You are here: Home » the Blog » How to Think About Investing » Intrinsic Value, With Short-Term Results

Intrinsic Value, With Short-Term Results

By Joe Ponzio on January 8, 2008  |  18 comments

If you recall from an earlier post, I showed a quick potential profit from Sharper Image — in that case, a few-day return of more than 40% because the stock was trading so far below its break-up value. As time marches on and the ability to generate cash seems a distant goal, the value of that company continues to slip, as does its break-up value. (Remember: Every day that it can't generate enough cash is another day that the company will need to dip further into savings, assets, or debt to finance operations.)

Quick, large profits can come from buying companies for well below their break-up value. I was revisiting some of Buffett's early partnership letters (no, I can't send them to you and I won't post them without Buffett's express permission), and I came across this 1960 play that resulted in massive, short-term profits from conservative value investing.

In his January 1961 letter to investors, Buffett revealed a secret play he had been making over the course of the previous eighteen or so months. In 1960, the Buffett partnerships gained nearly 23% while the Dow lost more than 6%. The large play? Sanborn Map.

The Sanborn Moat

Sanborn was a simple business — a mapmaker. The company published and continuously revised extremely detailed maps of all the cities of the United States. Every year or so, the company would revise these 50-some-odd pound maps detailing new construction, changed occupancies, new fire protection facilities, etc.

For seventy-five years the business operated in a more or less monopolistic manner with profits realized in every year accompanied by almost complete immunity to recession and lack of need for any sales effort.

Much of Sanborn's business was done with insurance companies. Fearing Sanborn's strength and pricing power dominance, some insurance companies placed insurance people on Sanborn's board in a "watch-dog" capacity. Why? Control the supplier and you can control your profits. (Think Wal-Mart)

The Downward Spiral

In the 1950s, a practice known as "carding" began eating into Sanborn's business and profits began to fall. By the late 1950s, Sanborn's profits fell 80% from their 1930s levels of $500,000.

...this amounted to an almost complete elimination of what had been sizable, stable earning power.

In the 1930s, Sanborn was a $110 stock. In 1958, the company was trading for $45. (At a P/E of about 47. Still think P/E matters?)

What Buffett Saw

During the early 1930s, Sanborn had begun to accumulate an investment portfolio. Over time, about $2.5 million was invested — half in bonds and half in stocks. While its map business began publicly deteriorating, its investment portfolio was silently growing.

By the late 1950s, Sanborn's investment portfolio increased to equal roughly $65 per share. In effect, buyers of the stock at $45 a share were acquiring an investment portfolio for $0.70 on the dollar, and were getting a map business for free!

At the time, Buffett invested roughly 35% of his partnerships' assets into Sanborn. Mind you, Buffett was only managing about $4-$5 million at the time. Now you naysayers will cry, "Buffett earned a seat on the board and then spun off the investment portfolio. I can't buy enough to get on the board!" True. What did that really do for him? It allowed him to speed up the process of spinning off the investment portfolio by putting a proposal in front of the SEC. (He didn't want to blow Sanborn's money on a shareholder proxy battle even though he knew he's win.)

The Information Age Empowers You

What if he couldn't get on the board? What if he didn't really have a voice in Sanborn? In 1959, he'd have a problem. Today? No sweat! A simple press release, an announcement of the stock's situation, and you've got yourself a corrected stock price. What investors and institutions wouldn't perk up if a wire came across touting the Sanborn deal? Sure, they may not care about your estimation of Sanborn's intrinsic value; still, $0.70 on the dollar in hard assets and a profitable business to boot? You'll get their attention.

Can you really do that? Of course! So long as you are not scheming or trying to create a fake market in a stock, you are free to tell the world about your analysis. Think no one will care what Joe Blow from Nantucket thinks about a stock? Offer them a Sanborn deal and you'll have their attention.

I Digress; Let's End The Letter

Mohnish Pabrai helped value investors understand the difference between 1950s Buffett and 21st century Buffett. Who was 1950s Buffett? I'll let him tell you:

Necessarily, the [explanation of the Sanborn deal] is a very abbreviated description of this investment operation. However, it does point up the necessity for secrecy regarding our portfolio operations as well as the futility of measuring our results over a short span of time such as a year. Such "control situations" may occur very infrequently. Our bread‐and‐butter business is buying undervalued securities and selling when the undervaluation is corrected, along with investment in "special situations" where the profit is dependent on corporate rather than market action.

Sanborn Deals Today

In 1959, Buffett had no problem investing in thinly traded stocks with small revenues and profits. How thinly traded? How small? Assuming Sanborn had grown in output by 3.2% (the average annual growth rate of all US industries from 1960 to 2000), added another 3% to its growth through inflation price adjustments, the company would have (assuming all things being equal) earned roughly $1.79 million in net income in fiscal year 2007. Total shares outstanding at the time? 105,000.

The Point: Be Business-Minded

We have all heard the scare stories about buying low-priced stocks (They're low-priced for a reason!), thinly-traded companies (There's no liquidity and they are super-volatile!) and diversification (The markets are scary! Buy everything — good and bad — so you can make 5% over the long-term!). If you focus on the short-term markets (let's face it, yesterday's 200+ point drop in the Dow was crazy) you'll go insane and take on a ton of risk with a side of panic. If you think like a business owner, you may find some real gems in those "scary, small stocks."

Now, I'm not telling you to run out and buy penny stocks. But don't feel the need to limit your searches to companies with $X of market cap. $0.70 on the dollar is a good deal in any market. Just make sure you uncover the next "Sanborn" and not some junk that is tiny for a reason.

Virtually every Buffett partnership letter began with something to this effect (taken from the aforementioned letter):

However, I have pointed out that any superior record which we might accomplish should not be expected to be evidence by a relatively constant advantage in performance compared to the Average. Rather it is likely that if such an advantage is achieved, it will be through better‐than‐average performance in stable or declining markets and average, or perhaps even poorer‐than‐average performance in rising markets.

I would consider a year in which we declined 15% and the Average 30% to be much superior to a year when both we and the Average advanced 20%. Over a period of time there are going to be good and bad years; there is nothing to be gained by getting enthused or depressed about the sequence in which they occur. The important thing is to be beating par; a four on a par three hole is not as good as a five on a par five hole and it is unrealistic to assume we are not going to have our share of both par three's and par five's.

If you are judging your investment success and savvy based on the events of the past few days, weeks, months, or year, you shouldn't be investing in common stocks — buy an index fund or bonds and be done with it. Your success is not judged by the daily swings of the markets in relation to the speed with which the Earth spins on its axis or around the sun, but by the truth that price follows value. (I just made that up. Catchy, no?)

Written by Joe Ponzio on January 8, 2008

Joe Ponzio is the managing partner of the Ponzio Investors Funds and owner of Ponzio Capital Inc, a registered investment advisory and deep value portfolio management firm. The author of F Wall Street (the book and the website), his articles have appeared in hundreds of financial media, including Financial Planning Magazine, CNBC.com, Yahoo! Finance, and Reuters. He has appeared numerous times nationally on both radio and television, and has presented at universities and seminars across the United States.

Read more articles like this online at www.fwallstreet.com.
To learn more about Joe's portfolio management services, visit www.ponziocapital.com.
The Discussion
Night' gravatar

Night
Jan 9th, 2008
72 comments

I just need to vent and give yet another example of how the average person frets about stock prices..

I spoke to my sister about investing and gave her a nice simple overview of the market's irrationality, how a business can be valued, etc. She agreed to let me invest half of her savings (I just want to help her out). I placed the largest portion of her savings in AEO (because it is a fantastic company at a good price) when they were around $19. The past week or so she has been absolutely freaking out because of the recent declines.. She is insisting that I take her money out ASAP. I am doing my best to convince her otherwise (She doesn't need the money right now or anything; she is just afraid of losing it).

Anyway, we are young (early 20's) and she brought in my Uncle who is completely scarred(past events of unknowledgable investments resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in our family--nothing to do with me) when it comes to stocks. Basically, there is nothing I can do but butt heads with them trying to convince them not to take these losses for no reason, it has been a big argument and emotional etc.

So I've learned that after this I am not offering any advice or touching her money again..

But until then, can anyone help me with something to convince her that she will be OK? I've tried to explain valuation, their strong moat, etc. Can anyone come up with an example of a value investment that dropped in the short-term and came up strong in the long? I have not been around long enough to come up with an example off of the top of my head.

Thanks for listening to my rant :)
onmyway' gravatar

onmyway
Jan 9th, 2008

Night,

I am in the same position you are in, but haven't bought a business for her yet.

My sister is clueless about stocks and doesn't want to lose any money. She insist on buying bonds and keeping the rest in her savings account. She is so young (early 20's) and I keep trying to instill on her that over the next 40 years before retirement, you will definitely be way better off in the market. I've since convinced her to put some money into the S&P index fund, but it's an uphill batlle to get her into buying businesses for at a discount.

As far as the example you wanted, take a look at the AEO comment Joe had on 1/7/2008 blog post.

"The stock market will do a lot of crazy things. It has always been that way; it will always be that way. Had you bought AEO in September of 1994, you would have seen your position slashed by some 80% over the course of the next year and a half. And had you held? A handsome, 13-year 22% average annual return at today's price."
david' gravatar

david
Jan 9th, 2008

I'm a little concerned that you told her that AEO has a strong moat.
I could be wrong, but I don't think AEO has a wide ('strong') moat.

As for your sister: direct her to fwallstreet!

David




Noah' gravatar

Noah
Jan 9th, 2008
5 comments

Please note: American Eagle is no Coca-Cola, but Buffett has repeatedly mentioned the story of Coke's IPO in the '20's. This info is off the top of my head and you can research the details, but the general idea is something along the following lines:

Coke IPO's at $40 per share. Within a year(?), it is trading at about $20, down an astounding 50%. The point being that even investors who got in at $40 a share made something like a kazillion (technical term) $'s, despite the short-term mark-to-market loss. Bailing due to short-term fears would have been costly. ;)

I should also note that (potentially) fad dependent retailers are not in my "circle of competence". As such, I am nowhere near as bullish on AEO as others appear to be on this blog, but not because I think their intrinsic value is below others' estimates, just because I would have little confidence in coming up with an intrinsic value estimate in the first place.

Good luck and best wishes to all in the New Year! Hope this helps.
Carl' gravatar

Carl
Jan 9th, 2008

Night,
The only sample I can think of is NOKIA. After the 4:1 split in 05/200 the stock $ was on a tail spin but gradually goes up.
Carl' gravatar

Carl
Jan 9th, 2008

Night,
I forgot to mention on my previous post that although AOE is a great company, it all depends when and how much you paid for your investment. To me when is more important than anything else. Have you read this book called Bull : a history of boom and bust, 1982-2004 ? If you haven't you should. Buffett himself recommended back in 2002 or 2003. Also good luck to you with your investment.
J' gravatar

J
Jan 9th, 2008

Night,

As far as examples go, Im a bit short on them as well.. but one company that I was looking at was Dolby (DLB). DLB was one of the few companies that shot up from the 40's up to the 50's during the late to mid November period while the market was taking a huge hit.

Although it isnt exactly a pure value play, it may convince her.

But basically no matter how hard you try to convince a person, if they don't understand the concept of buying $1 for $0.50 within the first 30 seconds, I doubt they will ever come around.

In the words of Monish Pabrai, AEO seems to be a perfect example of "Low risk, High return".
Night' gravatar

Night
Jan 9th, 2008
72 comments

Thanks very much for the replies, everyone. I will use these examples on my last ditch effort tomorrow. If she says no, well, I'll be selling her position at whatever price it happens to be, I guess.

Sorry for the short reply when I have recieved such a showing. Had a rough day (unrelated reasons).

See ya!
Here you go Night — Make Your Loved Ones Get It. I use this all the time — though in coffee houses. I tend to fly from the cuff so I don't know if this is my exact speech, but it is pretty damn close.
Obststaude' gravatar

Obststaude
Jan 12th, 2008
1 comment

Hi Joe,

EMVELCO Corporation (EMVL) seems to have a break-up value >3$/share but trades for less than 0.5$. It is a tiny company which has put its money into loans.

Greetings,
Obststaude
Jim' gravatar

Jim
Jan 20th, 2008

Joe,

In mentioning the letters from the old Buffett Partnership, you say "no, I can't send them to you and I won't post them without Buffett's express permission" but this is a bit misleading -- many of the letters, including the one you quote from, are freely available online.

Here is a link to all the letters: [link removed]

Here is a link to the January 1961 letter you quote from: [link removed]

As you can see if you follow these links, the letters are imperfect scans because a letter or two at the end of a line sometimes gets cut off by the right margin, but they are a very useful cache of information for investors.



It doesn't look as though that website has Buffett's permission to publish the letters. I can't say for certain; still, it is Buffett's copyright and I can't publish them here (or post a link to unauthorized copyrighted material) without Buffett's permission. (Misleading is a harsh term. I prefer cautious or compliant.)

That said, I can't stop people from googling Buffett early partnership letters and reading through the results. But I am certainly not going to be a party to copyright infringement — especially against a guy with such deep pockets!
Aurelien' gravatar

Aurelien
Jan 28th, 2008
1 comment

Hey Night,

How did your talk with your sister go? I hope she stayed in cause clearly she will be much happier now.

BTW, I just found this site and it looks great!
alajac' gravatar

alajac
Aug 18th, 2008
1 comment

To everythihng there is a season.

The market indexes `always go up over time` because they offload losers and recruit winners to take their places.

Intrinsic value only exists `god willing and the creek dont rise`. The creek is rising and all bets are off. The stocks that make up the indexes have MANY splits that can be unwound. Just because a stock is low-priced does not mean it cant get reversed-split and start back down again.

AEO looked bad on a stockchart in January and still looks just as bad today. Think about maybe investing in the Salvation Army stores. WMT looks good but is probably not a value play.
Amit D.' gravatar

Amit D.
Aug 26th, 2008

Hey Alajac, I would reconsider what you said about Walmart unless you meant the price is not a value play at this time.
Mark' gravatar

Mark
Sep 8th, 2008
14 comments

If a company has a book value of $3 and its stock price is $1, that to me looks like an undervalued stock price right? But on the balance sheet inventories make up 2/3 of the assets and property 1/3. Should I run or place an order, safe in the knowledge that I am buying with a large safety margin? I should add that the company has a negative cashflow due to its sales slumping in FY07.

Thankyou for your help.
JC' gravatar

JC
Sep 22nd, 2008

Mark,

It depends on how bad the negative cash flow is and if it's going get worse and continue in the future. Negative cash flow KILLS value and ends up eating shareholder equity (aka book value).

Also, don't pay too much attention to balance sheet "assets". I think Peter Lynch said once those numbers can always be fudge around but liabilities can not. I rather looks for "cash rich" assets on the balance sheet. This is very hard to fudge. The whole point of a business is to generate cash, not inventories or property. If 2/3 of the balance is made up of inventories it sounds to me the company has a problem selling their goods which is a bad thing. If the company is in an industry where every year the next gen model replaces the current one (i.e. electronics, retail) then the unsold goods will probably have to be written off.

But 1/3 price to book is a huge MOS, so it warrants a look. But it all depends on the business.

My 2 cents.
I agree with JC. You have to figure out:
  1. the actual liquidation value of those assets (not just what Yahoo! automatically calculates as "tangible book value"; and,
  2. what other liabilities management will ring up before the business returns to positive cash flow or shuts down.
Peter Lynch did say something to the effect of knowing what the "inventories" are really worth. It's easy to quickly calculate the sale price of two tons of cotton, but what is the proper "value" of two tons of bright orange cotton shirts?

If it's too hard, move on.
Join The Discussion

Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010

Remember me on this computer
To help keep the F Wall Street website free from comment spam, we require that you have javascript enabled to post a comment. Please turn on javascript and refresh this page to load the comment form.

Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street

Submitting Your Comment

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!

Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street

Thank You For Participating!

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.

» Buy F Wall Street at Amazon.com

Excel 2007|Excel 2003
(ZIP, 168kb) (ZIP, 138kb)

Search F Wall Street

Powered by Google

Subscribe to F Wall Street

E-mail or RSS updates. And it's free!

Enter your e-mail address below

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?