Street Capitalist: Event Driven Value Investments

Two of my most popular posts on Street Capitalist have been about Li Lu. The first post was: Li Lu: Berkshire Hathaway CIO Candidate? I followed up with a second post, transcribing a lecture that Li gave to Columbia students in 2010 (Li Lu’s 2010 Lecture).

In the first post, I speculated as to whether Li might emerge as one of the Berkshire CIO candidates:

This past weekend was the Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A / BRK.B) annual shareholder meeting. At one point during the Q&A, a questioner asked Warren Buffett about the status of Berkshire’s CIO candidates. Charlie Munger remarked that one candidate who he is particular close with was up 200% in 2009 with 0 leverage. Some people think that the person Munger is referring to is Li Lu, a fund manager who turned Munger and Buffett onto BYD.

Li personally owns at least 2% of BYD, which rose 400% in 2009. I don’t know anything about his investments beyond that one position, but I know he is a huge believer in taking concentrated, high conviction positions. If that is the case here, BYD’s spectacular results must have contributed a lot to his returns for 2009 which may make a 200% for the year possible.

Li Lu: Berkshire Hathaway CIO Candidate? (Street Capitalist)

(From left to right: David Sokol of MidAmerican, Warren Buffett, Wang Chuan-Fu of BYD and Li Lu. Photo: David Yellen)

Today, Susan Pulliam has a great article in the WSJ which sheds light on Li Lu, speculating that he might be a CIO candidate. Pulliam managed to interview Charlie Munger and get some of his thoughts on Li Lu:

One of Mr. Li’s human-rights contacts was Jane Olson, the wife of Ronald Olson, a Berkshire director and early partner at a Los Angeles law firm Mr. Munger helped found. Mr. Li began spending time at the Olsons’ weekend home in Santa Barbara, Calif., and on Thanksgiving 2003 met Mr. Munger, whose home is nearby.

Mr. Munger says Mr. Li made an immediate impression. The two shared a “suspicion of reported earnings of finance companies,” Mr. Munger says. “We don’t like the bull—.”

Mr. Munger gave Mr. Li some of his family’s nest egg to invest to open a “value” fund betting on beaten-down stocks.

Two weeks later, Mr. Li says he met again with Mr. Munger to make certain he had heard right. In early 2004, Mr. Li opened a fund, putting in $4 million of his own money and raising an additional $50 million from other investors. Mr. Munger’s family put in $50 million, followed by another $38 million. Part of Mr. Li’s agreement with Mr. Munger was that the fund would be closed to new investors.

Chinese Investor Emerges as Possible Buffett Successor (WSJ)

The company that got people talking about Li Lu, as a potential successor to Buffett is BYD. Most people thought it was strange that Buffett would be investing in an automaker, based out of China of all places. But, I think that one of the allures for early investors in BYD was the fact that it is known as one of the best manufacturers of batteries in the world. Wang Chuan-Fu, BYD’s founder and CEO had to work hard to build his company with limited access to capital and technology. As a result, he fostered a corporate culture that thrived on thriftiness and ingenuity. That’s the kind of corporate culture Berkshire likes to invest in. Pulliam gives us details on Li Lu’s timing on BYD:

Mr. Li’s big hit began in 2002 when he first invested in BYD, then a fledgling Chinese battery company. Its founder came from humble beginnings and started the company in 1995 with $300,000 of borrowed money.

Mr. Li made an initial investment in BYD soon after its initial public offering on the Hong Kong stock exchange. (BYD trades in the U.S. on the Pink Sheets and was recently quoted at $6.90 a share.)

When he opened the fund, he loaded up again on BYD shares, eventually investing a significant share of the $150 million fund with Mr. Munger in BYD, which already was growing quickly and had bought a bankrupt Chinese automaker. “He bought a little early and more later when the stock fell, which is his nature,” Mr. Munger says.

In 2008, Mr. Munger persuaded Mr. Sokol to investigate BYD for Berkshire as well. Mr. Sokol went to China and when he returned, he and Mr. Munger convinced Mr. Buffett to load up on BYD. In September, Berkshire invested $230 million in BYD for a 10% stake in the company.

BYD’s business has been on fire. It now has close to one-third of the global market for lithium-ion batteries, used in cell phones. Its bigger plans involve the electric and hybrid-vehicle business.

One of the interesting aspects of having Li as a CIO candidate is that because of his international focus, particularly on China, he might be able to find the next great wave of global businesses. In his 2010 lecture, Li talks about analyzing BYD by looking at the early history of GM:

Q: I read that when you look at an industry, you look at the most miserable failures of that industry to see whether you will invest in it. Can you talk a bit about that?

Li Lu: It goes back to understanding the business. Once you have that understanding you can extend it to understanding an industry. A certain industry might have characteristics that make it different than others. In certain industries you might have better prospects than others. Find the best of the players in the industry and the worst players. And see how they perform over time. And if the worst players perform reasonably well relative to the great players — that tells you something about the characteristics about the industry. That is not always the case but it is often the case. Certain industries are better than others.

So if you can understand a business inside out you can then eventually extend that to understanding an industry. If you can get that insight, it is enormously beneficial. If you can then concentrate that on a business with superior economics in an industry with superior economics with good management and you get them at the right price — the chances are that you can stay for a very long time.

Q: Did you have any specific example?

Li Lu: I have studied many over the years. As I have said, don’t copy other people’s insights because it doesn’t work. Automobiles are amazing. If you look at the early days it started with several players and concentrated with just a few players that became enormously profitable. Then they became miserable. You then see how the life cycle turns with new automakers in China and India. Everything has a reason. If you want a good idea — look at General Motors from the early days, look every 5 years and see how the performance metrics change. The Graham and Dodd Center should collect all the data and perform some kind of commentary on it…

If you have that data, the amount of insight that would yield would be astonishing. So instead of just accepting the conventional wisdom that the auto business is bad — that is just not true. Or if you say well those guys just unbelievable money machines — that is not true either. So if you can really examine those statistics and understand it that will give you an advantage for analyzing new situations like in China and India. That is really what turns me on. Understanding this gives you a tremendous leg up.

This to me, is one of the advantages in having a CIO candidate that is focused on international opportunities. As nations like China and India develop, they’re bound to naturally mimic the development of Western countries in certain ways. They might actually start to have great businesses that arise out of necessity, “repeating” what’s gone on in America. This is particularly true in areas such as logistics and transportation which become more and more essential as countries develop. In a few years there might be domestic versions of FedEx or Sysco in China and India — if there aren’t already.

Just how much did Li and Buffett make off of BYD?

BYD is a big roll of the dice for Mr. Li. He is an informal adviser to the company and owns about 2.5% of the company.

Mr. Li’s fund’s $40 million investment in BYD is now worth about $400 million. Berkshire’s $230 million investment in 2008 now is worth about $1.5 billion. Messrs. Buffett, Munger, Sokol, Li and Microsoft founder and Berkshire Director Bill Gates plan to visit China and BYD in September.

Pulliam ends the article with Li’s analogy between investing and soccer:

Mr. Li declined to name his fund’s other holdings. Despite this year’s losses, the $600 million fund is up 338% since its late 2004 launch, an annualized return of around 30%, compared to less than 1% for the S&P 500 index.

Mr. Li told investors he took a lesson from watching the World Cup, comparing his investment style to soccer. “You may very well work extremely hard and seldom score,” he says. “But occasionally—very occasionally—you get one or two great chances and you make decisive strikes that really matter.”

Li’s approach to investing is really similar to Buffett’s own advice to wait for the market to give you fat pitches. I think most investors mess up by lacking that kind of patience.

In environments where there aren’t a whole lot of bargains, some value investors will begin to relax their standards in order to participate more in the market’s rallies. This almost always ends in disaster. If you are not disciplined with value investing you can get yourself into tight spots. It’s a strategy that often encourages taking high conviction, concentrated approaches to investing. An investor without discipline might end up with a portfolio of only 8 stocks at really expensive valuations. When the bubble bursts, their portfolio will take a massive hit and usually perform worse than the market indices because of that level concentration.

In his 2010 lecture, Li emphasized the need to know what you don’t know when investing. That might sound a bit like a riddle, but it’s really about acknowledging that you can’t know everything and there are going to be risks that you cannot anticipate. If you accept that idea, you’re always going to be looking for businesses with strong competitive advantages and seek to buy at a discount to intrinsic value. That way you have some protection against those unknown risks. With that intellectual framework and a willingness to employ rigorous analysis, you should be able to identify good investments and profit immensely.

Many of you enjoyed my previous transcript of a talk Li Lu gave at Columbia University. Thanks to Joe Koster, you can now view a more recent lecture he gave to Bruce Greenwald’s value investing class in April of 2010.

Based on Berkshire’s investment in BYD, the fact that Lu manages Charlie Munger’s money, and that even Buffett would give money to Lu if he ever retired (according to Greenwald) makes me think Li Lu is an investor worth watching.

With that in mind, I believe it is insightful to study whatever you can find about him and his approach. I think this lecture from 2010 is great. The recording has some audio issues making it difficult to hear and I thought that some of you might enjoy reading notes from the talk. This is not a true transcript, but an approximation of what was said. I think it comes pretty close, having listened to the lecture a few times. I think you will find it helpful and Lu’s talk rewarding.

Bruce Greenwald: Warren Buffett says that when he retires, there are three people he would like to manage his money. First is Seth Klarman of the Baupost Group, who you will hear from later in the course. Next is Greg Alexander of the Sequoia Fund. Third is Li Lu. He happens to manage all of Charlie Munger’s money. I have a small investment with him and in four years it is up 400%.

[Applause]

Li Lu: Columbia is where my whole life in America started. I could barely speak the language. In Columbia it was where I had a new life. It was really in the Value Investing class where I got my career start. I was really worried about my student loan debt at the time and a friend told me about this class and said I need to see a lecture from Warren Buffett.

What I heard that night changed my life. He said three things:

1. A stock is not a piece of paper, it is a piece of ownership in a company.

2. You need a margin of safety so if you are wrong you don’t lose much.

3. In the market, most people are in it for the short term. It allows you a framework for dealing with the day to day volatility.

Those were three powerful concepts. I had never viewed the stock market like that. I viewed it negatively as a place made up of manipulators who were lining their own pockets. I embarked on an intensive two year study learning everything about Buffett.

Two years after that I bought my first stock. After I graduated I worked at an investment bank for a year and realized it was a mistake. I tried to start a fund but I didn’t have a track record. The first year I managed money I lost 19%.

Being a value investor means you look at the downside before looking at the upside. Before becoming an investor you need to look at how you can fail at this game. There are all sorts of ways you can fail. You need to examine who you are and see if you could be good at it. If you could ever find something you can do well that you really like — that will be your best investment. You will do better than competitors. If you can do it with intrinsic passion, that really over time will add enormous value to you.

Back to the game of investing. This concept of margin of safety is an essential concept to be a good investor. The future is unpredictable, you will always be dealt surprises, some positive most negative. You need to build in a level of safety so that whatever happens, you will not get crushed. If you can really successfully know what you are getting into, you can pretty much navigate. Most people are troubled by what they don’t know. The world is divided by those who know and those who don’t know. If you really know — you will not pull triggers like Wall St. traders. If you are truly intellectually honest, you would not do anything.

This class teaches you to know what you are getting into, especially accepting what things you don’t know. The game of investment is really continuous learning. Everything affects an investment, it constantly changes. You are not investing in the past but the accumulative cash flow of the future. You have to want to find a certain set up where you can know something that most people don’t know. There are plenty of things I don’t know but they don’t factor into the purchase because I am using a huge margin of safety. Buying a dollar at 50 cents. So if things turn against you, you will be okay. That is not easy. This business is brutally competitive. It is so impossible to know everything and know exactly what is going to happen to a business from now till the end that you really have to accept that what you don’t know.

Finding an edge really only comes from a right frame of mind and years of continuous study. But when you find those insights along the road of study, you need to have the guts and courage to back up the truck and ignore the opinions of everyone else. To be a better investor, you have to stand on your own. You just can’t copy other people’s insights. Sooner or later, the position turns against you. If you don’t have any insights into the business, when it goes from $100 to $50 you aren’t going to know if it will back to $100 or $200.

So this is really difficult, but on the other hand, the rewards are huge. Warren says that if you only come up with 10 good investments in your 40 year career, you will be extraordinarily rich. That’s really what it is. This shows how different value investing is than any other subject.

So how do you really understand and gain that great insight? Pick one business. Any business. And truly understand it. I tell my interns to work through this exercise – imagine a distant relative passes away and you find out that you have inherited 100% of a business they owned. What are you going to do about it? That is the mentality to take when looking at any business. I strongly encourage you to start and understand 1 business, inside out. That is better than any training possible. It does not have to be a great business, it could be any business. You need to be able to get a feel for how you would do as a 100% owner. If you can do that, you will have a tremendous leg up against the competition. Most people don’t take that first concept correctly and it is quite sad. People view it as a piece of paper and just trade because it is easy to trade. But if it was a business you inherited, you would not be trading. You would really seek out knowledge on how it should be run, how it works. If you start with that, you will eventually know how much that business is worth.

When I started in the business in 1997, it was in the middle of the Asian Financial Crisis. A few years later there was the Internet bubble. A couple years ago was the Great Crash of 2007 – 2008. They are billed as once in a century disasters but happen every few years. Every time it goes against you, your net worth or value of your investments might go down 50%. This is really where that insight and temperament comes in. In a sense, you have to have a certain confidence in your own judgement and not be swayed by other people’s views. It is not easy. But that is life. It is just a given. It happens to everyone. Berkshire had at least three times when the stock went down 50%. It happened to Carnegie too. It happened to Rockefeller. It happens to everyone. If you really made a mistake, it would not stop at 50% but go to 0.

This happens to even mighty companies. Look at the top 50 companies in America every 10 years. By the time 20-40 years go by, 2/3rds of them will be gone. By the time it goes to 100 years, there might be only a couple left. It’s just the way it is. Look at what happened to the once mighty General Motors. So thats why I’m saying is, investing is a continuous learning process because your investments are constantly changing

So for those of you that have curiosity and the temperament, this game couldn’t be better. Capitalism rewards people who are talented at capital allocator. So if you have the aptitude and temperament, it is the great game. If you don’t have that then I urge you not to go and become a nuisance. That is really what Wall Street did, they don’t really create anything they just move money around. Letting the financial industry get too big is bad for the economy, it is just as bad as getting addicted to casinos, drugs, and alcohol. None of them are really useful, they just transfer wealth. That is what I think happened on Wall Street over the last several decades. So avoid being harmful.

With that I am open to questions.

Q: Mohnish Pabrai recently spoke about his reluctance about investing in China due to the multiple accounting books / the possibility of fraud. How do you deal with this given your own investments in China?

Li Lu: Well, you know I think he is right. Every thing has an exception though. Just because a next door neighbor is a fraud doesn’t mean you are. That is one question to ask — whether you can trust the accounting and people running the business. That can have a huge impact on the business. I suggest you spend a lot of time looking at these factors, especially if you are investing for the long haul.

Q: Why did you decide to go into venture capital? How is that different than your other investing?

Li Lu: I always had this bent that I want to build a real business. I started a venture and it was really a lot of fun. Overall, it is a tougher game than simply investing in securities because you have to evolve to the day to day changes in operations and it is just not as easy to build great businesses. Every generation has a handful of great businesses that come from no where and come to dominate their fields. It is much more rewarding as an investor to pick those. Also, you are more likely to find managers much more capable than yourself. Overall, I learned a lot. I learned a lot in how businesses succeed and how businesses fail. It really was a lot of fun. I probably carried it too far — I eventually ran one of the businesses and it was of course a mistake.

Q: I read that when you look at an industry, you look at the most miserable failures of that industry to see whether you will invest in it. Can you talk a bit about that?

Li Lu: It goes back to understanding the business. Once you have that understanding you can extend it to understanding an industry. A certain industry might have characteristics that make it different than others. In certain industries you might have better prospects than others. Find the best of the players in the industry and the worst players. And see how they perform over time. And if the worst players perform reasonably well relative to the great players — that tells you something about the characteristics about the industry. That is not always the case but it is often the case. Certain industries are better than others.

So if you can understand a business inside out you can then eventually extend that to understanding an industry. If you can get that insight, it is enormously beneficial. If you can then concentrate that on a business with superior economics in an industry with superior economics with good management and you get them at the right price — the chances are that you can stay for a very long time.

Q: Did you have any specific example?

Li Lu: I have studied many over the years. As I have said, don’t copy other people’s insights because it doesn’t work. Automobiles are amazing. If you look at the early days it started with several players and concentrated with just a few players that became enormously profitable. Then they became miserable. You then see how the life cycle turns with new automakers in China and India. Everything has a reason. If you want a good idea — look at General Motors from the early days, look every 5 years and see how the performance metrics change. The Graham and Dodd Center should collect all the data and perform some kind of commentary on it.

Bruce Greenwald: Do you want me to give you the answer to that? In the 1960s, their return on capital was 46%. In the 1970s their return on capital was 28%. In the 1980s it was 9% in the 1990s it was 6%. You want to guess how negative it is now?

Li Lu: So that is really fascinating. If you have that data, the amount of insight that would yield would be astonishing. So instead of just accepting the conventional wisdom that the auto business is bad — that is just not true. Or if you say well those guys just unbelievable money machines — that is not true either. So if you can really examine those statistics and understand it that will give you an advantage for analyzing new situations like in China and India. That is really what turns me on. Understanding this gives you a tremendous leg up.

Q: I wanted to ask you about BYD. I heard that you thought it was important for them to introduce a model to the US and wanted to know why you thought that.

Li Lu: That might be a better question to ask the BYD chairman than myself. Well, If you are just talking about electric vehicles, you know the key — the heart and soul of the electric vehicle age the heart is the battery. There is the battery, electric motor, and the electric control control panel. The electric motor has been there for 100 years, control system is software that can be improved over time.

The battery is really where you get the biggest appreciation and is what determines the value of the electric vehicle. 100 years before the Model-T was introduced, the competition between electric vehicles and gasoline was not nearly as optimistic. Up and till then, 1/3rd of cars being produced were electric. It wasn’t until Rockefeller got oil extracted easily enough that it worked. Henry Ford was able to make the internal combustion work even though it wasted 85% of the energy. He was able to build the engine and produce automobiles that were cheap enough for people to buy and it took off. That is where you find the real winners.

Now, years later, we know that the way that oil is burned contributes to global warming. If it continues, the planet might still be here but all the human beings might not. Human beings have only been on the planet for a tiny bit of the earth’s history. So there are all sorts of good reasons for electric cars. Battery development has advanced so much that it is now comparable to the price and performance of traditional cars. So now with the help of companies like BYD, the balance is about to tilt towards where performance and price are getting to the level that makes them a desirable alternative. It will be desirable everywhere. Eventually, if you have a car that does all that, it will be sold everywhere.

Q: What about BYD versus others in the industry?

Li Lu: The market will determine that.

Q: Yeah – but why BYD versus others?

Li Lu: Well because we also studied all those other guys. We will see when the winner emerges whether we are right or wrong.

Q: Right – but what did you look at to reach that view?

Li Lu: There are a lot of people who have worked over 100 years making great cars. The technology for building a traditional car has been refined enough to where it can be learned in a short period. The place we are still seeing a curve of continuous rapid improvement is with the batteries for cars. Whoever is leading the charge will have a major advantage. There is really only one company that is a leader in battery manufacturing and automobile manufacturing. There is only one company. To put this together you need a Ford to put that together. So far those two elements need to be put together. It is not an easy process.

Q: So you went to BYD in 2005 and then you brought Berkshire as well. I saw that you sold a small amount of your BYD position at the end of last year. Was it just rebalancing? Can I just wanted to get your thoughts on that.

Li Lu: Actually I started my BYD position in 2002. I sold a small amount of shares because an investor of mine had an emergency redemption.

Q: We read your profile online. I had a question – do you have any problems when trying to invest in China?

Li Lu: Yeah I do have some difficulty. I did not really see a factory plant at BYD until the end of 2008. I really did not have a better understanding till then. That really causes you to question what it is before you make an investment. With investing, you have to work with imperfect information because you are buying a piece of the future. I did not really get a chance to get more information because the problem in Asia till much later but it did not stop me from making my investment decision. So there is a point, where if you have enough margin of safety– that is why I kept coming back to the elementary concept of margin of safety– you can allow much more uncertainty and unknowns. So the answer of the question is does that stop you from making the investment? No.

Q: So I did some research on lithium ion batteries, and I saw that BYD has a manufacturing advantage with consumer batteries. But I saw that automobile batteries are much more complex. I did not think that the idea of a good consumer battery manufacturer + an automobile maker made much sense. So when Buffett looked at the stock maybe it was a better deal but today it is this dream of vehicles that is really priced in. It does not feel like a good value investor stock. So why would you own it today?

Li Lu: Well that is interesting. One of the most fascinating things about being an investor is that surprises are part of the game. When you get into situations like BYD, you see lots of good surprises. Chuanfu and his team have this fabulous culture, everything people thought they knew turned out to be a few years late. He got into battery manufacturing in that particular way because he really had no other option. He had no money, he only had $300,000 in venture capital funding before IPO and that was it. He raised money in an IPO and Buffett gave him $200M, now they have 160,000 employees. $6-7B in revenues, $500M in net profit. It is amazing. So he has this ability to adapt in a competitive environment. He has demonstrated that ability again again and again. The way he does automation is far cheaper than anyone else and more reliable. He continues to surprise me with his ingenuity, to figure out ways to do something better than everyone else. What he is currently doing is very different than what everyone else has done. At the end of the day, you might look at what he has done.

So how do you look at it as an investor with imperfect information? Well I suggest you look at what he has accomplished. 8 years ago I had no idea they would go into the automobile or laptop or cellphone battery business. So that demonstrates how he is. This investment is not easy to understand because it is changing so fast, at such a large scale. An almost unheard of speed. Their manufacturing capabilities will double soon. This year they will hire 10,000 college graduates, 8 or 9 thousand engineers. The scale is almost unparalleled. So this is why the study of history, of all the great corporations will give you a good insight in seeing what will happen with BYD. I suggested that we start with GM and analyze its performance every 5 years for 100 years to understand at least one aspect of BYD’s business.

Q: One investor came in and said talking to management is a waste of time. They will say what you want them to say. Obviously it sounds like you don’t agree with that. What do you think? Will you pay a premium for a business with a moat?

Li Lu: There is no general rule. The key in investing is to know what you know and know what you don’t know. You can know about management teams without meeting with them. Every situation is slightly different. So I come back to the point that if you know enough on other things that there is enough margin of safety. Even if you meet with management, you may not learn something. Obviously, actions speak louder. You want to see what they have done. Everything being equal, the more you know about management, the more honest and upfront they are, the more motive they have, the better the situation is and the deeper the discount. You have to analyze it all. The key to analyzing it is you have to ask: do I really know what I think I know, do I really know what I don’t know? If you can’t answer that question, chances are you are gambling.

Q: What kind of preparation do you do before meeting a management team?

Li Lu: I don’t really have a set method. Because I usually am just curious about the business and don’t know a lot. So you are prepared and not prepared. If you are really curious, you want to learn more and study it more. When working at a hedge fund or mutual fund, you are expected to learn a business in one week. You can’t truly understand everything about a business in one week. It took me 10 years and I am still learning new things about BYD. It is a continuous learning process. You could spend a lifetime studying a business or industry, but in a few seconds I can tell you whether or not I like it. You want to build knowledge by continually learning. There is not set preparation.

Q: Recently, Jim Chanos gave us his thesis on the China Syndrome with there possibly being a bubble.

Li Lu: Well, it is too big of a question for me. I don’t know

Q: 20 years ago you said you challenged conventional wisdom in China. Out of curiosity, in terms of value investing what do you challenge in the conventional wisdom?

Li Lu: Well, the fundamental philosophy of value investing is very sound. Its basically the three things:

1. A stock is not a piece of paper, it is a piece of ownership in a company.

2. You need a margin of safety so if you are wrong you don’t lose much.

3. In the market, most people are in it for the short term. It allows you a framework for dealing with the day to day volatility.

That is really an intelligent approach. So therefor any intelligent investing is really value investing. There is a certain level of intellectual honesty. If you have all that insight going into analyzing businesses I don’t have any arguments with it.

Q: What is your point of view on long / short positions in value investing?

Li Lu: The most profitable kind of investing is long term investing. You want to allow the time that it might take because you don’t know when the market will catch on. If you can find a business with good management with good industry fundamentals blowing it forward, you have a good opportunity and you can save money on taxes.

A short cannot be a fundamentally long term position. In the long game, the upside is unlimited. Your downside is 100%. In shorting it is opposite. Shorting is also essentially borrowing, so you need money and time on your side. If time is not on your side, you can be right but lose all your money. The best kind of short usually has some kind of fraud. In those situations, management is determined to keep the fraud. Look at Bernie Madoff, 20 years time. You cannot afford to borrow money for 20 years. So shorting is a short term game. When those positions go against you, there is huge leverage that can utterly crush you.

In theory, long / short is okay, but if you are trading all the time you need to be in tune with all the things moving the market. None of them might be fundamental to the actual business. So you spend all your time chasing noise than studying a long term situation. If you cannot concentrate on things in the long term, and spend all your time thinking about the short term, you will not be able to develop the kinds of insights necessary to identify great investments.

From time to time, you will lose some money on paper. But it is just part of the game. This is why I closed long / short. You know I went through three bubbles. The Asian Financial Crisis, the Internet Bubble, and this most recent financial crisis. The biggest mistake I made is not being able to pick up undervalued companies where I had a unique insight but was tied up with this whole long / short thing. The money I left on the table is still adding up. I am still paying for those mistakes.

Q: In a bull market environment, how do you re-evaluate your thesis?

Li Lu: I don’t ever want to profit from a bubble. Soros does that, that is just not my game. I don’t profess any ability to understand how long a crowd will buy into a bubble. I invest in things that appear to be compelling values that continues. So that is why this game is a continuous learning process – because everything affecting the investment is constantly changing. Including the price. Including the prospects and elements of business success. You really do want to never stop learning. This game looks to be easy but it is not easy.

Q: Given your focus on international investments, how do you think about diversifying your investments regionally?

Li Lu: First of all, I did not really specialize in international investments. I started off doing most of my investments in the US and Canada. In recent years, I just find better bargains outside of it. One of the great things about being an investor is you can look anywhere and find great pockets of opportunities. You cannot do that as a venture capitalist as I experienced myself. So you can look anywhere for opportunities. I do not take a regional approach to diversification. I have views towards certain countries and currencies, but it is not the driving force for a potential investment. If you have your fundamental things right, if you happen to have macro economic factors behind you, you can run a great wave.

Q: How is your investment style different today than when you started the fund?

Li Lu: A lot of things have changed. One bonus about this profession is you get better over time. Most professions, as you get older, you get out of the game. Take the example of competitive sports. If you are a figure skater or gymnast, after your teenage years you are out of the game. With investing, if you are doing it the right way, you get better over time. Your knowledge accumulates exponentially. When I look back at everything I have done, I would have done it all slightly differently, but that is because I am better at it today. So if you approach it in a fundamentally sound way, as you mature, you become better and better. That process and progression is like compounding money. In fact, you can compound knowledge faster than money. If you truly love this game, I would suggest that you don’t take short cuts. It might take longer but it is more rewarding.

Q: What is the difference between being a top political criminal in China versus a hedge fund manager today (referring to the ire directed at Wall Street)?

Li Lu: I don’t consider myself a criminal. I don’t think China considers me a criminal. What I think we are doing today with our investment in BYD in China is really helping China march towards a modern era of prosperity. BYD is providing a solution to both China and the US, to migrate from the past to a way that gets us out of the unsustainable carbon age that we live in. Global warming is a vital concern to every human being, so China is providing a great contribution to everybody with BYD. America has had a great history of invention and here is a great company in China that is about to make a major contribution to human civilization with cheap electric vehicles and solar power.

Ultimately we will have to get our energy from the sun. Most of the energy, even fossil fuels (plants that die and then go into the ground), all originally come from the sun. So if you can figure out a way to take energy from the sun and power vehicles, while using batteries to store it, inexpensively — will really make renewable energy power everything. The combination of those things holds the key to the future of industrial civilization that we are about to embark on. We didn’t set out with BYD with this in mind, it just happened that way. With great companies, it only looks logical in retrospect. Think about how Bill Gates started Microsoft. I don’t think he knew up front that he would take the entire market — at that time it did not exist. It is the same way with our investment in BYD. Ultimately, I think finding an inexpensive way to store energy that we harness from the sun will be a huge contribution for both China and the US, but more broadly our entire civilization.

This is a great guide for seeing different types of cognitive biases. It is split into three groups: social, memory, and decision making cognitive biases.

Cognitive Biases – A Visual Study Guide by the Royal Society of Account Planning

Ben Claremon of the Inoculated Investor released his notes from Charlie Munger’s 2010 Wesco AGM. The notes are awesome and Munger’s talk is wonderful. I found this Q&A session to be much more insightful than Berkshire’s:

2010 Wesco Annual Meeting Notes

Be sure to head over to Ben’s site. He has notes from Berkshire’s and Markel’s meetings as well.

This past weekend was the Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A / BRK.B) annual shareholder meeting. At one point during the Q&A, a questioner asked Warren Buffett about the status of Berkshire’s CIO candidates. Charlie Munger remarked that one candidate who he is particular close with was up 200% in 2009 with 0 leverage. Some people think that the person Munger is referring to is Li Lu, a fund manager who turned Munger and Buffett onto BYD.

Lu personally owns at least 2% of BYD, which rose 400% in 2009. I don’t know anything about his investments beyond that one position, but I know he is a huge believer in taking concentrated, high conviction positions. If that is the case here, BYD’s spectacular results must have contributed a lot to his returns for 2009 which may make a 200% for the year possible.

Here is a brief bio on Lu:

Li Lu was born in China in 1966. He attended Nanjing University in China and later came to the U.S., and earned three degrees (BA, JD, MBA) simultaneously from Columbia University. After graduation, he worked in an investment bank until 1997, when he founded Himalaya Capital Management, which today manages both LL Investment Partners and Himalaya Capital Ventures, funds focused on publicly traded securities and venture capital. Li Lu was named a global leader for tomorrow by the World Economic Forum in 2001, and a Henry Crown fellow by the Aspen Institute in 1998. He is a member of Council on Foreign Relations and Young Presidents’ Organization.

Fortune: Barnstorm Green

There isn’t a whole lot of information about Lu’s investing style out there. But I thought I would share some notes from a lecture he gave to Columbia Business School back in 2006. All of this is paraphrased, so don’t take anything as a direct quote and there may even be some inaccuracies. Still, I believe you will find these notes insightful, especially with respect to improving your own abilities as an analyst and investor. Even if Lu is not a Berkshire Hathaway CIO candidate, he is an investor with a tremendous work ethic that we could all learn from.

Below are my notes from Lu’s lecture:

Li Lu at Columbia Business School – 2006

-15 years ago, Lu was accidentally brought in to a lecture by Warren Buffett. Had epiphany moment, Lu thought he could do something in the investment business.
-At the time, Lu had just escaped China. Did not know very many people. No money, deep in debt. Worried about making a living in the US.
-In the middle of Buffett speech, made him think differently about the stock market.
-The more Lu thought about it, the more he thought it was something he could do.
-Value investors see themselves as owners of a business. Therefore, fortunes are up and down with the nature of the business.
-You demand a margin of safety.

3 Traits of a Value Investor:

1. Basically, you don’t think of yourself as a paper shuffler who constantly buys and sells securities. You think of yourself as a real owner of the business.
2. You only own a small piece of the business, so you demand a huge margin of safety.
3. Because you think of yourself as an owner, not trading all the time, you think everyone else is different — like Ben Graham’s Mr. Market

On Value Investing

-Under 5% of all assets are run under value investors, a real minority in the investment world.
-The stock market is created for the other 95% of people, that is where your opportunity and challenge is.
-That was one lesson that stuck in Lu’s mind when listening to Buffett’s lecture.
-Biggest challenge: understand whether you are the 5% or the 95%
-It is tempting to do what the other 95% of people do. Emotionally very difficult to be in the 5%, but value investors typically have better returns. The money is really for traders and they tend to amass more assets.
-5% have a spectacular return, but 95% of money probably always resides to somewhere else.
-Understand who you are. You will be tested. You will have to ask yourself whether you are or aren’t a value investor.
-If you are a value investor, you are probably genetically mutated and comfortable being in the minority. This is unnatural to human beings. You have to be comfortable being by yourself. You have to adopt the idea that you are right because your reason and evidence, not because others agree with you.
-You will probably spend most of your time being an academic researcher rather than a professional. You are a researcher or journalist, with insatiable curiosity. You are trying to figure out how everything works.
-The more you know, the better you are as an investor.
-Politics, science, technology, literature, poetry, everything can affect businesses and help you.
-Occasionally you can find insights that will give you tremendous insights that other people don’t have.
-Then you find if the business is cheap. Is the management good? What else? Why is the opportunity there?
-Started fund in late 1997. Been through really traumatic events: Asian Financial Crisis, Tech Bubble.
-Fall of 1998: Lu’s search process is very general. Got hooked on value line, loved to read the whole thing from beginning to end. The best kind of education, you should do this if you want encyclopedic knowledge of companies. Go through it page after page, it is enormously helpful.
-First thing Lu checks is new low list. New low P/Es, P/Bs, etc.
-Does not care where something traded before.
-First looks at valuation. If the valuation doesn’t fit, doesn’t go beyond it.
-If you see a low P/B ratio, ask – What is in the book? How much is the book?
-Encyclopedic knowledge is helpful when looking across different industries.
-Look at pre-tax and pre-interest earnings. Look from an un-leveraged basis. Figure out how much capital is deployed in the business. Look at ROIC.

Example: Timberland

-Start by giving a 5 second look at the business. Timberland. The business is trading around clean book value, consisting mostly of tangible liquid assets, working capital, plus 100M in real estate. Deployed capital is 200M with 100M return.
-Then check why the business fell apart and became cheap. Think if you had owned the entire business at that price.
-At the time, was the height of the Asian Financial Crisis, saw their sales falling off the cliff in Asia. Any thing with exposure to Asia was falling apart. Try to check what other people are thinking about this. You may not listen to their advice but you may want to know what other people are looking at.
-Timberland had no other analysts covering it.
-Why no coverage?
-Look at business across years. Timberland has been growing, pretty profitable, did not need financial markets. Family owned. Owns 40% controlling 98% vote.
-Immediately, that is a turnoff to most people. You can do a quick data search.
-You need to have a curious, active mind to ask questions and find answers.
-Timberland had most of the vote, no analyst coverage, a bunch of shareholder lawsuits. If you were a member of the other 95% of the investment business you might say maybe management is milking the business.
-Download every court document lawsuit. Read it. You NEED a very curious mind to figure out WHAT is happening. Dig every single time. READ EVERYTHING.
-The first time, it takes a couple minutes to look over financials. Then gather questions and do deep research.
-Most lawsuits came from Timberland missing guidance, annoying investors, which annoyed the owner of the business. They decided to stop talking to Wall Street. So it was not about milking the business or fraud. They were not crooks.
-How do you determine if they are good managers? Decent people?
-Act like an investigative journalist. Most business owners leave a trail for you to follow and see how they deal with different situations. Most professional managers would not see this as part of their job, but YOU are part of their 5%.
-Go to their community, visit people they know, their Church, their Synagogue, introduce yourself to their friends and neighbors. It is worth it to spend as much time as possible, to find what these business people have done and what their neighbors say about them to accurately get an idea of their personality.
-The father seemed like a simple, decent guy, just a high school graduate. the son went to business school, was already COO of the company even though he was Lu’s age. Lu saw what boards the son sat on, and noticed that they had a mutual friend. Managed to get himself on the board with the son and became friends quickly. Came to realize these where high quality, very ethical businessmen.
-After all that, saw the stock was still trading low. Decided he did not miss anything. The other 95% may not have done enough research to see this or have some kind of institutional imperative that prevents them from owning.
-If you are not a good analyst, you will never be a good investor.
-But we decide to buy. How much do we buy? Imagine having $900. The other 95% will take tiny positions, 50 basis points. You need to use concentration, a $200 position. Think of how much work you did. Lu visited all the stores to see how margins improved – they had a fad going on where kids wanted the shoes. Their asian business is tiny, reduced earnings by less than 5%.
-Lu put a ton into Timberland. What happened after next 2 years? Stock went up 700%. Propelled by earnings. No real risk – went from trading at 5x earnings to 15x with earnings growing 30% a year. It adds up.

Be a Learning Machine
-When an investment opportunity comes, you have to seize it. Devote day and night so you can act quickly. Do everything complete but do it fast. You have to train yourself to jump on opportunity.
-When opportunity presents itself you can smell it. The only way to do that is by training yourself and reading page after page of financial report.
-Uses S&P manuals for viewing foreign stocks.
-As an owner, don’t think about per share information.
-Use your brain, when looking at stock manuals, each page should really only take 5 minutes. Don’t use calculators. Use mental math.

Example: Korean Company
-60M market cap, pre-tax earnings of 31M, roughly 2x pre-tax earnings.
-Book value of 230M, what constitutes book value? If you are an owner, look at: fixed assets, working capital, don’t count on goodwill.
-Basically you see with 60M in market cap, 30M in pre-tax, $240M in book value ($180M in fixed assets)
-It might be cheap.
-Determine what the earnings is. The book. The working capital.
-Use common sense, common logic and think about the business.
-Most employees never went to business school, Lu finds they are easier to train.
-Of the 70M in current assets, it is all cash
-Of 180M in fixed assets, they own 100% of a hotel, recorded 30M as book. Own 13% of a department store recorded as 30M.
-Look up the department store, it roughly has a market cap of 600M. 13% gives you roughly 80M. So the book value undervalues it by another 50M.
-They own 15% of 3 cable companies and a whole bunch of real estate.
-The department store has exactly the same profile. Trading roughly around cash and investments, good earnings, and own a whole bunch of assets. Turns out they are the second largest cable operator as well
-The department store operates like a hotel, do not take inventory, more like a shopping mall.
-They charge a percentage on the top line of all merchant sales.
-Put it all together: Paying 60M, 70M in net cash, another 100M in stock, 30M in hotel with a value that has not been changed in last 10 years while real estate market has gone up in 10 years. Went to Korea, looked at hotel and department stores.
-Checked recent transaction of properties in neighborhood, value is likely 2-3x what is on the book. But take what is on the book anyway, add 150M. Add that to rest and you get 320M in assets that you are paying 60M for and earning 30M annually from operations.
-Insiders own 50%
-Many factors going in your favor, but you need to look at how local investors see it. They need to be buying it for the price to go up.
-Department store used to trade at 22 went to 100
-This company was at 12 now trades around 70
-each went up 5-6x

Don’t just listen. Do it.

-This type of an approach is not natural to an investor.
-If you decide your personality fits in with the mutated gene pool, that this is something you might be looking to do, there is a lot of money in it — proven by Ben Graham to Buffett
-You have to put in a lot of work into your analysis.
-You can make a lot of money if you are really interested, listening, and actually DOING IT.
-Lu benefited from listening to his value investing class and then actually going out and doing the work required.
-Value investing is not really about theory, it is about what works.
-Young analysts have energy and nothing to lose, so they should go and do the work.
-Before you become a good investor, you need to be a good analyst.

Lu says you need two things to be a good analyst:

1. Provide accurate and complete information. You have to go to an extra length to get it done. Most of the time you will stand alone against everybody else. If you are not competent about what you know, you cannot possibly take conviction positions when things go into free fall and everybody else is laughing at you.

2. Most money is not made in stocks from the examples. They do not provide out-sized returns. You can do the Tweedy Brown/Graham or the Buffett/Munger school. Your returns will come from a handful of stocks. You need tremendous insight by continuous intense curiosity and study.

Investment Mistakes

-Most mistakes come from inaccurate or incomplete information.
-Biggest mistake: most people wanted 2 week or monthly returns. They wanted to go up in down markets.
-Lu’s biggest mistake was straying, was working with Julian Robertson, started shorting — have to think like a trader when you are shorting because your downside can be unlimited. It’s like Charlie Munger says — having your hands tied behind your back while getting into a fight.
-Missed the opportunity to buy a business below cash, even though Lu knew the management and had great insights. The business subsequently went up 50-100x. Could not bring himself to buy it because of his mindset at the time.
-You make a mistake when you have not finished your work but like it enough. You start betting on probabilities instead of real analysis.

Constantly search for ideas

-In your life, you may only have 5-10 key moments of insight. You only get it from continuous learning. Find an American business and then find the Asian counterpart. Some businesses studied for 15 years. You need to know what that business is, how it ticks, so you can swing with conviction. If you cannot do that you will not make huge out-sized returns.
-If you do what Ben Graham or Tweedy Brown does, you will make 15-20% returns but you wont make the huge returns of Buffett.
-The biggest ideas can give 10,000x returns.
-Opportunities are not easy to find. They require a lot of factors to come together – Charlie Munger’s lollapalooza. You need a whole bunch of things working together where you have the insight and are willing to bet.
-This is what drives Lu in business.
-Lu started in physics, mathematics, law, economics, got interested in other subjects. Wife has a PhD in biology, he has learned a lot from her.
-Learn from everything, be intensely curious
-Eventually you will stumble into one big opportunity.
-In the meantime, you will stumble into Timberland style investments which aren’t bad.
-There might be years without opportunities, then years with a lot of opportunities.
-Depends on what becomes available to you.
-They do not come in a steady pace, not like once a week an idea.
-In 6 years, Lu had maybe 3-4 great ideas. But you get progressively better and better, improving the amount of opportunities for you since you will be quicker at your analysis.
-Go through every day by learning something. In a year you have to learn a great deal.
-When Lu reads biology, physics, history, it is all searching for ideas. If one idea jumps out, it is all Lu does. Rest of the time is spent with wife and kids and Lu learns from them too, especially with seeing how human cognition develops which is enormously important.

Li Lu’s Investing Checklist:

1. Is that cheap?
2. Is it a good business?
2. Who is running it?
3. What did I miss?

-Lu goes through the checklist, ‘what did I miss’ is greatly affected by psychology. This kind of cognition happens early on and Lu learns it from interacting with his girls.

Three characteristics of a value investor:

1. Business owner mentality
2. Difference in time horizon
3. Demand a huge margin of safety

Think like a Business Owner

-It all comes from one thing, that you are a business owner. You cannot force management changes, so you demand a margin of safety. You have a long time horizon because you think like an owner.
-But why dabble with stock market? Stock markets are made for people who can dream. That is why 95% of people never buy into value investing. Human nature prevents it.
-You do not belong to the stock market but you have to understand its perspective to position yourself properly. If you are truly think like a business owner, you will eventually leave the asset management business and run a real company. That is why Buffett and Munger left it.
-Or you become a private equity investor.
-The people who the stock market is designed for are fundamentally flawed people. Traders are bound to make mistakes due to fear or greed. They will always make room for value investors.
-Used to be strict about selling with great business. Now, sometimes Lu feels he has insights about the business that allows him to believe the probabilities are in his favor for the business actually improving year after year.
-That is the law of distribution in good businesses. The leaders perform spectacularly well.
-Selling makes you pay a huge amount of tax and you might not get that good buying price again.
-If a business can generate 50-100% ROIC, the mathematics get interesting very quickly.
-Caveat: you have to be very confident. Investment bankers use BS and project into infinity. You cannot project that long. There are only a few opportunities where you can project that long.
-If you are good, and spend your entire lifetime studying, across 50 year career maybe 5-10 opportunities where you can confidently project the next 10-20 years. At that point, you don’t want to sell. By holding you don’t pay the tax on capital gains, so you are really compounding 40% interest free, the business is deploying the capital at 40-100% a year in a tax efficient manner. That is what you do.
-You have to identify businesses that are getting stronger and stronger every year.
-What makes one business more successful than others? Why are they making more and more money compared to others?
-The only way you can find that is by studying the ones that are established.
-Look for great businesses, not just businesses owned by Warren Buffett

Example of a great business: Bloomberg LP

-Product was superior to others, high switching costs
-Bloomberg is a fabulous case study, it came out of no where.
-Gained market share little by little, crossed a milestone point, became a monopoly
-At a certain point, after being highly relied upon for daily work, the switching costs become to high so winner takes all.
-Suppose you have an opportunity to see how an industry evolves early on. At a certain point they cross the line
-Maybe when introduced to all businesses. There is a time when that line gets crossed and a public company is poised to benefit by becoming a monopoly business.
-Why did Microsoft succeed over Apple? Little by little they eroded Apple’s 100% market share.
-Offices were using Windows. Today – do you have a choice of not using Bloomberg?
-Bloomberg visits almost every month and asks what you do, how you use the system. Bloomberg terminals have tens of thousands of functions, they don’t give you a manual
-They want you visually hooked so it is a behavioral connection and you don’t mind paying tens of thousands of years where you don’t have a choice if they raise prices
-They keep coming back to you because they know you are a trader and want to provide you with more services so you are hooked.
-That is why Bloomberg is a fabulous business because you get hooked. Think about switching from that or a competitor coming up with a rival product. How do you compete with that?
-Lu doesn’t know. Suppose you know the inflexion point. Do you want to invest? Lu would invest in Bloomberg at that point.
-You need insight. Study every business. They all have more or less this type of dynamic.
-Your job as a good financial analyst is to study that business ALL THE TIME. Observe those trends.
-Once in your life, maybe you will find that opportunity.
-Why doesn’t Bloomberg want to sell? He doesn’t need to sell.
-When you have a business like that, you don’t need to sell.
-Lu has made many private investments, ex: CapitalIQ, which copies Bloomberg’s business model. Same method with an investment in an engineering service.
-Lu likes to know as much as he can. He likes to be friends with people, with Timberland, the CEO and his son actually became investors in Lu’s fund.
-You can learn and observe from everyday business decisions and learn dynamics.
-Nothing is constant. Everything is changing that is why you have to keep learning.
-Businesses change, Microsoft has threats now.
-You need an active mind, so you are prepared to act and you can seize opportunity due to your insights.

I woke up at 7AM yesterday to have a chance to read Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway 2009 letter to shareholders (PDF). This year’s letter did not disappoint. I would like to highlight a few key ideas from the letter.

Intrinsic Value

At the beginning of each letter, you will see a table of how Berkshire Hathaway’s growth in book value fared versus the S&P 500′s. Now, as Buffett states below, book value does not precisely peg intrinsic value but it comes close:

The ideal standard for measuring our yearly progress would be the change in Berkshire’s per-share intrinsic value. Alas, that value cannot be calculated with anything close to precision, so we instead use a crude proxy for it: per-share book value. Relying on this yardstick has its shortcomings, which we discuss on pages 92 and 93. Additionally, book value at most companies understates intrinsic value, and that is certainly the case at Berkshire. In aggregate, our businesses are worth considerably more than the values at which they are carried on our books. In our all-important insurance business, moreover, the difference is huge. Even so, Charlie and I believe that our book value – understated though it is – supplies the most useful tracking device for changes in intrinsic value. By this measurement, as the opening paragraph of this letter states, our book value since the start of fiscal 1965 has grown at a rate of 20.3% compounded annually.

Whitney Tilson takes a different approach for figuring out the company’s intrinsic value: you take the company’s per share investments and add them to pretax earnings per share with a multiple attached. This is closer to what Warren Buffett has recommended for pegging Berkshire’s intrinsic value, but it is also more difficult to determine. For most people, the book value approach should be sufficient enough.

Float

Most people don’t understand float, but it is probably the key factor in Berkshire Hathaway’s growth over the last 40 years. Let’s say you are a value investor and you manage to take control of a company. In general, your opportunities range from reinvesting in the business you have acquired, to looking at outside opportunities. These can be acquisitions of other businesses or simple investments in securities. Normally, such investments must be paid for using free cash flow or debt. But if you were to acquire an insurance company, you would have one more weapon in your arsenal, float:

Insurers receive premiums upfront and pay claims later. In extreme cases, such as those arising from certain workers’ compensation accidents, payments can stretch over decades. This collect-now, pay-later model leaves us holding large sums – money we call “float” – that will eventually go to others. Meanwhile, we get to invest this float for Berkshire’s benefit. Though individual policies and claims come and go, the amount of float we hold remains remarkably stable in relation to premium volume. Consequently, as our business grows, so does our float.

If premiums exceed the total of expenses and eventual losses, we register an underwriting profit that adds to the investment income produced from the float. This combination allows us to enjoy the use of free money – and, better yet, get paid for holding it. Alas, the hope of this happy result attracts intense competition, so vigorous in most years as to cause the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss. This loss, in effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. Usually this cost is fairly low, but in some catastrophe-ridden years the cost from underwriting losses more than eats up the income derived from use of float…

Our float has grown from $16 million in 1967, when we entered the business, to $62 billion at the end of 2009. Moreover, we have now operated at an underwriting profit for seven consecutive years. I believe it likely that we will continue to underwrite profitably in most – though certainly not all – future years. If we do so, our float will be cost-free, much as if someone deposited $62 billion with us that we could invest for our own benefit without the payment of interest.

Let me emphasize again that cost-free float is not a result to be expected for the P/C industry as a whole: In most years, premiums have been inadequate to cover claims plus expenses. Consequently, the industry’s overall return on tangible equity has for many decades fallen far short of that achieved by the S&P 500. Outstanding economics exist at Berkshire only because we have some outstanding managers running some unusual businesses. Our insurance CEOs deserve your thanks, having added many billions of dollars to Berkshire’s value. It’s a pleasure for me to tell you about these all-stars.

Bolded for emphasis. The $16M to $62B figure is absolutely amazing and speaks to the power of a disciplined insurance operation. Not to detract from the 2009 letter, but I think the following discussion on National Indemnity from the 2004 is quite insightful here. Indeed, in Buffett’s 2004 letter, he said that without the acquisition of National Indemnity, Berkshire would be nowhere close to its size today:

So, you may ask, how do Berkshire’s insurance operations overcome the dismal economics of the industry and achieve some measure of enduring competitive advantage? We’ve attacked that problem in several ways. Let’s look first at NICO’s strategy.

When we purchased the company – a specialist in commercial auto and general liability insurance – it did not appear to have any attributes that would overcome the industry’s chronic troubles. It was not well-known, had no informational advantage (the company has never had an actuary), was not a low-cost operator, and sold through general agents, a method many people thought outdated. Nevertheless, for almost all of the past 38 years, NICO has been a star performer. Indeed, had we not made this acquisition, Berkshire would be lucky to be worth half of what it is today.

What we’ve had going for us is a managerial mindset that most insurers find impossible to replicate. Take a look at the facing page. Can you imagine any public company embracing a business model that would lead to the decline in revenue that we experienced from 1986 through 1999? That colossal slide, it should be emphasized, did not occur because business was unobtainable. Many billions of premium dollars were readily available to NICO had we only been willing to cut prices. But we instead consistently priced to make a profit, not to match our most optimistic competitor. We never left customers – but they left us.

Many insurance companies end up chasing premiums without adequate risk management and blow up. They never have the time to really endure and grow, the way that Berkshire has done with National Indemnity and its other operations. Now, back to the 2009 letter.

Buffett uses the rest of the insurance section of the letter to praise Ajit Jain’s activities at Berkshire Reinsurance and mentions that GEICO has gone from the country’s 6th largest auto insurer to the third largest in just 15 years. One of the best things about Buffett is he always owns up to his mistakes. It seems as if a foray into the credit card business did not work out so well for GEICO:

And now a painful confession: Last year your chairman closed the book on a very expensive business fiasco entirely of his own making.

For many years I had struggled to think of side products that we could offer our millions of loyal GEICO customers. Unfortunately, I finally succeeded, coming up with a brilliant insight that we should market our own credit card. I reasoned that GEICO policyholders were likely to be good credit risks and, assuming we offered an attractive card, would likely favor us with their business. We got business all right – but of the wrong type.

Our pre-tax losses from credit-card operations came to about $6.3 million before I finally woke up. We then sold our $98 million portfolio of troubled receivables for 55¢ on the dollar, losing an additional $44 million.

GEICO’s managers, it should be emphasized, were never enthusiastic about my idea. They warned me that instead of getting the cream of GEICO’s customers we would get the – – – – – well, let’s call it the non-cream. I subtly indicated that I was older and wiser.

I was just older.

That kind of honesty is unparalleled in shareholder letters, which usually read more like corporate propaganda than honest assessments of the business.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe

(Flickr: SP8254)

The regulated utilities section of the letter provides some insights on why the Buffett chose to acquire Burlington Northern. I think that for the most part, guys like Bruce Berkowitz were right in their assessment on Burlington Northern:

CONSUELO MACK: Let me ask you about the Burlington Northern acquisition, the largest acquisition that Berkshire Hathaway has ever made. The Wall Street Journal coverage of it saidWarren Buffett is turning Berkshire Hathaway into a big industrial operator and it’s no longer thenimble investment firm that it was once. What’s your view of what Warren is doing in buying thesebig industrial companies?

BRUCE BERKOWITZ: Berkshire has a tremendous amount of flow from the premiums received from long-term insurance policies. That flow has to be invested in very secure, sound financial instruments such as: electric utilities cost plus or a railroad business which has the stability unlikemany businesses. So here he’s taking money that’s actually got a zero cost to it and then investing itat a reasonable, not at an egregious yield, but at a reasonable investment yield. But when the cost iszero, the returns are phenomenal. He’s brilliant. Warren Buffett is being Warren Buffett in that he’smarried another great big business to Berkshire Hathaway that’s going to make a sizeable difference overtime

Buffett believes that BNSF should be looked at as a utility as well:

Our BNSF operation, it should be noted, has certain important economic characteristics that resemble those of our electric utilities. In both cases we provide fundamental services that are, and will remain, essential to the economic well-being of our customers, the communities we serve, and indeed the nation. Both will require heavy investment that greatly exceeds depreciation allowances for decades to come. Both must also plan far ahead to satisfy demand that is expected to outstrip the needs of the past. Finally, both require wise regulators who will provide certainty about allowable returns so that we can confidently make the huge investments required to maintain, replace and expand the plant…

In the future, BNSF results will be included in this “regulated utility” section. Aside from the two businesses having similar underlying economic characteristics, both are logical users of substantial amounts of debt that is not guaranteed by Berkshire. Both will retain most of their earnings. Both will earn and invest large sums in good times or bad, though the railroad will display the greater cyclicality. Overall, we expect this regulated sector to deliver significantly increased earnings over time, albeit at the cost of our investing many tens – yes, tens – of billions of dollars of incremental equity capital.

Buffett does not say explicitly what he thinks the returns on invested capital will be for the railroad business but that it should increase over time. Burlington Northern should definitely have the kind of pricing power it needs to ward off the frictional forces of inflation, should regulators act properly.

NetJets

(Course Correction: NetJets)

When David Sokol took the reigns at NetJets, I think people looked at the situation in two ways. 1. This would be a test for Sokol, to see if he has what it takes to be the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. 2. Berkshire’s businesses aren’t infallible and may need guidance from time to time. Here is what Buffett said of the situation:

We tend to let our many subsidiaries operate on their own, without our supervising and monitoring them to any degree. That means we are sometimes late in spotting management problems and that both operating and capital decisions are occasionally made with which Charlie and I would have disagreed had we been consulted…

The major problem for Berkshire last year was NetJets, an aviation operation that offers fractional ownership of jets. Over the years, it has been enormously successful in establishing itself as the premier company in its industry, with the value of its fleet far exceeding that of its three major competitors combined. Overall, our dominance in the field remains unchallenged.

NetJets’ business operation, however, has been another story. In the eleven years that we have owned the company, it has recorded an aggregate pre-tax loss of $157 million. Moreover, the company’s debt has soared from $102 million at the time of purchase to $1.9 billion in April of last year. Without Berkshire’s guarantee of this debt, NetJets would have been out of business. It’s clear that I failed you in letting NetJets descend into this condition. But, luckily, I have been bailed out.

Dave Sokol, the enormously talented builder and operator of MidAmerican Energy, became CEO of NetJets in August. His leadership has been transforming: Debt has already been reduced to $1.4 billion, and, after suffering a staggering loss of $711 million in 2009, the company is now solidly profitable.

Most important, none of the changes wrought by Dave have in any way undercut the top-of-the-line standards for safety and service that Rich Santulli, NetJets’ previous CEO and the father of the fractional- ownership industry, insisted upon.

With the debt reduced to $1.4B and the company profitable, David Sokol looks as if he has passed the test. Sokol has gradually had the opportunity to get more face time with the media. We saw this with his activities at NetJets and the investment in BYD. I think he is poised to be the right operations guy at Berkshire, with Ajit Jain handling the insurance operations and the still unnamed CIO handling investments.

Financial Products and Derivatives

On occasion, Buffett has criticized the government’s lending policies with good reason. Berkshire is unable to get the kinds of lending rates that TARP recipients received in the past, which put the company at a decided disadvantage when it came to bidding on parts of companies such as AIG. But in this year’s letter, Buffett sheds light on another problem:

The residential mortgage market is shaped by government rules that are expressed by FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Their lending standards are all-powerful because the mortgages they insure can typically be securitized and turned into what, in effect, is an obligation of the U.S. government. Currently buyers of conventional site-built homes who qualify for these guarantees can obtain a 30-year loan at about 51⁄4%. In addition, these are mortgages that have recently been purchased in massive amounts by the Federal Reserve, an action that also helped to keep rates at bargain-basement levels.

In contrast, very few factory-built homes qualify for agency-insured mortgages. Therefore, a meritorious buyer of a factory-built home must pay about 9% on his loan. For the all-cash buyer, Clayton’s homes offer terrific value. If the buyer needs mortgage financing, however – and, of course, most buyers do – the difference in financing costs too often negates the attractive price of a factory-built home…

Our product is first-class, inexpensive and constantly being improved. Moreover, we will continue to use Berkshire’s credit to support Clayton’s mortgage program, convinced as we are of its soundness. Even so, Berkshire can’t borrow at a rate approaching that available to government agencies. This handicap will limit sales, hurting both Clayton and a multitude of worthy families who long for a low-cost home.

These kinds of double standards hurt buyers of Clayton’s homes, especially considering that Clayton’s buyers are not speculators. Most are simply people looking to buy a home and live in it. They aren’t the gluttonous home flippers that helped fuel the excess supply in the housing market.

One of the problems with the media and Warren Buffett is that they often try to over simplify what he says, boiling things down into sound bytes that don’t give the full picture. This is definitely the case with derivatives.

A number of commentators have criticized Buffett for investing in derivatives contracts after calling derivatives weapons of mass destruction. The thing is, Buffett was criticizing how most financial institutions were using derivatives. For the most part, companies like AIG were writing billions upon billions of dollars worth of CDS contracts using faulty math behind defaults. They were totally unrealistic. We see now that Greece tried to use contracts to fudge their budgetary accounting and make their deficits appear artificially lower. These kinds of uses of derivatives are pretty stupid and can cause the mass destruction that Buffett described. Actually, if you look at AIG and the state of Greece, you could argue that they have already caused that destruction.

The Berkshire approach to derivatives is different. For the most part, Buffett looks at these like he does insurance. He is trying to find mispricings where the risk is limited and the duration from now till when money must be exchanged is sufficiently long enough to earn enough from the float to limit any kind of damage that would occur if Berkshire is on the losing side of these contracts:

We have long invested in derivatives contracts that Charlie and I think are mispriced, just as we try to invest in mispriced stocks and bonds. Indeed, we first reported to you that we held such contracts in early 1998. The dangers that derivatives pose for both participants and society – dangers of which we’ve long warned, and that can be dynamite – arise when these contracts lead to leverage and/or counterparty risk that is extreme. At Berkshire nothing like that has occurred – nor will it.

It’s my job to keep Berkshire far away from such problems. Charlie and I believe that a CEO must not delegate risk control. It’s simply too important. At Berkshire, I both initiate and monitor every derivatives contract on our books, with the exception of operations-related contracts at a few of our subsidiaries, such as MidAmerican, and the minor runoff contracts at General Re. If Berkshire ever gets in trouble, it will be my fault. It will not be because of misjudgments made by a Risk Committee or Chief Risk Officer.

Most people incorrectly assume that value investing means just investing in well run large cap stocks. It doesn’t. Value investing is buying a dollar for 50 cents. Where that dollar exists should not matter. A good investor should be willing to travel across asset classes in search of these bargains, and that is what great investors like Seth Klarman, Prem Watsa, and Warren Buffett have done in the past.

The entire letter is worth reading, especially for getting a more detailed insight into some of Berkshire Hathaway’s lesser known subsidiaries and overall performance for 2009.

Atul Gawande has a new book called the Checklist Manifesto. Obviously, the book is about checklists and Gawande analyzes their use with in a multidisciplinary manner. He looks at checklists and how they are used by individuals in various occupations where he finds that using them yields successful results. I have not read the book yet, but it looks good and hope to do so soon.

One of my most popular posts dealt with the use of checklists and how they could be adapted for use by value investors. I first wrote about the possible use back in July 2008 after reading Atul Gawande’s article on the same subject with this post. Since then Gawande’s work has made it onto Gurufocus and used by the likes of Mohnish Pabrai:

Gawande tells the story of Mohnish Pabrai, an investment manager in Irvine, California, who may be best known for paying $650,100 along with a friend to eat lunch with the billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Pabrai says many types of investing mistakes — even some made by Buffett — can be avoided by using written checklists.

Lists help Pabrai analyze potential investments more efficiently, Gawande writes. He says Pabrai’s investments more than doubled in a year after he developed checklists to prevent about 70 kinds of errors, such as failing to look for effects tied to boom or bust cycles.

Buffett’s Lunch Date, Surgeons Improve Results With Checklists (Bloomberg)

Checklists have in one way or another been popular among value investors for a long time. Pabrai often cites Charlie Munger’s work in the area and Walter Schloss is said to have used the same kinds of checklist criteria used at the Graham-Newmann partnership when he went off on his own to start his own investment partnership.

To get an idea for how the checklist is applied in disciplines outside of medicine, try looking at these examples from Gawande’s interview with Charlie Rose:

CHARLIE ROSE: You told me that story. Tell me about the B-17 story,
about the checklist.

ATUL GAWANDE: Well, this was part of what I get to think about by being this mixed role. I had a project for the World Health Organization where they asked me to lead a team trying to come up with ways to reduce deaths in surgery.

And what we looked to is we weren’t finding answers in our part of the world, so we looked to the aviation world. And there was a moment where aviation changed. There was a request by the army for a new long-range bomber in 1935, and Boeing came up with a plan to put four engines on the plane.

This was a massive breakthrough. That plane could fly higher, farther, faster. It was clearly the answer for the military. They did a test run, they actually had a flight competition, and the plane crashed, killing the crew onboard.

And the investigation showed nothing wrong mechanically with the plane. The pilot had forgotten to release the elevator controls, and so the plane could climb and climb but couldn’t level out, and so it just lost air and crashed to the ground.

And the reason he forgot was that putting four engines on the plane increased the complexity of how many things he had to remember so much that the army deemed it too much airplane for one man to fly.

What did they do to try to solve that problem? When Boeing built the first production models and the pilot said “I think we can fly this,” they did not make a three-year specialty fellowship in flying the B-17 airplane. They did not throw more and more technology into it.

They just made a checklist. A, before takeoff a few checks on one page, and following those basic checks they were able to fly that plane over almost two million miles without a single mishap and ended up having 13,000 of these planes in World War II. It was the backbone of our air superiority.

And what I realized following that story was that not only in surgery but all across medicine, we’ve hit our B-17 moment. Medicine has become more complex than one person can remember for themselves, too much airplane for one person to fly.

CHARLIE ROSE: Go ahead. So who writes the checklist?

ATUL GAWANDE: So what it almost has to be that the people at the front line write their own checklist.

But what we had to do, we had to learn from Boeing, who has tons of experience on how to do this, how to make a good checklist instead of a bad checklist. Make a way that you are not distracting people, not making it so long that it’s impossible to deal with.

And so they showed us. We ended up following their rules and conducted a two-minute checklist for operating rooms that when we implemented it in eight hospitals, just asking teams to follow this checklist every time, it reduced deaths 46 percent.

CHARLIE ROSE: Forty-six percent?

ATUL GAWANDE: Forty-six percent.

CHARLIE ROSE: Reduced death in the operating room?

ATUL GAWANDE: In 8,000 patients.

I implemented it in my operating room not because I thought we needed it in my hospital. At the Brigham and Women’s hospital we know what we’re doing. I didn’t want to be a hypocrite because I was asking these other hospitals to implement it.

And then, to my surprise, I have not gotten through a week where it has not caught problems that we would have missed.

CHARLIE ROSE: Doesn’t that say something about how many people might have been killed because there was no checklist if these numbers are as astounding as they are? You haven’t gone a week in which you didn’t find you missed something or would have missed something?

ATUL GAWANDE: Not that it would have killed people, but it would have harmed them.

And the striking this is we haven’t taken these lessons elsewhere. I got a note from a patient who — it was just heartrending. He had an merge spleenectomy. And when you lose your spleen, there’s certain vaccines you’re supposed to get. But we forgot to give the vaccines, meaning my profession, we surgeons.

CHARLIE ROSE: He lost his spleen, and if you lose your spleen, you have to have vaccines, and somebody forgot that?

ATUL GAWANDE: Right. And so the result was instead of getting this pneumococcal vaccine he got this infection which you need a spleen to fight off. He ended up losing nearly all of his fingers and toes from a completely preventable problem.

And I’ve seen in my own hospital that we’ve forgotten this kind of a vaccine. We’ve seen these kinds of steps across the board, and we missed them because we think using a checklist is a sign of weakness. Experts don’t need checklists. You become an expert so you don’t have to have a checklist.

But when complexity has exceeded the capability of our brains to handle it, it’s actually more important than technology and more important than any of the things that we fall back on. It’s this very simple, mundane thing.

CHARLIE ROSE: How is it applicable to other areas beyond a surgeon?

ATUL GAWANDE: The fascinating thing to me and the reason — I never imagined I’d write a book about checklists.

CHARLIE ROSE: And look at this little check here.

ATUL GAWANDE: I know.

The profound thing that I found was that as I looked for ideas outside of medicine to apply in medicine, I ran into people in multiple lines of work, whether it’s the skyscraper world or investment world or teaching, who are struggling with the fact that we’ve gone from a world where our main problem was ignorance, we didn’t know what to do, to a world where now we actually have a lot of knowledge, but it’s so voluminous and so complex you can’t keep up with it anymore.

And people are struggling with understanding how do I make sure I do he right thing at the right time the right place. In pockets of areas, people have started applying the checklist, a handful of people in the investment world, a handful of people in restaurants and places like that.

CHARLIE ROSE: A checklist in a restaurant, how would that work?

ATUL GAWANDE: I spent a day in a gourmet kitchen with Jody Adams, a chef in Boston who runs a fabulous restaurant. And I was there because I wanted to see how people really make the art of cooking work when you have to do it for 150 people a night.

And the answer to my surprise was that even for a gourmet chef, you’d think she would carry it in her head. She has a checklist called as recipe that she follows, even the 300th time she’s making a lobster dish, because she says “That’s the moment when I forget to add that crucial spice or ingredient.”

And to make that kitchen run like a symphony with all of its specialists — it’s grill cook, it’s baker, and so on — they have a check in process to make sure that nothing goes in or out, including a little check before the dish goes out the door where the souse chef looks at it before it leaves.

Charlie Rose interviews Atul Gawande (transcript)

You should understand that in each case from the above, the checklist was used to prevent a disastrous outcome. For Boeing a crashed plane, a death in the operating room, or a bad dish produced by Jody Adams’ kitchen. In every case the checklist is strictly adhered to so that mistakes are not made. I think that if you choose to adopt a checklist in your investing process, you need to strictly adhere to it. If not, you will only be giving yourself a false sense of safety.

For an investor, here are some places where I could see checklists work:

1. The net-net hunter: you could easily formulate a list of rules to look for before investing in a net-net. Some of these could be picking a satisfactory discount to net current asset value (current assets – total liabilities), checking inventory levels and what that inventory actually consists of, the burn rate of cash, management’s view on capital allocation, including PP&E that can be easily liquidated, and any other long term assets that would be attractive to buyers.

2. The bank investor: before looking at a bank you really need to give them a quick look over quantitatively. Most of the mistakes I see by people investing in banks is that they fall in love with the story and qualitative factors without rigorously analyzing the bank on the quantitative side. I like to see banks that are well-capitalized, have loan portfolios that are light in commercial real estate, feature diverse income streams, appear to be working through their credit problems, and are putting the excess capital to work by either pursuing buybacks or dividends.

3. The Memento Mori list: when Roman commanders returned from battle, they often had slaves whispering “memento mori” into their ears or, “you are only mortal.” You end up picking up a lot of knowledge about companies, industries, and accounting details over the course of your investing career, particularly by learning from your failures. I saw during the crisis that many engineering contracting firms appeared to be trading at close to the value of their cash. But what happened was as the crisis intensified, contracts were canceled and the cash that was recorded from those contracts vanished from the balance sheet. That would be something to look out for when analyzing similar companies, some investors like Joel Greenblatt actually advocate discounting cash up front. Another lesson that is applicable today is the fact that banks are capable of writing down the value of assets. A lot of investors thought they were getting Bank XYZ at 1/2 book value during the crisis, when in the next quarter book value would drop in response to asset write downs. You could add more to this list, given areas where you failed.

Most investment failures stem from A. buying a business above its intrinsic value, B. misjudging the company’s management, or C. investing in a business where the long term economics were worse than expected. Those are what you would want to be making a checklist to protect against. These are just some checklists that I have thought about, but if you have your own, feel free to use the comments section and share.

(from one of my favorite films: Searching for Bobby Fischer)

In 2009, Charlie Munger recommended Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers which studiers outliers throughout history and discipline to find commonalities. One of the ideas professed by Gladwell is a 10,000 hour rule, where if you want to master something you must practice it for at least 10,000 hours. Gladwell uses the Beatles as evidence of this rule, pointing out that their time in Germany was spent constantly performing live which helped them gain the mastery needed to become great musicians when playing concerts and on TV.

The folks over at Study Hacks find that in chess, to become a grandmaster, you do not just need to spend 10,000 hours practicing chess. You must also spend those hours doing the right kind of work or deliberate practice.

1. It’s designed to improve performance. “The essence of deliberate practice is continually stretching an individual just beyond his or her current abilities. That may sound obvious, but most of us don’t do it in the activities we think of as practice.”

2. It’s repeated a lot. “High repetition is the most important difference between deliberate practice of a task and performing the task for real, when it counts.”

3. Feedback on results is continuously available. “You may think that your rehearsal of a job interview was flawless, but your opinion isn’t what counts.”

4. It’s highly demanding mentally. “Deliberate practice is above all an effort of focus and concentration. That is what makes it ‘deliberate,’ as distinct from the mindless playing of scales or hitting of tennis balls that most people engage in.”

5. It’s hard. “Doing things we know how to do well is enjoyable, and that’s exactly the opposite of what deliberate practice demands.”

6. It requires (good) goals. “The best performers set goals that are not about the outcome but rather about the process of reaching the outcome.”

If you’re in a field that has clear rules and objective measures of success — like playing chess, golf, or the violin — you can’t escape thousands of hours of DP if you want to be a star. But what if you’re in a field without these clear structures, such as knowledge work, writing, or growing a student club?

…It seems, then, that if you integrate any amount of DP into your regular schedule, you’ll be able to punch through the acceptable-level plateau holding back your peers. And breaking through this plateau is exactly what is required to train an ability that’s both rare and valuable (which, as I’ve argued, is the key to building a remarkable life).

This motivates a crucial question: What does DP look like for fields that don’t have a tradition of performance-optimization, such as knowledge work, freelance writing, entrepreneurship, or, of course, college?

The Grandmaster in the Corner Office: What the Study of Chess Experts Teaches Us about Building a Remarkable Life (Study Hacks)

For any investor seeking to become better, deliberate practice is essential. The key is figuring out what deliberate practice should consist of in investing. Most of us read newspapers and blogs daily. This helps keep up to date with what is going on in the world. But is that enough? I am not too sure.

I think that taking a more active approach with news reading would be helpful. Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about how David Tepper bought Bank of America stock at its low. A good exercise would be to actually sit around and try to reverse engineer that investment. Eddie Lampert has said that in college he reverse engineered many of Warren Buffett’s investment. This kind of activity would not only increase your understanding of investing but also build a model for you to look at if you ever find a similar investment.

Other investors strive to read one 10K a day. This can help build your circle of competence, but I believe it has some shortcomings. A more targeted approach with 10Ks will be more beneficial than simply jumping from reading about Exxon to reading about Bank of America. You should define goals where you are mastering knowledge of a specific industry or area of the market.

Maybe you want to learn the billboard/outdoor advertising business. Instead of looking at just Lamar Advertising (NASDAQ:LAMR) you would look at Clear Channel Outdoors (NYSE:CCO) as well. If you want to master restaurants, you would maybe start at a fast food company like McDonalds (NYSE:MCD) which is the best in its class. Then seek out Chipotle (reputed to have the best economics in the fast food business) and branch out so that you build familiarity with the industry which will help you evaluate lesser known companies like Steak N Shake (NYSE:SNS).

Feel free to use the comments or e-mail me with suggestions for implementing deliberate practice in investing.