’s good at saying no to things. He knows what he likes to do—and what he does, he does unbelievably well. He likes to sit in his office and read and think. There are a few things he’ll do beyond that, but not many. One point that Lowenstein makes that is absolutely true is that Warren is a creature of habit. He grew up in Omaha, and he wants to stay in Omaha. He has gotten to know a certain set of people, and he’d like to spend time with those people. He’s not a person who seeks out exotic new things. Warren, who just turned 65, still lives in the Omaha house he bought for himself at age 27.

His affinity for routine extends to his investment practices, too. Warren sticks to companies that he is comfortable with. He doesn’t do much investing outside the United States. There are a few companies that he has decided are great long-term investments. And despite the self-evident mathematics that there must be a price that fully anticipates all the good work that those companies will do in the future, he just won’t sell their stock no matter what the price is. I think his reluctance to sell is more philosophical than optimization driven, but who am I to second-guess the world’s most successful investor? Warren’s reluctance to sell fits in with his other tendencies.
Warren and I share certain values. He and I both feel lucky that we were born into an era in which our skills have turned out to be so remunerative. Had we been born at a different time, our skills might not have had much value. Since we don’t plan on spending much of what we have accumulated, we can make sure our wealth benefits society. In a sense, we’re both working for charity. In any case, our heirs will get only a small portion of what we accumulate, because we both believe that passing on huge wealth to children isn’t in their or society’s interest. Warren likes to say that he wants to give his children enough money for them to do anything but not enough for them to do nothing. I thought about this before I met Warren, and hearing him articulate it crystallized my feelings.

Lowenstein is a good collector of facts, and Buffett is competently written. Warren has told me that the book is in most respects accurate. He says he is going to write his own book someday, but given how much he loves to work and how hard it is to write a book (based on my personal experience), I think it will be a number of years before he does it. When it comes out, I am sure it will be one of the most valuable business books ever.

Already, Warren’s letters to shareholders are among the best of business literature.

Already, Warren’s letters to shareholders in the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports are among the best of business literature. Much of Lowenstein’s analysis comes from those letters, as it should. If, after reading Buffett, you’re intrigued by the man and his methods, I strongly commend the annual reports to you—even ones from 10 or 15 years ago. They are available in many libraries.

Other books have been written about Warren Buffett and his investment strategy, but until Warren writes his own book, this is the one to read.

source : https://hbr.org/1996/01/what-i-learned-from-warren-buffett.
04.03

 

How Warren Buffett Makes Decisions – The Secret to His Investing Success.

By Michael Lewis.

Warren Buffett is considered by many to be the most successful stock investor ever. Despite the occasional mistake, Buffett’s investing strategies are unrivaled. In 1956, at age 26, his net worth was estimated at $140,000. MarketWatch estimated his net worth at the end of 2016 to be $73.1 billion, an astounding compound annual growth rate of 24.5%. By contrast, the S&P 500 has grown at an average rate of 6.79% and most mutual funds have failed to equal the annual S&P 500 return consistently.

Buffett has achieved these returns while most of his competition failed. According to John Bogle, one of the founders and former Chairman of The Vanguard Group, “The evidence is compelling that equity fund returns lag the stock market by a substantial amount, largely accounted for by cost, and that fund investor returns lag fund returns by a substantial amount, largely accounted for by counterproductive market timing and fund selection.”

Since the evidence shows that Buffet has been an exceptional investor, market observers and psychologists have searched for an explanation to his success. Why has Warren Buffett achieved extraordinary gains compared to his peers? What is his secret?

A Long-Term Perspective. Why Some People Are More Successful Than Others.
Philosophers and scientists have long sought to determine why some people are more successful than others at building wealth. Their findings are varied and often contradictory.

For centuries, people believed their fate, including wealth and status, depended upon the capricious favor of pagan gods – more specifically, the favor of Tyche (Greek) or Fortuna (Roman). Expansion of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions and their concepts of “free will” led to the general belief that individuals could control their destiny through their actions, or lack thereof.

Modern science, specifically psychology and neuroscience, advanced a theory of biological determinants that control human decisions and actions. This theory suggests that free will might not be as “free” as previously thought. In other words, we may be predisposed to certain behaviors that affect the ways we process information and make decisions.

Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have developed a variety of different theories to explain human decision-making. Some claim that the ability to make superior decisions with favorable outcomes is the result of eons of natural selection, which favors individuals with exceptional genetics, such as those with high IQs.

Despite the perception that a high IQ is necessary for building wealth, study after study indicates that the link between super-intelligence and financial success is dubious at best:

Dr. Jay Zagorsky’s study in the Intelligence Journal found no strong relationship between total wealth and intelligence: “People don’t become rich just because they are smart.”
Mensa members rank in the top 2% of the brightest people on earth, but most are not rich and are “certainly not the top 1% financially,” according to an organization spokesperson. A study by Eleanor Laise of the Mensa Investment Club noted that the fund averaged 2.5% per annum for a 15-year period, while the S&P 500 averaged 15.3% during the same time. One member admitted that “we can screw up faster than anyone,” while another described their investment strategy as “buy low, sell lower.”
Buffett has never claimed to be a genius. When asked what he would teach the next generation of investors at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, he replied, “In the investing business, if you have an IQ of 150, sell 30 points to someone else. You do not need to be a genius . . . It’s not a complicated game; you don’t need to understand math. It’s simple, but not easy.”

He later expanded the thought: “If calculus or algebra were required to be a great investor, I’d have to go back to delivering newspapers.”

Economists’ Rational Man.
Economists have historically based their models upon the presumption that humans make logical decisions. In other words, a person faced with a choice balances certainties against risks. The theory of expected value presumes that people facing choices will choose the one that has the largest combination of expected success (probability) and value (impact).

A rational person would always model the industrious ant in Aesop’s fable, not the insouciant grasshopper. The idea that people would make decisions contrary to their interests is inconceivable to economists.

To be fair, most economists recognize the flaws in their models. Swedish economist Lars Syll notes that “a theoretical model is nothing more than an argument that a set of conclusions follows from a fixed set of assumptions.”

Economists presume stable systems and simple assumptions, while the real world is in constant flux. Paraphrasing H.L Mencken’s famous quote, there is always a simple economic model [well-known solution] for every human problem. This notion is neat, plausible, and wrong.

Psychologists’ Natural Man.
According to Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman, humans are naturally inclined to seek the solutions that require the least expenditure of energy.

In the real world, we have difficulty deferring immediate gratification for future security, selecting investments best suited to our long-term goals and risk profile, and acting in our best financial interests. Psychological research suggests that the difficulty is rooted in our brains – how we think and make decisions.

Researchers Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor postulate that humans are “cognitive misers,” preferring to do as little thinking as possible. The brain uses more energy than any other human organ, accounting for up to 20% of the body’s total intake.

When decisions involve issues more remote from our current state in distance or time, there is a tendency to defer making a choice. This impulse accounts for the failure of people to save in the present since the payoff is years in the future.

As far as we know, Mr. Buffett’ brain is similar to other investors and he experiences the same impulses and anxieties as others. While he experiences the tensions that arise in everyone when making decisions, he has learned to control impulses and make reasoned, rational decisions.

Our Two-Brain System.
The studies by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky provide new insight into decision-making, perhaps the key to Buffett’s success. They theorize that each human uses two systems of mental processing (System 1 and System 2) that work together seamlessly most of the time. Khaneman’s book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” outlines these two systems.

System 1 – Think Fast.
System 1, also referred to as the “emotional brain,” developed as the limbic system in the brain of early humans. Sometimes called the “mammalian brain,” it includes the amygdala, the organ where emotions and memories arise.

Neuroscientist Paul MacLean hypothesized that the limbic system was one of the first steps in the evolution of the human brain, developed as part of its fight or flight circuitry. Through necessity, our primitive ancestors had to react quickly to danger when seconds could mean escape or death.

The emotional brain is always active, capable of making quick decisions with scant information and conscious effort. It continuously makes and remakes models – heuristic frames – of the world around it, relying on the senses and memories of past events.

For example, an experienced driver coordinates steering and speed of an automobile on an empty highway almost effortlessly, even casually. The driver can simultaneously carry on conversations with passengers or listen to the radio without losing control of the vehicle. The driver is relying on the decisions of System 1.

The emotional brain is also the source of intuition, that “inner voice” or gut feeling we sometimes get without being consciously aware of the underlying reasons for its occurrence. We rely primarily on this system for the hundreds of everyday decisions we make – what to wear, where to sit, identifying a friend. Paradoxically, System 1 is a source of creativity as well as habits.

System 2 – Think Slow.
System 2, also called the “logical brain,” is slower, more deliberate, and analytical, rationally balancing the benefits and costs of each choice using all the available information.

System 2 decisions take place in the latest evolutionary addition to the brain – the neocortex. It is believed to be the center of humans’ extraordinary cognitive activity. System 2 was slower to evolve in humans and requires more energy to exercise, indicating the old saw “Thinking is hard” is a fact.

Kahneman characterizes System 2 as “the conscious, reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices, and decides what to think about and do.” It is in charge of decisions about the future, while System 1 is more active in the moment. While our emotional brain can generate complex patterns of ideas, it is also freewheeling, impulsive, and often inappropriate.

Fortunately, System 1 works well most of the time; its models of everyday situations are accurate, its short-term predictions are usually correct, and its initial reactions to challenges are swift and mostly appropriate.

System 2 is more controlled, rule-based, and analytical, continuously monitoring the quality of the answers provided by System 1. Our logical brain becomes active when it needs to override an automatic judgment of System 1.

For example, the earlier driver proceeding casually down the road is more focused when passing a semi-truck on a narrow two-lane road or in heavy traffic, actively processing the changing conditions and responding with deliberate actions. His or her mental effort is accompanied by detectable physical changes, such as tensed muscles, increased heart rate, and dilated pupils. In these circumstances, System 2 is in charge.

The logical brain normally functions in low-effort mode, always in reserve until System 1 encounters a problem it cannot solve or is required to act in a way that doesn’t come naturally. Solving for the product of 37 x 82 requires the deliberate processes of System 2, while the answer to a simple addition problem, such as the sum of 2 + 2, is a System 1 function. The answer is not calculated, but summoned from memory.

Neuropsychologists Abigail Baird and Jonathan Fugelsang’s 2004 study indicates that System 2 does not fully develop until adulthood. Their findings suggest the reason that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior is because they lack the mental hardware to weigh decisions rationally. For most people, the two systems work together seamlessly, transitioning from one to the other as needed.

The Buffett Style.
The Oracle of Omaha’s key to investing is understanding and coordinating the two systems of decision-making. Buffett relies upon System 1 to intuitively seek out investments he finds attractive and understands.

When deciding on a possible investment, he recommends, “If you need a computer or a calculator to decide whether to invest, then don’t do it – invest in something that shouts at you – if it is not obvious, walk away . . . If you don’t know the business, the financials won’t help at all.”

Avoid the Traps of Thinking Fast.
Master investors like Buffett simplify their decisions by relying upon System 1, and it serves them well in most cases. However, they recognize that their emotional decision-making system is also prone to biases and errors, including:

Mental Framing.
Our brains, equipped with millions of sensory inputs, create interpretive mental “frames” or filters to make sense of data. These mental filters help us understand and respond to the events around us. Framing is a heuristic – a mental shortcut – that provides a quick, easy way to process information. Unfortunately, framing can also provide a limited, simplistic view of reality that can lead to flawed decisions.

The choices we make depend on our perspective, or the frames surrounding the problem. For example, research shows that people are likely to proceed with a decision if the outcome is presented with a 50% chance of success and decline if the consequence is expressed with a 50% chance of failure, even though the probability is the same in either case.

Most investors incorrectly frame stock investments by thinking of the stock market as a stream of electronic bits of data independent of the underlying businesses the data represents. The constant flow of information about prices, economies, and expert opinions triggers our emotional brains and stimulates quick decisions to reap profits (pleasure) or prevent loss (pain).

Buffett recommends investors not think of an investment in stock as “a piece of paper whose price wiggles around daily” and is a candidate for sale whenever you get nervous.

Short-term thinking – System 1 – often leads to trading stocks, not investing in companies. Day traders – those who buy and sell stocks within a single market session – are unusually unsuccessful, according to day trading studies by the University of California-Berkeley:

80% of all day traders quit within the first two years.
Active traders underperform the stock market average by 6.5% annually.
Only 1.6% of day traders make a net profit each year.
Financial data is especially susceptible to framing. Companies always express earnings and losses positively, either as an increase compared to past results or a smaller loss than previous periods. Trends can be manipulated based upon the comparison point and time interval.

Even the words we use to describe a choice establish a frame for assessing value. Characterizations like “high growth,” “turnaround,” or “cyclical” trigger the subconscious stereotypes we have for such terms without regard to the underlying financial data.

Framing can lead rational people to make irrational decisions based upon their projections of the outcome. This accounts for the difference between economics’ rational man and psychology’s natural man.

Buffett has learned to frame his investment opportunities appropriately to avoid short-term, arbitrary outcomes:

“We [Berkshire Hathaway] select such investments on a long-term basis, weighing the same factors as would be involved in the purchase of 100% of an operating business.”
“When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever.”
“If you aren’t willing to own a stock for 10 years, don’t even think about owning it 10 minutes.”
Loss Aversion.
Kahneman and Tversky determined that in human decision-making, losses loom larger than gains. Their experiments suggest that the pain of loss is twice as a great as the pleasure from gain. This feeling arises in the amygdala, which is responsible for generating fearful emotions and memories of painful associations.

The fact that investors are more likely to sell stocks with profit than those with a loss, when the converse strategy would be more logical, is evidence of the power of loss aversion.

While Buffett sells his positions infrequently, he cuts his losses when he realizes he has made a judgment error. In 2016, Buffett substantially reduced or liquidated his position in three companies, because he believed they had lost their competitive edge:

Wal-Mart: Despite his regrets that he had not purchased more shares earlier, he has been a long-time investor in the company. The rationale for the recent sales is thought to be due to the transition of the retail market from bricks-and-mortar stores to online. A Pew Research Center study found almost 80% of Americans today are online shoppers versus 22% in 2000.
Deere & Co: Buffett’s initial purchases of the agricultural equipment manufacturer began in the third quarter of 2012. By 2016, he owned almost 22-million shares with an average cost of less than $80 per share. He liquidated his shares during the last two quarters of 2016 when prices were more than $100 per share. Buffett may have felt that farm income, having fallen by half since 2013 due to worldwide bumper crops, was unlikely to improve, leaving the premier provider of agricultural equipment unable to continue to expand its profits.
Verizon: Having owned the stock since 2014, he liquidated his entire position in 2016, due to a loss of confidence in management after the company’s questionable acquisition of Yahoo and the continued turmoil in the wireless carrier market.
Our distaste for losses can create anxiety and trick us into acting prematurely because we fear being left out in a rising market or staying too long in a bear market. Buffett and Munger practice “assiduity – the ability to sit on your ass and do nothing until a great opportunity presents itself.”

Representativeness.
People tend to ignore statistics and focus on stereotypes. An example in the Association of Psychological Science Journal illustrates this common bias. When asked to select the proper occupation of a shy, withdrawn man who takes little interest in the real world from a list including farmer, salesman, pilot, doctor, and librarian, most people incorrectly chose librarian. Their decision ignores the obvious: there are many more farmers in the world than librarians.

Buffett focuses on finding the “inevitables” – great companies with insurmountable advantages – rather than following conventional wisdom and accepted patterns of thinking favored by System 1’s decision-making process. In his 1996 letter to investors, he defines Coca-Cola and Gillette as two companies that “will dominate their fields worldwide for an investment lifetime.”

He is especially wary of “imposters” – those companies that seem invincible but lack real competitive advantage. For every inevitable, there are dozens of imposters. According to Buffett, General Motors, IBM, and Sears lost their seemingly insurmountable advantages when values declined in “the presence of hubris or of boredom that caused the attention of the managers to wander.”

Buffett recognizes that companies in high-tech or embryonic industries capture our imaginations – and excite our emotional brains – with their promise of extraordinary gains. However, he prefers investments where he is “certain of a good result [rather] than hopeful of a great one” – an example of the logical brain at work.

Anchoring.
Evolution is the reason humans rely too heavily on the first or a single bit of information they receive – their “first impression.” In a world of deadly perils, delaying action can lead to pain or death. Therefore, first impressions linger in our minds and affect subsequent decisions. We subconsciously believe that what happened in the past will happen in the future, leading us to exaggerate the importance of the initial purchase price in subsequent decisions to sell a security.

Investors unknowingly make decisions based on anchoring data, such as previous stock prices, past years’ earnings, consensus analyst projections or expert opinions, and prevailing attitudes about the direction of stock prices, whether in a bear or bull market. While some characterize this effect as following a trend, it is a System 1 shortcut based on partial information, rather than the result of System 2 analysis.

Buffett often goes against the trend of popular opinion, recognizing that “most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can’t buy what is popular and do well.” When making a decision based on historical data, he notes, “If past history was all that is needed to play the game of money, the richest people would be librarians.”

Buffett’s approach is neither to follow the herd nor purposely do the opposite of the consensus. Whether people concur with his analysis isn’t important. His goal is simple: acquire, at a reasonable price, a business with excellent economics and able, honest management.

Despite considering IBM an “imposter” in 1996, Berkshire Hathaway began acquiring the stock in 2011, consistently adding to Buffett’s position over the years. By the end of the first quarter in 2017, Berkshire owned more than 8% of the outstanding shares with a value greater than $14 billion.

While his analysis remains confidential, Buffett believes that the investors have discounted the future of IBM too severely and failed to note its transition to a cloud-based business might lead to brighter growth prospects and a high degree of customer retention. Also, the company pays a dividend almost twice the level of the S&P 500 and actively repurchases shares on the open market.

The growing IBM position – quadrupling since the initial purchase – is evidence that Buffett isn’t afraid to take action when he is comfortable with his analysis: “Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble.”

Availability.
Humans tend to estimate the likelihood of an event occurring based on the ease with which it comes to mind. For example, a 2008 study of State lottery sales showed that stores that sell a publicized, winning lottery ticket experience a 12% to 38% increase in sales for up to 40 weeks following the announcement of the winner.

People visit stores selling a winning ticket more often due to the easy recall of the win, and a bias that the location is “lucky” and more likely to produce another winning ticket than a more convenient store down the street.

This bias frequently affects decisions about stock investments. In other words, investor perceptions lag reality. Momentum, whether upward or downward, continues well past the emergence of new facts. Investors with losses are slow to reinvest, often sitting on the sidelines until prices have recovered most of their decline (irrational pessimism).

Conversely, reinforcement from a bull market encourages continued purchasing even after the economic cycle turns down (irrational optimism). Therefore, investors tend to buy when prices are high and sell when they are low.

The S&P 500 fell 57% between late 2007 and March 2009, devastating investor portfolios and liquidating stocks and mutual funds. Even though the index had recovered its losses by mid-2012, individual investors had not returned to equity investments, either staying in cash or purchasing less risky bonds.

At the time, Liz Ann Sonders, Chief Investment Strategist at Charles Schwab & Co., noted, “Even three-and-a-half years into this bull market and the gains we’ve seen since June [2012], it has not turned this psychology [of fear] around.” In other words, many individuals took the loss but did not participate in the subsequent recovery.

Buffett has always tried to follow the advice of his mentor, Benjamin Graham, who said, “Buy not on optimism [or sell due to pessimism], but on arithmetic.” Graham advocated objective analysis, not emotions, when buying or selling stocks: “In the short run, the market is a voting machine [emotional], but in the long run it is a weighing machine [logical].”

Affect.
We tend to assess probabilities based on our feelings about the options. In other words, we judge an option less risky solely because we favor it and vice versa. This bias can lead people to buy stock in their employer when other investments would be more appropriate for their goals. Overconfidence in one’s ability magnifies the negative impact of affect.

For example, Buffett invested $350 million in preferred stock of U.S. Airways in 1989, despite his belief that airlines and airline manufacturers had historically been a death trap for investors. The investment followed a dinner with Ed Colodny, the CEO of the airline, who impressed Buffett. Certain that the preferred stock was safe and the airline had a competitive seat cost (around 12 cents per mile), he made the investment.

Buffett later admitted his analysis “was superficial and wrong,” perhaps due to hubris and his like for Colodny. An upstart Texas airline (Southwest Airlines) subsequently upset the competitive balance in the industry with seat costs of 8 cents per mile, causing Berkshire Hathaway to write down its investment by 75%.

Buffett was lucky to make a significant profit on the investment ($216 million), primarily because the airline subsequently and unexpectedly returned to profitability and was able to pay the accrued dividends and redeem its preferred stock.

Final Word.
Mr. Buffett’s investment style has been criticized by many over the decades. Trend followers and traders are especially critical of his record and philosophy, claiming that his results are the result of “luck, given the relatively few trades that made him so wealthy.”

Hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, who Forbes called “Wall Street’s Greatest Trader,” said during a CNBC interview that Buffett is “the greatest PR person of all time. And he has managed to achieve a snow job that has conned virtually everyone in the press to my knowledge.”

Before following the advice of those who are quick to condemn Buffett’s investment style, it should be noted that no investment manager has come close to rivaling Buffet’s record over the past 60 years. While Steinhardt’s returns are similar to those of Buffett, his were for a period of 28 years – less than one-half of Buffett’s cycle.

Despite their antipathy, both men would agree that System 2 decision-making is critical to investment success. Steinhardt, in his autobiography “No Bull: My Life In and Out of Markets,” said that his results required “knowing more and perceiving the situation better than others did . . . Reaching a level of understanding that allows one to feel competitively informed well ahead of changes in ‘street’ views, even anticipating minor stock price changes, may justify at times making unpopular investments.”

Buffett appears to agree, insisting on taking the time for introspection and thought. “I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. I read and think. So I do more reading and thinking, and make fewer impulsive decisions than most people in business.”

Do you take the time to gather facts and make carefully analyzed investment decisions? Perhaps you are more comfortable going with the flow. What is your decision-making preference and how has it worked out for you thus far?
Do you know anyone who has owned the same stock for 20 years? Warren Buffett has held three stocks – Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, and American Express – for more than 20 years. He has owned one stock – Moody’s – for 15 years, and three other stocks – Proctor & Gamble, Wal-Mart, and U.S. Bancorp – for over a decade.

To be sure, Mr. Buffett’s 50-year track record is not perfect, as he has pointed out from time to time:

Berkshire Hathaway: Pique at CEO Seabird Stanton motivated his takeover of the failing textile company. Buffett later admitted the purchase was “the dumbest stock I ever bought.”
Energy Future Holding: Buffett lost a billion dollars in bonds of the bankrupt Texas electric utility. He admitted he made a huge mistake not consulting his long-term business partner Charlie Munger before closing the purchase: “I would be unwilling to share the credit for my decision to invest with anyone else. That was just a mistake – a significant mistake.”
Wal-Mart: At the 2003 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, Buffet admitted his attempt to time the market had backfired: “We bought a little, and it moved up a little, and I thought maybe it would come back. That thumb-sucking has cost us in the current area of $10 billion.”
Even with these mistakes, Buffett has focused on making big bets that he intends to hold for decades to come. A longer time horizon has allowed him to take advantage of opportunities few others have the patience for. But how has he been able to make these successful bets in the first place?

source : https://www.moneycrashers.com/warren-buffett-decisions-secret-investing-success.
03.45

2 simple ways Warren Buffett decides what to invest in | How Warren Buffett decides if something is a good investment.

By Emmie Martin.

It seems like every week there’s a new flashy Silicon Valley start-up announcing its IPO, and it’s tempting to want to get in on the action. But is buying stock in a newly public company the best idea? When it comes to investing, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett doesn’t have a complicated method for choosing what to buy. Instead, he keeps things simple by following a few steadfast guidelines.

After all, “the fundamentals won’t change,” he told CNBC’s Becky Quick during an interview on “Squawk Box” in February. “You’re not going to discover anything new about investments in the next 50 or 100 years.”

Here are two ways the Oracle of Omaha decides a business is worth investing in.

1. The company has long-term value.
Buffett looks for businesses that will continue to have a competitive advantage decades down the line, not just in the moment. “Nobody buys a farm based on whether they think it’s going to rain next year,” he said on “Squawk Box” in 2018. “They buy it because they think it’s a good investment over 10 or 20 years.”

For example, he purchased See’s Candies with longtime business partner Charlie Munger in 1972 and spent more than $1 billion on Coca-Cola stock in 1988 — both of which turned out to be good bets he still owns today.

“Put together a portfolio of companies whose aggregate earnings march upward over the years, and so also will the portfolio’s market value,” Buffett wrote in his 1996 letter to shareholders. “If you aren’t willing to own a stock for 10 years, don’t even think about owning it for 10 minutes.”

2. He understands how the business works.
Buffett doesn’t put money into anything he doesn’t understand. “You have to learn how to value businesses and know the ones that are within your circle of competence and the ones that are outside,” Buffett told Quick in February.

That’s because it’s crucial for investors to be able to confidently assess the businesses they hold. “Intelligent investing is not complex, though that is far from saying that it is easy,” Buffett wrote in his 1996 annual shareholders’ letter. “What an investor needs is the ability to correctly evaluate selected businesses. Note that word ‘selected’: You don’t have to be an expert on every company, or even many. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence.

“The size of that circle is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.”

You have to learn how to value businesses and know the ones that are within your circle of competence and the ones that are outside.

It’s important to remember that investing in the stock market always carries risk and for many people, investing in individual companies isn’t the smartest choice. You should talk to a trusted financial advisor before making any major decisions.

For many investors, Buffett recommends low-risk index funds, which he calls the “thing that makes the most sense practically all of the time” for retirement savings.

He favors index funds, in part, because they take the guesswork out of investing. “The trick is not to pick the right company,” Buffett told CNBC’s “On The Money” in 2017. “The trick is to essentially buy all the big companies through the S&P 500 and to do it consistently.”

In fact, after he’s gone, he has said that he’s instructed the trustee in charge of his estate to invest 90% of his money into the S&P 500 for his wife.

source ; https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/20/how-warren-buffett-decides-what-to-invest-in.
01.51

How Does Warren Buffett Choose His Stocks | How Warren Buffett decides if something is a good investment.

Buffett's value investing strategy is key to picking profitable stocks.

By BRENT RADCLIFFE.
Investors have long praised Warren Buffett’s ability to pick which stocks to invest in. Lauded for consistently following value investing principles, Buffett has a net worth of $80.8 billion as of Oct. 2019, according to Forbes. He has resisted the temptations associated with investing in the “next big thing,” and has also used his immense wealth for good by contributing to charities. With his uncanny ability to uncover long-term profitable investments, it's understandable most investors would like to know exactly what Buffett looks for in a stock. We answer that question in this article.

KEY TAKEAWAYS.
Warren Buffett's strategy for picking winning stocks starts with evaluating a company based on his value investing philosophy.
Buffett looks for companies that provide a good return on equity over many years, particularly when compared to rival companies in the same industry.
When looking for a great company to invest in, Buffett also reviews a company's profit margins to ensure they are healthy and growing.
Buffett focuses on companies that provide a unique product or service that gives them a competitive advantage; he also focuses on companies that are undervalued that he can purchase at a good discount.

Value Investing for Choosing Stocks.
Understanding how Warren Buffett selects winning stocks starts with analyzing the investment philosophy of the company he is most closely associated with, Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire has a long-held and public strategy when it comes to acquiring shares. The company should have consistent earning power, a good return on equity (ROE), capable management, and be sensibly-priced.

Buffett belongs to the value investing school, popularized by Benjamin Graham. Value investing looks at the intrinsic value of a share rather than focusing on technical indicators, such as moving averages, volume, or momentum indicators. Determining intrinsic value is an exercise in understanding a company’s financials, especially official documents such as earnings and income statements.

There are several things worth noting about Buffett's value investing strategy. To guide him in his decisions, Buffett uses several key considerations to evaluate the attractiveness of a possible investment.

How Has the Company Performed.
Companies that have been providing a positive and acceptable return on equity (ROE) for many years are more desirable than companies that have only had a short period of solid returns. The longer the number of years of good ROE, the better. In order to accurately gauge historical performance, an investor should review at least five to 10 years of a company's ROE.

When looking at a company's historic return on equity (ROE), it's also essential to compare this with the ROE of the company's top competitors in the same industry.

How Much Debt Does the Company Have.
Having a large ratio of debt to equity should raise a red flag because more of a company’s earnings are going to go toward servicing debt, especially if growth is only coming from adding on more debt.

Instead, Buffett prefers earnings growth to come from shareholders' equity (SE). A company with positive shareholders' equity means the company generates enough cash flow to cover its liabilities and is not relying on debt to keep it afloat. For Buffett, low debt and strong shareholders' equity are two key components for successful stock picking.

How Are Profit Margins.
Buffett looks for companies that have a good profit margin, especially if profit margins are growing. As is the case with ROE, he examines the profit margin over several years to discount short-term trends. To stay on Buffett's radar, a company's management should be adept at growing their profit margins year-over-year, a sign that management is also good at controlling operating costs.

How Unique Are the Company's Products.
Buffett considers companies that produce products that can easily be substituted to be riskier than companies that provide more unique offerings. For example, an oil company’s product—oil—is not all that unique because clients can buy oil from any number of other competitors.

However, if the company has access to a more desirable grade of oil—one that can be refined easily—then that might be an investment worth looking at. In this case, the company's desirable grade of oil could be a competitive advantage that helps it earn profits through greater sales and margins.

How Much of a Discount Are Shares Trading At.
This is the crux of value investing: finding companies that have good fundamentals but are trading below where they should be—the greater the discount, the more room for profitability.

The goal for value investors like Buffett is to discover companies that are undervalued compared to their intrinsic value. An opportunity to buy at a discount exists when a company's current market value is cheaper than its intrinsic value. While there is no exact formula for calculating intrinsic value, investors will look at a variety of factors—such as corporate governance and future earnings potential—to estimate intrinsic value.

The Bottom Line.
Beyond his value-oriented style, Buffett is also known as a buy-and-hold investor. He is not interested in selling stock in the near-term to realize capital gains; rather, he chooses stocks that he believes offer good prospects for long-term growth. This leads him to move focus away from what others are doing. Instead, he looks at whether a company is in a solid position to make money moving forward and if its stock is sensibly-priced.

source : https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/081114/how-does-warren-buffett-choose-what-companies-buy.

01.27

Financial Advice from Ray Dalio.

His first recommendation is to focus on savings, and to think about how many months of living expenses your savings can get you through. Savings, explains Dalio, is “freedom and security.” Savings can also provide you with opportunities. If you need to further your education, start a new business, or invest in a discounted asset, it’s easier if you have extra money. If you can accumulate enough savings to last you for the next 300 months then you can be considered financially independent. ๐Ÿ™‚

Dalio’s next advice is about what to do with your savings. He says “it’s important to realize that the least risky investment that you can make, which is cash, is also the worst investment you can make over time. You can judge that by comparing the rate of inflation to the after tax rate of return you will earn.” So if inflation is 2%, and you’re only making 1% on your cash investment then you are actually losing purchasing power and getting poorer. “So you have to move into other assets that will do better over a longer period of time.” This is why some people like myself don’t have a cash emergency fund.

The last advice Dalio gives is a bit of surprise to me. Instead of going with the mainstream and buying an index fund, he suggests that millennials should do the opposite of what their instinct tells them to do. This can be emotionally difficult to pull off. The market reflects the crowd and your instincts will usually lead you to do the same thing the crowd is doing. But herd mentality won’t get you any further than the rest of the herd. So you want to buy when no one else wants to buy. Famous investor Warren Buffett has a similar saying: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.” The best way to approach this last advice for me is to apply original research and critical thinking to your investment strategies if you want to outperform the market. But then again, a lot of people are perfectly happy earning market returns and I think indexing is an acceptable way to invest as well.

Ray Dalio created a 30 min YouTube video about his famous work, Principles for Success. He believes that dreams, reality, and determination can all help to create a successful life. And that pain plus proper reflection will give us the tools to progress. It’s an interesting watch if you’re into mental models and self development.

Motivational speaker Tony Robbins interviewed self-made billionaire Ray Dalio for his book, Money; Master the Game. Ray heads the largest hedge fund in the world, Bridgewater Associates, which has over $150 billion in assets under management.

The All Weather Portfolio.
According to Ray, “there is one thing we can see with absolute certainty: every investment has an ideal environment in which it flourishes. In other words, there’s a season for everything.” The four seasons he refers to are the following.

Inflation.
Deflation.
Rising economic growth.
Declining economic growth.

He suggests that these 4 economic environments will ultimately affect whether an asset’s price will increase or decrease. So for example, bonds should outperform in a deflationary period. Ray elaborates by saying we should have 25% of our risk spread out evenly across all 4 economic seasons. This is why he calls this investment approach “All Weather.” There are 4 seasons in the financial world and nobody knows for sure which one is coming next. So the idea is to keep a balanced portfolio that will not only make us money, but also help protect us against any surprises in the markets. Here are some assets we can allocate to each of the four categories, and keep in mind it’s possible for two of these conditions to overlap.

This is an interesting strategy. I’ve always had a bullish bias towards investing. In other words, my investment decisions are based on the idea that financial markets tend to increase with economic growth over the very long run, so I don’t try to short anything. But Ray’s approach suggests that it’s possible to make money even in environments of economic decline and deflation that doesn’t involve timing the markets.

Asset Allocation.
Using the philosophy behind his All Weather portfolio, Ray has developed the following asset allocation for the average investor which should work with his strategy.

30% stocks via low fee index funds such as the ones that track the S&P 500 index.
15% intermediate-term government bonds.
40% long-term government bonds.
7.5% gold.
7.5% commodities.
And the results speak for themselves. ๐Ÿ™‚ This all weather portfolio has performed quite well from 1984 to 2013. During that period, the portfolio earned a positive return 26 out of 30 years. The average annual return was 9.7%. According to Tony Robbins, this portfolio never lost more than 3.95% in any given year over the past 75 years. Gold and commodities are known for being highly volatile in price, but it appears having a 15% allocation in this case might actually reduce portfolio volatility.

Over the last 20 years, Bridgwater had annualized returns of 14.7%. To put that into perspective, the S&P 500 index returned about 8.7%. During the financial crisis Bridgewater even managed to earn a positive, albeit modest return in 2008 when the general stock market was down. So when Ray Dalio speaks about investing, I’m inclined to listen. ๐Ÿ˜€ It doesn’t matter how poor people are, anyone can at least afford to pay attention.๐Ÿ˜„

The only thing I’d change about the all weather portfolio is to buy investment grade corporate bonds instead of government bonds because the yields on T-Bills and other government debt are abysmal right now. For me, the key point is to maintain a balanced asset allocation, and rebalance it once a year.

04.24

Ray Dalio: 3 pieces of advice for how to manage your savings in a coronavirus recession.

By Tom Huddleston Jr.

Though the stock market is on the rebound of late as more and more states reopen, hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio has made it clear that he expects the ongoing coronavirus pandemic to leave behind an economic downturn that could be the worst since the Great Depression.

“We’re not going to go back to normal” once the pandemic subsides, Dalio previously told CNBC Make It, arguing against the idea of a “v-shaped recovery” where the economy would rebound quickly once the country fully reopens.

“Think of the virus as like a tsunami that comes in,” Dalio said. “And if it goes away completely and we never see it again, it still will produce damage, the financial damage ... incomes that are lost, balance sheets that are hurt, restructurings that need to take place. So that will impede the recovery.”

With that in mind, Dalio has advice for Americans worrying about whether or not their savings will keep them afloat should the economy truly take a historic turn for the worse that lasts well beyond 2020.

Though 21% of Americans do not save any of their annual income, according to a 2019 Bankrate survey, for those who do, Dalio offers up three pieces of advice on relatively safe investment strategies to carry you through.

Determine how far your savings will go
First, you need to take a hard look at your savings and calculate how much you need to be “safe and free,” Dalio says.

″[Determine] how many months or years can you get by” based on your current savings and what it would take to ensure you can still have the type of life you’re comfortable leading, he says.

In other words, you should calculate your average, basic expenses — from rent or mortgage payments to food costs and other essential bills that cannot be trimmed or cut out completely — in order to figure out how much money you would need to survive losing a major source of income.

Dalio suggests saving enough to make sure “you’re okay for ‘X’ amount of time,” he says, whether that’s several months, or even a year.

Remember, “you don’t have to have a world of luxury to cover the basics,” he says.

And “when you’ve [calculated] that savings ... cut it in half, just to be conservative,” Dalio says. “Because between taxes, inflation and possible losses in your portfolio, maybe they can add up to half.”

“That’s No. 1. Do those calculations so that you know, if everything is bad, you and your family [are] still good,” Dalio says.

Once you have that amount of your portfolio set aside to feel safe, Dalio says you can start planning how to put the rest of your money to work for you by investing any money that is not part of what you’ve set aside from your expenses.

“I want you to visualize your acceptable worst case scenario and secure that, because once you do, everything else changes and you can have peace of mind that you can take more risk,” Dalio says. “But if you haven’t secured that acceptable picture, you have to make doing that your top priority.”

Diversify your investments
Which brings on Dalio’s second piece of money advice, which is to take the money that you feel comfortable building on and “diversify that portfolio well.” That means spreading your money across different asset classes that can typically be counted on to perform relatively well no matter the economic environment.

“You need to diversify by holding assets that will do well in either a rising or a falling growth environment, or a rising or falling inflation environment, and [you] should diversify by holding international as well as domestic asset classes,” Dalio says.

For instance, the billionaire has been adamant that investors should back “both horses in the race” in terms of the U.S.-China trade war and the two superpowers’ increasing competition for economic growth in recent years.

“I believe Chinese businesses are competitors of American businesses or other business around the world, and that therefore you want to be, if you’re diversified, having bets on both horses in the race,” Dalio said in 2019.

Dalio has also argued against holding onto cash or government bonds at the moment, due to fears that currency inflation could hurt their value over time. “Cash is not going to be a good investment,” he says, adding: “In relation to inflation, it’ll probably lose 2% a year and maybe more.”

Dalio does see gold as a more attractive asset, he says, echoing his sentiments from January, when he said: “I think you have to have a little bit of gold in your portfolio.” Many investors, including billionaire Warren Buffett, tend to look at gold as a relatively safe and steady investment in times of crisis.

Don’t try to time the market
Lastly, Dalio says never try to time the market.

That is “going to be really important.”

In the past, Dalio has said that the “biggest mistake that most people make is to judge what will be good by what has been good lately” in terms of looking at how the stock market has performed recently and when is the best time to buy.

Trying to perfectly time the market is something that even professionals can’t always manage, and the average person will find it extremely difficult to do successfully, Dalio says.

“To do that well you have to beat the pros, who themselves typically can’t do that well.”

Instead, it’s probably a better idea for non-professional investors to take long-term positions in a diversified portfolio that can pay off over time. Otherwise, all investors need to keep in mind the historical cycles and patterns of the economy and stock market.

From bubbles leading into busts, and vice versa, Dalio has always been adamant that those economic cycles tend to repeat themselves and that investors need to learn to avoid thinking along the lines of: ”‘That’s a bad market, and I don’t want any of it,’” Dalio previously told CNBC Make It. That’s because a bear market might actually be the best time to get bargain prices on certain stocks.

After all, a company like Amazon once saw its stock price lost most of its value after the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, but many of the company’s long-term investors (those who held onto the stock through rough times, or bought it at a nadir) have seen huge gains because they ignored the most recent market trends at the time and took a long-term approach that’s paid off as Amazon is now worth several times what it was even just a decade ago.

01.44

Hedge fund luminary Ray Dalio has 3 financial recommendations for millennials.

By Julia La Roche.
Hedge fund titan Ray Dalio, the founder of $160 billion Bridgewater Associates, outlined three financial recommendations for Millennials.

1) Save.
“The first recommendation is to think about your savings and how much money you have for savings,” Dalio said. “The best way to think about that is to think ‘How much money do I spend each month, and how much money do I have saved. How many months I’m I going to be OK without that?'”

It seems like obvious advice, but it’s easily forgotten and taken for granted when the paychecks are coming in.

“Value savings and calculate it because savings is freedom and security,” Dalio stressed.

That said, it’s important to allocate your savings wisely.

2) Cash is the worst investment.
“The second thing is, ‘How do I save well? What should I put my savings in?'” Dalio said. “When thinking about what you should put your savings in, realize that the least risk investment that you think from volatility – which is cash – is the worst investment over a period of time.”

Cash may appear stable, but it actually loses value in a world where inflation is increasing the price of goods and services. Dalio says it’s important to think about investing in and saving in the context of inflation and after-tax income. That’s why it’s essential to not think of cash as a good investment option.

“You have to move into assets that are going to do better over a period of time,” Dalio said.

With that in mind, Dalio pointed out that investments that offer better rewards also come with greater risks.

“The most important thing I can convey to you is to diversify well because I can guarantee you that one of those assets —and you won’t be able to pick the right one — will be disastrous in your lifetime. [You] will lose half of that savings if you’re in the wrong one and you won’t know what the right one is. And so pick different countries, pick different asset classes.”

Dalio also takes a nuanced view of debt.

“When you’re thinking about debt, think, ‘Is that debt going to help my savings or is it going to produce an income?’ Sometimes debt, like buying a house or buying an apartment or buying an asset, produces forced savings. Forced savings is a good thing,” Dalio said. “Or if you’re taking on debt and you’re thinking, ‘Am I going to have that debt in an asset?’ That asset better produce more income than the cost of your debt. If you’re using debt for consumption, that’s not a good thing to do, OK, you’re giving up that that safety.”

3) Don’t follow your instincts.
The third thing is to “do the opposite of what your instincts are.”

“If you’re going to play the game, it has to be the opposite of what your instincts and what the crowd says because the market reflects the crowd,” he said. “So if you want to buy when no one wants to buy, and you want to sell when no one wants to sell, right. And that’s emotionally difficult, and probably you’re not going to play that game well, because it takes a lot of resources to play.”

The financial markets often appear to offer obvious and easy investing opportunities. The markets, particularly in the short term, will often do the opposite of what you expect. And if investing were easy, everyone would be rich. With that in mind, Dalio notes that there are players in the markets like hedge funds with extensive resources competing with small-time investors for short-term opportunities.

“We spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to try to play that game well, and it’s a tough game to play well. So I would caution you about the market timing game,” Dalio said. “But I would say that if you’re going to do it do it in the ways that are uncomfortable because they’re opposite your instincts.”

01.13

WANT TO BE LONGER, HARDER, STRONGER ?