I have written before that I do not recommend selling stocks in response to a dividend cut. That is because cyclical industries–ranging from industrial conglomerates to the larger firms dotting the energy sector–often need to cut their dividend in response to a commodity pricing slump rather than any difficulty resulting from production. There is also the general issue that dividend cuts are almost always preceded by poor earnings reports, and poor earnings mixed with dividend cuts tends to lead to lower stock prices. There is a substantial risk of selling low and locking in losses if you adopt the policy of selling a stock after a dividend cut.
But merger activity invites a distinctly different scenario–the company you hold is often trading at a 25% to 50% premium price compared to where it was trading before the buyout offer occurred. Contrary to having the risk of selling low, you instead … Read the rest of this article!
Imagine you lived in St. Louis, Missouri, had a $100 in your pocket, and wanted to go spend $100 at a casino one weekend. Where should you go? As far as payouts, your worst bet is the Harrah’s in Maryland Heights. There, the slot machines only pay out $0.89 for every dollar that is spent gambling. Your best bet is the Casino Queen in East St. Louis if you want the higher payouts, as you stand to collect $0.93 on every dollar.
If you look at the structure of casino payouts, and use that as a proxy for the business model as a whole, you would think that casino stocks would be a goldmine. And yet, it is the most disastrously performing sector of the sin stock category, with only 5.8% annual returns since 1992. What gives?
Sometimes, the casino itself does not even own the slot machine software. They … Read the rest of this article!
I am intrigued by the risk management technique of dividend extraction–buying high yielders with slow dividend growth or medium yielders with medium dividend growth–in which you receive a large percentage of your purchase price back in the form of dividends as a reward for sticking around for awhile.
I have made no secret of the fact that I think quite highly of Royal Dutch Shell, despite the fact that it is frequently maligned in the popular media. I think it is because Wall Street will never truly get behind supporting something with a middling growth rate. People are attuned to desire growth, growth, growth.
If you’re well off, and you ever find yourself buying thousands and thousands of shares of Royal Dutch Shell, you really need to get your hands on the four-volume set “The History of Royal Dutch Shell” by Stephen Howarth, Joost Jonker, Keetie Sluyterman, and Jan Luiten … Read the rest of this article!
Due to neglect, I’ve built up a few hundred mailbag questions that I have not been able to address. I hope to be more ambitious in tackling them, and this is the first.
What surprises you the most about the financial commentary you see from other writers?
I am surprised at how often pundits and retail investors fail to separate the inherent nature of the enterprise itself from the people running it. For instance, almost every finance writer concludes that Michael Eisner was an extraordinary Disney CEO between 1984 and 2005. Such an opinion is informed by the 18% annual returns of Disney stock during his tenure–you needed to invest $36,000 on the day he became CEO to become a millionaire by the time he resigned.
This assumes that Eisner did great things, rather than operated a business that was doing great things on autopilot. When he became CEO, it … Read the rest of this article!
When Seth Klarman was asked about the ethics of his investments into companies that gave high-interest loans to customers with poor credit histories, he defended his investment on the grounds of personal responsibility and mentioned that no one puts a gun to the head of someone taking out a loan–it is an act of consent between an adult and a financial institution. Klarman also reiterated that people do not enter into commercial transactions unless they believe it is in their interest to do so–if you have never paid off an obligation to creditors in your life, and you need $500 in car repairs to keep your job, then agreeing to 18% interest is an improvement over your status quo otherwise you wouldn’t take out the loan in the first place.
When Charlie Munger was asked about his investments in Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, an interviewer asked him whether his … Read the rest of this article!