Glancing Back At 2014

It’s that time of year – calendar year 2014 draws to an end. For one's trackrecord, there's particular emphasis on annual calendar year returns. Convention dictates that the annual return period fall between January 1st and December 31st, although there is no particular rhyme or reason behind this convention (e.g., why not April 1st to March 31st of the following year?).

For investors currently managing capital (especially those hoping to woo additional capital), we are subjected to the rules of the game – however arbitrary or nonsensical they may seem. Instead, let’s turn our attention to a more productive topic (something we can control) related to the calendar year convention…

2015 approaches – a new year, your oyster and blank slate – the possibilities are boundless! But before you say goodbye to 2014, will you glance back to examine, really breakdown, your 2014 returns? The exercise builds not only awareness, by forcing us to assess and admit our strengths or weaknesses and what we did well or poorly, it also reinforces a process over outcome approach to investing. How much of performance was due to luck? How much performance was due to process and skill? While not guaranteed to make us better investors, these are likely good questions to ask ourselves and perhaps even considerations to be worked into our investment processes throughout the next year.

For those needing ideas on how to evaluate your 2014 performance, below are excerpts from an article written by Mariko Gordon of Daruma Capital almost exact a year ago in December 2013:

“As the year ends, whether bull or bear market, the time of reckoning draws near. Now, mind you, scorekeeping happens all year round. But there's something about the nights getting longer and the coming winter solstice that creates an extra level of soul searching.

At Daruma, here are the things we ponder as we perform a post-mortem on the year's performance:

1. What percent of the stocks we owned over the last year and three years went up? And by how much compared to those that went down? It's easy to focus on the 'hit rate,' but if the pluses are small and the minuses are big, having a positive hit rate isn't going to do much good.
2. Did we add any value with adds and trims? Did we do a better job when we added or trimmed on the way up, or when we added or trimmed when the stock went down? Did we waste too much energy chasing squirrels when we should have focused on elephants? Activity does not always translate into returns.
3. How did the stocks that we sold do compared to the stocks we replaced them with or decided to keep? 'Out of sight, out of mind' means that we risk scoring ourselves only for what happened, and not for what could have been.
4. How did we spend our time? Since one team is responsible for two products, did we allocate our time properly between the two? And while we're at it, did we get the right balance of new ideas versus maintenance research? And did we have the right mix of tasks – calls with analysts versus field trips to companies, for example? It's easy to look at results without examining the success of the actions that led to those results.
5. How did we perform on an absolute and relative basis - in addition to the benchmark, sectors and industries - against the true investable universe? Not every stock in a small-cap benchmark in particular can be bought, as there are many teeny and illiquid banks and companies. Did we catch the best possible fish in our pond?”

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 16

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 16 “The Most Important Thing Is…Appreciating the Role of Luck.” Luck, Capital Preservation

“We have to practice defensive investing, since many of the outcomes are likely to go against us. It’s more important to ensure survival under negative outcomes than it is to guarantee maximum returns under favorable ones.”

Luck, Process Over Outcome

“The investment world is not an orderly and logical place where the future can be predicted and specific actions always produce specific results. The truth is, much in investing is ruled by luck. Some may prefer to call it chance or randomness, and those words do sound more sophisticated than luck. But it comes down to the same thing: a great deal of the success of everything we do as investors will be heavily influenced by the roll of the dice.”

“Randomness (or luck) plays a huge part in life’s results, and outcomes that hinge on random events should be viewed as different from those that do not. Thus, when considering whether an investment record is likely to be repeated, it is essential to think about the role of randomness in the manager’s results, and whether the performance resulted from skill or simply being lucky.”

“Every once in a while, someone makes a risky bet on an improbable or uncertain outcome and ends up looking like a genius. But we should recognize that it happened because of luck and boldness, not skill…In the short run, a great deal of investment success can result from just being in the right place at the right time…the keys to profit are aggressiveness, timing and skill, and someone who has enough aggressiveness at the right time doesn’t need much skill.”

“…randomness contributes to (or wrecks) investment records to a degree that few people appreciate fully…We all know that when things go right, luck looks like skill. Coincidence looks like causality. A ‘lucky idiot’ looks like a skilled investor. Of course, knowing that randomness can have this effect doesn’t make it easy to distinguish between lucky investors and skillful investors.”

“Investors are right (and wrong) all the time for the ‘wrong reason’…The correctness of a decision can’t be judged from the outcome. Nevertheless, that’s how people assess it. A good decision is one that’s optimal at the time that it’s made, when the future is by definition unknown. Thus, correct decisions are often unsuccessful, and vice versa.”

“[Nassim] Taleb’s idea of ‘alternative histories’ – the other things that reasonably could have happened – is a fascinating concept, and one that is particularly relevant to investing.

Most people acknowledge the uncertainty that surrounds the future, but they feel that at least the past is known and fixed. After all, the past is history, absolute and unchanging. But Taleb points out that the things that happened are only a small subset of the things that could have happened. Thus, the fact that a stratagem or action worked – under the circumstances that unfolded – doesn’t necessarily prove the decision behind it was wise.

Maybe what ultimately made the decision a success was a completely unlikely event, something that was just at matter of luck. In that case that decision – as successful as it turned out to be – may have been unwise, and the many other histories that could have happened would have shown the error of the decision.”

“What is a good decision?…A good decision is one that a logical, intelligent and informed person would have made under the circumstance as they appeared at the time, before the outcome was known.”

“Even after the fact, it can be hard to be sure who made a good decision based on solid analysis but was penalized by a freak occurrence, and who benefited from taking a flier…past returns are easily assessed, making it easy to know who made the most profitable decision. It’s easy to confuse the two, but insightful investors must be highly conscious of the difference.

In the long run, there’s no reasonable alternative to believing that good decisions will lead to investor profits. In the short run, however, we must be stoic when they don’t.”

Luck, Historical Performance Analysis, Expected Return, Volatility

“Investment performance is what happens to a portfolio when events unfold. People pay great heed to the resulting performance, but the questions they should ask are: were the events that unfolded (and the other possibilities that didn’t unfold) truly within the ken of the portfolio manager? And what would the performance have been if other events had occurred instead? Those…are Taleb’s ‘alternative histories.’”

“…investors of the ‘I know’ school…feel it’s possible to know the future, they decide what it will look like, build portfolios designed to maximize returns under that one scenario, and largely disregard the other possibilities. The sub-optimizers of the ‘I don’t know’ school, on the other hand, put their emphasis on constructing portfolios that will do well in the scenarios they consider likely and not too poorly in the rest…

Because their approach is probabilistic, investors of the ‘I don’t know’ school understand that the outcome is largely up to the gods, and thus that the credit or blame accorded the investors – especially in the short run – should be appropriately limited.”

“Randomness alone can produce just about any outcome in the short run…market movements can easily swamp the skillfulness of the manager (or lack thereof).”

For further reading on luck and process over outcome: Howard Marks wrote an entire memo on the topic in Jan 2014 titled Getting Lucky. One of my favorite articles on this topic is from Michael Mauboussin & James Montier on Process Over Outcome. Michael Mauboussin recently wrote an entire book, The Success Equation, dedicated to untangling skill and luck. 

Consequences of Contrarian Actions

Below are excerpts from a speech Bob Rodriguez of First Pacific Advisors gave in May 2009. Quite a few interesting lessons derived from his previous trials and tribulations in dealing with clients and redemptions during periods of contrarian actions and underperformance. Psychology

“I believe I have found success because I have been deeply aware of the need to balance the human emotions of greed and fear. In a word, DISCIPLINE…is a key attribute to becoming a successful investor. I stress that, without a strong set of fundamental rules or a core philosophy, they will be sailing a course through the treacherous investment seas without a compass or a rudder.”

AUM, Clients, Redemptions, Patience

“It seems as though it was a lifetime ago in 1986, when I had few assets under management, and the consultant to my largest account insisted that, if I wanted to continue the relationship, I had to pay to play. I was shocked, dismayed and speechless. Though this would probably have never become public, if I had agreed, how would I have ever lived with myself? By not agreeing, it meant that I would lose nearly 40% of my business. When I was fired shortly thereafter, this termination compromised my efforts in the raising of new money for nearly six years because I could not say why. Despite pain and humiliation, there was no price high enough for me to compromise my integrity. With the subsequent disclosure of improprieties at this municipal pension plan, the cloud of suspicion over me ultimately lifted. I not only survived, I prospered.”

“While technology and growth stock investing hysteria were running wild, we did not participate in this madness. Instead, we sold most of our technology stocks. Our ‘reward’ for this discipline was to watch FPA Capital Fund’s assets decline from over $700 million to just above $300 million, through net redemptions, while not losing any money for this period. We were willing to pay this price of asset outflow because we knew that, no matter what, our investment discipline would eventually be recognized. With our reputation intact, we then had a solid foundation on which we could rebuild our business. This cannot be said for many growth managers, or firms, who violated their clients’ trust.”

“Having the courage to be different comes at a steep price, but I believe it can result in deep satisfaction and personal reward. As an example, FPA Capital Fund has experienced heavy net redemptions since the beginning of 2007, totaling more than $700 million on a base of $2.1 billion. My strong conviction that an elevated level of liquidity was necessary, at one point reaching 45%, placed me at odds with many of our shareholders. I estimate that approximately 60% left because of this strategy…We have been penalized for taking precautionary measures leading up to and during a period of extraordinary risk. Though frustrating, in our hearts, we know that our long-term investment focus serves our clients well. I believe the words of John Maynard Keynes…‘Investment based on genuine long-term expectations is so difficult today as to be scarcely practicable,’ and ‘It is the long-term investor, he who most promotes the public interest, who will in practice come in for the most criticism wherever investment funds are managed by committees or boards or banks. For it is the essence of his behavior that he should be eccentric, unconventional, and rash in the eyes of average opinion.’”

“I believe superior long-term performance is a function of a manager’s willingness to accept periods of short-term underperformance. This requires the fortitude and willingness to allow one’s business to shrink while deploying an unpopular strategy.”

As I write this, the world’s smallest violin is playing in the background, yet it must be said: what about clients violating a fund’s trust by redeeming capital at inopportune times to chase performance elsewhere? The trust concept flows both ways.

There will be times in every fund manager’s career when doing what you believe is right will trigger negative consequences. The key is anticipation, preparation, and patience.

Historical Performance Analysis, Luck, Process Over Outcome, Mistakes

“Let’s be frank about last year’s performance, it was a terrible one for the market averages as well as for mutual fund active portfolio managers. It did not matter the style, asset class or geographic region. In a word, we stunk. We managers did not deliver the goods and we must explain why. In upcoming shareholder letters, will this failure be chalked up to bad luck, an inability to identify a changing governmental environment or to some other excuse? We owe our shareholders more than simple platitudes, if we expect to regain their confidence.”

“If they do not reflect upon what they have done wrong in this cycle and attempt to correct their errors, why should their investors expect a different outcome the next time?”

Examine your historical performance not only to provide an explanation to your clients, but also to yourself. For example, was there anything that you could have done to avoid the “stink”?

Rodriquez mentions “bad luck.” During this reflective process (which ideally should occur during times of good and bad performance) it’s important to understand whether the returns resulted due to luck or to skill. See Michael Mauboussin & James Montier’s commentary on Process Over Outcome & Luck.

Psychology, When To Sell, When To Buy

“Investors have long memories, especially when they lose money. As an example, prior to FPA’s acquisition of FPA Capital Fund in July 1984, the predecessor fund was a poster child for bad performance from the 1960s era. Each time the fund hit a $10 NAV, it would get a raft of redemptions since this was its original issue price and investors thought they were now finally even and just wanted out.”

Anchoring is a powerful psychological bias that can compel investors to buy and sell for the wrong reasons, as well as to allow those who recognize the phenomenon to take advantage of the bad decisions of others.

Is the opposite true: investors have short memories when they’re make money?

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 13

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 13 “The Most Important Thing Is…Patient Opportunism” Selectivity, Patience, Cash

“…I want to…point out that there aren’t always great things to do, and sometimes we maximize our contribution by being discerning and relatively inactive. Patient opportunism – waiting for bargains – is often your best strategy.”

“…the investment environment is a given, and we have no alternative other than to accept it and invest within it…Among the value prized by early Japanese culture was mujo. Mujo was defined classically for me as recognition of ‘the turning of the wheel of the law,’ implying acceptance of the inevitability of change, of rise and fall…In other words, mujo means cycles will rise and fall, things will come and go, and our environment will change in ways beyond our control. Thus we must recognize, accept, cope, and respond. Isn’t that the essence of investing?...All we can do is recognize our circumstances for what they are and make the best decisions we can, given the givens.”

“Standing at the plate with the bat on your shoulders is Buffett’s version of patient opportunism. The bat should come off your shoulders when there are opportunities for profit with controlled risk., but only then. One way to be selective in this regard is by making every effort to ascertain whether we’re in a low-return environment or a high-return environment.”

In order to practice patient opportunism by implementing standards of selectivity, the investor must first have a method for recognizing & determining the best course of action based on risk-reward opportunities in the past, present, and future.

Selectivity, Clients

“Because they can’t strike out looking, investors needn’t feel pressured to act. They can pass up lot of opportunities until they see one that’s terrific…the only real penalty is for making losing investments…For professional investors paid to manage others’ money, the stakes are higher. If they miss too many opportunities, and if their returns are too low in good times, money managers can come under pressure from clients and eventually lose accounts. A lot depends on how clients have been conditioned.”  

One caveat to the "no called-strikes": clients. For some investors, the client base and permanency of capital will dictate whether or not there are called-strikes in this game. If your investment approach involves waiting for perfect pitches, make sure your clients agree, and double check the rulebook that there are indeed no called-strikes in this game!

Selectivity, Expected Return

“The motto of those who reach for return seems to be: ‘If you can’t get the return you need from safe investments, pursue it via risky investments.”

“It’s remarkable how many leading competitors from our early years as investors are no longer leading competitors (or competitors at all). While a number faltered because of flaws in their organization or business model, others disappeared because they insisted on pursuing high returns in low-return environments.

You simply cannot create investment opportunities when they’re not there. The dumbest thing you can do is to insist on perpetuating high returns – and give back your profits in the process. If it’s not there, hoping won’t make it so.”

Expected return (or future performance) is not a function of wishful thinking, it’s a function of the price you pay for an asset.

Historical Performance Analysis

“In Berkshire Hathaway’s 1977 Annual Report, Buffett talked about Ted Williams – the ‘Splendid Splinter’ – one of the greatest hitters in history. A factor contributed to his success was his intensive study of his own game. By breaking down the strike zone into 77 baseball-sized ‘cells’ and charting his results at the plate, he learned that his batting average was much better when he went after only pitches in his ‘sweet spot.’”

How many Readers have systematically studied your “own game” – the sources of investment performance – good and bad?

Because everyone’s “game” is different, I suspect this exercise will likely vary for each person. I would be curious to hear about the methodologies employed by Readers who conduct this review/analysis on a regular basis.

When To Buy, Liquidity

“The absolute best buying opportunities come when asset holders are forced to sell, and…present in large numbers. From time to time, holders become forced sellers for reasons like these:

• The funds they manage experience withdrawls.
• Their portfolio holdings violate investment guidelines such as minimum credit ratings or position maximums.
• They receive margin calls because the value of their assets fails to satisfy requirements agreed to in contracts with their lenders…

They have a gun at their heads and have to sell regardless of price. Those last three words – regardless of price – are the most beautiful in the world if you’re on the other side of the transaction.”

“…if chaos is widespread, many people will be forced to sell at the same time and few people will be in a position to provide the required liquidity…In that case, prices can fall far below intrinsic value. The fourth quarter of 2008 provided an excellent example of the need for liquidity in times of chaos.”

Ultimately, it’s an imbalance in underlying market liquidity (too many sellers, not enough buyers) that creates bargains so that prices “fall far below intrinsic value.”

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1965 Part 4

Continuation of our series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters, please see our previous articles for more details. AUM, Trackrecord, Sizing

“…I believe that we have done somewhat better during the past few years with the capital we have had in the Partnership than we would have done if we had been working with a substantially smaller amount. This was due to the partly fortuitous development of several investments that were just the right size for us – big enough to be significant and small enough to handle.

I now feel that we are much closer to the point where increase sized may prove disadvantageous…What may be the optimum size under some market and business circumstances can be substantially more or less than optimum under other circumstances…as circumstances presently appear, I feel substantially greater size is more likely to harm future results than to help them.”

Asset under management (“AUM”) should not be a stagnant or passive consideration. The AUM is essentially the denominator in the return on equity calculation. The adjustment of AUM relative to portfolio gain and loss will directly impact the trackrecord. The optimal AUM will fluctuate depending on market conditions and/or opportunities available.

However, how to “adjust” AUM is a whole other can of worms.

Historical Performance Analysis, Special Situations, AUM, Expected Return, Hurdle Rate, Sizing, Time Management

“The ‘Workout’ business has become very spasmodic. We were able to employ an average of only $6 million during the year…and this involved only a very limited number of situations. Although we earned about $1,410,000, or about 23 ½% on average capital employed (this is calculated on an all equity basis...), over half of this was earned from one situation. I think it unlikely that a really interesting rate of return can be earned consistently on large sums of money in this business under present conditions.”

Over the previous 10 years, a portion of Buffett’s portfolio was consistently invested in special situations. But we see from that quote above that with AUM increasing, Buffett began to reconsider the allocation to this basket after examining its historical return contribution.

• Does the expected return available meet my minimum return standards (hurdle rate)?
• If so, can I deploy enough capital into the basket such that it contributes meaningfully to portfolio performance and absolute profts? (For example, a 1% allocation that returns 100%, while a return high percentage-wise, adds only a little boost to overall portfolio performance)
• How much of my (or my team’s) time am I will to allocate given the expected return and profits?

Perhaps another interesting lesson is that as AUM shifts, strategies that made sense at one point, may not always be as effective.

Sourcing, Sizing

“I do not have a great flood of good ideas as I go into 1966, although again I believe I have at least several potentially good ideas of substantial size. Much depends on whether market conditions are favorable for obtaining a larger position.”

Good ideas, even just a few, when sized correctly will lead to profits.

Conversely, ideas – no matter how good – if sized too small or impossible to obtain in adequate size for the portfolio, won’t make much of a difference.

Selectivity, Sizing, Expected Return, Opportunity Cost, Hurdle Rate, Correlation, Capital Preservation

“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. W probably have had only five or six situations in the nine-year history of the Partnership where we have exceeded 25%. Any such situations are going to have to promise very significantly superior performance relative to the Dow compared to other opportunities available at the time.

They are also going to have to possess such superior qualitative and/or quantitative factors that the chance of serious permanent loss is minimal (anything can happen on a short-term quotational basis which partially explains the greater risk of widened year-to-year variations in results). In selecting the limit to which I will go in any one investment, I attempt to reduce to a tiny figure the probability that the single investment (or group, if there is intercorrelation) can produce a result for our total portfolio that would be more than ten percentage points poorer than the Dow.”

Buffett’s sizing decisions were selective, and dependent upon a number of conditions, such as:

• The expected return of the potential investment
• The expected return of the potential investment compared with the expected return of the Dow, and other potential investments (this is the opportunity cost and hurdle rate consideration)
• Whether the potential investment is correlated with other current and potential investments
• The possibility of expected loss of the potential investment (capital preservation consideration)

When To Buy

“Our purchase of Berkshire started at a price of $7.60 per share in 1962…the average cost, however, was $14.86 per share, reflecting very heavy purchases in early 1965…”

Buffett was comfortable buying as prices went up. This is in contrast to many value investors who are most comfortable buying on the way down.

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1965 Part 2

Continuation of our series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters, please see our previous articles for more details. Trackrecord, Compounding, Duration, Special Situations, Time Management

“A disadvantage of this business is that it does not possess momentum to any significant degree. If General Motors accounts for 54% of domestic new car registrations in 1965, it is a pretty safe bet that they are going to come fairly close to that figure in 1966 due to owner loyalties, deal capabilities, productivity capacity, consumer image, etc. Not so for BPL. We start from scratch each year with everything valued at market when the gun goes off…The success of past methods and ideas does not transfer forward to future ones.”

Investing, compounding, and trackrecord creation is a perpetual intellectual treadmill – “We start from scratch each year with everything valued at market when the gun goes off,” and the “success of past methods and ideas” contribute only slightly to future returns.

In 1965-1966, a large portion of Buffett’s portfolio still consisted of generally undervalued minority stakes and special situation workouts.

Though not often highlighted, duration risk is a very real annoyance for the minority equity investor, especially in rising markets. Takeout mergers may increase short-term IRR, but they can decrease overall cash on cash returns. Mergers also result in cash distributions for which minority investors must find additional redeployment options in a more expensive market environment.

Special situations investors have to run even harder on the intellectual treadmill since their portfolios contain a natural ladder of duration as the special situations resolve and “workout.”

All this activity is subject to the 24 hours per day time constraint. How does one maximize portfolio compounding given these obstacles?

I suspect it was mental debates like these that drove Buffett, in later years, to seek out the continuous compounding investments such as Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, etc., to which he could outsource the task of compounding portfolio equity.

Here’s the basic rationale behind the term “outsourced compounding” extracted from an article I wrote a few months ago:

"Compounding can be achieved by the portfolio manager / investor when making investments, which then (hopefully) appreciates in value, and the repetition of this cycle through the reinvestment of principal and gains. However, this process is limited by time, resources, availability of new ideas to reinvest capital, etc.

Operating business achieve compounding by reinvesting past earnings back into the same business (or perhaps new business lines). In this respect, the operating business has an advantage over the financial investor, who must constantly search for new opportunities.

Tom Russo of Gardner Russo & Gardner, quoted above in a November 2011 edition of Value Investor Insight (many thanks to Rafael Astruc of Garrison Securities for tipping PMJar on this), highlights an important and useful shortcut for portfolio managers – why not outsource part of the burden of compounding to the operating businesses in one’s portfolio? (Price dependent, of course.)"

Expected Return, Volatility, Historical Performance Analysis, Process Over Outcome

“…our results, relative to the Dow and other common-stock-form media usually will be better in declining markets and may well have a difficult time just matching such media in very strong markets. With the latter point in mind it might be imagined that we struggled during the first four months of the half to stay even with the Dow and then opened up our margin as it declined in May and June. Just the opposite occurred. We actually achieved a wide margin during the upswing and then fell at a rate fully equal to the Dow during the market decline.

I don’t mention this because I am proud of such performance – on the contrary. I would prefer it if we had achieved our gain in the hypothesized manner. Rather, I mention it for two reasons: (1) you are always entitled to know when I am wrong as well as right; and (2) it demonstrates that although we deal with probabilities and expectations, the actual results can deviate substantially from such expectations, particularly on a short-term basis.”

Buffett wanted to correctly anticipate not only the expected return, but also the expected volatility of his portfolio. He was not “proud” when the return pattern of the portfolio vs. his index (Dow) did not occur according to his prediction (even though he still beat the index by a wide 9.6% margin during the first 6 months of the year) – “I would prefer it if we had achieved our gain in the hypothesized manner.”

This demonstrates that Buffett was not singularly focused on outcome, but process as well. He wanted to understand why the unexpected (albeit good) outcome occurred despite a process that should have led to something different.

Also, notice that the good outcome did not provide any sense of comfort and lead Buffett to ignore the anomaly in expected volatility. Over the years, I’ve noticed that many investors only dissect downside return anomalies and completely ignore upside return anomalies. Buffett’s actions here show that it’s important to understand both directionally because a rouge variable that causes unexpected upside patterns could just as easily reverse course and lead to unexpected poor results.

Lastly, I want to point out that the key to understanding sources of portfolio return and volatility requires the dissection of historical performance returns. For more on this, check out our discussion on the 1964 letter Part 3.

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1964 Part 3

Continuation of our series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters, please see our previous articles for more details. Historical Performance Analysis, Process Over Outcome, Psychology

“…the workouts (along with controls) saved the day in 1962, and if we had been light in this category that year, our final results would have been much poorer, although still quite respectable considering market conditions during the year…In 1963 we had one sensational workout which greatly influenced results, and generals gave a good account of themselves, resulting in a banner year. If workouts had been normal, (say, more like 1962) we would have looked much poorer compared to the Dow…Finally, in 1964 workouts were a big drag on performance.”

There is a chart in the January 18, 1965 partnership letter, in which Buffett breaks down the performance of Generals vs. Workouts for 1962-1964, and discusses the return attribution of each category in different market environments.

Most investors conduct some form of historical performance review, on a quarterly or annual basis. It’s an important exercise for a variety of reasons:

• To better understand your sources of historical return – performance analysis forces you to examine the relationship between your process vs. the outcome. Was the outcome as expected? If not, do changes need to be made to the process?
• To help you and your team become more self-aware – what you do well, badly, and perhaps reveal patterns of behavioral strength and weakness (here's an article about an interesting firm that offers this analysis)
• Team Compensation
• Highlight necessary adjustment to the portfolio and business
• Etc.

The investment management world spends a lot of time scrutinizing the operations of other businesses. Shouldn’t we apply the same magnifying glass to our own?

Sizing, Catalyst, Hedging, Activism, Control

“What we really like to see in situations like the three mentioned above is a condition where the company is making substantial progress in terms of improving earnings, increasing asset values, etc., but where the market price of the stock is doing very little while we continue to acquire it…Such activity should usually result in either appreciation of market prices from external factors or the acquisition by us of a controlling position in a business at a bargain price. Either alternative suits me.”

“Many times…we have the desirable ‘two strings to our box’ situation where we should either achieve appreciation of market prices from external factors or from the acquisition of control positions in a business at a bargain price. While the former happens in the overwhelming majority of cases, the latter represents an insurance policy most investment operations don’t have.”

Buffett discusses the phenomenon known as the “two strings” on his bow which allowed for heavy concentration in a few positions. The potential to (eventually) acquire a controlling stake in the underlying company served has an “insurance policy” via the creation of a catalyst after asserting control. (Some may argue that activism is applicable here as well. However, we tread cautiously on this train of thought because activism by no means entails a 100% success rate.)

It’s important to understand that control is not an option available to all investors. Therefore, when sizing positions, one should reconsider the exact emulation of Buffett’s enthusiastic buying as price continues to decline, and concentrated approach.

Interestingly, if a controlling stake in a company serves as an insurance policy (as Buffett describes it), is ‘control’ a type of portfolio hedge?

Activism, Control

“We have continued to enlarge the positions in the three companies described in our 1964 midyear report where we are the largest stockholders…It is unlikely that we will ever take a really active part in policy-making in any of these three companies…”

Control ≠ Activism

Conservatism

“To too many people conventionality is indistinguishable from conservatism. In my view, this represents erroneous thinking. Neither a conventional or an unconventional approach, per se, is conservative.”

“Truly conservative actions arise from intelligent hypotheses, correct facts and sound reasoning. These qualities may lead to conventional acts, but there have been many times when they have led to unorthodoxy. In some corner of the world they are probably still holding regular meetings of the Flat Earth Society.”

“We derive no comfort because important people, vocal people, or great numbers of people agree with us. Nor do we derive comfort if they don’t. A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought. When we really sit back with a smile on our face is when we run into a situation we can understand, where the facts are ascertainable and clear, and the course of action obvious. In that case – whether conventional or unconventional – whether others agree or disagree – we feel we are progressing in a conservative manner.”