I'm always on the lookout for innovative strategies to improve returns and generate alpha for my portfolio (isn't everyone?), so I'm going to take the next few posts to create a series on the results of my research. Today, we'll look at which factors can add value to your portfolio. Later, we'll evaluate strategies that follow the "experts" and discuss how to glean our wisdom from the "crowd."
Historically, investors in the US stock market have seen a positive return in the neighborhood of 6% to 8% over the long term. Of course, the precise average depends on whom you ask and a wide variety of factors, but the reality is that none of us is really in the marker for that kind of "long-term." We don't have 100 years to ride out the full story of ups and downs and may, in fact, lose money through the course of a decade or two or three by owning a stake in a market index.
The US is also in a different place than it was 100+ years ago. We aren't growing at exponential rates, as we were as a developing nation. But there are opportunities to invest in nations that are recapitulating our developmental progress, like India, Brazil, and even China (ignoring the communism). That said, the US has had plenty of successful companies, and investors have made trillions of dollars in the past decade even with a net flat return on the S&P 500.
With that in mind, how do we identify and capitalize on opportunities that will outperform the market going forward?
First, we look to value investing, which has different meanings for different investors. Some look at a simple price-to-earnings ratio to determine if a stock is cheap or expensive relative to its peers and market segment. A low P/E is certainly a decent starting point, and entire strategies are built on this approach, but to take it a step further, there is a more predictive measure of future performance.
A stock, at its core, is a valuation of a series of future risky (not guaranteed) cashflows. What I look for is a growing free cashflow. This (along with sales growth expectations) is the key component of the valuation process I use to measure the value of a stock. According to a study published in Quantitative Strategies for Achieving Alpha by quantitative analyst Richard Tortoriello, free cashflow growth is a very accurate predictor of future returns. Begin with the end in mind: Look to the cashflow.
Second, I look to acquire these winners when the price has suffered a recent bruising. Quantifiable, one-time events that send the stock price plummeting are the ideal buying signals for me. In the short term (in between material events), stock movements are a function of market sentiment, and, following those hits, many investors will exaggerate the downside out of fear. If the move was further south than a proper valuation would warrant, I jump on that stock, and more often than not, it will recover what was lost during the fear-driven selloff.
To find these events, screen for the big losers of the day. If the stock is down on a one-time (or short-term) issue that you can put a dollar value on, but the stock has fallen further than it should have, look to acquire it.
These are two methods I use to buy low and sell high using fundamental information, but next time we'll look at how to use experts' research to your advantage when you're allocating equities in your portfolio.
I'd say a mixture of growth and value stocks is important to have. Consumer electronics investment has become an arena where it's impossible to keep up. Especially where information architecture can be deployed so rapidly, investing with the facts on your side can be futile to attempt.
In my opinion this industry is where growth, first-mover players are to be tapped. In Apple's case, the innovation in large part was a management fusion of talent in engineering and marketing divisions of the computer maker. That the product development leadership resided in the CEO himself is a major reason Jobs' health is a perplexing variable in the investment community.
Can companies with value stocks be found among the phone makers? Firms that approach the business with a commodity model in mind may have good value prospects if their operations management is skilled and energetic--again, hard to discern as an outsider.
The weird part of Nokia's example is that during RAZR crisis, Nokia management team did not response to the consumer's craziness for super thin flip-flop phone. They insisted on selling their candy bar phones. Somehow, Nokia got away with the decision.
In 2007, facing the competition from Apple and RIMM, Nokia did try to change its business model, it gave away the Symbian OS, acquired naviteq, and opened the Ovi store. All the changes made no difference.
Of course, if Nokia adopted the Google Android in 2008-2009, it had the best chance to counter attack Apple. But the time was wasted.
My feeling is that in investment, it is hard to say which strategy always works. At best some strategies have better probability to win than others
I agree, VH, it is a tough discipline. Apple has proved time and time again to be a dynamic market-changer. It's difficult if not impossible to compete with them successfully. I suppose the difference in your example is that the Motorola Razr was a phone with a different shape, or, at best, a "better" phone. The iPhone is hardly a phone, but a computer/entertainment device with the added functionality of making/receiving calls.
If Nokia had an answer to this game-changer, it would have faired much better, but, obviously in hind sight, we see it didn't. The most important part in my mind, is that Nokia's stock even kept pace with Apple's through 2007 (iPhone was introduced Jan. 2007). Nokia investors had an entire year to watch it play out before they would have sufferred any relative losses.
The method you explained sounds easy, but in real world it is hard to do. The toughest part is that sometime it is hard to know the once glory firm who was in a short term trouble can really recover from a failure. Even for the same company at different stages, it is hard to say.
Take example of Nokia, it is a legendary firm in mobile industry, then between 2003-2005, Nokia was beaten down by Motorola's RAZR phone. It looked to me was a short term event, and Nokia did come back nicely between 2006-2007.
Starting from 2007, Apple jumped in smartphone market with its iPhone, from there, Nokia fell over the cliff, it lost more than 80% of its market cap, still struggling even today.
In rear mirror, it is easy to say the RAZR impact is short term, while iPhone impact is long term. But how can you tell the difference at the time when the event showed up.
Whenever I've looked at performance long term, I've seen all types of asset and equity classes fall in and out of favor. It's almost cyclical. Today's losers are tomorrow's winners. Growth wins for a few years, then value takes over for a season.
I think you are correct, Tony brings up a lot of good points, and I know that i can afford to take more risk then i do, its just getting myself to actualy do it. Sometimes by the time i think it all through and decided its a good time to buy, I might have missed the opportunity. It is deffinatly something i need to work on, but baby steps seem to be the rate I am moving at.
I guess being a bit risk averse may have cost you some good buys. But looking at the erratic market changes taking place now on a daily basis who can actually blame us? But I guess this advice would make us think twice about our risk tolerance and make new boundaries. What do you think?
I really like your advice about waiting for a winning stock to take a one time hit before buying. I have had this thought in the pass, and offten find that I have been a tad too gun shy and missed my opportunity to buy in at the lower price. I have caught a few decient ones but feel that i missed out on the majority by beeing too sheepish.
Yes I really like the way you have provided very useful information. Panic selling as you say would help you buy good stocks at a good rate. This is an instance where you have to keep your nerve and do a good analysis before actually committing to it.
The blogs and comments posted on Investor Uprising do not reflect the views of Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, or its sponsors. Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, and its sponsors do not assume responsibility for any comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
It's been a while since "good things" and "attractive" were used to describe American Superconductor. So why do analysts remain generally enthusiastic, with one calling it a "hidden gem?"
Anheuser-Busch InBev is the largest beer producer worldwide, with a portfolio of more than 200 brands distributed in 120 countries. How's it stack up to competitors?
To save this item to your list of favorite Investor Uprising content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.