Latest stories

Investing in Long term Trends

I

I wrote the following as part of my half yearly letter to subscribers. Hope you find it useful (Names of specific companies have been edited out )

Some of our positions are a bet on Long term trends. Let me describe a few

  • Migration of manufacturing to India (CDMO, CRAMS, Higher exports etc.) – The underlying trend is migration of manufacturing, especially high value added to India. There are multiple drivers behind it such as the China + 1 approach by the importing countries, Comparative advantage of India in certain sectors and so on
  • Change in Real estate cycle – Real estate has been in a downtrend for the last decade. This is a cyclical industry with long duration cycles. Once the upcycle begins, it tends to last for 5-7 years
  • Re-start of the capex cycle/ Infra cycle – The Capex cycle peaked in 2008-09 and has been down since then. With rising demand and utilization, we should see capacity addition in the private sector.
  • Financialization of savings – Indians are increasingly investing in financial products and moving away from hard assets such as gold and real estate.
  • Formalization of the sector – We are seeing the formalization and consolidation of several sectors in the economy

There are some names which are repeated, and it is normal for an Industry to benefit from multiple trends at the same time.  When this happens, it increases the tailwinds for the sector

There are a few factors to consider when investing in companies benefiting from long term trends

  • Betting on the right management: Companies riding a trend have a long runway ahead of themselves. If the trend holds and management is capable, the company can compound value for a long time. Identifying the trend is easy, betting on the right management is much more difficult
  • Optically expensive: Such companies appear expensive based on near term earnings. The reason is that the market is discounting a long period of above average compounding.

Case in point – HDFC bank and our own holding, Vinati organics. Vinati organics is up 50X since we first bought it in 2011. Our mistake was to look at the valuation in isolation and not in the context of the broader trend. As long as the trend holds and management is executing, one should hold the stock and be tolerant of higher valuations

  • Boredom is the enemy: Unlike cyclical stocks, timing the purchase is not critical. Most of these trends last for a long time. Betting on the right management and holding through periods where the business keeps moving forward, but the stock price remains stagnant is the key

It is easy to overdo this trend-based investing and get carried away. However, the most common problem I have seen is investors, including me, lose patience during periods of slower growth even when the primary trend is active.

This has been the case with Vinati Organics where the stock has compounded at 40% CAGR but in spurts. The picture below shows the periods of stagnation

 As the above example shows, a great long-term result does not mean absence of short-term pain

Simplicity is the key

S

I wrote the following as part of my half yearly letter to subscribers. Hope you find it useful

When I started investing, I thought there is some magic formulae to grow your capital. After 10 years of search, I realized that the answer was staring me in the face.

The key to wealth creation was very simple – Save aggressively and invest patiently

I had always done the first,  but was doing it wrong with the second part of the equation. Like most young, hot blooded guys, my focus was to make the highest possible return in the shortest time possible. After a decade of doing that, I realized that the stress and effort was not worth it.

In addition to the lost sleep, I was reluctant to invest most of my capital to my own stock selection. Most likely, it must have been the risk of my approach which made me cautious

Key decisions

Around the start the advisory I made a few key decisions based on my past experience

  • All of my Liquid networth in India (excluding my real estate and some smaller stuff like LIC) would go into stocks (my own picks)
  • I would invest my family’s capital in the same manner
  • I will not shoot for the moon and my focus would be on preservation of capital above everything else

These decisions led to the following actions

  • No investments in derivatives, margin trading, IPO or any high risk situation
  • No reaching for yield in debt. Keep most of my capital in stocks and the rest in FD
  • No short term trading

In other words, the sleep test. Can I sleep well in the night with my current portfolio ?

The decision to  focus all my investments in one bucket – A diversified portfolio of stocks lead to a simpler portfolio, lower risk and a high allocation. There is no point making 40% CAGR if you allocate only 10% of your networth to it. A 20% CAGR with 80% allocation will lead to better results is a better option

I carried the same approach into the advisory as we have always believed in eating our cooking . Outside of a few experiments which if successful, make it to the recommended list, all my investments in India are the same as the Model portfolio. It has kept my life simple and the absolute returns are good enough for me

I am now thinking on how I can simplify my financial life further. A few thoughts

  • Identify a few stocks which have the benefit of a long term trend. Once you are invested, be patient, till the trend is valid
  • Eliminate all debt including contingent ones. An example of contingent debt is money for your kid’s education or for your own healthcare in the long run
  • Have a proper will in place so that your family doesn’t suffer if you get hit by a bus (hopefully never)
  • When in doubt, reduce risk. Investing is not a T20 match. You can always bat the next day

How to make a Free lunch

H

There is a saying in financial markets – There is no free lunch. It means that the returns you make, are commensurate with the risks taken. For example – Higher return from smaller companies goes hand in hand with a higher risk of loss in this space. This was seen in spades during the 2018-2019 period when the index dropped by 40%+ and several companies by much more

A key point which is missed by most investors is that risk is clustered – It does not happen evenly over time. You will get a long period of high returns and then lose a lot of it in a short window. Most investors ignore this point towards the end of a long bull run and get hurt in the inevitable bust

The standard approach to managing this risk is via asset allocation and diversification. I wrote about it in detail under the section ‘Asset allocation and diversification’ in my annual letter to subscribers

Diversification been called the only free lunch in the market. It means that if you diversify across asset classes and rebalance regularly, you will make a higher ‘risk adjusted’ returns. What this implies is that you will not make the highest returns at every point of time but will make good returns over a long period of time.

Point returns v/s long term returns

This brings me to the problem of perverse incentives in the financial services industry. Any time an asset class is in a bull run, you will find a host of advisors and fund managers touting their fund as if it is permanent and will last forever.

An illustrative list

2003-2008: Real estate, Commodities, Infra

2014-2017: Small cap

2018-2019: Large cap, quality

2020: Gold

How do you manage this problem? It’s quite simple: Just diversify across asset classes. Define a target allocation and rebalance at a pre-determined frequency. I can assure you that you will do well in the long run and will also have the bragging right of being invested in the ‘hot’ asset class of the moment (just don’t talk about the rest of your portfolio)

Going beyond Asset classes

There is another approach to diversification which complements the above approach. It’s called factors-based diversification. Let me explain

You can find details on factors here. Quite simply, Individual factors are quantifiable variables which can be used to explain the returns of a stock/portfolio. Following are the key factors with a simplified explanation for each

Value: Cheapness or valuation. Cheaper stocks deliver higher returns

Momentum: Persistence of returns. Any stock/asset which has done well recently will continue to do well.

Volatility: Less volatile assets give higher risk adjusted returns

Size: Smaller companies give higher returns than larger companies (adjusted for risk)

Duration/Yield: Longer duration assets give higher returns than lower duration ones. For example, 10-year bonds give a higher return than 1-year bonds.

These factors have been researched and empirically proven to be robust across asset classes and time periods. The reason they work is that individual factors do not work all the time. This is the same point I made for all the asset classes: No asset gives high returns all the time, even if they give higher returns at various points of time.

We can expand our diversification approach to include factors. There are times when value stocks will outperform momentum stocks. At other times, quality stocks will outperform other factors.

No one can predict which asset class or factor will gain market fancy in the future. As I shared, the best way to manage the timing issue, is to diversify on both the parameters: asset class and factor type

How to diversify across factors

There are two obvious ways to diversify across factors. The simplest one is to split your funds 50:50 between Value and momentum funds/indices. As value and momentum factors are not correlated (when one works, the other doesn’t), you will do well irrespective of which factor is in favor

The other more complicated approach is to build a portfolio, which is a combination of the Value, Momentum, and quality stocks. This means that some of your positions will be deep value, some will be low volatility & high-quality positions and the rest would be momentum stocks. To keep it simple, you can just divide the allocation evenly among all the factors.

The downside of the second approach is that it requires far more effort and works only if you are an active investor who wants to get every possible edge in the market

Isn’t diversification for the clueless

A common push I get is that diversification is for the clueless (as Buffett says so). My glib answer is that most investors are not Warren Buffett. I have now been investing for 20+ years and no matter how hard I work, I will never be a super investor like one of the greats.

It is nice to quote these statements from the super investors, but the more important point is to evaluate your own performance and come to your own conclusions. I know for a fact (supported by evidence), that I have been far better served by being adequately diversified

In most cases, one would be far better served in being adequately diversified across asset classes and factors. It may not make you rich but will ensure that you have an adequate nest egg at the end of it.

Investing is not an Engineering problem

I

I have an engineering background and a very quantitative/rationalistic lens of looking at the world (does not mean I am rational). What I mean is that when I am analyzing a company and valuing it, my  assumption is that all investors will ‘objectively’ look at the numbers and value it in the same fashion.

This approach to investing has its merits and works most of time. However, it has limitations and overweighing it leads to problems.

The above is the performance of a company which by all objective standards has done reasonably well. It has grown topline at 14%, profits at 19% with an ROE of 17% over the last five years. However, the stock is down 70% during this period.

Now you may thinking that this company has some governance issues and there is something seriously wrong with its business model. Let me share the name of the company – Its Repco home finance. This is an old position and you can read the prior analysis here.

We closed the position in Dec 2016 when the company was selling at around 22 times earnings. The main reason for exiting the stock was that I was concerned about the quality of the book (NPA). How did the NPAs turn out?

I hate to say this, but I was right for the wrong reasons. The NPAs have risen in the last few years, but the rise has not been alarming, and it includes some of the worst periods for economy and the financial services Industry. Inspite of that the company closed FY20 with 4% GNPA (which is similar to most private sector banks).

The net NPA for the company is 2.8% which is not high and should improve going forward. So by all objective measures the company has done well but the stock is down 70%. It is selling at around 5 times earnings and 70% of book value.

We  can all debate about what the future holds, but based on the past few years it is unlikely that it will be worse than the last few years. The above is but one example of how narrative often overwhelms the performance of a company.

A rationalist like me would say – Lets wait for some more time and the market will eventually recognize the true worth of the company. But the point is how long should one wait ? 3,5 or 10 years ?  There is an opportunity cost of holding such a position

This kind of scenario has played out with a few of our other positions and has made me question the limits of fundamental analysis. This does not mean that fundamental analysis has no value and should be thrown out of the window. That would be equally foolish.

In order to account for such cases, I have become more sensitive to the narrative around a company and a sector. If the narrative does not change and the stock price does not reflect the fundamentals, then I am more likely to exit a position even if the numbers are fine. We can always re-enter the stock when the market starts changing its view.

Investing in the markets is not an engineering problem which can solved by logic alone. In the past I have failed to account for that to our detriment. The best way to manage this kind of trap is to have a time fuse for each idea. If market does not come around to your view inspite of no change in fundamentals, then one should just exit – No questions asked !

Subscription

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

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

Recent Posts

Select category to filter posts

Archives