Investing Articles

This section includes mostly evergreen investing advice.
Here are the top articles to read:
20 Quick Ways to Check a Company
9 Steps to Build and Manage a Portfolio
All About Warren Buffett

Millionaire Teacher Book Review

I’m joyed to be writing what is only my second book review on Dividend Monk.

The reason I don’t write many book reviews is, the investment strategies that I follow and showcase are rather straightforward, and there’s little reason to ever reinvent this wheel. But Andrew Hallam is a fellow blogger (and on my personal blogroll), and I’ve read his articles for a while now, so I knew his book would be a very worthwhile read, and was waiting to get a copy and write a review. I had the opportunity to get a book before, but I waited, and therefore I just sat around and waited some more for Amazon to get more in stock. (They had been sold out due to the success of the book.)

So without further delay, here’s a review of Andrew Hallam’s Millionaire Teacher.

Overview

Andrew Hallam is an English teacher who became a self-made millionaire in his 30′s. He achieved this by taking his teacher’s salary, frugally saving it, and diligently investing it, year after year, in index equity funds, index bond funds, and some rational individual stock selections. He’s living proof that almost everyone in the developed world can become a millionaire because he led by example.

Andrew’s a smart guy, but he didn’t have to apply some genius stock-picking approach, or take on huge risk to get a huge reward. He merely maintained a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds, and once in a while he adjusted it to keep it balanced. So for instance, if he had a 65% stock and 35% bond portfolio, and stock prices were rising, he was selling shares while everyone else was buying, and instead was buying bonds to maintain his portfolio balance. Inversely, when stock prices were falling, and everyone was selling stock to buy bonds, he was selling bonds to buy stock at low prices to rebalance his portfolio. It didn’t require market timing, fancy math, or any sort of intellectually rigorous activity; just simple portfolio maintenance and the responsibility to maintain it. It only took him minutes per year. In addition, as a fun side portfolio, he applied fundamental principles of rational individual stock selection. In a noble fashion, he beat the market with his individual selections, but humbly points out that over the long run, it’ll become statistically less and less likely for him to maintain that claim, and that people should index rather than try to beat the market. It’s a rather solid case of wisdom and diligence being a winning combination.

As a teacher, he has witnessed first hand how dismal the financial education is for most students. They learn how to work with quadratic equations, and learn the difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, but they don’t learn to manage their own money. Recalling my own education, I can literally say that not a single teacher taught me a single thing about investing, valuing a company, corporate structure, or stock indices, except for the simple chapter in a mathematics class regarding the power of compound interest. That was it. Andrew has sought to correct this by educating teachers, educating family members, giving talks, blogging, and now, writing a successful book.

The book is organized as a series of his “Nine Rules of Wealth”.

The Good

The book is excellent, as I expected.

-The organization of the book is well thought-out. He covers the basics, makes arguments, reinforces those arguments, but never becomes tiring or overly repetitive. This is in contrast to the famous book, The Millionaire Next Door, which contains a similar message, but after 50 pages of that book, the reader is like “OK I get it already! You don’t have to say the same thing ten times!” Andrew avoids that problem by providing enough reinforcement of his ideas without tiring them out.

-His set of arguments for index funds over actively managed funds is flawless. He really puts the nail in the coffin of actively managed funds. Not only does he make extremely effective arguments backed up by statistics, history, and reasoning, he even counters the expected counterarguments made by people who wish to sell you those funds anyway. His devastating arguments against the enormous self-serving financial services industry should be clear to any rational mind.

-His final section on individual stock selection uses intelligent principles, and covers a lot of the investment basics. In a few parts of the book, he covers topics of how corporations work, why shares go up in value, differences in company value, and more.

-He gives a definition of “wealthy” that I very much agree with. It’s very straightforward, and in my opinion it’s also accurate. Perhaps just as importantly, it’s reasonably attainable on a regular income with diligent saving/investing habits.

-Andrew is a Canadian teacher that currently lives and teaches in Singapore. So he’s sensitive to global differences, and takes an international approach. There’s a whole section devoted to international indexing. So it doesn’t matter what country you’re from; the truths in this book remain valid.

-The 184 page book is an elegant read. Remember, this isn’t a financial guru writing a book; it’s a self-made millionaire English teacher. It can be read in a weekend, is easily accessible to a multitude of different types of readers, and the nine rules break it up into easily read chunks. He artfully blends personal stories, humor, facts, and images to create a rather effortless reading experience.

-I found myself being unable to put the book down, and finished reading much earlier than I had planned. “Well, I’ll read one more of these rules for now…”, I kept telling myself, until I had read through all of them. It’s not because the book is overly short; it’s because it flows elegantly, and gives the information needed without providing any distracting extras. Andrew’s investment approach is simple, as any effective investment approach should be.

Any Downsides?

Any good review includes some constructive criticism. In this case, it’s not criticism of what he said, or of his arguments; it’s an observation of what he didn’t say, and what most people don’t say.

At one point, when Andrew is explaining how a corporation works (his reminder to readers that indexes are built on real companies, and are not just little lines on a graph that go up and down), he uses the following example: He discusses Willy Wonka starting a public company to raise more capital, talks about the shareholder relationship, talks about growth and dividends, and says that the board of directors is voted in by the shareholders.

All of this is true, and yet with index funds, that’s not what really happens in practice. With index funds, shareholders don’t vote for the board of directors. Instead, they own hundreds or thousands of companies, and can’t pay attention to what those boards are doing. Index investors give their right to vote to the owner of the fund. When Vanguard, for instance, votes on behalf of the millions of investors that gave up their right to vote by buying their index funds, Vanguard sets a very low bar for whether they will vote for a given board member, and they abstain from voting with regard to 94% of shareholder proposals that are related to corporate or social policy.

One can’t really blame Vanguard; they have fiduciary duty to their customers to promote good returns, and they can’t predict how millions of would-be shareholders would want to vote their shares. So they largely stay neutral and abstain from much of the process. I think pointing out the loss of shareholding voting that comes with index funds (as well as actively managed funds), would have been a fair addition in the book.

I believe responsible portfolio management includes treating shares as an owner would, and voting accordingly with regards to board member elections, management compensation, and review of shareholder proposals. It’s the one area where my investing philosophy seems to differ from the book.

Conclusion

Millionaire Teacher is an excellent, easy-to-read book. In my opinion, this should be on the reading list for every high school student in the world. In addition, I suggest that everyone who currently invests in actively managed funds should read this, since I couldn’t agree more that index funds in almost every case are far more rational to invest in than actively managed funds. I offered to let a co-worker of mine borrow my copy of the book after he started talking to me about his mutual funds. Andrew’s arguments are solid, the book is a delight to read, and after having seen him blog for a while now, he certainly is a genuine and honest person.

Click below to have a look at the book.

Disclosure: The book image link is an affiliate link to Amazon, and I only use affiliate links for products I highly recommend.

 Dividend Insights Newsletter

We respect your email privacy

The Downside of Upside

If you haven’t noticed, the US stock indices have performed fairly well in aggregate over the past few months. Including several of my holdings.

What a bummer!

That’s probably not the reaction that you’d expect, but it’s rather common among long-term investors. When stock market prices go up, the paper value of a portfolio increases, but finding solid investments for currently invested capital becomes more difficult. My brother, an executive at one of the largest US defense contractors and a husband and father to a wife and three kids, is joyed to see his indexed portfolio replenished, and I can’t really blame him, but I’m disappointed to see some values lessen! I’m glad to see people get to work; I’m not disappointed about economic improvement. It’s strictly the stock valuations that can be suboptimal.

In a market with lower valuations, fresh capital can result in producing better returns, and reinvested dividends and company share repurchases result in better rates of return as well. Markets with higher valuations result in reinvested capital going to lower-return investments.

To illustrate this point, here’s an example. Company A has a P/E of 12, solid cash flow and a good balance sheet, pays out 75% of its EPS as regular growing dividends, and grows EPS by 6% per year. Company B is identical in every way, but has a P/E of 18. For simplicity, these valuations stay constant for 10 years, and dividends are pooled and reinvested once per year. I could have done this chart in multiple ways, such as making stock prices equal and having the two companies with different EPS (to reflect the differences in valuation), or I could have made EPS the same, and make the stock prices different. I choose the first approach so that we can start with the same amount of shares at the same price per share. This link shows a PDF of the charts and outcomes.

As can be seen, since both companies have the same payout ratio but company A is at a lower valuation (and therefore a larger dividend yield), investing in company A results in a larger initial amount of dividend income for the same invested value. In addition, over the next 10 years, since the valuation is lower and the yield is therefore higher, reinvesting the dividend purchases more shares, which grows the investment and the income at a quicker rate.

An investor in company A turned $12,000 into $39,403, which is an annualized return of 12.6% over this 10 year example. Meanwhile, an investor in company B turned $12,060 into $32,486, which is an annualized return of 10.4% over this 10 year example. The total dividend income growth rate matches the total return for each respective investment.

So, two identical companies had significantly different returns based simply on their valuation over that period. This is because dividends can buy more dividends when the valuation is lower (and this applies to share repurchases by the company as well). Of course, over any realistic time period, the valuation will rise and fall, but the point is, that at any given time, it’s preferable in the eyes of the long-term investor (net buyer) for the valuation to be low. Any time that’s spent with her dividend stocks at higher valuation, is money lost. Now, there are some times of course when a spike in valuation could be profitable, such as if a stock goes up to an overvalued state and the investor sells, looking for a better stock, or if the valuation increases just when a person retires and cashes out part of her stock portfolio. But for most long-term investors, especially net buyers that aren’t retiring any time soon, it’s low-valued markets that provide the better long-term returns.

Now, one could point out that valuations are directly linked to growth expectations. In other words, when the stock market changes, it’s because investors are increasing or decreasing their expectations. The example chart that I provided only remains true if fundamental growth is unchanged by the changing valuation; it assumes the differences in valuation of those two identical companies are strictly irrational rather than due to legitimate differences in expectation. But one can look at any long term graph of stock price and annual EPS for a given set of blue-chip stocks, and see irrationality in the stock price.

Buy low, look for good combinations of dividend growth and dividend yield, solid balance sheets, strong cash flows, economic moats, and hope it stays low for a while to let those shares accumulate.

 Dividend Insights Newsletter

We respect your email privacy

My Thoughts on the Abbott Split

Abbott announced in mid October that the company will be splitting into two companies. It is expected to be completed at the end of next year.

I’m a shareholder of Abbott, and my 2011 analysis can be found here. It’s several months old, but it provides a solid overview of the company.

Split Facts

The company plans to split into two companies with a tax-free distribution. The sum of the dividends of the two companies is expected to equal the dividend of the combined company at the time of the split.

The first company, which will retain the Abbott name, will be a diversified medical products company with approximately $22 billion in annual sales. It will include the medical devices segment, diagnostics, nutritionals, and generic pharmaceuticals. Significantly more than half of the sales will be international, and the company will have strong emerging market exposure.

The second company, which is yet to be named, will be a researched-based pharmaceutical company with approximately $18 billion in sales. The business will invest in R&D to come up with new drugs. Abbott’s current blockbuster drug, Humira, will make up a considerable portion of the sales and will present much of the immediate growth, while other drugs will have to fill in for Humira’s success when it begins to go off patent in 5-6 years.

Advantages from Splitting

Splitting the company does offer some advantages.

-Smaller companies often have better growth opportunities. More opportunities are available to them that wouldn’t be large enough to matter for a larger company.

-Investors can invest in exactly what they want- diversified medical or pure pharma.

-The diversified medical company with the Abbott name should maintain very strong free cash flows since there will be no expenditure on leading edge pharmaceutical R&D. This should be good for dividends, and the risk overall may be reduced.

-The pharmaceutical company will be medium-sized. Although earnings will be more volatile than the diversified business over the long term, there is the opportunity for outsized returns if some of the pipeline drugs do well, and if Humira continues to grow as well as it has. Based on the medium size of the business, it’s not out of the question that this segment could be acquired by a larger rival, which would result in a premium for shareholders.

Why I don’t want to “Unlock Shareholder Value”

Apart from some downsides of the split, like the costs of duplicating operations and the cost of restructuring the debt, I believe a potential downside is what many are referring to as an upside.

One of the reasons given by investors for liking this spit is that it may unlock shareholder value. In other words, the combined stock valuation may increase due to the split. Segments can be more accurately valued for what they are, and many argue that Abbott is currently undervalued. Abbott’s flat stock price for more than a decade could see a boost.

As a long term investor, I’m not interested in an increased valuation, and in fact I’d rather it stay undervalued. An increased valuation may be beneficial to stock traders, but for long term dividend investors, it’s just an increase in paper value. Some of the best historical investments, such as Altria, were so great specifically because they remained undervalued. When a company trades for a low valuation, dividend payments can purchase a greater number of shares than if the valuation were higher, and this results in faster accumulation of dividend income and long-term total returns. On the other hand, increased paper valuation does noting for me if I were not intending to sell any time soon. It just lowers the dividend yield of fresh capital that I put into the company, and makes it so I can buy fewer shares and therefore smaller dividend payments.

Conclusion

While I can see some reasons for the split, as an intended long term shareholder, I’d rather hold the company as a unified whole. It’s too early to be sure, but my thoughts at this time is that I’ll likely keep my position in Abbott, and sell my position in the researched based pharmaceutical business. I’ll either reinvest that capital back into the Abbott half, or put it elsewhere. I’m not too interested in investing in pure pharma plays, and instead prefer diversified health care companies. This doesn’t necessarily mean I think the diversified medical company will have superior returns; it’s simply that I feel the diversified medical company more suitably fits my investor profile. I expect that the diversified company, Abbott, will continue to perform well, should stay at a reasonable valuation, and should have solid dividend growth prospects based on EPS growth and strong free cash flows.

 Dividend Insights Newsletter

We respect your email privacy