If
you have heard fund managers talk about the way they
invest, you know a great many employ a top down
approach. First, they decide how much of their
portfolio to allocate to stocks and how much to
allocate to bonds. At this point, they may also decide
upon the relative mix of foreign and domestic
securities. Next, they decide upon the industries to
invest in. It is not until all these decisions have
been made that they actually get down to analyzing any
particular securities. If you think logically about
this approach for a moment, you will recognize how
truly foolish it is.
A stocks earnings yield is the
inverse of its P/E ratio. So, a stock with a P/E ratio
of 25 has an earnings yield of 4%, while a stock with
a P/E ratio of 8 has an earnings yield of 12.5%. In
this way, a low P/E stock is comparable to a high
yield bond.
Now, if these low P/E stocks had
very unstable earnings or carried a great deal of
debt, the spread between the long bond yield and the
earnings yield of these stocks might be justified.
However, many low P/E stocks actually have more stable
earnings than their high multiple kin. Some do employ
a great deal of debt. Still, within recent memory, one
could find a stock with an earnings yield of 8 12%, a
dividend yield of 3- 5%, and literally no debt,
despite some of the lowest bond yields in half a
century. This situation could only come about if
investors shopped for their bonds without also
considering stocks. This makes about as much sense as
shopping for a van without also considering a car or
truck.
All investments are ultimately cash
to cash operations. As such, they should be judged by
a single measure: the discounted value of their future
cash flows. For this reason, a top down approach to
investing is nonsensical. Starting your search by
first deciding upon the form of security or the
industry is like a general manager deciding upon a
left handed or right handed pitcher before evaluating
each individual player. In both cases, the choice is
not merely hasty; its false. Even if pitching left
handed is inherently more effective, the general
manager is not comparing apples and oranges; hes
comparing pitchers. Whatever inherent advantage or
disadvantage exists in a pitchers handedness can be
reduced to an ultimate value (e.g., run value). For
this reason, a pitchers handedness is merely one
factor (among many) to be considered, not a binding
choice to be made. The same is true of the form of
security. It is neither more necessary nor more
logical for an investor to prefer all bonds over all
stocks (or all retailers over all banks) than it is
for a general manager to prefer all lefties over all
righties. You needn't determine whether stocks or
bonds are attractive; you need only determine whether
a particular stock or bond is attractive. Likewise,
you needn't determine whether the market is
undervalued or overvalued; you need only determine
that a particular stock is undervalued.
Clearly, the most prudent approach
to investing is to evaluate each individual security
in relation to all others, and only to consider the
form of security insofar as it affects each individual
evaluation. A top down approach to investing is an
unnecessary hindrance. Some very smart investors have
imposed it upon themselves and overcome it; but, there
is no need for you to do the same.
Geoff Gannon writes a daily value investing blog
and produces a twice weekly (half hour) value
investing podcast at: http://www.gannononinvesting.com