Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 380

Buffett and his warning about 'virtually certain' earnings

When Warren Buffett was asked to distill the essence of investing success, he offered the following:

“Your goal as an investor should simply be to purchase, at a rational price, a part interest in an easily-understandable business whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher five, 10 and 20 years from now. Over time, you will find only a few companies that meet these standards – so when you see one that qualifies, you should buy a meaningful amount of stock. You must also resist the temptation to stray from your guidelines: If you aren’t willing to own a stock for ten years, don’t even think about owning it for ten minutes. Put together a portfolio of companies whose aggregate earnings march upward over the years, and so also will the portfolio’s market value.”

Quality is low debt and high rates of return

I am wedded to a relatively strict idea about what a quality business is. A company should sustainably produce high returns on equity with little or no debt. Why? Because it suggests the company has a competitive advantage.

You see, when companies generate high rates of return, they attract competition. The easiest and most mindless way for new entrants to compete is to offer cheaper prices, which of course reduces gross margins, putting pressure on net margins and therefore returns on equity. If a company can generate a high rate of return on equity sustainably it has been able to fend of the competitors or sufficient barriers to entry exist to block or slow their entrance in the first place.

A high level of debt relative to equity can artificially boost the returns on equity but of course debt carries risk. A company generating high rates of return on equity with little or no debt has all the attractive qualities without the risk. Of course, there may be a point in time where debt needs to be held but when very high returns are being generated after the interest is paid, the debt usually isn’t held for long. By definition therefore, a quality business has a competitive advantage so powerful it doesn’t need to carry debt.

It wasn't that Buffett disliked technology

For years Buffett and Munger ran the line that they didn’t like technology and many commentators proffered the explanation they didn’t understand technology. I have never believed that. Two Mensa geniuses with a lifetime of business experience and photographic memories can pretty much back solve whatever they put their minds to.

Instead the issue with technology is the fast-paced nature of change, which makes the formation of a view about the future competitive landscape almost impossible with any certainty. If one cannot establish whether a business will be the long-term winner in a competitive environment it is impossible to say the business is 'easily understandable'' nor whether its earnings are 'virtually certain to be materially higher five, 10 and 20 years from now”.

That is fundamentally why Berkshire Hathaway has hitherto been devoted to businesses with predictable outlooks.

More recently, Berkshire invested in technology and is reported to own 245 million Apple shares, representing a stake of just under 6% in Apple worth US$114 billion at current market prices. It represents almost a quarter of Berkshire’s own market capitalisation of US$500 billion.

The position in Apple does not suggest Buffett has strayed from his oft-touted principles of investing. On the contrary, Apple along with its FAAMG peers (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google) harbour the very qualities that Buffett has insisted should characterize a portfolio.

Not only are the earnings of these companies growing at a rapid pace but as they grow, they are becoming more profitable. Returns on equity have increased for each of the five over the last four or five years.

The enduring appeal of the FAAMGs

I looked at the returns on equity for each of the FAAMGs for the last five years and discovered something universal; as these companies grew, they became more profitable.

In 2016, for example, Microsoft was earning US$20 billion on US$76 billion of equity – a return on equity of 27%. In 2020, Microsoft’s equity was a little more than 50% higher at US$110 billion but the company earned more than double its 2016 profits at US$44 billion. It therefore recorded a return on equity of 40%. Improvements in profitability, as measured by return on equity, similarly improved for the remaining four of the FAAMGs.

And in addition to benefitting from the network effect and flywheel competitive advantages, they have become monopolies in which inheres the most valuable of all competitive advantages. They have the ability to raise prices without a detrimental impact to unit sales volume. In a world of declining real rates of return, such pricing power and growth is scarce and highly prized by investors.

As an aside, in his book Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power author, journalist and Executive Editor of one of the most important political magazines today, the American Prospect, Dave Dayen notes that practically everything we buy, everywhere we shop, and every service we secure comes from a heavily concentrated market.

In a recent interview about monopoly power in the US, Dayen comments on Buffett:

“This is a guy whose investments philosophy is literally that of a monopolist. I mean, he invented this sort of term, the economic 'moat', that if you build a moat around your business, then it's going to be successful. I mean, this is the language of building monopoly power. He not only looks for monopolies in the businesses he invests in, but he takes it to heart in the business that he's created, Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway owns something like 70 or 80 or 90 companies and they have large market shares in all sorts of areas of the economy”, adding, “It's kind of like an old school conglomerate from the sixties and seventies, but there are certain facets of it, where he's clearly trying to corner a market. Buffett's initial businesses that he actually outright purchased were newspapers. It started with the Buffalo News in Buffalo, New York. And he used anti-competitive practices to put the competition, his rival newspaper, out of business. That was literally his MO there.”


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

Elements of monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour

The FAAMG stocks demonstrate at least some of the hallmarks of monopoly power and some of these companies, as well as their peers and counterparts, engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

Most recently, I read Spotify’s developer agreement. Yep, Fun! In Section IV Restrictions, Part 1 General Restrictions, clause 1.f. reads:

“Do not use the Spotify Platform, Spotify Service or Spotify Content in any manner to compete with Spotify or to build products or services that compete with, or that replicates or attempts to replace an essential user experience of the Spotify Service, Spotify Content or any other Spotify product or service without our prior written permission.”

Many would argue this is blatantly anti-competitive. Another business, therefore, might not be able to build a tool that transfers a user’s list of songs from Spotify to another service provider even if the consumer and the artists who produced the songs might benefit from the transfer.

While the presence of such behaviour puts these companies in the sights of future anti-trust action and therefore generates new risks for investors (we’ll hear more about that in coming years) the popularity of their shares with investors has spilled over to other technology companies that have not demonstrated the ability to generate sustainable high returns on equity.

Not all technology companies have 'virtually certain'

Indeed, in the next tier of technology companies - and those companies in the many tiers below that – they don’t generate a profit and some don’t even generate revenue.

What is happening here is that low interest rates have made it appear safe to pursue growth at the expense of all else. The popularity of the strategy has led to a self-fulfilling and virtuous spiral where success reinforces the validity of the approach. Consequently, investors are pursuing growth irrespective of whether the company displays the quality characteristics required to sustainably generate highly profitable growth. The absence of profit or even revenue is not a hurdle to investment success and therefore not relevant.

Take for example, Hyliion, a Texas-based truck electrification business, founded by 28-year-old Thomas Healy. While the company is not expected to generate revenue from supplying aftermarket hybrid and electric thrust systems for long-haul trucks until at least 2022, it hasn’t stopped a merger with cash-box Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC), Tortoise Acquisition Corp, effectively valuing Hyliion at US$7 billion. There are many other examples. 

While investors are happy to pay top dollar for leading online companies, Buffett’s lesson about quality and certainty of future growth should not be forgotten. Revenues may be growing but you want to own a business whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher in five, 10 or 20 years from now.

Note the imperative 'virtually certain' about earnings or profits. One can only be ‘virtually certain’ if in addition to growth the company has a sustainable competitive advantage. In the absence of high barriers to entry, defendable intellectual property or monopoly conditions, the sustainability of highly profitable growth is in question.

 

Roger Montgomery is Chairman and Chief Investment Officer at Montgomery Investment Management. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

8 Comments
matthew
November 08, 2020

Great theory. Putting it into practice somewhat more difficult. Ray Dalio keeps emphasizing you will never get it absolutely right, the world is just too unpredictable so diversify.

Stella
October 24, 2020

Thanks, Roger. This a great article for discussion with teenage grandchildren.

SN
October 22, 2020

Well said JB your comment is highly appreciated.

In my opinion only One and only One can decide when to Buy or Sell.
Past history and recommendation are only noise !

Robert
October 22, 2020

Thank You Roger, good reading.

CC
October 22, 2020

ah yes, the old chestnut "If you aren’t willing to own a stock for ten years..."
as if anyone can predict the future that far ahead. honestly who would have predicted accurately the massive disruption being caused by online shopping, electric cars, cashless purchasing etc . the world is a different place now.

Daryl
October 22, 2020

Well I’ve many including BRKbs I’ve done very well with T-You Warren! Maybe U need to look a little deeper as Warren & Charlie Clearly do. Our God Daughters investment improved 7 fold in 21 years and was never added to!

JB
October 22, 2020

Well if you'd paid US$400 for Tesla (a supposed "disruptor") and just got 0.55 in earnings. How long do you think you'd need to own it to get your money back? Price behaviour of these "disruptors" would suggest that investors (assuming they are rational - ha!) actually think they can predict further ahead than Warren Buffet's 10 yrs...

I have the same question for the average Afterpay (another supposed disruptor) "investor": "When will you cash out?" The company has no earnings, makes nothing tangible, and PayPal could eat it for morning tea, so what is their thinking around when they will get their money back?

We are where we are with valuations because of low interest rates and few attractive investment alternatives, and that has lead to gambling, not investing. People are confusing price momentum with disruption. If you want to buy into "disruption" then it needs to be real and sustainable, and not just perceived. Online shopping is still just shopping. Electric cars are still just cars (ask VW and Daimler if they are worried about Tesla). And cashless purchasing is as old as Diner's Club. Not much real disruption here....

JP
October 25, 2020

JB, very well put. As for " Electric cars" - well, the energy still has to come from somewhere, such as a reliable fossil fuel powered grid in most countries for decades to come.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

How to spot genuine pricing power

Fascinations: investment management can learn from sport

Five rules for a market professional's manifesto

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 383

One of the downsides of Donald Trump commanding the headlines is that we skim over other significant issues. For example, few Australians read the China Daily News or coverage of its contents, missing official statements that are terrifying hundreds of Australian producers. China says Australia will 'pay tremendously' for its recent lack of respect.

  • 12 November 2020

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Graeme Shaw on why investing is at a pivotal moment

Company profits have not improved for many years but higher valuations have been driven by falling rates and excess liquidity. Conditions do not suit a value and contrarian manager but here are some opportunities.

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

11 key findings on retirement dreams during the pandemic

A mid-pandemic survey of over 1,000 people near or in retirement found three in four are not confident how long their money will last. Only 18% felt their money was safe during a strong economic downturn.

Bank scorecard 2020: when will the mojo return?

Banks severely cut dividends in 2020 but are expected to improve payments in 2021. History provides clues to when the banks will return to their 2019 levels of profitability, but who is positioned the best?

Latest Updates

Retirement

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Property

Steve Bennett on investing in direct property for the long term

As people stayed home during the pandemic, a bearish view swept over most property sectors, but many have thrived and prices have recovered rapidly. The best opportunities are in long leases with quality tenants.

Retirement

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

Superannuation

Paul Keating on why super relies on “not draining the bath”

Paul Keating is the champion of compulsory superannuation as the central means of funding retirement. In the wake of the Retirement Income Review, he is at his passionate best defending the system, with Leigh Sales.

Latest from Morningstar

Is your portfolio too heavy on technology stocks?

Investors with heavy allocations to a broad US index should check how much is exposed to tech stocks, especially when valuations look a bit steep. It might be time to reallocate to other sectors or styles.

Investment strategies

Beware of burning down the barn to bury the debt

At some point, policymakers will turn to the task of deleveraging, to work off massive debt burdens built up during the pandemic. Australia is already ticking the boxes on many policies used in the past.

Superannuation

New bankruptcy rules may have a domino impact on SMSF pensions

During COVID, bankruptcy rules have allowed small businesses to trade while insolvent. It may mean an SMSF is hit by the collapse of a business leaving trustees struggling to meet their own legal obligations.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.