From 1990 to 2004 China’s economy grew at a rate of more than 9% annually, while Brazil’s grew at about 1.3%. If you knew that in advance, in which country would you invest. China? Wrong! China’s stock market delivered an annual rate of return of almost -10%, yes, minus¸ while Brazil’s delivered more than 14% annually. How can that happen when China’s economy more than doubled during that period while Brazil's barely grew? Questions like these are addressed in Jeremy Siegel’s new book The Future for Investors : Why the Tried and the True Triumph Over the Bold and the New, which addresses what he calls the “Growth Trap”, a phenomenon that value investors have known and talked about for decades. The Growth Trap is the tendency of investors to overpay for growth stocks/countries to the point where they price in so much growth potential, that the companies can never over-deliver, and those stocks end up underperforming the market. The same applies to IPOs, which underperform the general market by a huge margin. On the other hand, “boring” firms that grow at a slower pace that the “hot” sectors/stocks go on sale many times and this causes their total returns to outstrip both the broader market and growth stocks. Siegel summarises his theory in a simple principle which he calls “The Basic Principle of Investor Returns” that states that returns on investment capital is a function of actual growth relative to expected growth, not of growth alone. The following BusinessWeek article talks about the subject and the book.
6 Comments:
At 8:53 AM , Hosam said...
Y?es that all sounds very reasonable, Aziz, but I just met a guy who made 600% profit since the beginning of the year in the Saudi market.
At 7:19 PM , Abdulaziz Alnaim said...
Well that's true, but it doesn't matter what you've made if you end up losing it afterwards. The people who invested in internet stocks in the late '90s made many times their money initially, and ended up losing their shirts after the market collapsed. It is easy to say that one will get out before the market collapses, but it's like "music chairs", when the music stops there are only so many chairs. When everyone rushes out of the market, there are usually very few buyers and we must remember that for every seller you need a buyer. Markets ALWAYS dry up in a panic or in a big market decline, and to get out you might need to sell at a fraction of the earlier price, if you're lucky to find a buyer (even at the low price). Bottom line is, you can't time the market and get in and get out in time, no one ever did it consistently and no one ever will. The key is investing for the long-run, say 3-5 years or more, because only then can you make rational decision about where a stock is going, anything shorter than that is basically a gamble. One must also remember that bubbles go on much longer than anyone expects, but they do eventually pop, so it’s a matter of when, not if. Playing a dangerous game is, well, dangerous, and having done well in the past doesn’t mean that it’s the right game to play. If you win at roulette, it doesn’t mean you’ll continue to win, nor does it mean that playing it was a good idea! It was a gamble and the odds were against you, so playing with the odds against you is always stupid. If you end up winning, good, take the money and run, but don’t continue playing. In Russian roulette if you pull the trigger and nothing happens, would any rational person draw a conclusion that playing the game was smart or rational? Basically, when you invest in a bubble, you’re investing with the odds against you (extremely so sometimes), you can take the risk if you want, but it’s a stupid risk to take because the probability-adjusted return is negative, you can beat the odds for some time, but as any student of probability 101 will tell you: the mathematical probability will eventually prevail, it is a matter of time!
PS. I’ve been bearish on the Saudi market since 2003, and so far I’ve looked nothing but stupid, but I am still confident that I am correct, and time will tell. I hate to make predictions, but just for fun, I’ll bet that by 2009-2010 the Saudi Stock Index will be no higher than it is today (I actually believe it will be lower). Of course something great might happen to the Saudi economy from now until then and prove me wrong, but from what I see now, I think it’s unlikely. Note that by “Saudi Stock Index” I mean the stock index with its current weights, i.e. the companies in existence today and listen on the Saudi market, I’m not responsible for new companies that might come in later on between now and then (again, I don’t think it will make a difference, but I’m just adjusting my odds :-))
At 3:23 AM , Hosam said...
Okay, okay I'm convinced. You didn't have to shower me with metaphors like that :p
Keep up the good work.
At 8:39 AM , Abdulaziz Alnaim said...
Loool, I just discovered I’ve used a billion metaphors in that comment :-)
At 4:37 AM , Hosam said...
So does what you say apply to the mutual funds like Al-Raed, etc.?
At 8:48 AM , Abdulaziz Alnaim said...
Well mutual funds are nothing but a way of pooling investment funds, true a good manager can be a positive, but in this case a good manager would keep 100% of the funds in cash, something i'm pretty sure he doesnt want to do(it's always a "he" in Saudi) and something the bank won't allow anyway. So unless you're buying a globally-diversified fund (available at all major banks), I would bail out. As a principle, if you're not actively-managing your investment (full time) I suggest you buy a basket of mutual funds that invest in global markets (a low-cost index fund is even better, but none are available in Saudi). I'd spread my money all around the globe and across asset classes (cash deposits, bonds if avaiable, and stocks) and i'd re-balance annually.
Post a Comment
<< Home