My small challenge to the "university" business model

I am not a great fan of the university business model as a delivery mechanism for learning. The model can be traced back to the middle ages and is built around physical location and arbitrary requirements for graduation (that have less to do with learning and more to do with maximizing university revenues and faculty comfort). I know! I know! I am a beneficiary of the system and I gain from the low teaching loads and a tenure system that is indefensible. With four children, I am also a consumer of the same system and I am flabbergasted at how little accountability is built into it. How many classes have you taken (or your children taken) where you should have received your money back because of the quality of the learning experience? How often have you been able to get your money back?

For hundreds of years, we (as consumers) have had no choice. Universities have operated with little competition and substantial collusion. There is no other way that you can explain how little variation there is in tuition fees across US universities and the rise in these fees over time. Outside the US, the fees may be subsidized by governments, but the quality of the learning experience is often worse, with the rationale being that if you paid little or nothing for your education, you should eat whatever crumbs fall of the table in you direction. But I think that the game is changing, as technology increasingly undercuts the barriers to entry to this business. I am not just talking about online universities (which, for the most part, have gone for the low hanging fruit) or the experiments in online learning from MIT, Stanford and other universities. These are evolutionary changes that build on the university system and don't challenge it. I am talking about a whole group of young companies that have made their presence felt by offering new tools for delivering class content and learning. I am convinced that the education market is going to be upended in the next decade and that the new model is going to do to universities what Amazon has done to brick and mortar retailers.

To back up my point, I am running an experiment this semester with the classes that I am teaching at the Stern School of Business: Corporate Finance, a first-year MBA class, and Valuation, an elective. I have taught these classes for more than 25 years now and have tried to make the material and the lectures available to the rest of the world, but I have never formally tracked those taking these classes online. In fact, if you were not an MBA student in the class, taking the class online would have required you to forage through my website for materials and keep track of what's going on. And I would have no idea that you even were taking the class... So, I want to change that..

Last semester, I used a company called Coursekit to package and organize my class and was impressed with their clean look and responsiveness to my requests. This semester, which starts in a few days, I have created a coursekit page for each class that is focused on just online students. I will use this page to deliver content (lecture notes, handouts and assignments that those who are in my physical class get), webcasts of lectures (though not in real time, but the links should show up about an hour after the actual class ends ) and even the exams (you can take them and grade them yourself). The site also has a social media component, where you can start or join discussion topics, which I hope will provide the element of interaction that is missing when you do an online course. When you do get to the home page for Coursekit, you will notice my mugshot in the entry way. I promise you that I have zero financial interest in the company but I really want to see it succeed, because I think the education business needs to be shaken up.

The first session for both classes is on Monday, January 30. If you want to take these classes online, here is what you need to do:
a. Corporate finance class
What is it? This is my "big picture" class about how financial principles govern how a business should be run. It looks at everything that a business does, through the lens of finance, and classifies them into investment, financing and dividend decisions.
Who can use it? I am biased but I think that everyone can use a corporate finance class: entrepreneurs starting new businesses, managers at established businesses and investors valuing these businesses.
How do you join? Go to the site (http://coursekit.com/finance). Enter RWHZYG as your code and you can then register for the class. Once you are registered, you will automatically be put into this page, every time you enter the site.

b. Valuation

What is it? This is a valuation class and it is about valuing any type of business: private or public, large or small and across markets. My focus is on providing the tools that will allow you to create your solution to valuation challenges, since new ones keep popping up.

Who can use it? While investors interested in valuing companies may be the obvious target, I teach the class more generally to be useful (I hope) to managers running the businesses and those who are just curious about value.

How do you join? Go to the site (http://coursekit.com/app#course/b40.3331.damodaran). Enter EH7WZN as your code and you can then register for the class. Once you are registered, you will automatically be put into this page, every time you enter the site.

Just to be clear, my first obligation is to the students in my MBA classes and I will not stint or compromise on that obligation, but I view delivering a great learning experience to those taking the class online as a close second. Note also that you will not get any credit from NYU for taking this class. While I will give you the grading templates to grade your own exams and evaluate your own assignments, I will not be able to give you direct feedback on your work. But then again, the price (at zero) is set right. So, these classes definitely come with a money back guarantee. In fact, the more the merrier... So, pass the message in this post on to any friends who may be interested. See you in cyber space on Monday.

Snowmen and Shovels: Investing Lessons?

I live near New York and woke up this morning to our first snowstorm of the winter (we had a freak one in the fall but no snow in November and December). As I looked out of my window, I heard two sounds. The first was of small children squealing in delight, as they tromped through the snow and started building snowmen and throwing snowballs. The second was the grating sound of snow shovels being used by their (mostly morose) parents to clear the snow from their driveways. Three things came to mind. The first was the oddity of the same phenomenon (a snow storm) evoking such different reactions from two different groups. The other was the irony  that the parents were one day (long ago in the past) happy to see the snow and today's  happy children will one day grow up and be wielding their own snow shovels. The third is that a week from now when it warms up, the snowmen will melt away, and the unshoveled driveways will look just as good as the shoveled ones.

I am sure that there are some deep life lessons in this phenomenon but I am not a philosopher. I do see some investing and valuation lessons in snowmen and shovels. After all, you can divide the world of active investors into two broad camps: growth investors and value investors. Consider the extremes in each camp. Extreme growth investors (you know the ones.. they go for momentum, love IPOs and are dazzled by high growth) remind me of the happy children, looking at snow and seeing snowmen, whereas extreme value investors (and you also know these ones.. they love net net investing and read Ben Graham's Security Analysis for inspiration)  more closely resemble the snow-shoveling parents. Each group views the other with disdain. Extreme value investors consider growth investors to be dilettantes, unserious and unwilling to grow up, who see the world through rose-colored lens. Extreme growth investors view value investors as boring, stuck-in-the-mud pessimists, who see only the dark side of things.

So, which side is right? I think both sides are right and both are wrong. While each side sees a portion of reality, each side is also missing a piece of the real world. While the value investing group is right in its view that most growth companies will not make it through the challenges of the real world, the growth investing group is also right in its view that some of these growth companies will be the big winners of the future. By staying dogmatic, both groups open themselves to significant investing/valuation mistakes. A growth investor who closes his eyes to the very real likelihood that a growth company will not survive will over value that company. By the same token, a value investor who insists on incorporating only the worst case scenarios, estimates cash flows “conservatively” and then applies a huge “margin of safety” before investing will never find growth companies to be bargains.

The key to investing, as in so much in life, is to maintain balance, recognizing that dreams sometimes come true, while keeping your feet grounded in reality. Put in valuation terms, the key to valuing a company well is to estimate what will happen (to earnings and cash flows) not only in good scenarios (let’s call these the snowman scenarios) but also in bad ones (the shovel scenarios).  It is a challenge I face whenever I do valuation. As I value a company, I have to constantly stop and look at the assumptions I am making and whether I am tilting too much to one side (snowman or shovel). If I find myself tipping too much into the “snowman” camp, I have to bring in some of my “shovel” side to play to get back to synch. If, on the other hand, I am letting my pessimistic shovel side dominate, I have to consciously force my fun snowman side come into play. 

So, here is how I am going to start today’s path back to balance. I shoveled this morning, just before I came in and wrote this post. My kids are too “old” to enjoy building snowmen, but I am not. I am going to go out and build a snowman, make a snow angel and perhaps throw some snowballs. Why should those kids have all the fun?

Private Equity: Hero or Villain?

The battle for the Republican presidential nomination seems to have claimed another "financial markets" casualty, at least in public opinion. In the last few weeks, we have seen Mitt Romney, who made his fortune at Bain Consulting, attacked for being a heartless, job-destroying private equity investor. I prefer not to enter political debates, but some of the critiques of private equity are so misdirected and over the top that I have to believe that these critics have no sense of what private equity is, the companies that they target and what they do at these companies. 


What is private equity?
If asked to provide a prototype of a private equity investor, many critics present you with Gordon Gekko , endowed with all of the characteristics that they want to attribute to a villain: a greedy, immoral man who delights in inflicting pain on the less fortunate. I could tell you that most private equity investors that I know don't even come close to that stereotype, but that is unlikely to convince anyone. In my view, here are the three ingredients for an investor to qualify to be a private equity investor:

1. Equity: At the risk of stating the obvious, to be a private equity investor, you have to be an investor in equity, either in publicly traded companies (as stock) or in private business (as owners' equity). So any criticism of private equity that segues into mortgage backed securities, which are generally debt, or into overreach at investment banks prior to 2008 is mixing up its villains.
2. Activist: A second feature of that separates private equity investors from most other equity investors is that they are activist, rather than passive investors. Thus, you and I, as passive investors, may buy stock in a company, believing it to be under valued or sub optimally managed, and then sit back and hope that the price moves up. An activist investor would buy stock in the same company and put in motion actions aimed at changing the way the company is managed (shutting down bad businesses, take on more debt, pay more dividends) or in fixing the reasons for under valuation (spin off, split offs, divestitures).
3. Private: While activist equity investors have been around as long as markets have been around, there is a third aspect to private equity investing that sets it apart. Private equity investors preserve the option (though they don't always use it) of "taking private" some of their targeted publicly traded companies. In effect, they remove these companies from the public space, run them as private companies for a period of time (during which they make changes), and then either go public again or sell them to other public companies.

With this definition in place, you still see diversity within this group. Broadly speaking, private equity investors can be classified into three categories: lone wolves (like Carl Icahn, Nelson Peltz and Bill Ackman), institutional activists (mutual funds and pension funds that trace their lineage back to the Calpers fund in the 1980s and are activist on the side) and activist hedge funds (which is where I would put Romney's Bain fund, KKR and Blackstone).


What types of companies do private equity investors target?
If activist investors hope to generate their returns from changing the way companies are run, they should target poorly managed companies for their campaigns.

• Institutional and individual activists do seem to follow the script, targeting companies that are less profitable and have delivered lower returns than their peer group. 
•  Hedge fund actvists seem to focus their attention on a different group. A study of 888 campaigns mounted by activist hedge funds between 2001 and 2005 finds that the typical target companies are small to mid cap companies, have above average market liquidity, trade at low price to book value ratios, are profitable with solid cash flows and pay their CEOs more than other companies in their peer group. Another study of the motives of activist hedge funds uncovered that the primary motive is under valuation, as evidenced in the figure below.

In summary, the typical activist hedge fund behaves more like a passive value investor, looking for under valued companies, than like an activist investor, looking for poorly managed companies. Activists individuals are more likely to target poorly managed companies and push for change.

What do they do at (or to) these targeted companies?

The essence of activist investing is that incumbent maangement is challenged, but on what dimensions is the challenge mounted? And how successfully? A study of 1164 activist investing campaigns between 2000 and 2007 documents some interesting facts about activism:

• Two-thirds of activist investors quit before making formal demands of the target. The failure rate in activist investing is very high.
• Among those activist investors who persist, less than 20% request a board seat, about 10% threaten a proxy fight and only 7% carry through on that threat.
• Activists who push through and make demands of managers are most successful (success rate in percent next to each action) when they demand the taking private of a target (41%), the sale of a target (32%), restructuring of inefficient operations (35%) or additional disclosure (36%). They are least successful when they ask for higher dividends/buybacks (17%), removal of the CEO (19%) or executive compensation changes (15%).  Overall, activists succeed about 29% of the time in their demands of management.

A review paper of hedge fund activist investing finds that the median holding for an activist hedge fund is 6.3% and even at the 75^th percentile, the holding is about 15%. Put differently, most activist hedge funds try to change management practices with well below a majority holding in the company. The same paper also documents an average holding period of about 2 years for an activist investment, though the median is much lower (about 250 days).

Following through and looking at companies that have been targeted and sometimes controlled by activist investors, we can classify the changes that they make into four groups as potential value enhancement measures:

1. Asset deployment and aperating performance: There is mixed evidence on this count, depending upon the type of activist investor group looked at and the time period. Divestitures of assets do pick up after activism, albeit not dramatically, for targeted firms. There is evidence that firms targeted by individual activists do see an improvement in return on capital and other profitability measures, relative to their peer groups, whereas firms targeted by hedge fund activists don’t see a similar jump in profitability measures.
2. Capital Structure: On financial leverage, there is a moderate increase of about 10% in debt ratios at firms that are targeted by activist hedge funds but the increase is not dramatics or statistically significant. There are dramatic increases in financial leverage at a small subset of firms that are targets of activism, but the conventional wisdom that activist investors go overboard in their use of debt is not borne out in the overall sample. One study does note a troubling phenomenon, at least for bond holders in targeted firms, with bond prices dropping about 3-5% in the years after firms are targeted by activists, with a higher likelihood of bond rating downgrades.
3. Dividend policy: The firms that are targeted by activists generally increase their dividends and return more cash to stockholders, with the cash returned as a percentage of earnings increasing by about 10% to 20%.
4. Corporate governance: The biggest effect is on corporate governance. The likelihood of CEO turnover jumps at firms that have been targeted by activists, increasing 5.5% over the year prior to the activism. In addition, CEO compensation decreases in the targeted firms in the years after the activism, with pay tied more closely to performance.

Do private equity investors make high returns?

The overall evidence on whether activist investors make money is mixed and varies depending upon which group of activist investors are studied and how returns are measured.

• Activist mutual funds seem to have had the lowest payoff to their activism, with little change accruing to the corporate governance, performance or stock prices of targeted firms. Markets seem to recognize this, with studies that have examined proxy fights finding that there is little or no stock price reaction to proxy proposals by activist institutional investors.  Activist hedge funds, on the other hand, seem to earn substantial excess returns, ranging from 7-8% on an annualized basis at the low end to 20% or more at the high end. Individual activists seem to fall somewhere in the middle, earning higher returns than institutions but lower returns than hedge funds.
• While the average excess returns earned by hedge funds and individual activists is positive, there is substantial volatility  in these returns and the magnitude of the excess return is sensitive to the benchmark used and the risk adjustment process. Put in less abstract terms, activist investors frequently suffer setbacks in their campaigns and the payoff is neither guaranteed nor predictable.
• Targeting the right firms, acquiring stock in these companies, demanding board representation and conducting proxy contests are all expensive and the returns made across the targered firms have to exceed the costs of activism. While none of the studies that we have reference hitherto factored these costs, one study that did concluded that the cost of an activist campaign at an average firm was $10.71 million and that the net return to activist investing, if these costs are considered, shrink towards zero. 
• The average returns across activist investors obscures a key component, which is that the distribution is skewed with the most positive returns being delivered by the activist investors in the top quartile; the median activist investor may very well just break even, especially after accounting for the cost of activism.

Here is an indisputable fact. If you are a stockholder in a publicly traded company, the entry of a private equity investor into your stockholder ranks is good news, since stock prices go up substantially:

Is private equity good or bad for the markets? How about for the economy? And for society?
For some of you, this entire post may be missing the point of the criticism, which is that private equity investors are job killers, not job creators. To me, that criticism is misplaced, because you cannot measure the success of a business by the jobs it creates or saves, but by the value it creates for its stockholders, by making money, and for its customers, by providing a needed product or service to customers. In the process, if it is successful, it will hire people and create jobs.
In fact, today's New York Times carries a story about one of the companies targeted by Bain in its Romney days, where 150 people lost their jobs, and it specifies that the company primary products was photo albums. Thus, while it is easy to blame Bain for the layoffs, the real reasons lay in a shifting market, where digital photography and computerized albums were replacing conventional photographs. The story's bigger point is that the people in the town have moved on, found other businesses to work for and are frankly surprised by the attention.
Since the critics are using fictional characters to beat up private equity investing, I will use one of my favorite fictional characters, from a great movie, "Other People's Money", to counter:


If private equity investors are primarily interested in slimming down companies and creating value for stockholders, do they create value for society? I believe that they do, and for two reasons. First, they are the battering rams that we use as passive investors to initiate and create change at public companies, and especially at companies that need to change. Second, even when private equity investors target companies, force them to divest assets, slim down and pay out the cash to stockholders, the cash does not disappear into thin air. The stockholders who receive the cash use it to pay for products and services (which creates jobs) and to invest in other companies with better growth prospects (which in turn hire more people).
In fact, my response to those who have a problem with private equity would be to ask the following question: Which aspect of private equity investing do you want to ban? Assuming that it is not equity investing collectively, it has to be either the activism or the "taking private" components. And what would that accomplish? Banning these practices would leave incumbent managers ensconced at publicly traded companies, unchallenged and unwilling to make changes, and the only jobs saved will be theirs.

Bottom line: If you don't like Mitt Romney, don't vote for him. Find a good reason, though! The fact that he worked at a private equity firm, and was good at his job, should not be that reason. In fact, since the US government looks more and more like a badly managed enterprise in need a major restructuring, a "good private equity investor" in charge may be just what the doctor ordered. 

Auld Lang Syne: Remembering 2011

There are only a couple of hours left in 2011 in New York and it is already the new year in many parts of the world. Let me spend my last post for this year, looking back at the year that was and looking forward to the year to come, using a few of my favorite market props: cash flows/earnings, market prices, risk free rates and risk premiums.

1. It was a good year for earnings at US companies, with earnings on the S&P 500 companies rising about 16%. That makes what happens to stock prices a little puzzling, since the S&P 500 index started the year at 1257.64 and ended the year at 1257.60. As a result , the aggregate PE ratio for the index declined from 15.03 at the start of the year to 12.96 at the end. 
2. It was an even better year for cash flows: dividends on the S&P 500 companies rose 12.5%, but buybacks surged more than 80%. The total dollar buybacks in 2011 (at least for the four quarters ending September 2011) almost matched buybacks in 2006, though they still remained well below the historic highs set in 2007. While the dividend yield on the index remained anemic (2.07%) the total cash flow (including buybacks) yield on the index was 5.90%, again well above the ten-year average of 4.72%.
3. The ten year treasury bond which started the year at 3.29% ended the year at 1.87%, the first time it has ended a year at below 2% in the last 50 years. The drop in the  rates also made US treasuries one of the better investments for the year, with the ten year bond returning 16.04% for the year; the price appreciation component accounted for 12.75%. Ironic, don't you think? After all, this was the year of the great S&P downgrade of the US sovereign rating that I talked about on my summer vacation in August. Are lower interest rates good news? I don't think so and I posted on the point earlier this year.
4. As many of you know, I have been estimating an implied equity risk premium for the S&P 500 for a long time, annually until 2008 and monthly since September 2008. I back out the premium using the level of the index and expected cash flows in the future. The premium started the year at 5.20%, surged during the summer to hit a high of 7.64% at the end of September and ended the year at 6.04%. The fact that stocks were flat for the year (the return with dividends was 2.07%) had the opposite effect on the historical risk premium (where you look at the difference between annual returns on stocks and treasuries over long periods of past history), with the historical risk premium dropping to 4.10%. After a long period (1981-2007), where historical risk premiums exceeded implied premiums, this is the fourth year in a row that implied premiums have exceeded historical premiums.

So much for last year! What does all this tell us about next year? It strikes me that the numbers are sending discordant messages. The earnings and cash flows point to a recovery, at least in corporate earnings, the treasury bond market is awfully pessimistic about future growth and the stock market vacillates between euphoria and despair. I really have no idea what next year will bring, but I am willing to make a guess. I expect the treasury bond market to grudgingly acknowledge higher economic growth prospects and move up (to 3%), equity risk premiums to become less volatile and move back towards lower numbers (5-5.5%). Buybacks and dividends will stay strong but will stabilize and earnings growth will moderate. The net effect will be to make the stock market a more hospitable place to invest and the bond market a less attractive investment. So, I am adding to my equity exposure, selling my treasury bonds and praying that the Eurozone does not turn my predictions to dust.

I apologize for both the US-centric and macro nature of this post but I am starting on my annual data update this week. Over the next ten days, I will be exploring the raw data that I have downloaded on 50,000+ companies globally, since the close of trading yesterday, and will be generating my industry average tables. During that analysis, I will be looking at how equities have moved globally and world-wide trends in both valuation multiples (PE, Price to book, EV/EBITDA etc.) and corporate finance variables (dividends, debt ratios, returns on equity/capital). I will have a much more detailed post when I am done but I look forward to learning a great deal more from the numbers than from listening to expert prognostications. 

So, happy New Year! I wish you, your families and your loved ones the very best for the coming year! Be happy and healthy!

Do markets punish long term thinking? Amazon as a case study

This morning's New York Times has an article from one my favorite business writers, James Stewart, on Amazon. His focus, largely admiring, is on the fact that Amazon has made decisions that hurt it in the short term but create value in the long term. To provide at least two examples, he talks about Amazon's decisions to cut prices on products and go for a larger market share and to invest in in the Kindle, their book reader. The tenor of the article is that the market has short sightedly punished the company for its long term focus. Stewart uses one piece of anecdotal evidence to back up his claim that markets are short term: the stock price reaction to the earnings report on October 25, when Amazon announced earnings and revenues that were largely as expected but announced that it had been spending a great deal more than investors thought it had to deliver that growth.

I am no knee jerk defender of financial markets and accept the fact that markets not only make mistakes in assessing value, but also that a subset of investors are short term and over react to earnings announcements. In fact, I am sure that there are companies that you can point to that have been unfairly treated by markets for their long term focus (and other companies that have been unfairly rewarded for delivering short term results at the expense of long term value). I just don't think Amazon is the example I would use to bring this point on. Let's start with some general facts. Here is how the market has and is continuing to punish Amazon for its long term focus.

• In the last decade, Amazon has seen its market capitalization increase from $4.55 billion in 2001 to $82 billion in 2011; the market cap for Amazon at the peak of the dot com boom was only $30 billion. An investor who bought Amazon stock in 2001 would have generated a cumulated return of 1300% over the last 10 years. 
• In November 2011, after the earnings report that Mr. Stewart alludes to, Amazon was trading at 96 times trailing earnings and at two times trailing revenues. In contrast, the median PE ratio for a retail firm was about 15 and the median EV to revenue multiples was 0.8. By my estimate, Amazon is one of the most richly priced large retailers in the world.
• Over the last decade, the firm has made multiple bets on growth and asked the market to trust it to make the right judgments. For the most part, its actions have been welcomed by markets that have been willing to look past disappointing earnings reports at the future. Jeff Bezos is celebrated as a great CEO, with comparisons made to Steve Jobs.

So, why was the market reaction to Amazon's last earnings report so brutal? As someone who has valued Amazon almost every year since 1998, I think I can provide some historical perspective. Amazon has been, at alternate times, revered and reviled by financial markets. In January 2000, at the peak of the dot com boom, based on my estimate of value for Amazon at the time, it was over valued by about 60%. A year later, based again on my assessment of value, it was under valued by about 50%. During the 12 years that I have valued the company, it has been overvalued in 7 of the years and under valued in 5 of those years. Since the beginning of 2009, notwithstanding the reaction to the last earnings report, investors have been on their manic phase with Amazon, pushing the stock price up more than 300% (from $54 to over $200). At its price of almost $200/share, just before its October earnings report, Amazon was valued to perfection and beyond. In fact, for it to be worth $200/share, it would have to deliver about increase revenues to more than $200 billion in ten years, while increasing its pre-tax operating margin from 2.5% to 4%, while generating a return on capital of 70%+ on its new investments. If you disagree on these assumptions, feel free to change them for yourself in the attached spreadsheet.

It is the last item that I would draw your attention to, because the last earnings report was a sobering reminder that while Amazon will continue to grow, the growth is not going to be easy or cheap. In my view, the market is still much too optimistic about the quality of Amazon's growth going forward and I think it remains over priced. In Mr. Stewart's world, that would make me a short term investor, but not in mine. At the risk of repeating a theme that has run through my posts for the last few months, growth has value only if it is delivered at a reasonable cost and a growth stock is cheap only if the market price reflects that cost. Amazon does not look cheap to me, even with a great CEO and a long term focus!

Living within your limits: Thoughts on Research In Motion (RIM)

I have a sixteen-year old daughter who calls me "old man" and while I know she is using the term lovingly (of course.. I believe the best about my kids), the moniker still strikes home as a reminder that I am older and that age brings limits that I can choose to ignore at my own peril. I know that I can no longer go to bed late and get up early, that I have to watch what I eat and that I need my reading glasses to read restaurant menus. As I watched Research in Motion (RIM) go through painful contortions in the financial markets yesterday, I was reminded that companies also go through an aging process, and how they deal with the limits that come with age determines their value to investors.

RIM has had a pretty good run as a company, but they have a problem. Their core technology which powers the Blackberry is a cash cow but it is one that faces corrosion in market share, as smart phone users turn to Androids and iPhones, with their more open operating systems and extensive app libraries. As the CEO of RIM, you have two choices.

1. Go for growth: You can invest hefty portions of the cash flows from your core technology back into the business in R&D and new products, hoping for a breakthrough, but you are competing against two companies, Apple and Google, that have more resources and imagination than you do. You may be able to eke out growth but the amounts you would have to reinvest to generate that growth may make it a losing proposition for your stockholders.
2. Go for cash: You can accept the reality that you have a product with a limited life but solid cash flows. You invest just enough to keep this product on its feet and a cash flow generator for the near future, and give up on new products and technologies.  You also change your capital structure and dividend policy to reflect your new status as a limited life, cash cow: use more debt in your financing and you return more of your cash to stockholders as dividends or stock buybacks. You are, in effect, liquidating yourself over time, and while your stock price will approach zero by the end of the Blackberry's life, your investors would have collected enough cash flows not to care.

So, what are the value implications of your choice? In the fiscal year ended February 2011, RIM reported pre-tax operating income of $4.6 billion and net income of $3.4 billion, but this income was after R&D expenses of $$1.4 billion. While their earnings has plummeted in the last two quarters (operating income in the 12 months ended November 2011 was down to $3.4 billion), and some of the drop can be attributed to a loss of market share for Blackberries, the drop was accentuated by losses on new products such as the Playbook tablet.  In fact, let's be conservative and assume that the operating income in 2012 will come in at less than $ 2.5 billion and that RIM, if it gives up on developing new products, can cut $ 1 billion out of R&D. (The remaining $400 million or more can go to maintaining the Blackberry Franchise). That would translate into a base pre-tax operating income of roughly $ 3.5 billion and after-tax cash flows of $3 billion. Assume further that you can milk the franchise for five more years, losing 20% of your customers each year. On an after-tax basis, using a tax rate of 30% and a cost of capital of 9% (which is the cut off for the top quartile of US companies), you get a value of about $8.125 billion. At its current market capitalization of $7.3 billion and enterprise value of $ 6 billion, that would make RIM a bargain (under valued by about $2 billion). In fact, make your own estimates and judgments, using this spreadsheet. So, what can go wrong? If managers continue to operate under the delusion that they can recreate their glory days and invest on that presumption, they can very easily wipe out the $ 2 billion difference. In fact, I think that the market is building in the expectation that RIM will continue  not to act its age, investing as if it were a growth company, whose glory days lie ahead of it.

As a potential stockholder in RIM, here is my unsolicited advice to the management of the company. Rather than fight the critiques of your product (that it is closed, corporate and limited), embrace them. In fact, I have names for your next few models: the Boring Blackberry, the Blackberry Funsucker and the Blackberry Stolid. Let's face it! The primary market for Blackberries is composed of paranoid (often with good reason) corporate entities that worry about their employees revealing business secrets and playing games on their iPhone and Android Apps, and you will appeal to them with your "cant have fun with these" Blackberries. Disband your research and development teams, forget about product revamps and don't even dream about more Playbooks. In effect, accept that you are an "old company" and behave like one. Your stockholders will be deeply grateful!

How much diversification is too much?

As an investor, should you put all of your money in one stock or should you spread your bets across many investments? If it is the latter, how many investments should you have in your portfolio? The debate is an old one and there are many views but they fall between two extremes. At one end is the advice that you get from a believer in efficient markets: be maximally diversfied, across asset classes, and within each asset class, across as many assets you can hold: the proverbial “market portfolio” includes every traded asset in the market, held in proportion to its market value. At the other is the “go all in” investor, who believes that if you find a significantly undervalued company, you should put all or most of your money in that company, rather than dilute your upside potential by spreading your bets.

Cuban versus Bogle

These arguments got media attention recently, largely because two high-profile investors took opposite positions. The first salvo was fired by Mark Cuban, who made his substantial fortune (estimated by Forbes to be $2.5 billion in 2011) as an entrepreneur who founded and sold Broadcast.com for $ 6 billion by Yahoo!, at the peak of the dot com boom. Cuban's profile has increased since, largely from his ownership of the Dallas Mavericks, last year's winners of the NBA championship, and his intemperate outbursts, about referees, players and the NBA in general. With typical understatement, Cuban claimed that diversification is for idiots and that investors, unless they have access to information or deals, should hold cash, since hedge funds have such a tremendous advantage over them. In response, John Bogle, the father of the index fund business, countered that "the math (for diversification) has been proved over and over again. It's not just the first thing an investor should think about, but the second, the third and probably the fourth and the fifth thing investors should think about".

The limiting cases

So, should you diversify? And if so, how much should you diversify? The answers to these questions depend upon two factors: (a) how certain you feel about your assessment of  value for individual assets (or markets) and (b) how certain you are about the market price adjusting to that value within your specified time horizon.

·      At one limit, if you are absolutely certain about your assessment of value for an asset and that the market price will adjust to that value within your time horizon, you should put all of your money in that investment. Though this may seem like the impossible dream, there are two possible scenarios where it may play out:

o   Finite life securities (Options, Futures and Bonds): If you find an option trading for less than its exercise value: you should invest all of your money in buying as many options as you can and exercise those options to make a sure profit. In general, this is what falls under the umbrella of pure arbitrage  and it is feasible only with finite lived assets (such as options, futures and fixed incomes securities), where the maturity date provides a endpoint by which time the price adjustment has to occur.

o   A perfect tip: On a more cynical note, you can make guaranteed profits if you are the receipient of inside information about an upcoming news releases (earnings, acquisition), but only if there is no doubt about the price impact of the release (at least in terms of direction) and the timing of the news release. (Rumors don’t provide perfect information and most inside information has an element of uncertainty associated with it.) The problem, of course, is that you would be guilty of insider trading and may end up in jail... .

·      At the other limit, if you have no idea what assets are cheap and which ones are expensive (which is the efficient market proposition), you should be as diversified as you can get, given transactions costs. If you have no transactions costs, you should own a little piece of everything. After all, you gain nothing by holding back on diversification and your portfolio will be deliver less return per unit of risk taken.

Most active investors tend to fall between these two extremes. If you invest in equities, at least, it is inevitable that you have to diversify, for two reasons. The first is that you can never value an equity investment with certainty; the expected cash flows are estimates and risk adjustment is not always precise. The second is that even if your valuation is precise, there is no explicit date by which market prices have to adjust; there is no equivalent to a maturity date or an option expiration date for equities. A stock that is under or over priced can stay under or over priced for a long time, and even get more under or over priced.

There is one final point worth making. Note that how much you diversify will be based upon your perceptions of the quality of your valuations and the speed of market adjustment, but perceptions are not reality. In fact, psychologists have long noted (and behavioral economists have picked up the same theme) that human beings tend to have too much confidence in their own abilities and too little in the collective wisdom of the rest of the world. In other words, we tend to think our valuations are more precise than they really are and that the market adjustment will occur sooner than it really will.

How diversified should you be?

            Building on the theme that diversification should be attuned to the precision of your valuations and the speed of market adjustment, the degree to which you should diversify will depend upon how your investment strategy is structured, with an emphasis on the following dimensions:

a.     Uncertatinty about investment value: If your investment strategy requires you to buy mature companies that trade at low price earnings ratios, you may need to hold fewer stocks , than if it requires you to buy young, growth companies (where you are more uncertain about value). In fact, you can tie the margin of safety (referenced earlier in this chapter to how much you need to diversify; if you incorporate a higher margin of safety into your investing, you should feel more comfortable holding a less diversfied portfolio. As a general propostion, your response to more uncertainty should be more diversification, not less.

b.     Market catalysts: To make money, the market price has to adjust towards your estimated value. If you can provide a catalyst for the market adjustment (nudging or forcing the price towards value), you can hold fewer investments and be less diversifed than a completely passive investor who has no choice but to wait for the market adjustment to happen. Thus, you will need to hold fewer stocks as an activist investor than as an investor who picks stocks based upon a PE screen. Ironically, this would mean that the more inefficient you believe markets are, the more diversified you will need to be to allow for the unpredictability of market movements.

c.     Time horizon: To the extent that the price adjustment has to happen over your time horizon, having a longer time horizon should allow you to have a less diversified portfolio. As your liquidity needs rise, thus shortening your time horizon, you will have to become more diversifed in your holdings.

In summary, then, there is nothing irrational about holding just a few stocks in your portfolio, if they are mature companies and you have built in a healthy margin of safety, and/or you have the power to move markets. By the same token, it makes complete sense for other investors to spread their bets widely, if they are investing in young, growth companies, and are unclear about how and when the market price will adjust to value. So, the choice is not between diversification and active investing, since you can pick stocks and be diversified at the same time. It should be centering on  making the right decision on how much diversification works for you,.

Evidence from the field

            So, how diversified is the typical investor’s portfolo? And if it is relatively undiversified, is it undiversifed for the right reasons? And what is the payoff or cost to being undiversified? The evidence from many studies over the last decade or so is enlightening:

1. Investors are thinly diversified: The typical investor is not well diversified across either asset classes, or within each asset classes, across assets. A study of 60,000 individual investor portfolios found that the median investor in this group (which was a representative sample of the typical active investor in the United States) held three stocks and that roughly 28% of all investors have portfolios composed of one stock. In a later study, the same authors find that not only do investors hold relatively few stocks but that these stocks tend to be highly correlated with each other (same sector or type of stock).
2. Many are thinly diversified for the wrong reasons: While the lack of diversfication can be justified if you have good information or superior assessments of value, many of the undiversfied investors in this study failed to diversfy for the wrong reasons. On average, not only did younger, poorer less eductated investors diversify less, but they, as a group, tend to be over confident in their abilities to pick stocks. 
3. And they pay a price for being thinly diversified: Not surprisingly, investors who fail to diversify because they are over confident or unfamiliar with their choices pay a price. On average, they earn about 2.40% less a year, on a risk adjusted basis, than their more diversified counterparts.
4. But some undiversified investors are good stock pickers: On a hopeful note, there are clearly some active investors who hold back on diversification for the right reasons, i.e., because they have better assessments of value for stocks than the rest of the market and long time horizons. A study of 78,000 household portfolios finds that the among households wealthy enough to be diversified, those with more concentrated portfolios (holding one or two stocks) earn higher returns than those with more diversified portfolios (holding three or more stocks) by about, though they are also more volatile. The study goes on to note that the higher returns can be attributed to stock picking prowess and not to market timing or inside information.

Bottom line

Most investors are better off diversifying as much as they can, investing in mutual funds and exchange traded funds, rather than individual stocks. Many investors who choose not to diversify do so for the wrong reasons (ignorance, over confidence, inertia) and end up paying dearly for that mistake. Some investors with superior value assesssment skils, disciplined investment practices and long time horizons can generate superior profits from holding smaller, relatively undiversified portfolios. Even if you believe that  you are in that elite group, be careful to not fall prey to hubris, where you become over confident in your stock picking and market assessments and cut back on diversification too much.