Latest stories

Stay away from the stockmarket ?

By Rohit Chauhan
In Market analysis, Uncategorized
January 5, 2006
3 Min read
Add comment
S

Found this post on mark cuban’s Blog

The Stock Market is for suckers….

I agree with mark’s basic premise which is that one should invest in the stock market only if one has an edge. However I do not agree completely with mark’s extreme view that the stockmarket is a place for suckers and there is always sucker on one side of a trade (although a lot of times there is one). The stockmarket is not a zero sum game and if one can avoid the extremes emotions of greed and fear, then one can get a resonable rate of return. Even on a trade, the buyer and the seller need not be a sucker. The seller may not be comfortable with the risk associated with the stock, may have achieved his targeted return or could be selling for some personal reason. The buyer on the other hand may have a similar view point, but could more comfortable with the risk on the stock, or could be hedging his position on some other stock.

I would say as an individual, I can have the following edge over the market

  • long term view : If I have long term view and can think beyond the immediate short term view point of the market, then I can find some good long term investment opportunities. For ex: FMCG in 2004 and early 2005 were good investment opportunities when the market was bearish about the short term outlook of this industry.

  • Investing in one’s circle of competence: As charlie munger’s says, it is not in human nature to be an expert in everthing. But if one works hard at it, then one can become an expert in a few areas. For me my circle of competence is limited to FMCG, industrial and a few other industries. So as long as I limit myself to these industries I should do fine. Ofcourse it means that the number opportunties are sometimes limited if these sectors are overvalued. But then as an individual one has the luxury of investing only when the opportunity is right.

  • As an individual investor, I have the luxury of being out of the market when I don’t find any values. A proffessional investor cannot do that

But at the same time, if one strays from his circle of competence and gets swept by greed or fear, then I think it is closer to gambling than investing (where the odds are against you )

Mark talks about technology investing in his post. Substitute ‘technology’ with any industry which is outside your circle of competence and I think the result would be the same. I think if one does not invest the required time to develop a deep understanding of atleast a few industries, then it is difficult to get a return higher than the market.

Read onAdd comment

Some thoughts on banks and their retail portfolio

By Rohit Chauhan
In Industry analysis, Uncategorized
January 1, 2006
2 Min read
1 comment
S

Found an interesting view on indian economy from the ‘Morgan stanley GEF’ website

Some interesting observation in the article

We believe that a large part of the recent growth in industrial production and to a lesser extent services sector growth has been driven by cyclical global factors. A sharp fall in real interest rates since 2000 has encouraged both the government and households to borrow aggressively.

And

Acceleration in consumption growth has largely been driven by a rise in borrowing rather than income growth. Strong domestic consumption has been one of the key factors pushing the combined growth of industry and services sectors, which has averaged 9.3% over the past four quarters.

Second, rapid growth in leverage is also resulting in more credit risk in the financial system. Our banks team sees a rising credit risk building in the system as Indian households have leveraged significantly above the fair level that is supported by the current trend in per capital income. The central bank also relayed similar concerns.

The above makes you think about the valuation of banks which are showing strong profits and very low NPA. For Ex: ICICI bank has brought down NPA from 4%+ to below 1%. What are the kind of risks these banks have on their balance sheet due to their aggressive retail loans ? Somehow retail loans are now seen as low risk, high return and high growth area for most of the banks. As a result there has been a substantial growth of the retail portfolio. Maybe the overall risks are low (atleast the market has priced the bank stocks accordingly). The problem with bank loans is that these problems can remain hidden for a long time. As buffett as ‘Its only when the tide goes out, that you realise who has been swimming naked’

Read on1 comment

Thoughts on business risk

By Rohit Chauhan
In Investing Philosophy, Uncategorized
December 24, 2005
3 Min read
2 comments
T

There are several business models which are seem to be inherently more risky and then there are some businesses which may not be risky to begin with, but changes in industry dynamics can make them risky for some time.

The indian pharma industry seems (atleast to me) to be one such industry. This industry is one of the few industries which is in the process to globalizing. A few years back companies like ranbaxy, Dr reddy’s lab etc got into the mode of releasing generics of blockbuster drugs which were going off patents. I remember distinctly that some of these companies were selling at fairly high PE. The analyst’s could see only a bright future and market was pricing accordingly. To be fair, there were murmurs of litigation risks etc, but somehow that was not visible in the price (with PE of 40 and more).

Later some of these companies had high profile clashes with pharma giants and lost some of the law suits. As a result the stock crashed when the expected payoffs did not materialise. I would look at this strategy of the pharma companies akin to bets in a casino, but where the odds in your favor. What I mean is that the expected payoff is positive in the companies favor, but often some of these bets could fail. So if the market values these companies as if all the bets are going to succeed, then there is a distinct over-valuation. But at the same time, every time a bet fails, if the market prices the company based on the latest failure, then there could be underpricing happening.

The problem (for me only) with the above business model is that I am not able to project the cash flow for such companies as I am not competent to evaluate the odds of success for such bets (investor who can could and should profit from it).

The business risk in the other globalizing star ‘IT services’ seems to be lower as these companies have used mainly labor arbitrage in the initial phases which is a lower risk strategy. However the market recognises that and has bid the stock prices up and so we have a lot of stock related investment risk.

I was have started analysing the textile industry recently. This industry seems to be globalising with the quotas gone. My initial thoughts on the business risk are

  • execution risk for some companies. Not all managements have the capability to manage ‘hyper’ (50%+) growth. Look at arvind mills track record in mid to late 90’s. They invested heavily in denim using debt. The denim cycle turned south and this company was left saddled with huge debt

  • Commodity nature of the product could result in pricing pressure on an ongoing basis

  • Limited leverage with customers – Being a supplier to one of the major retailers will constantly expose these companies to pricing pressure and stiff competiton

Read on2 comments

Warren Buffett on Benjamin Graham

By Rohit Chauhan
In Uncategorized, Warren buffett
December 19, 2005
2 Min read
4 comments
W

Found the following post on motley fool. I am waiting eagerly for the complete transcript of the Q&A though (emphasis mine)

I recently had the pleasure of taking a large group of students to Omaha for a Q&A with Buffett. When available, I’ll post the results of that Q&A if there is any interest here. In the meantime, I thought I’d mention my most memorable take-away from that meeting.A student noted that Buffett has been a much more successful investor than Graham, and yet Buffett attributes much of his success to Graham, why is that?For the first time, I heard Buffett address this issue head on. Buffett said that it’s true, Graham never got really rich from investing. Ben was much more interested in ideas than in making money. However, the lessons Ben taught are very profitable (in order):1. Stocks represent part ownership in the business. Before Ben, Warren charted prices and did lots of other silly stuff. Ben’s perspective was eye-opening.2. The concept of Mr. Market is vital. The market is very efficient, but not perfectly efficient–and that difference can make you very, very rich. At any point in time, the market price is usually, but not always, appropriate. An intelligent investor is one who can tell the difference between the current market price for a stock and a resonable interpretation of what that part of the business is really worth.3. The margin of safety concept is also vital. Once an intelligent investor discerns the difference between the current market price for a stock and a resonable interpretation of what that part of the business is really worth, it becomes important to build in an appropriate margin of safety.These lessons are Graham’s most important contribution to Buffett and to you and me. Graham’s sensible perspective, combined with Phil Fisher’s (and T. Rowe Price’s) insights on wonderful companies, has made all the difference for Buffett. If we are paying attention, they can make all the difference for us too.

Read on4 comments

Subscription

Enter your email address if you would like to be notified when a new post is posted:

I agree to be emailed to confirm my subscription to this list

Recent Posts

Select category to filter posts

Archives