On September 13th, I attended the 2008 Pabrai Funds annual meeting held here in Chicago. I met a few F Wall Street visitors and, unfortunately, missed meeting up with a few others. I must say that I am amazed at how many "Early Buffett" partnerships are out there.
For the explosive growth of these types of partnerships, I give 100% of the credit to Mohnish Pabrai for structuring his partnerships like the early Buffett ones and bringing them to the public eye. (If that's Greek to you, or if you're Greek and that's Chinese, stay tuned because I'll explain "Early Buffett Partnerships" in a subsequent post.) Before Pabrai, few people knew what an "Early Buffett" partnership was.
But I digress (and I'll get back to these partnerships later). For now, let's look at the Pabrai Funds 2008 annual meeting.
Pabrai's funds are all about long-term performance; so, looking at his one-year or year-to-date performance is downright silly. Sure, he'd love to show positive gains every year; still, even Charlie Munger himself couldn't pull off that feat, and Munger's not too shabby of an investor!
You didn't know? Like Buffett, Munger ran a partnership in the 1960s and 1970s. And like Buffett, he killed the Dow — except in 1973 and 1974, when Munger's partners lost about 53% over those two years. By comparison, Pabrai is doing quite well.
(How did Uncle Charlie's story end? In 1975, Munger's partnership earned a 73% return. When Munger liquidated the partnership, he had compounded money at just over 24% for fourteen years, even through the 53% two year decline.)
Mohnish Pabrai talked for about 30 minutes or so (could have been longer...I wasn't watching the clock) and then opened the floor up for questions. (He won't discuss current or prospective holdings; so, I couldn't ask some of your questions.)
Pinnacle Airlines. Mohnish admitted that he would have been better off spending $20 on a book than $20 million (or whatever the real loss was) on Pinnacle. Airlines are tough, and Pabrai admitted that he should have learned from Buffett's lesson (or "beating") on US Air.
The takeaway lesson on Pinnacle. Airlines are typically bad businesses to invest in. Like auto makers, airlines have thin profit margins, suffer from high capital expenditures, and have to compete on price. Most investors should stay away from airlines entirely.
Investing in China. I'll give you the "short short version" of Pabrai on investing in China:
It is said that they maintain three books: one for running the business, one for the government...and one for the owner's wife.
Pabrai does not plan on making any investments in Chinese companies (though I don't think he'd rule the right opportunity out just because it's in China). Instead, he continues to believe that there are plenty of opportunities in the US.
Delta Financial (and other financials). Pabrai said that the big mistake he made on this one was not figuring out the "lifeline" for Delta. That is, he didn't properly assess the outs for the company and his investment. He then had this to say about Delta and the financial crisis (as well as all debt):
If you depend on borrowed money, you have to worry about what world thinks of you everyday.
(This was actually a quote ripped from Buffett at the Berkshire annual meeting on May 3, 2008. I give an example of this "borrowed money" danger in this post.)
Think about it personally — until your house is paid off, you have to worry about what the banks think of you. If you carry credit card debt, you have to worry that your interest rate will shoot up because the credit card company's opinion of you and your "creditworthiness" has changed.
Back to Delta: Mohnish said very simply that he did not consider the fact that the credit/securitization markets would completely freeze up. In short, he was "unprepared for a 1 in 50 year event."
Berkshire Hathaway. Over the years, Pabrai has been using Berkshire as a "placeholder" of sorts for up to 10% of his portfolio's cash. He'll hold it for a few days to a few months, and figures that he's averaged about 12% a year on it. (Beats the heck out of cash!)
He also talked about Buffett and Munger's amazing ability to compound money, "adding a zero every ten years." That is to say, every ten years or so, they added another zero to Berkshire's price ($40 to $400 to $4,000 to $40,000).
Pabrai did talk about making a change in his strategy over the past year or so. He is now focusing more on the jockey (management) than the horse (cold financials). I took it this way: Up until a year ago, Pabrai was more than happy to "cigar butt" invest — find underpriced assets regardless of their quality.
Today, he is shifting to a more 1980s Buffett-style approach — find strong businesses run by highly talented, shareholder-focused managers.
Looking at his portfolio, Pabrai sees the widest discount to intrinsic value today than at any other point in the history of his partnerships. Some positions are trading at just 25% of his estimation of intrinsic value.
What will cause convergence of price and value? Pabrai talked about two types of assets in the portfolio:
When Pabrai purchased frontline, the market value was less than one half of the liquidation value — a situation that cannot persist forever. Eventually, that price must correct because:
If the business is generated positive cash flow every month, that gap between price and intrinsic value widens every month. The widening of that gap puts tremendous pressure for the price to move up.
As Mohnish put it, "It's Ben Graham 101." Eventually market value (price) and intrinsic value will converge.
In this case, Mohnish used IPSCO as an example. He bought the company at less than three times free cash flow. Thus, if the price did not change in three years, the market cap would be less than the cash on the books of the business.
What does that mean?
Plants, Inventory, Future Earnings Streams, Growth, Management, Permits, Licenses, Talented Employees — all free!
That "obvious" value caused tremendous pressure for upward movement in price. Pabrai bought for $45 and sold for over $155.
(As an aside, Pabrai said many of his holdings are trading at low single-digit multiples of free cash flow.)
All in all, it was a wonderful meeting and evening. You might think that Pabrai would be sheepish or cautious considering his recent performance; but, seeing the man in person, you can easily see that he believes his recent performance is not a problem in strategy (a strategy with a long, successful history with many mangers throughout history) but a problem with market prices and action.
Regrettably, I missed the Warren roundtable. At the end of the evening, Mohnish sat at a table with ten or twelve other attendees (whoever wanted to) and discussed his experiences at lunch with Buffett. But, I'll end with some points Mohnish had thrown out about Buffett earlier in the evening:
And I'll add some wisdom to that last one — wisdom that Buffett surely implied and that my father always told me:
To be the best at what you do, you have to do what you love. And if you're the best, the money will follow. And that's true whether you're saving lives or digging ditches.
Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!
Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.
| Excel 2007 | | | Excel 2003 |
| (ZIP, 168kb) | (ZIP, 138kb) |
Mon @ 12:45PM | View comment
g said,
good timing!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Sun @ 1:14AM | View comment
mike said,
ROIC is not based on earnings. it's just EBIT * (1-t) / invested capital. The flaw with ROIC...
What The Heck Is CROIC?
Thu @ 8:00AM | View comment
Cale Smith said,
New Ponzio Capital site looks great, Joe, and good to see you back posting!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Wed @ 5:50PM | View comment
kalidasa said,
in correction to an earlier post, it is Sham Gad(www.gadcapital.com) or www.shamgad.blogspot.com
Hedge Funds and the Early Buffett Partnership
Tue @ 3:29PM | View comment
Joe Ponzio said,
I think it got overheated. I still feel like it's a good long-term holding (if the buy price is right)....
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
Tue @ 2:48PM | View comment
Nutrisystem Coupon said,
Dude, what happened to this stock? You would think in January this stock would be jumping through the roof...
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
nk
Oct 1st, 2008
4 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit D.
Oct 1st, 2008
Many lessons in this post, I will be memorizing them! Thank you Mr. Ponzio!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
anonymous
Oct 1st, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
AlexG
Oct 1st, 2008
5 comments
Frontline refers to Frontline Shipping (FRO) and here is the story link:
http://www.forbes.com/for...
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
phil
Oct 1st, 2008
Buffett has unique talents. Period! Talents that, in my opinion, are not transferable to others. Bits and pieces yes. But the whole, no. Those people who try like hell to replicate the secret formula are probably wasting their time. The above fellows - who know all the phrases and catch words - no matter how hard they try, or how much they want to be like the "great one", in the end aren't in the same league. Why?
1) most are lacking the mental horsepower that WEB is blessed w/. He has a special gift. His wife even alluded to it in the interview w/ Charlie Rose a few years ago. Did you know that Einstien's brain was 15% larger than the average human being? I have a strong feeling that Buffett is in that category too. So for 99.999% of us, it might not be fair to adopt the buffett template hook, line, and sinker. 2) A lot of buffetteer's try to be too buffett like rather than taking from Buffett and others (templeton, soros, jones, ichan, lynch, graham, cramer (just kidding) , and developing their own identity, method, strategy, and talents. Buffett is an original -- his clones are not. Some, like Nygren are third rate imitations.
Buffett is a great place to look for some answers but tread carefully. Cloning one self after the master has big risks. For instance, his approach of concentrating big $ into a handful of stocks can easily back fire. Witness the above 3 gentlemen. Just because it has worked for WEB for 50 years doesn't mean it's the only way. It's the buffett way. Buffett put a lot out there, no doubt, all you have to do is read his annual reports -- they are masterpieces. Early buffett LPs are not encouraging. I wouldn't invest in a buffett LP clone any sooner than I'd pay to see an Elvis impersonator. But I'd pay big bucks in a second to see Elvis perform -- no doubt about it.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit D.
Oct 1st, 2008
People aren't trying to imitate buffet as much as they are trying to LEARN TO INVEST SENSIBLY by studying the mental models of Graham, buffet, and the likes. Since history has proven that these mental models DO WORK, it is up to each individual to create his/her own portfolio and assess HIS OWN risk.
Let me give you an example:
Buffet's been buying some great companies recently which seem well entrenched, they fit alot of the characteristics that "buffet imitators" like. Does that mean 99% of those imitators have invested in those companies? Simply, no.
Hence, we are trying to IMPROVE by learning from the best, and it has worked for many people as much as it has failed for many people: investing is an art not a science.
Just because people enjoy and respect the opinions(and alot are facts about investing in sound businesses), why shouldn't they "imitate it"? Do you expect them to go against their own rational that seems to concur with buffet(i.e avoiding paying without a margin of safety?) It just doesn't make sense to me. Sure other investors have been succesful without a margin of safety(just an example) but those who use it have THEIR OWN reasons, not the simple fact that Buffet does this.
Like I said, you could be successful picking companies that Buffet avoids, but YOU NEED MENTAL MODELS or your going to invest like people you would avoid. Just look at the banks they obviously didn't follow Buffet's mental models. Only one did, and buffet invested in it, its called Wells & Fargo. It seems to make alot of sense to "imitate" Warren Buffet's rational of investing in decent management with a MOS etc. Not because he said so, but because its a sound investment premise!
Just like it is UNSOUND for us non-conventional investors to worry about the stock's volatility. That's buffet "imitating" Graham right there! Who cares honestly, as long as YOU DO GOOD!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Alex
Oct 2nd, 2008
15 comments
No one was BORN knowing how to make intelligent investment decisions...
so why not learn from the BEST THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN? (I think it's safe to assume everyone knows who I'm referring to.. ;)
Another Great post Joe ! --> keep em' comin'
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Charlie
Oct 2nd, 2008
3 comments
Also, given margins of safety, huge mistakes of judgement are unacceptable! This raises the question of - is he being conservative enough in his valuation estimates? Is he taking a big enough margin of safety? Is he messing up on his Kelly Formula estimates of his likely expectations? Is he investing in companies outside his circle of competence? Or is his strategy of investing in distressed industries a failed strategy because of the very occasional risk of deep recessions?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Miguel
Oct 2nd, 2008
1 comment
It was great meeting you at the meeting. I wanted to add a link to my notes of Pabarai's shareholder meeting. They are not as in depth as yours but none the less I want to share them with you.
http://www.simoleonsense....
Best Regards
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
phil
Oct 3rd, 2008
6 comments
I've read tons of buffett materials cover to cover for two decades now. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. Charlie - you hit the nail on the head. He shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. Since MP is a focus load em up investor, when he strikes (which is infrequent) he's supposed to be right. Harsh but true. Buffett makes it look easy. That's why I think this heavy concentration thing is a bad idea for most buffett devotees. IMO Buffett should not have pushed this idea onto the public really -- it's too risky.
On the other hand If buffett said he was a big diversifier, I'm sure MP would be a big diversifier too. The bottom line re: MP's recent performance is that they were just lousy stock picks, they were too large, caused by an over confidence in his analysis. As far as I can tell MP (who I only heard of recently by the way) is an intelligent guy, who knows the material, has had success, that likely led to a false sense of being a superior stock/business picker.
I have to conclude that MP (I don't want to keep knocking the guy - I prefer to knock bill nygren actually who I think should wear his big floppy circus shoes to his next shareholder meeting) has been bailed out of by a good stock market over recent years. So has Davis, Wietz (the 3rd rate other NE stock picker) Miller, Prenza, and so on. These guys are buy stocks that are down and don't change your mind investors. Frankly, they don't understand the business' at all. There is a certain arrogance about these guys that I just don't care for. In a sense they are intellectual frauds who cloak their method (what ever it really is) in buffettisms. Nygren is a huge offender. Just read the past few years of OID - every issue had this guy. Why? They have an answer for everything. Somehow it wasn't their fault - a perfect storm hit, or the market didn't understand the under lying value, the gov't prematurely interfered before the intrinsic value of FRE/FNM was recognized. I have to think that Buffett thinks that the above ( not MP so much) are the biggest turkeys going.
Boiling buffett down (what he talks about publically anyway) is the following:
1. Allocation of capital is everything (how a company reinvests its left over cash); THIS is the WEB cornerstone. It's all he talks/writes about publically really. Over and over again.
2. What usage are the incremental residual cash flows (retained earnings) put and most importantly what returns are generated from that usage; undistributed earnings are very important investments.
3. The best businesses are ones that don't change much and have some protection to fend against competitors;
4. Buy at a big discount to an imprecise intrinsic value figure to cover yourself;
5. If you can't value the stock better than the market - you don't belong in the game.
Looks easy.... it's not. The above referenced are finding out the hard way, although they are still being paid handsomely for their incompetence. And that's a shame. Especially for their shareholders who they deceived with an un-beffett like approach.
phil
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Jags
Oct 4th, 2008
1 comment
He doesnt have to worry about how the funds are doing in a quater or a year. His investors are permanently locked. This is what Buffett described when he said- "...having loaded gun and waiting for big elephants"!
Other guys have to raise and retain capital - they will see redemptions whenever they are down for few quaters. WEB just doesnt have to care even if he is not making any investment in a year or two!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit D.
Oct 4th, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Chris Lazos
Oct 4th, 2008
5 comments
I am not saying that it is an easy feat but my bet that if you took a random stock portfolio of less than 20 shares you will get a number of portfolios which will consistently beat even the supercharged SP500 by a few points every year by chance. Wrapped around with a sound value investing strategy investor money flows in...believing that the performance is due to skill. And this might further strengthen the belief of both the practitioner and the investor....doing more of what is working.
WB invests the way he does because of his current predicament of not only having billions of capital now but also new billions coming in every year(every day!) from profits from private business holdings and insurance float. Some of the stocks he bot recently went straight down...like KMX, BAC which would not have done much good if he was only an all out stock picking focused fund manager with nervous investors.
Would he be buying the BNIs and JNJs of the world if he had a few million $? Maybe ....but I doubt it.
If WB stayed a money manager with hot money investors I am more than certain WB would have been a top performer(especially given the general market tailwind) but whether he would have avoided this down draft is a hypothetical question.....so degrading his disciples is not really comparing like for like.
I have not read every detail of how WB made is near50% returns in the 50s and 60s but it was very few of what he does today and more of buying and selling cigar buts or taking large positions in arb situations and riding the generals(I guess with large discounts to his estimated IV) when the general market was moving up.
Cigar but investing works...if the stock is cheap enough. If you go around and look in the private business for sale ads I dont see too many corner sandwich shops/grocers/pharmacies/liquor stores with no national brand selling for much more than 5 pe....or 3 for that matter. That is if the company stays in business...which in many cases depends on the owner getting up in the morning.for a couple of years at least. But you will get your money back and sometimes in spades in some cases if you can go on for many years.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
JC
Oct 6th, 2008
Even Buffett (this is more 1980s Buffett) conceded in his 2007 Annual Report, when he brought See's Candies that it was not an awesome business (annual growth was in the single digits). But what he did see was it's ability to generate cash. The 30 million he pay for See's ended up generating over 1.3 billion in pre-tax cash for BRK. That's over 40X return over his original cost of capital. Since he allocated the cash to other investments it compounded even more! Now that's thinking like a business owner.
With the recent downturn in the markets, there are a lot of companies selling for single digit P/FCF as noted in the meeting notes. Some as cheap as 3X P/FCF, which means you get the company for free in 3 years!
As an example, look at NVDA (nVidia). Priced recently at 4.37B, it has 1.66B in cash, 0 debt. They have 3 year FCF average of 630.4M. If you subtract the cash on hand, you can price it at 2.71B, that's 4.29 Price-to-FCF! If they survive for 5 years even with shrinking FCF, you get the company for free at current prices. DISCLOSURE: I own shares of NVDA.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
JC
Oct 6th, 2008
I think most people agreed that no one can be Buffett. But that doesn't mean you can't stride to use his "mental models" for investing as Amit mentions. I think that's obtainable. In his writing "Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville" he points out that this "ability" can be learned and it's not a fluke. All the investors in there came from different educational, social, economical backgrounds. They all also had different investing styles and brought different stocks.
I think most people here are just trying to be "Superinvestors of Buffett-and-Mungerville" even though we'll never be exactly like Buffett. It's naive to think you can invest exactly like Buffett. I read Pabrai book and watched his interviews and I don't get the feel that he says he's the next Buffett.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
g
Oct 6th, 2008
There's nothing wrong with that thinking, thats good for a preliminary, 4 second analysis. However, obviously the market doesnt expect the future FCF streams to match the average of the past 3 years.
While the market may be wrong, you should not automatically assume that the company's earnings next year will be reflective of their performance in the past few years. I don't believe that markets are efficient, and I know nothing about the company you mentioned, but it seems that you simply assume that they'll have high FCF streams in the future simply because they did in the past. Again, I know nothing about that company, but if they have negative FCFs in the coming years, that investment does not look so good. The main thing I'm trying to say is, worry about projecting future FCF, dont simply rely on what happened last year because it is likely that the market is pricing it low for a reason (may not be a good one, in which case it becomes a good investment opportunity).
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Oct 6th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Phil said,
Buffett has unique talents. Period! Talents that, in my opinion, are not transferable to others. Bits and pieces yes. But the whole, no. Those people who try like hell to replicate the secret formula are probably wasting their time.
Here's my thought: Buffett turned his $100 investment in his original partnership to $60 billion and counting. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- will do that again in our lifetimes. As Pabrai said in his meeting, Buffett is one of those "once in a century" people that will never be replicated. Much like an Einstein or Ben Franklin.That said, I disagree that others are wasting their time. I liken it to Stephen Hawking. He's a brilliant scientist who has shaped the way the world thinks about space, time, and more. And yet, he lives in the shadow of Einstein's reputation. Should Hawking give up? Should he stop using his brain and talents because people compare him to Einstein at every turn?
I would hope not.
We will definitely see a lot of Buffett followers grow wealth from $10,000 to $1 billion or $20 billion. We'll also see them grow it to $200 million or $20 million. Over the course of fifty years, $10,000 into $10 million is a very impressive 16.4% annual return. Tell that investor, "You're no Warren Buffett," and you'll likely hear, "Who gives a hoot? I've got $10 million!"
Buffett did not practice or preach broad diversification because broad diversification is bad business. Why would you put any of your money at risk in a GM or AMLN when you can focus that money on good businesses and opportunities?
Peter Lynch went the opposite way -- growing his fund from 40 positions to more than 1,400. As the story goes, they used to tease him that there was not a stock he didn't like. Stupid? No -- because Lynch's data and reasoning told him that every purchase was highly intelligent and was not afraid to make big decisions and investments when the odds were in his favor.
I pose this question to all of you -- Buffett followers or not: How much diversification is "enough"? Five positions? Five hundred?
The truth is that everyone preaches diversification, but nobody can look at a portfolio and definitely say, "Yep -- this one's well diversified." Munger and Buffett have both said that most investors would do well to own five or six big, "safe" companies. Buy the biggest and best at an attractive price, and then hang on for dear life. (That's why we put 20% in JNJ and in WMT, but only 5% or 10% in the other opportunities.)
Today, Buffett says people should buy an index fund. I don't think it's because Buffett truly wants people to own index funds. Instead, Buffett is the conssumate realist and knows that (i) most mutual funds are doomed to lose to the markets, and (ii) most people will never have the time, desire, or iron constitution needed to buy and hold stocks in times of maximum pessimism.
Five and ten years from now, today's buyers of stock -- using intelligent valuations and methods -- will look very smart. But, you have to have that iron constitution that a Buffett has -- the kind of stomach that allows you to pull the trigger in scary times because your data and reasoning are right.
Anyways -- my two cents.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
CLazos
Oct 6th, 2008
5 comments
That is exactly true. I doubt if there is any viable business out there trading for working capital but as your NVDA example all you have to do is let time do the work. Take a company like DELL. Its been growing its share in shrinking industry and makes billions doing so. Their expanse is reaching the globe via the net and 12000 stores. At current rates no matter how how many pessimistic IV assumptions I put in my calculations you can probably make a good return on it even if you buy it above 20....if you hold it for long enough. "DISCLOSURE: I own shares of DELL."
Problem with most market investors is their inability to sit around and do nothing. And sitting on the position long enough is what gets rewarded.
WB is an unmatched stock analyst...he could have sold off See's Candy for a couple of hundred million.
But in his genious analysis is coupled with the patience of an elephant.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Johnny Ray Gay
Oct 19th, 2008
1 comment
When I got to the last entry, I wanted it to go on forever - the never-ending discussion. IF I could only analyze stocks, as logically as you guys parse through these wonderful ideas. Everyone's so generously sharing their thoughts - very Buffett like. This is a pure privilege to experience, and a great treat. It's a great gift that Google brought me to this marvelous place in search of Pabrai. I'm am very proud of every one that has joined in. I hope more will share in a like manner around the world!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Yehuda
Oct 29th, 2008
He didn't just buy some Pinnacle. He kept buying all the way down and tried to catch a falling knife. Erm did he needed to lose 20 million to realise that airlines are a bad business? Feel free to check his previous claims on Pinnacle quote "Frontline was obvious. Stewart Enterprises was obvious. Level 3 was obvious. Pinnacle Airlines was very obvious." not exactly a small gliche.
Now just for the record some commodity indexes (not a specialised manager, a simple index) returned a 31% annualized over the last 10 years. This is much more than Pabrai did. Without any particular time consuming research (and an hefty 1 or 5 Million to invest in a black box) you would have done better than him (and virtually every mutual fund manager/hedge fund genius) by buying a well diversified commodity index (now tradable via the ETN ticket "RJI".
I feel that every good investor can achieve a good return by picking a basked of commodities /ETF and run his own little portfolio. Looking always at the Hedge funds as the "God's" is wrong. These folks made money thanks to all these people too lazy to manager their own wealth. Do they deserve anything else than losing it ?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010