💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 4358.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:09:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

🚧 View Differences

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Take On Risk With A Margin of Safety

2012-11-06 10:20:53

August 19 2012| Filed Under Financial Theory, Fundamental Analysis,

Investment, Volatility, Warren Buffett

When investing, it is well accepted that one of the main things you should

focus on is risk. However, modern investment theory mainly focuses on the

volatility of an asset in its treatment of risk. The margin of safety theory is

a little different - it argues that downward spikes of volatility make stocks

less risky. This is an important concept to grasp in depth, because common risk

theories can lead to missed opportunities. Investing gurus Benjamin Graham and

Warren Buffett were instrumental in developing margin of safety. Read on to

find out how this theory helped propel their portfolios to meteoric heights.

SEE: Beta: Gauging Price Fluctuations

Beta's Misgivings

In general, people do not like surprises. More precisely, people do not like

adverse surprises. Because investors are assumed to be more averse to losing

money than gaining it, modern investment theory views the volatility of an

asset, as measured by its beta, as the main component of risk. The theory

implies that investors should pay less for an asset with a higher beta.

One problem with beta is that it implies that if an asset's value suddenly

drops, even due to irrational market behavior, that it becomes more risky

because it will have a higher beta. We'll poke some holes in this view in

moment, using an example from Warren Buffett.

An Alternate Strategy of Risk

Introduced by the father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, and notably

implemented by Warren Buffett, margin of safety was presented as a different

view of risk and how to protect against it. Graham's concept is not new. He

first presented his investing style with David Dodd in 1934's "Security

Analysis" and later with his more accessible book, "The Intelligent Investor",

which was first published in 1949.

Graham characterized volatility as "Mr. Market" coming each day to buy from you

or sell to you. Graham hoped to buy assets that Mr. Market would sell to him

with a 50% margin of safety. This, essentially, would be like trying to buy a

dollar for $0.50.

Graham discussed how companies all have an intrinsic measurable value. When

Graham first pitched and practiced this idea, information on companies was not

nearly as easy to access. He would search through the financial statements and

look for what he called net-nets, or companies trading below their liquidation

values.

Graham would take a company's current assets with considerable deductions, and

subtract all of the liabilities on the balance sheet. At its heart, Graham's

net-net investing is the most conservative value approach, and involves very

little risk if done right.

Example - Finding A Company's Net-Net

ABC Company has the following balance sheet and market capitalization:

Cash $250

Cash Equivalents $50

Accounts Receivable (A/R) $100

Inventories $100

Total Liabilities $300

Share Price $62.50

Cash and cash equivalents are good to go, we have $300 there. Next, we turn to

A/R, some of which will not be paid. Usually we have a net A/R number on the

balance sheet, indicating the amount of receivables the company expects to

recover. If we have it, this net number is based on the company's history of

collecting receivables, and is a good indicator, but we would still discount it

a little for added safety.

In this scenario, we have a gross A/R number. Again we don't expect to recover

it all, but ABC is known to have a fairly reliable client base and we could

easily anticipate recovering around 80% of A/R - to be even more conservative

we will only factor in recovering 75%. Many investors may want to take a look

at the company's allowance for doubtful accounts in their financial statements

as a method for gauging an accurate recovery percentage, but in this case,

we'll value A/R at $75 ($100 x 0.75). Finally, there is ABC's inventory. ABC

has competitors, which we could assume, at the very least, would buy the

inventory for half its value. So we take the inventory's value at $50 ($100 x

0.5).

We end up with marked down current assets of $425 ($300 + $75 + $50), and total

liabilities of $300. This net-net is worth $125 ($425 - $300), not even

accounting for any real estate or other long-term assets the company might

have. With the company selling at only $62.50 in the market, this is a net-net

with a 50% margin of safety. Paying half of a company's net-net value was

Graham's goal, and at most, he would pay two-thirds of a company's net-net

value, for a 33% margin of safety. In our example, we have a 50% buffer between

the market value of the company and our conservative valuation of the company's

current assets. By only buying at a steep discount to our valuation, this

margin of safety provides its own built-in measure against the risk of mistakes

in our calculations.

Let Volatility Be Your Friend

This process of investing did not guarantee success, but with research and hard

work, finding one of these scenarios was about as close to a sure thing as you

could get. A lot has changed, and Graham's net-nets have essentially

disappeared in the modern market. With the quick and widespread dissemination

of information, markets have become somewhat more efficient.

While net-nets are disappearing, investors can see that the market provides

sales on assets quite often. The concept of buying companies with an adequate

margin of safety still remains, and has been practiced with great success by

many value investors, most notably Warren Buffett.

Example - Taking the Value of Long-Term Assets Into Account

In the ABC example, we gave absolutely no value to the company's long term

assets. Let's return to the example and suppose that that the company's share

price is now at $200. We calculated its net-net worth at $125, so according to

that it would not be a good value, but we note that ABC also has the following

assets on its books:

Plant, Property, & Equipment $200

Long-Term Bonds $100

We notice from some research that the plants on the company's balance sheet

have likely appreciated because property values have gone up in that area.

However, we will remain very conservative in this example and still value it at

$200. Next, with the company's long-term bonds, we may worry about the market

value if the bonds need to be sold quickly. We will only accept 75% of the

value, and value the bonds at $75 ($100 x 0.75). We end up with an asset value

of $400 (net-net worth of $125 + $200 + $75). Again, we can buy the stock of

this company with a 50% margin of safety at its current market price of $200.

This again seems like a home run of an investment. We are still being

conservative, and we ignored any assets that could be off ABC's books, such as

the appreciated value of its real estate. Other hidden assets are brands,

exceptional management, competitive advantages, etc. There is much to be said

about the market value of hidden assets, but the point will remain the same.

Don't Run From Beta

Now looking strictly at beta, let's say ABC had a beta of 1.5. After all of our

work, we decide to go to bed and buy tomorrow. However, the next day, "Mr.

Market" decides to take the price of ABC down to $150, while the rest of the

market stays pretty flat. This sharp 25% decline in ABC stock makes it riskier

according to beta.

However, according to Warren Buffett in his 1993 letter to shareholders this

altered perception of risk is misleading:

"Under beta-based theory, a stock that has dropped very sharply compared to the

market - as had Washington Post when we bought it in 1973 - becomes "riskier"

at the lower price than it was at the higher price. Would that description have

then made any sense to someone who was offered the entire company at a

vastly-reduced price?"

What this means is that volatility is our friend in this scenario. We did the

work to value the company, and now Mr. Market is just offering it to us at a

steeper discount and a higher margin of safety. If we had already made the

purchase before the decline, we might kick ourselves for bad timing, but

according to our research, an investment in ABC is still worth much more than

what we paid.

Take a Page From the Masters

The concept of margin of safety as practiced by Warren Buffett is not that

complicated. These are fairly simple ideas, and should teach us all not to rely

simply on volatility as a judge of risk. Many common theories of risk make

volatility out to be a bad thing, and if a stock's sea becomes choppy, some

investors may sail for calmer waters. But take a cue from Warren Buffett. He,

and other value investors, get excited in volatile and down markets. If you

invest carefully, and with an adequate margin of safety, Mr. Market's mood

swings can lead to great opportunities.

by Wayne Pinsent