Phil Town Book Value

November 15th, 2009

Someone once asked asked Phil Town what the minimum BVPS would be to consider investing in a company.

Phil Town said that there is no minimum book value per share for a couple of reasons.

First, the value of looking at book value per share is amplified by knowing how many shares are out there.  What we really care about is the total value of the business. We talk about that book value in “per share” prices, but that’s just convenient and useful because we almost always buy pieces of an investment instead of the whole thing (even though we think of it as buying the whole thing).  Seeing the investment in terms of its smallest piece makes it easier for us to figure out what our particular pieces are worth. 

Considering book value or equity (not “per share”), the second reason we don’t have an absolute minimum is that the key to good Rule #1 investing is buying a wonderful investment at an attractive price — and wonderful businesses can, for a very small investor, be very small or very large. 

The key is knowing you’ve got the 4 M’s. We can buy all of a laundry business with a book value of $10,000 and Sticker Price of $50,000, or we can buy pieces of Exxon.  This is the beauty of learning The Rule. It applies equally to purchasing a small laundromat or a piece of Exxon.  And it’s so simple: Wonderful business, attractive price.

Now, having learned all that, you should know the difference between large or small public businesses (businesses that have registered with the SEC to trade pieces of the business in stock markets) and small private businesses as it relates to the stock market is primarily liquidity.

What liquidity measures is your ability to get in or out quickly.  Little investors tend to have  greater liquidity in public businesses than big investors do.  We use that to our advantage with the arrows.  If a business is trading at least 1 million shares a day and is priced at $2 or more per share, there is enough liquidity for Rule #1 investors to invest.

Obviously, the $50,000 laundry would probably not meet the liquidity requirement.  That means that if you buy it, you may not be able to find a buyer to sell it to in some convenient time period. That makes for more risk, unless you really got a great deal, right?  The liquidity of public investments is a strong advantage.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Rule #1 investing compared to Real Estate

November 15th, 2009

Phil Town talks about investing in Real Estate

 

 

 

 

So let’s look at the difference between investing $50,000 right now in real estate vs. $50,000 right now with Rule #1 investing.
Here are the numbers:  You buy a $250,000 house someplace for $50,000 down with a 6% 30 year fixed mortgage.  Your payments are $1200 a month but you rent it for $1200 and cover your mortgage payments.  You are, however, in the hole for insurance, maintenance, advertising and taxes.
On the other hand, let’s allow you to never miss a month’s rent and you can increase the rent by 4% a year.  By your 9th year, you’ve been able to increase rents enough to cover everything.  From there on to the 30th year it’s all cash flow.  Then you sell the place.  At that point, the house is worth $811,000 and is totally paid for.  Plus you’ve pocketed another $175,000 that you reinvested wisely and made the same return on that as on your house over all – about 10% per year for an additional $440,000.  Total return equals $1,251,000.  Your compounded ROI for 30 years is 11%.  Quite respectable although I did not deduct for management which I expect you will do yourself.  This is not an insignificant headache and makes scaling up the investment dollars difficult.  Nonetheless, let’s compare that to our 15% minimum Rule #1 return.
First, we have no management.  We do not have to negotiate.  We do not have to drive around neighborhoods looking for a deal.  These are not insignificant advantages.  What we do have to do is spend about 15 minutes a week managing our few businesses.  And we have to know how to do Rule #1 investing, of course, but it’s easy to learn once you see the advantages.
We buy a business (or a part of a business, ie, investment) with our $50,000.  Since we’re going to use leverage in the real estate transaction, we’re going to use it here, too.  Our online broker will lend 50%.  Now we have $100,000 to invest.  We buy a wonderful business at an attractive price and sell it when it gets unattractive and buy another one.  We do that for 30 years averaging 15% but paying 8% margin costs on $50,000.  (I’m not getting taxed in either case because I’m doing both in an IRA).  After 30 years, my investment is worth $6,500,000 after deducting margin costs.  My 30 years compounded ROI is 18%, only 7 points higher than the real estate transaction, but 5.3 million dollars more in my bank account.
But if you are a Rule #1 investor, you will continue to invest the $6.5 million at 15% and then live on the 15% increase each year.  That means you are receiving about $80,000 a month.  That’s not a typo.  Your income off the 6 million is almost 1 million a year.  Of course you do have to pay tax on that so you’ll end up with about $50,000 a month which is only $20,000 in today’s dollars.
You can stay ignorant of Rule #1 investing, go exclusively for real estate and try live on the result the rest of your life or become a Rule #1 investor.

phil_town7

So let’s look at the difference between hypothetically investing $50,000 right now in real estate vs. $50,000 right now with Rule #1 investing.

Here are the numbers:  You buy a $250,000 house someplace for $50,000 down with a 6%, 30 year fixed mortgage.  Your payments are $1,200 a month but you rent it for $1200 and cover your mortgage payments.  You are, however, in the hole for insurance, maintenance, advertising and taxes.

On the other hand, let’s assume you never miss a month’s rent and you can increase the rent by 4% a year.  By your 9th year, you’ve been able to increase rents enough to cover everything.  From there on to the 30th year, it’s all cash flow.  Then you sell the place.  At that point, the house is worth $811,000 and is totally paid for.  Plus you’ve pocketed another $175,000 that you reinvested wisely and made the same return on that as on your house over all – about 10% per year for an additional $440,000.  Total return equals $1,251,000.  Your compounded ROI for 30 years is 11%.  Quite respectable, although I did not deduct for management, which I expect you will do yourself.  This is not an insignificant headache and makes scaling up the investment dollars difficult.  Nonetheless, let’s compare that to our 15% minimum Rule #1 return.

First, we have no management.  We do not have to negotiate.  We do not have to drive around neighborhoods looking for a deal.  These are not insignificant advantages.  What we do have to do is spend about 15 minutes a week managing our few businesses.  And we have to know how to do Rule #1 investing, of course, but it’s easy to learn once you see the advantages.

We buy a business (or a part of a business, ie, investment) with our $50,000.  Since we’re going to use leverage in the real estate transaction, we’re going to use it here, too.  Our online broker will lend 50%.  Now we have $100,000 to invest.  We buy a wonderful business at an attractive price and sell it when it gets unattractive and buy another one.  We do that for 30 years averaging 15%, but paying 8% margin costs on $50,000.  (I’m not getting taxed in either case because I’m doing both in an IRA).  After 30 years, my RULE 1 Investing would be worth $6,500,000 after deducting margin costs.  My 30 years compounded ROI is 18%, only 7 points higher than the real estate transaction, but 5.3 million dollars more in my bank account.

But if you are a Rule #1 investor, you will hypothetically continue to invest the $6.5 million at 15% and then live on the 15% increase each year.  That means you are receiving about $80,000 a month.  That’s not a typo.  Your income off the $6 million is almost $1 million a year.  Of course you do have to pay tax on that so you’ll end up with about $50,000 a month which is only $20,000 in today’s dollars.

You can stay ignorant of Rule #1 investing, go exclusively for real estate and try live on the result the rest of your life. An alternative to fickle real estate investing is becoming a Rule #1 investor.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Undervalued explained

November 14th, 2009

Phil Town explains “Undervalued”.

Let me add one more thought regarding ‘undervalued’ for RULE #1 investors. My view of undervalued is formed from buying private businesses and venture capital investments.  I don’t see it the way Wall Street sees it at all.  Undervalued, to me, means the following:

First, that the business is predictable enough to get a solid valuation – this first requirement eliminates a lot of businesses simply because former river guides like me can only understand a few industries well enough to be comfortable. It eliminates a bunch more that I do understand, but which do not have historical numbers solid enough to base anything on.  And yes, that means that I pass up a lot of investing opportunities that are getting turned around and are on their way up.  But then if they really are, in a few years I will have an investment opportunity.  Also, it means that I may buy a business that could crash without notice.  Thank God for good RULE #1 indicators.  They save me from my own ignorance.

Second, based on a predictable growth rate, the current market price is about half what it should be if I want a 15% return. Buying with that big of a margin of safety can prevent me from the darkness I wander into.

It all boils down to this:  invest in stocks as businesses, understand the business so that you can know what the business is worth, and then wait for Mr. Market’s regular fluctuations to price it with a big margin of safety.  This way of RULE #1 investing has worked for value investors for the last hundred years and it will be the basis of value investing for the next one hundred as well. 

Let me add one more thought regarding ‘undervalued’ for RULE #1 investors. My view of undervalued is formed from buying private businesses and venture capital investments.  I don’t see it the way Wall Street sees it at all.  Undervalued, to me, means the following:
First that the business is predictable enough to get a solid valuation – this first requirement eliminates a lot of businesses simply because former river guides can only understand a few industries well enough to be comfortable, and it eliminates a bunch more that I do understand but which do not have historical numbers solid enough to base anything on.  And yes, that means that I pass up a lot of investing opportunities that are getting turned around and are on their way up.  But then if they really are, in a few years I will have an investment opportunity.  And also, yes, it means that I am sometimes buying a business that is about to go crash without notice.  Thank God for good RULE #1 indicators.  They save me from my own ignorance.
Second, based on a predictable growth rate the current market price is about half what it should be if I want a 15% return. Buying with that big of a margin of safety also saves me from the darkness I wander in.
So it all boils down to this:  invest in stocks as businesses, understand the business so that you can know what the business is worth, and then wait for Mr. Market’s regular fluctuations to price it with a big margin of safety.  This way of RULE #1 investing has worked for the last hundred years and it will be the basis of investing for the next one hundred as well.  (And we add one little modern strategy – we use the [Investools] arrows to protect ourselves from the Big Guys who can tank this overpriced market and our ‘undervalued’ stock along with i

 

Technorati Tags: , ,

Phil Town TV Show

November 11th, 2009

Phil Town was a regular investing expert on the cable show Your Business. Phil Town

YouTube Preview Image

Technorati Tags: , ,