The Market of The Future: Celebrity Stock Exchanges

I must've been tired today, because I just woke up from a nap and I never nap. As I woke up, I reached for my Iphone to check the time and also checked the 'stocks' app...market's down, and will be for awhile. I then check my Mint.com and check my personal finances as I need to go grocery shopping in the next hour. I love Mint, its a like a personal income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement.

I then started to think about my entire financial picture: my cashflow, my debt, my net worth, and realized that you can look at your own financial picture the same way you analyze a company's. All the stuff I've read about company's delaying accounts payable to have working capital is nothing more than me delaying my rent until my next paycheck so I have more cash on hand. I then started thinking about my earnings growth potential, how much do I stand to earn over the next 5 years? 3 years? Tough to say, but I've got a couple things in the works that could add a growth factor...wow, I'm like my own personal stock!

To which I started to really get thinking, that for the past hundred years, investors only had the options to invest in asset classes such as stocks, real estate, commodities, options, and hard assets to name a few. The prices of all of these asset classes is determined by what the market (society) deems them to be through the forces of supply and demand. The interesting thing is that if market participants (people) are really what gives all of these asset classes value, why can't I make in investment in the market participants (people!) directly?

If you really think about it, for hundreds of years both individuals and institutions have been able to 'buy' debt in individual people...this is exactly what happens when you take out a mortgage, essentially the bank is purchasing a bond in you personally so that you can raise capital to pursue your endeavor to purchase a house. This transaction gets puts on the liabilities side of your personal balance sheet. Yet we are missing a huge component to the personal balance sheet: Stockholder Equity, its critical in making the balance sheet balance (Liabilities + Stockholder Equity = Assets ). And as it stands right now, there is no market in which a person or institution can purchase equity in another individual person, and my question is why not? Personal debt instruments have been issuable for the hundreds of years, why can't personal equity be?

Think of it: a liquidable market in which you can buy equity in the endeavors of your favorite celebrities. A market where you can purchase equity in someone's future and get a return on that investment just like they are a corporation. Why not? After all when you look at the stock exchange, essentially what you are looking at are the celebrity companies of the investment world. In fact the very first publicly traded company, The Dutch East India Company, was successful in raising equity capital for the first time in history just by their notoriety alone: they were the most famous company at the time and its success served as a model for other corporations to follow.

How could this be done? Well the same way a corporation becomes publicly listed, you would need underwriters to determine the net worth of each individual and list them on an exchange. By starting with celebrities and the availability of real-time online trading, the market would essentially create itself (think of Twitter and Ashton Kutcher). The stock price of each celebrity would rise and fall not only with supply and demand but by their earnings potential. For example, there would be higher demand for stock in Kim Kardashian than Michael J. Fox, not only because she's more famous right now, but because of that her earnings potential would be perceived by the market as higher from endorsements, shows, and other income producing opportunities.

Think of all those gossip magazines out there could then actually be considered investment research, wow!

Eventually this could extend out to people who aren't celebrities, however the trading volume wouldn't be there (low demand). Essentially, family and friends would just be like penny stocks. That being said though, this creates a whole new industry in cheap personal underwriters: get your personal stock valued and listed for just $99.99! Ha!

All this isn't a matter of if, its just a matter of when it will happen, this market could easily sustain itself and because of that it will eventually manifest.

One Year Update on my "Home Depot, Your Next Great Investment" Post

Just wanted to give an update on one of my postings I wrote about a year ago on February 1st, 2010 regarding Home Depot as your next great investment. At the time of the posting, the price was at $28.01, almost a year later the stock is up to $36.02. If you had bought it at the time I recommended it and sold it today, you'd be looking at a 29% annual return on your investment, which is double the average return of the whole S&P 500 (~14%)

Technically, you'd want to wait until February 2nd to sell it, that way you would be taxed at the long term capital gain rate (I think its 10% right now?), rather than short term capital gain which would be taxed at your income bracket (probably 20-33%). 

Now if only we could get a 29% return on every investment, we'd all be millionaires in no time. ;o)

The Stock Market is a Lot Like Baseball

The stock market has always amazed me. It's such an integral part of our economy, our jobs and our financial futures yet the average person has very little knowledge as to how it functions. You would think that such an important aspect of our daily lives would have been taught to us in school, yet we walk away with only basic economic concepts.

The underlying fact is that because so many people know little about it, investing can be a daunting and in the case of Madoff, be a harmful experience. So much relies upon what we have already accumulated, yet we still aren't where we want to be. Understanding the stock market and how it functions can help us make investment decisions with a little more confidence.

The stock market can be compared to the World Series. There are two teams, announcers, an audience and a whole bunch of other components that really tie the two together concepts together in similarities.

In the stock market there are buyers and sellers, these can be likened to the two teams playing. There are two teams playing against each other and only one will win. The fundamental truth here is that in order to buy a stock, someone has to sell it to you. That means that the person selling it to you thinks no more economic value will be extracted from it while you think there is still potential. One of you is wrong.

Another component in the stock market is mutual funds. Mutual funds are the employees who work in the back office for the championship team. They'll get a ring if their team wins, but their bonus is never as big as the players themselves.

The audience can be likened to index funds, they're just there to watch be at the game and win over time just for being there. However, they don't really see any immediate benefit besides exposure to the game.

The announcers are like Wall Street, calling the play by play and reporting on recent happenings. They sway between excitement to lethargy depending on what is happening in the moment. However, as knowledgeable as they may seem, they cannot be relied upon to accurately predict the long term outcome. The only thing they do is broadcast and sometimes point out arbitrary facts.

Now that all the basic components of the stock market have been described, we need to talk about the game itself. Now while a typical World Series game lasts nine innings, the stock market world series is game that doesn't end. So how is a winner determined? The winner is determined depending upon the individual time horizon of the players on each team.

So if you are buying Procter & Gamble for a long term investment and it drops in the short term, you haven't lost the game yet until your time horizon has been reached. This allows there to be multiple winners and losers all simultaneously, making the game a little more fair to the participants involved.

Also, unlike the World Series where only one game is played at a time, there are many games being played all at once in the stock market depending upon what stock you are talking about. Each stock has its own game being played. So there is the Johnson & Johnson game being played along side the Procter & Gamble game and so on and so forth. As an investor, you will find yourself playing in different games on all different teams depending upon the position you've taken in your portfolio. Some you may feel are going to be winners making you a buyer, while some you may feel is going nowhere or down, making you a seller (or even a short).

This sort of competitive play goes on in all the different markets associated with the stock markets (derivatives, CDS's, futures, etc.) and it is up to you as an investor to decide what games you want to be in and what your role is going to be. Are you a player, a back office manager, or an audience member? It depends upon your strengths and comfort level in the games you are a part of.

(This article originally posted on April 19th, 2010 on Technorati. Read the original article here.)

Is Intrinsic Value the Most Important Thing in Investing?

Many people may be familiar with investing in common stocks as growth vehicles in their financial portfolio. With information a click away on the internet and various books just as available on investing, it seems that everyone has the power to manage their own portfolio like they were a professional investment manager.

Many of these sources point toward Warren Buffet's style of investing, commonly known as value investing. The premise behind the strategy cites that investors own a small piece of a company. The basic philosophy is that a good investment is made in good companies selling at a discount to their intrinsic value.

However, caution and an analytical approach should be taken when defining intrinsic value, which is loosely defined as the price at which a person would be willing to pay for the whole business. This assumption is vague and not useful in practicum at all.

The truth about intrinsic value is that it is subject to the participants involved, meaning that, depending on the buyers and sellers own reasoning, intrinsic value will differ. If you were a small bank up for sale, you would most likely charge a far lower price to a private buyer than you would, say to Bank of America. This is mostly because variables such as the size of the buyer and synergy value come into play.

Furthermore, intrinsic value differs between how the buyer or the seller are evaluating it. While things such as future earnings are factored into both perspective values, there are variables that will discount the value of the business on the side of the buyer that would not affect the value to the seller. These are things such as lack of liquidity and non-diversifiable risk.

Likewise, the value of the business to the seller will factor in the size of the buyer that would not affect the value calculation on the part of the buyer. As a buyer, how big the company is should not make me change my estimate of what another prospective company is worth to me, but it will to the seller.

Benjamin Graham Was Wrong

I was doing some equities research and I ran across this from Benjamin Graham's classic 1934 edition of Security Analysis:

This was one of Ben Graham's examples of calculating the Net Current Asset value for a stock, by using a discount rate to calculate the true liquidation value of various types of assets on the balance sheet. The only thing is that Ben Graham's White Motor Company example was actually incorrect.

If you look at the liquidation value of the Total Current Assets, he only subtracts Current Liabilities to arrive at the Net Current Assets Result of $16,300 when in fact he should of subtracted Total Liabilities.

In practice, if a company goes bankrupt, all creditors go to the front of the line because the assets are collateralized by debt. That would mean that ALL creditors go to the front of the line, not just the ones who are due in one year or less. If long term creditors were left out, how would they receive their repayment if the shareholders got what's left way before the creditor's debt needed to be serviced?

The answer is it would never happen. That would be the equivalent of the owners of a house in foreclosure receiving the rest of the sale price of the house after only the first year of debt had been paid for on a 30 year mortgage. What about the other 29 years worth of money the bank forked up so the owners could buy the house? The same is true for a company. The long term creditors are due their piece of the pie and will always get theirs well before the shareholder even see the leftovers.

The funny thing is that Benjamin Graham knew this and stated on the page before this example:

"The striking fact that the cash assets alone considerably exceed this figure, after deducting all liabilities, completely clinched the argument on this score."

However, its clear in the example that he only deducted current liabilities. Perhaps this was just a flub up, but the conclusions he derives are based upon the erroneous fact of subtracting current liabilities. The funny thing is that people like Buffet, Ruane, and Graham himself based the majority of their investing decisions on this calculation when it is in fact wrong. Talk about luck!

Home Depot Your Next Great Investment

Say you have to buy some paint to add some pep to your livingroom, where are you going to go?

If Home Depot even crossed your mind (just in case you said Lowes), you've just realized the hedge to this investment. Right now, Home Depot is severely undervalued in relation to its long term prospects. The reason why its down is because home improvement projects took a dive when the housing market dropped. Why do home improvement if your not planning on selling anytime soon?

The fact of the matter is that Home Depot has a huge market share, contested only by Lowes. Its brand equity serves as a great hedge against long term risk exposure, in addition to the housing market already having been through the worst. And surprisingly, even though earnings are down for HD, free cash flow is at some of its highest levels even compared to years with stronger revenue growth. Management's refocusing on merchandising also will serve to lower expenses and capital expenditures to help that free cash flow figure grow.

As I step down from my soapbox, I will be adding this holding to both my own and my girlfriend's portfolios.