ConsultantsOP - ConseillersOP
Regálame un clic. GRACIAS
martes, julio 30, 2024
viernes, julio 26, 2024
el mayor estudio sobre la renta básica universal
lunes, junio 24, 2024
Por qué los equipos diversos son más inteligentes
Esforzarse por aumentar la diversidad en el lugar de trabajo no es un eslogan vacío, es una buena decisión empresarial. Un McKinsey de 2015 informe en 366 empresas públicas descubrió que las que estaban en el cuartil superior de diversidad étnica y racial en la dirección tenían un 35% más de probabilidades de obtener una rentabilidad financiera por encima de la media de su sector, y las que estaban en el cuartil superior de diversidad de género tenían un 15% más de probabilidades de obtener rentabilidades por encima de la media del sector.
Se centran más en los hechos
Procesan esos hechos con más cuidado
También son más innovadores
DR
En un mundo análisis de las 2.400 empresas dirigidas por Credit Suisse, las organizaciones con al menos una mujer miembro del consejo de administración obtuvieron una mayor rentabilidad del capital y un mayor crecimiento de los ingresos netos que las que no tenían ninguna mujer en el consejo.
En los últimos años, un cuerpo de investigación ha revelado otro beneficio más matizado de la diversidad laboral: los equipos no homogéneos son simplemente más inteligentes. Trabajar con personas que son diferentes a usted puede desafiar a su cerebro a superar sus formas de pensar rancias y mejorar su rendimiento. Analicemos por qué los equipos diversos son más inteligentes.
De hecho, personas de diversos orígenes podrían alterar el comportamiento de la mayoría social de un grupo de manera que conduzca a una forma de pensar grupal mejor y más precisa. En un estudiar publicado en el Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, los científicos asignaron a 200 personas a paneles de jurados simulados de seis personas cuyos miembros eran todos blancos o incluían cuatro participantes blancos y dos negros. Se mostró a la gente un vídeo del juicio de un acusado negro y víctimas blancas. Luego tuvieron que decidir si el acusado era culpable.
Resultó que los diversos paneles plantearon más hechos relacionados con el caso que los paneles homogéneos y cometieron menos errores fácticos al analizar las pruebas disponibles. Si se producían errores, era más probable que se corrigieran durante la deliberación. Una posible razón de esta diferencia es que los miembros del jurado blanco de diversos paneles retiraron las pruebas con mayor precisión.
Otros estudios han arrojado resultados similares. En una serie de experimentos realizados en Texas y Singapur, los científicos pusieron a personas con conocimientos financieros en mercados simulados y les pidieron que cotizaran las acciones. Los participantes se colocaron en equipos homogéneos o con diversidad étnica. Los investigadores descubrieron que las personas que formaban parte de los diversos equipos tenían un 58% más de probabilidades de fijar correctamente los precios de las acciones, mientras que las de grupos homogéneos eran más propensas a cometer errores de precios, según el estudiar, publicado en la revista PNAS.
Los equipos diversos tienen más probabilidades de volver a examinar los hechos constantemente y de mantener la objetividad. También pueden fomentar un mayor escrutinio de las acciones de cada miembro, manteniendo sus recursos cognitivos conjuntos agudos y vigilantes. Al romper la homogeneidad en el lugar de trabajo, puede permitir que sus empleados sean más conscientes de su propio potencial sesgos — formas de pensar arraigadas que, de otro modo, pueden cegarlos ante la información clave e incluso llevarlos a cometer errores en los procesos de toma de decisiones.
Una mayor diversidad también puede cambiar la forma en que equipos enteros digieren la información necesaria para tomar las mejores decisiones. En un estudiar publicado en el Boletín de Personalidad y Psicología Social, Katherine Phillips, de la Universidad Northwestern, y su equipo dividieron a los miembros de la hermandad o fraternidad en grupos de cuatro miembros, cada uno de los cuales tuvo que leer entrevistas realizadas por un detective que investigaba un asesinato. Tres personas de cada grupo, denominadas «veteranos» en el estudio, procedían del mismo sororato o fraternidad, mientras que la cuarta, la llamada «recién llegada», era miembro del mismo sororidad o fraternidad o de una diferente. Los tres veteranos de cada grupo se reunieron para decidir quién era el sospechoso de asesinato más probable. Cinco minutos después de la conversación, el recién llegado se unió a la deliberación y expresó su opinión sobre quién era el sospechoso.
Resultó que, aunque los grupos con recién llegados fuera del grupo tenían menos confianza en la precisión de sus decisiones conjuntas, tenían más probabilidades de adivinar quién era el sospechoso correcto que aquellos con recién llegados que pertenecían al mismo grupo.
Los científicos piensan que los equipos diversos pueden superar a los homogéneos en la toma de decisiones porque procesan la información con más cuidado. Recuerde: tener en cuenta la perspectiva de un extraño puede parecer contradictorio, pero el payoff puede ser enorme.
Para seguir siendo competitivas, las empresas siempre deben seguir innovando. Una de las mejores formas de aumentar su capacidad de transformarse a sí mismas y a sus productos puede implicar contratar a más mujeres y miembros del equipo con diversidad cultural, según sugieren las investigaciones. En un estudiar publicado en Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, los autores analizaron los niveles de diversidad de género en los equipos de investigación y desarrollo de 4 277 empresas de España. Utilizando modelos estadísticos, descubrieron que las empresas con más mujeres tenían más probabilidades de introducir nuevas innovaciones radicales en el mercado en un período de dos años.
En otro estudiar, publicado en Economic Geography, los autores concluyeron que el aumento de la diversidad cultural es una bendición para la innovación. Reunieron los datos de 7.615 firmas que participaron en la Encuesta Empresarial Anual de Londres, un cuestionario realizado a los ejecutivos de la capital del Reino Unido en el que se formulan una serie de preguntas sobre el desempeño de sus empresas. Los resultados revelaron que las empresas dirigidas por equipos de liderazgo con diversidad cultural tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar nuevos productos que las que tenían un liderazgo homogéneo.
Aunque puede que se sienta más a gusto trabajando con personas que comparten su experiencia, no se deje engañar por su comodidad. Contratar a personas que no miren, hablen o piensen como usted puede permitirle esquivar los costosos escollos de la conformidad, que desalienta el pensamiento innovador.
En pocas palabras, enriquecer su plantilla de empleados con representantes de diferentes géneros, razas y nacionalidades es clave para impulsar el potencial intelectual conjunto de su empresa. Crear un lugar de trabajo más diverso ayudará a controlar los sesgos de los miembros de su equipo y a hacer que cuestionen sus suposiciones. Al mismo tiempo, tenemos que asegurarnos de que la organización tiene prácticas inclusivas para que todos sientan que pueden ser escuchados. Todo esto puede hacer que sus equipos sean más inteligentes y, en última instancia, hacer que su organización tenga más éxito, sean cuales sean sus objetivos.
TE PUEDE INTERESAR: https://www.hult.edu/blog/benefits-challenges-cultural-diversity-workplace/
David Rock is cofounder of the Neuroleadership Institute and author of Your Brain at Work.
Heidi Grant is a social psychologist who researches, writes, and speaks about the science of motivation. Her most recent book is Reinforcements: How to Get People to Help You. She’s also the author of Nine Things Successful People Do Differently and No One Understands You and What to Do About It. She is EY US Director of Learning R&D.
Original: https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter?language=es
prejuzgamos, etiquetamos, gente // Todo lo que compartimos // All That We Share
Puntos ciegos: desafiar los "supuestos" // Blind spots: Challenge assumptions // cerebros y suposiciones
choque cultural , Culture Shock
martes, junio 18, 2024
Jóvenes, el futuro, la alternativa, si ....pero
Jóvenes, el futuro, la alternativa, si ....
Clic aquí: https://youtu.be/sjvna9xGis4?si=v7gJbcbD451Gx6FE&t=1798
martes, junio 11, 2024
El posperiodismo y la muerte de los periódicos
Publicado Por Andrey Mir
(Resaltados y demás por el Blogger)
Las noticias falsas son un tema sobrevalorado. El mayor daño causado por los medios es la polarización, y el mayor problema es que la polarización se ha arraigado sistémicamente tanto en las redes sociales como en los medios de comunicación. La polarización no es simplemente un efecto secundario, sino que se ha transformado en una condición de su negocio.
El reciente aumento de la polarización se originó con la llegada de las redes sociales, que desató la autoría de las masas. En estas comunicaciones horizontales recién emergidas, se fueron configurando gradualmente agendas alternativas. Pronto se hizo evidente que esta representación directa de opiniones forma agendas muy diferentes a las moldeadas por la forma representativa más tradicional de formación de opinión: los medios de comunicación.
El choque entre las agendas alternativas de las redes sociales y las agendas principales de los medios de comunicación implicó una polarización política, que produjo dos oleadas de movimientos antisistema.
- La primera ola fue causada por la proliferación inicial de las redes sociales a principios de la década de 2010, cuando jóvenes urbanos progresistas educados y digitalizados encendieron la Primavera Árabe, el movimiento Occupy en Estados Unidos, las protestas de los 'indignados' en Europa y las protestas en todo el mundo contra el viejo sistema institucional. establecimiento.
- La segunda ola de polarización comenzó a mediados de la década de 2010, cuando las redes sociales habían permeado la sociedad lo suficientemente profundamente como para llegar e influir en las personas mayores, menos educadas, menos urbanas y menos progresistas. La ola resultante de movimientos conservadores, de derecha y fundamentalistas influyó en las encuestas electorales y arrasó las calles de todo el mundo.
En medio de la creciente actividad política de las masas, facilitada por los nuevos medios, rápidamente se hizo evidente que las plataformas de redes sociales generan una mayor participación del usuario final. Cuanto mayor es la participación, más tiempo se dedica a la plataforma, más preferencias del usuario quedan expuestas y, en consecuencia, más precisa puede ser la orientación de los anuncios. El compromiso, muy necesario para el negocio de las plataformas, parecía estar ligado a la polarización. No hay ninguna mala intención detrás de tales escenarios; el hardware de este entorno mediático sólo requiere este software: la polarización.
Paralelamente, se produjo un cambio tectónico en los medios antiguos. El negocio de los medios de comunicación solía financiarse principalmente con publicidad, pero la publicidad huyó a Internet. Toda la industria de los medios de comunicación se vio obligada a cambiar a otra fuente de financiación: los ingresos por lectores.
La escala de este cambio es tectónica. La última vez que los medios de comunicación cambiaron la fuente de ingresos a tal escala fue en el período 1920-1950, cuando los periódicos pasaron de vender copias a vender anuncios. Ese período coincidió con la llegada de la radio y la televisión, por lo que no se reflexionó realmente sobre el cambio en el modelo de negocio del periodismo, ya que se prestó más atención a los fascinantes impactos culturales de los nuevos medios electrónicos.
Sin embargo, en la década de 1980 surgió la disciplina de la economía política de los medios de comunicación, que reveló el impacto del dinero publicitario en la fijación de la agenda en los medios de comunicación. Esto generó el marco para la comprensión de los medios de comunicación que el público todavía utiliza hoy. Los medios de comunicación son entidades de propiedad corporativa que representan los intereses de las elites capitalistas gobernantes; Básicamente venden productos, distraen la atención de cuestiones sociales apremiantes y generan el consentimiento entre la audiencia.
Mientras tanto, el hardware mismo de la industria de los medios informativos ha cambiado drásticamente desde entonces. En los últimos 10 a 15 años, tanto los anunciantes como las audiencias han huido a mejores plataformas, donde el contenido es gratuito y mucho más atractivo, y la distribución de anuncios es más barata y mucho más eficiente. Internet y las redes sociales han quitado ingresos a los medios de comunicación. Los modelos de negocio clásicos de los medios de comunicación, la venta minorista de noticias y la venta de publicidad, han sido sacudidos tan violentamente que a los medios les resulta difícil sobrevivir.
Gracias a Internet, los ingresos por publicidad en los medios han disminuido mucho más rápido que los ingresos por lectores. Por lo tanto, los medios se vieron obligados a cambiar al modelo de negocio de ingresos por lectores destinado a vender contenidos. Sin embargo, como el contenido es gratuito en Internet, es difícil venderlo. La gente casi siempre ya conoce las noticias antes de visitar los sitios web de noticias porque invariablemente comienzan su rutina diaria con las noticias en las redes sociales. Por lo tanto, cada vez más, cuando la gente recurre a los medios de comunicación, no es para encontrar noticias, sino para validar noticias ya conocidas.
Por lo tanto, los ingresos por lectores que buscan ahora los medios informativos no son un pago por las noticias; en realidad es más una tarifa de validación. La audiencia todavía acepta pagar por la validación de las noticias dentro del sistema de valores aceptado y sancionado. Después de pasar de los ingresos por publicidad a los ingresos por lectores, el negocio de los medios ha mutado del suministro de noticias a la validación de noticias.
El negocio de los medios de comunicación está buscando desesperadamente presentaciones y formatos apropiados para este modelo de negocio de último recurso en medio de la disminución de los ingresos. Se prueban nuevas formas de financiación, entre las cuales las más prometedoras parecen ser la financiación de fundaciones y el modelo de membresía. La financiación de una fundación supone que el medio de comunicación aborda un problema social apremiante y se compromete a cubrirlo mediante una subvención o financiación continua de una fundación. Esta forma de financiación lleva inevitablemente a los periodistas a centrarse excesivamente en temas desencadenantes elegidos en lugar de cubrir un espectro más amplio. Fundamentalmente, bajo esta forma de financiación, los medios entregan la autonomía de su sala de redacción a fundaciones que tienen su propia comprensión de lo que es socialmente significativo.
El modelo de membresía ha unido los motivos de financiación de las fundaciones con la suscripción tradicional. Dentro del modelo de membresía, un medio de comunicación define una causa noble y ofrece a la audiencia la oportunidad de unirse a la causa y apoyar a los periodistas a través de donaciones. Sin embargo, estas "causas nobles" siempre resultan ser, de hecho, las causas con mayor potencial de donación. Con el tiempo, el modelo de membresía ha llegado a llamar a los lectores a pagar no por las noticias sino por el servicio público del medio de comunicación, que se ha comprometido a cubrir ciertos temas sociales o simplemente cubrir noticias desde un determinado ángulo o dentro de un determinado sistema de valores.
La diferencia radical entre el comercio minorista tradicional de noticias y el modelo de membresía es que el pagador no es un lector.
Los que pagan membresía no pagan para recibir noticias para sí mismos (ya las conocen), pagan para que las noticias se entreguen a otros.
El modelo de membresía es un híbrido que ha mezclado dos formas de negocio de los medios. Uno se basaba en el pago por parte de los lectores de las noticias desde abajo . La otra se basaba en el pago por agendas desde arriba por parte de mecenas o anunciantes.
La membresía es un pago desde abajo pero está impulsada por motivos desde arriba .
El modelo de membresía lleva a los medios a establecer una determinada agenda y promover ciertos valores, solicitando dinero a la parte más activa de la antigua audiencia (ahora la audiencia donante).
La tarifa de validación y el modelo de membresía son similares en su impacto en el periodismo. Requieren que las redacciones funcionen con valores, no con noticias. Esto lentamente obliga al periodismo a transformarse en propaganda colaborativa: el posperiodismo.
Los intentos desesperados de los medios de comunicación por reemplazar los modelos de negocios descoloridos con una forma híbrida de ingresos por lectores coinciden con la polarización política estimulada por las redes sociales.
Durante la época en que se puso a prueba el modelo de membresía y se demostró su relativa viabilidad (The Guardian , De Correspondent y otros entre 2013 y 2016), las redes sociales potenciaron agendas alternativas e impulsaron la polarización en la medida en que causaron los shocks políticos de Trump y Brexit. La filosofía detrás de los ingresos por lectores en forma de membresía parece estar en sintonía con el aumento de la politización. Los principales medios de comunicación, que antes se apegaban a los muros de pago, comenzaron a promover la noble causa de la democracia como una causa del periodismo, a la que se invitó a la audiencia a unirse.
Los medios han comenzado a presentar la suscripción como membresía. La oferta transaccional de venta de noticias se ha convertido en una actividad filantrópica. Los medios de comunicación han comenzado a solicitar la suscripción como donación.
A partir de este cambio, los suscriptores se están convirtiendo gradualmente en dos nuevas categorías de pagadores:
1) quienes pagan una tarifa de validación por el servicio de validación de noticias del medio, y
2) la audiencia donante contrata a los medios para influir en otros.
Ambos tipos pagan a los medios de comunicación no por las noticias sino por el impacto. Incentivan a los medios de comunicación a vender impacto.
Así, se ha formado un modelo de negocio completamente nuevo e híbrido, llamado aquí modelo de ' donación ', cuando la suscripción desde abajo en realidad representa una especie de híbrido entre una tarifa de validación y una donación desde arriba . Este tipo de ingresos por lectores no se basa en noticias sobre ventas minoristas; se basa en validar valores y promover agendas.
Debido a que los medios de comunicación más importantes de Estados Unidos, tanto liberales como conservadores, obtuvieron un desempeño increíblemente bueno al mercantilizar a Trump en forma de suscripciones solicitadas como donaciones para la causa, el resto del mercado de medios ha comenzado a moverse en la misma dirección. Los medios de comunicación presentan cada vez más sus servicios como una causa noble con la esperanza de atraer el apoyo de la audiencia en forma de donaciones o tiempo invertido.
Este modelo de negocio mediático predefine el modo de fijar la agenda. Se incentiva a los medios a amplificar y dramatizar temas cuya cobertura es más probable que sea pagada. Sólo las noticias y opiniones que ayuden a solicitar apoyo y donaciones pueden pasar el escrutinio editorial. Esto lleva a reducir el alcance del establecimiento de la agenda a varios de los temas más preocupantes y mejor remunerados y también a hacer que esos temas sean aún más preocupantes. El entorno incentiva no sólo la búsqueda de cuestiones desencadenantes sino también la cobertura desencadenante.
Los medios de noticias y los medios de masas en general, tan pronto como su modelo de negocios cambia de ingresos por publicidad a ingresos por lectores, necesitan impulsar cuestiones sociales apremiantes en lugar de ofrecer noticias o infoentretenimiento. En algún momento, los medios empiezan a ver nada más que los problemas que pueden generar donaciones y apoyo de la audiencia.
Los medios no sólo tienen que abordar "cuestiones sociales apremiantes", sino que también deben apoyar y amplificar la irritación y frustración de los lectores con respecto a esas cuestiones. Cuanto más preocupadas estén las personas, más probabilidades habrá de que donen. Lo ideal sería que los medios no sólo exageraran sino que también indujeran la preocupación del público.
Como lo demostró el aumento de Trump (el aumento de suscripciones en algunos de los principales medios de comunicación estadounidenses), los temas más desencadenantes son los temas políticos que polarizan a la audiencia. Al cubrir temas polarizadores para solicitar mejor apoyo, los medios se ven incentivados a buscar y reproducir la polarización para las próximas rondas de solicitud. Cambian la imagen del mundo y cambian sus audiencias, incitándolas a una mayor polarización, con fines de lucro.
Los medios de comunicación están cediendo noticias y anuncios a Internet. La disminución de los ingresos por publicidad ha superado la disminución de los ingresos por lectores, lo que ha provocado un cambio tectónico: el modelo de negocio que mantuvo al periodismo pasó de la financiación de la publicidad a la financiación de los lectores. Este cambio económico radical ha comenzado a transformar la función social del periodismo.
La fuente de ingresos impacta los mecanismos de selección en el establecimiento de la agenda. La dependencia de los ingresos por publicidad o de los ingresos por lectores incentiva a los medios a pintar dos imágenes del mundo diferentes e incluso opuestas. Los medios que dependen de los ingresos publicitarios hacen que el mundo parezca agradable. Los medios que dependen de los ingresos de los lectores hacen que el mundo parezca sombrío. El declive del negocio de los medios provocado por Internet no ha distorsionado la imagen del mundo en los medios; ha distorsionado la distorsión habitual.
No hay ningún complot malvado, ni "sesgo liberal" ni "conspiración de derecha" detrás de esto. Ésas son las condiciones ambientales de una industria de medios que está perdiendo sus ingresos por publicidad y su negocio de noticias a favor de Internet. Los medios de comunicación basados en el modelo de negocio de suscripción deben impulsar cuestiones políticas apremiantes y, por tanto, ser polarizadores. Este es su modo de supervivencia. No extinguirán los conflictos sociales y políticos, sino que más bien los avivarán.
El sistema de medios basado en los ingresos publicitarios fabricó el consentimiento.
El sistema mediático basado en solicitar el apoyo de la audiencia produce ira.
Los medios basados en publicidad produjeron clientes satisfechos.
Los medios impulsados por los lectores producen ciudadanos enojados.
Lo primero sirvió al consumismo.
Este último sirve a la polarización.
Este es un requisito sistémico del nuevo modelo de negocio de los medios de noticias establecido dentro y reforzado por el contexto del entorno mediático más amplio, compuesto tanto por medios nuevos como antiguos. Todo el entorno mediático premia la rabia y la polarización de sus actores y usuarios. La polarización se ha convertido en el software del capitalismo digital.
Todo lo que sabíamos sobre periodismo estaba relacionado con un negocio informativo financiado con publicidad. Hoy en día, la necesidad de buscar ingresos para los lectores, cuando las noticias ya no son una mercancía, está empujando al periodismo a mutar en posperiodismo.
(19 de octubre de 2020)
Esta publicación está extraída del libro El posperiodismo y la muerte de los periódicos. Los medios después de Trump: fabricando ira y polarización por Andrey Mir. VENTA EN https://www.amazon.com/Postjournalism-death-newspapers-media-after-ebook/dp/B08GWWXDG7
Autor: https://newexplorations.net/author/andrey-mir/ Futurólogo de los medios
ORIGINAL EN INGLES EN: https://newexplorations.net/postjournalism-and-the-death-of-newspapers/
viernes, marzo 08, 2024
THE INTELLIGENT INVESTOR by Robert Graham (personal summary) [ in progress]
Translate by Machine Gogle and Deepl
AFTER 20,000 (1)
this summary is based, with the exception of some key chapters, on Jason Zweig's comments made around 2000 - in the midst of the dot COM crisis - on the 1970 text.
The personal reflections are,
the summary itself, as I have chosen what seems to me,
the highlighted ones,
and notes that appear on the right hand side
Preface to the fourth edition, by Warren E. Buffett
What is needed is an intellectual infrastructure for decision-making and
the ability to prevent emotions from deteriorating that infrastructure.
Whether or not you achieve extraordinary results will depend on the
effort and intellect you apply to your investments, as well as the swings
caused by market irrationality that occur during your investment career. The more irrational the market behavior, the more
opportunities the investor will have to behave professionally.
BENJAMIN GRAHAM 1894 – 1976
His counsel of good sense brought endless rewards to his followers, even
those with inferior natural abilities to those of the most gifted professionals
who failed to follow those who advocated brilliance or fashion.
(Reprint from Financial Analysts Journal, November – December 1976.)
A Note on Benjamin Graham by Jason
Zweig
— A stock is not a simple symbol on a stock chart or an electronic
pulse; It is an ownership stake in a real business, with an underlying value
that does not depend on the share price.
— The market is a pendulum that
constantly swings between unsustainable optimism (which makes stocks too
expensive) and unwarranted pessimism (which makes them too cheap). The
intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys to
pessimists.
— The future value of all investments is a function of their current price.
The higher the price paid, the lower the profitability obtained.
— No
matter how much care is taken, the only risk that no investor can completely
eliminate is the risk of being wrong. Only by insisting on what Graham called
the “margin of safety”—never paying too much, no matter how interesting an
investment may seem—can you minimize the chances of making a mistake.
Introduction: What is intended to be achieved with this book
We must state from the beginning that this is not a "how to make a
million" book. There are no sure and easy ways to achieve wealth in the
stock markets, or anywhere else.
This mark could be seen as a compelling argument for the principle of
monthly periodic purchases and solid common stock during good times and bad, a
program known as "monetary cost averaging
. "
The only principle applicable to practically all of these so-called "technical methods" is that you should buy because a security or the market has
risen and you should sell because it has fallen. It is the exact opposite of any valid business principle in any other
arena that is absolutely unlikely to lead to lasting success in the stock
market. In our own experience and observation of the stock market,
spanning over 50 years, we have not met a single
person who has made money consistently or lastingly by applying that “follow
the market” principle.
The depth of the market downturn experienced in 1969-1970 should have
served to dispel an illusion that had gained ground over the previous two
decades. This illusion claimed that the main
common shares could be purchased at any time and at any price, with the
guarantee not only that profits would ultimately be made, but also that any
losses suffered in the meantime would be quickly recovered thanks to a renewed
market recovery to new high levels. It was too
advantageous a situation to be true.
In the area of many second- and third-tier common stocks, especially in
the case of companies recently admitted to trading, the chaos caused by the
latest market crash was catastrophic. It is not that it was a novelty in
itself, given that something similar had already happened in 1961-1962, but in
the current case there has been a novel element in the sense that some of the investment funds had extraordinarily large
commitments in emissions. speculative and obviously overvalued of this type .
It is obvious that not only should the
beginner be warned that although enthusiasm may be necessary for great
achievements elsewhere, in the stock market it almost certainly leads to
disaster.
In the past we have made a basic distinction between the two types of
investors this book was aimed at: the "defensive" and the
"entrepreneurial."
The defensive (or passive) investor is one who focuses mainly on
avoiding mistakes or serious losses. Your second objective will be to avoid
having to carry out great efforts or procedures and to be exempt from the need
to make frequent decisions.
The determining trait of the entrepreneurial (or active, or dynamic)
investor is his desire to dedicate time and effort to selecting a set of
securities that are at the same time sensible, solid and more attractive than
average. Over many decades such an enterprising investor could expect that his
additional efforts and capabilities would bring him a satisfactory reward, in
the form of a better average than that obtained by the passive investor.
...
To make this point clear from the beginning, let us introduce here a
paragraph that we first incorporated in the 1949
edition of this book:
Such an investor could, for example, be a buyer of air transport stocks because he believes that
their future is even brighter than the trend already reflected in the market
today. For this type of investor the value of our book will lie more in the
warnings against the hidden traps in his favorite investment method than in any
positive techniques that may be of practical use along the path he has chosen.
These traps have proven to be especially dangerous in the aforementioned
sector. Of course, it was easy to foresee that
the volume of air traffic would grow dramatically over the years. Because of
this factor, shares in this sector became one of the favorite options of
investment funds. However, despite the expansion of revenues, at a rate even
higher than that of the IT sector, the combination of technological problems
and the excessive expansion of capacity caused fluctuations in profit figures
that were even disastrous at times.
Fashions are dangerous...they can
give momentary profits...in a short time...
The key is to DIVERSIFY
.
Two lessons can be drawn from these two general examples for our
readers:
1. The obvious physical growth prospects of a sector do not translate into obvious benefits for
investors.
2. Experts do not have reliable
ways to choose and concentrate their investments in the most promising
companies in the most promising sectors.
.
We will talk a lot about the psychology of investors, because
undoubtedly the investor's main problem, and even his main enemy, is very
likely to be himself. ("The fault, dear investor, is not in our stars, and
it is not in our actions, but in ourselves...")
..
Additionally, we hope to implant in the reader the tendency to measure or quantify . Regarding 99 out of
every 100 issues, we could say that at a given price they are cheap enough to
buy, and at another given price they would be so expensive that they should be
sold. The habit of relating what you pay with
what you offer is an invaluable trait when investing.
..
Strikingly, we will suggest that one of our essential requirements in
this area is that our readers limit themselves
to issues that sell not much above the value of their material assets .*
The reason for this apparently outdated advice is both practical and
psychological in nature. time. Experience has
shown us that although there are numerous companies with good growth that are
worth several times the value of their assets, the buyer of such stocks ends up
being excessively exposed to the vagaries and fluctuations of the stock market .
On the contrary, the investor who allocates his funds to shares of, for
example, public service and supply concession companies whose listing implies
that it is possible to buy these companies practically for the value of their
net assets can always consider himself the owner of a participation in some
solid and expanding companies, acquired at a rational price, regardless of what the stock market may say to the contrary
.
Given that anyone can match the average market performance by simply
buying and holding a representative basket of prices, it might seem
comparatively easy to improve the average; However, it is a fact that the
proportion of intelligent people who try to achieve that result and fail is
surprisingly large.
.
When writing this book we have tried to keep this basic investment trap
in mind. The virtues of a simple portfolio
policy, the acquisition of high-grade bonds in combination with a diversified
portfolio of major common stocks, have been highlighted, which any investor can
implement with little expert input .
Comment on the introduction
Keep in mind that Graham announces from the beginning that this book is
not going to tell you how you can beat the market. No trustworthy book can do
that.
.
In the boom years of the late 1990s, when technology stocks seemed to
double in value every day, the notion that virtually all the money invested
could be lost seemed absurd; However, by the end of 2002, many of the dot-com
and telecommunications companies had lost 95% of their value or more. After
losing 95% of the money, you need to win 1,900% just to get back to where you
started. Taking crazy risks can put you in
such a desperate situation that it is virtually impossible to recover. That is
why Graham constantly emphasizes the importance of avoiding loss, and he does
so not only in chapters 6, 14, and 20, but in the threads of warning with which
he has woven throughout the text .
No matter how careful you are, the price of
investments will drop from time to time. While no one can eliminate that risk,
Graham will show you how you can manage it—and how you can control your fears.
Are you a smart
investor?
There is evidence that a high IQ and a strong educational background are
not enough to make an investor smart. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management LP,
an alternative management investment fund run by a battalion of mathematicians,
computer scientists, and two Nobel-winning economists, lost more than $2
billion in a matter of weeks by betting a
huge amount on that the bond market would return to a "normal"
situation. However, the bond market continued to insist that its situation was
becoming more and more "abnormal", and LTCM had become indebted to
such a level that its bankruptcy was on the verge of sinking the global
financial system.
In the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton
held shares in the South Sea Company, the most prized stock in England. Under the impression that the market was getting out
of control, the great physicist commented that "he could calculate the
movements of the celestial bodies, but not the madness of people." Newton
disposed of his shares in the South Sea Company, pocketing a 100% profit
amounting to £7,000 . However, months later, carried away by the
exuberant enthusiasm of the market, Newton
again took a stake in the Company at a much higher price, and lost more than
20,000 pounds (or more than three million dollars in today's money). For
the rest of his life he forbade anyone to utter the words "South Sea"
in his presence. Sir Isaac Newton was one of the most intelligent men who ever
lived, using the concept of intelligence that we most commonly use. However, in
Graham's terms, Newton was far from a smart investor. By letting the roar of
the crowd prevail over his own judgment, the world's greatest scientist acted
like a fool.
Simply put, if your investments have failed so far, it's not because
you're stupid. It is because, like Sir Isaac Newton, he has not acquired the
emotional discipline that is essential to success in investing. In Chapter 8
Graham explains how intelligence can be improved by using and controlling
emotions and refusing to stoop to the level of market irrationality. In that
chapter you can learn the lesson that being a smart investor is more a matter
of "character" than "brain."
Chronicle of a calamity
..
8. A stock market that, even after its bloody decline, appears
overvalued by historical measures, and that suggests to many experts that
stocks have even further to go down.
.
In Graham's own words, "although
enthusiasm may be necessary for great achievements in other areas, on Wall
Street it almost invariably leads to disaster."
,
They have ignored Graham's warning that
"the really horrible losses" always
occur after "the buyer forgot to ask how much it cost."
The shot that ended up missing the target
All these so-called experts ignored Graham's sensible words of warning: "A company's obvious physical growth prospects
do not translate into obvious profits for investors." Although it seems
easy to predict which sector will grow the fastest, that forecasting ability
has no real value if most other investors already predict the same thing. By the time everyone decides that a particular
industry is "obviously" the best one to invest in, the stock prices
of the companies in that sector
They will have risen
so much that their future profitability will not be able to evolve except
downwards.
The silver lining.
If in the 1990s no price seemed too high for stocks, in 2003 we have
reached a point where no price seems low enough. The pendulum has swung, as
Graham knew it always does, from irrational exuberance to unjustifiable
pessimism. In 2002, investors withdrew $27 billion from mutual funds, and a
study by the Securities Industry Association found that one in 10 investors had
reduced their stock portfolio by at least 25%. The
same people who were willing to buy stocks in the late 1990s, when they were
rising and therefore very expensive, were selling stocks as they were falling
and therefore cheap .
As Graham
brilliantly shows in chapter 8, this is exactly the opposite of what to do. The
intelligent investor realizes that stocks become riskier, not less risky, as
their prices rise, and less risky, not more, as their prices fall.
This entire introduction fulfills its
task of being an introduction to the book.
*A stock is worth what the company is
really worth, not what the market is saying at that moment
*Since yes or yes, the market is
going to go down, it is essential to have DIVERSIFICATION: the old adage of NEVER
putting all your eggs in one basket
*It seems logical, but it is part of
the least common of senses. the common one: you DO NOT buy rising, expensive
shares; and then sell them at a discount:; cheap which is what the market
generally wants. YOU SHOULD ACT REVERSE.
Chapter 1
Investing vs. Speculation: Results
the Intelligent Investor Can Expect
Investment as opposed to speculation
Already in 1934, in our textbook Security Analysis , 1 we tried to formulate precisely the difference that exists between
the two, of the
follows :
«An investment operation is one that, after carrying out an exhaustive
analysis, promises the security of the principal and an adequate return. Operations that do not satisfy these
requirements are speculative .
Common stocks were widely considered speculative by their very
nature. (One important authority stated, without qualification, that only bonds
could be compared with investment objectives .)
Think
about the definition of investing that we proposed above, and compare it to the
sale of a few stocks by an inexperienced member of the public, who does not
even own what he is selling, and who has a conviction, that
To
a large extent it is purely emotional, that he will be able to buy them back at
a much lower price (...) In a more general sense, the expression used in the
second case of "imprudent
investors" could be considered a contradiction in terms worthy of
laughter, something like "scrounged misers", if this
inappropriate use of words were not so harmful.
That is, NO investor, so to speak, stops being PRUDENT
The
distinction between investment and speculation in common stocks has always been
useful, and the fact that that distinction is disappearing is a cause for
concern. Frequently
We
have argued that Wall Street, as an institution, would do well to reclaim that
distinction and make it explicit in its dealings with the public. Otherwise,
stock markets
could
one day be accused of being responsible for the extraordinarily speculative
losses, on the grounds that those who had suffered them were not sufficiently
warned against them.
There is intelligent speculation, just as there is intelligent
investing. However, there are many ways to get the
speculation is not
intelligent . Among them, the most notable are: (1) speculating in the
mistaken belief that what you are actually doing is investing;
(2) speculate seriously rather than as a mere hobby, if one lacks
the adequate knowledge and skills to do so; and
(3) risk more money
in speculative operations than you can afford to lose.
In accordance with our conservative conception, all
non-professionals who operate on the margin They should recognize that they are speculating ipso facto , and it is their broker's obligation to warn them that they are
doing so (…) Speculation is always fascinating, and
It
can be a lot of fun as long as its results are favorable. If you want to try your luck,
·
Separate a portion,
the smaller the better, of your assets, place it in a separate account and
allocate it for this purpose .
·
Never add more money
to this account simply because the market has moved up and the profits are
plentiful. (In fact, that will be precisely the time to start thinking about
the possibility of withdrawing
money from the hedge fund.)
·
Never mix your
speculative trading and your investment trading in the same account, or in any
part of your thinking process.
Results the defensive investor can
expect
1. What we said six years ago (1965,64)
We
recommended that the investor divide his portfolio between blue-chip bonds and
blue-chip common stocks; that the proportion allocated to obligations was never
less than 25% nor greater than 75% (...) As an alternative policy, it could opt
for
reduce the
stock component to 25% "if he had the impression that the market had
reached a dangerously high level
" and, on the contrary, that he could increase it towards the maximum of 75% "if
he had the impression that the decline in the share price was making them
increasingly attractive .
This is something that will be repeated throughout the text:
You should SELL when stocks are “high”…
and you should BUY when its price is “attractive”….
NOT the other way around.
Few
people were willing to seriously consider the possibility that this high rate of appreciation in
the past actually meant that share prices were "too high today" and therefore
that "the wonderful results
obtained since 1949 were not an omen of very good results, but on the contrary
of bad results, for the future »
2. What has happened since 1964
countless
series of experiences that have occurred throughout the
time
and have shown that the future of security prices can never be known in
advance.
3. Expectations and politics in late 1971 and early
1972
After
this abbreviated presentation of the main considerations, we will restate the
same basic commitment policy for defensive investors: that is, that
At all times they have a substantial
part of their funds in bond-type portfolios and a significant part also in
stocks . It remains true that they can choose
between maintaining a simple distribution in equal parts between the two
components or a different proportion depending on their valuation, which varies
between the minimum of 25% and the maximum of 75% of either of the two.
The main point to be made is that the
overall results of the defensive investor will not, in all likelihood, be
radically different from one representative
diversified list to another.
or,
to put it more precisely, that neither said investor nor his advisors will be
able to predict with certainty what differences will ultimately occur in
practice (...) we are skeptical about the ability of
investors in general to
defensive investors to achieve better than average results, which,
if we stop to think about it, would actually mean having to beat their own
overall returns (Our skepticism extends to the management of large funds by experts).
The insistence on DIVERSIFY
We will repeat here, without apologizing for it, because it is a
warning that cannot be stressed enough, that the investor cannot hope to
achieve better than average results by acquiring new offerings, or overheated stocks.
any type, expressions with which we refer to those that are recommended to achieve a quick profit . In fact, it is almost
absolutely certain that exactly what will happen in the long run.
contrary.
The defensive investor
should limit himself to stocks of major companies that have a long history of
profitable operations and are in solid financial condition . (Any securities analyst worth his salary will be
able to compile a list of such companies.) Aggressive investors can purchase other types of stocks,
but such stocks should be trading at definitely attractive terms, as
established after intelligent analysis .
That is, first DO NOT buy “fashionable” stocks,
only actions that have proven their solidity;
second if you want to buy risky or fashionable stocks, do it,
but when they are “attractive” (Cheap).
[Generally speculators do the opposite]
To
conclude this section, allow us to briefly mention three complementary concepts
or practices that the defensive investor can follow.
The
first is purchasing shares of well-established investment funds as an alternative to creating
your own stock
portfolio.
You
could also use one of the “common investment funds”, or “combined funds” (…)
The
third concept is the method of
"averaging the cost in units
"monetary units", which simply means that whoever uses this method invests the same number of
monetary units in shares each month or quarter . This way you acquire
more shares
when
the market is at a low point than when it is at a high point, and you are more
likely to get a satisfactory overall price for your entire portfolio in the
long run.
Strictly
speaking, this method is an application of a more general method known as “formula investing.” This second concept has already
been mentioned when we suggested that the investor can modify their stock
portfolios between a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 75%, in inverse relation
to the evolution of the market. ( For more advice on “established investment funds”, see Chapter 9.
“Professional management” by “a recognized investment advisory firm” is
explained in Chapter 10. The “monetary unit cost averaging” technique is explained in
Chapter 5. )
They are two refined methods.
Also linked to the possibility or not of investment.
For the author of this summary,
“investment through formula ” seems more interesting
Results the aggressive investor can
expect
First
we will analyze several of the behaviors that speculative investors have generally followed to
obtain better than average results. Among them are the following:
1. Operate following the market .
This generally involves buying
shares when the market is moving up and selling them after it has reached the
turning point and is moving down . The stocks chosen will, in all
probability, be among those that have been "behaving" better than the
market average (...)
2. Short-term selectivity .
This means buying shares of companies that report, or are expected to report,
increased earnings, or companies for which some other type of favorable
development is expected.
3. Long-term selectivity .
In this area, emphasis is usually placed on excellent growth results in the
past, which are considered likely to be maintained in the future.
We
have excluded the first technique, both for theoretical and realistic reasons,
from the field of investment. Trading
following the market is not a method
“that, after thorough analysis, offers security of principal and a satisfactory
return .” (Expanded in Chapter 8)
In 1949 we were able to present a study of the fluctuations of the
stock market during the previous 75 years that confirmed a formula,
based on profits and current interest rates, to determine a level
to buy the DJIA below its "core" or "intrinsic" value, and
to sell above said value. Was
an application of the maxim that governed the behavior of the Rothschilds: "Buy low and
sell high." Furthermore, it had the advantage of working directly
against the established maxim and
pernicious stock market theory that stocks should be bought
because they have moved up and sold because they have moved down. Unfortunately, after 1949, this
formula stopped working.
It
was clear that these shares were
being sold at a price well below the value the company would have as an
unlisted entity . No owner or majority shareholder would think of
selling their properties for such a ridiculously low amount. Surprisingly, such
anomalies were not difficult to find.
In 1957, a list was published showing practically 200 issues of this type that
were available on the market (...) However, with the minimum prices of 1970, a
considerable number of these securities that were quoted "below the
circulating capital" reappeared.
and despite the strong recovery of the market, there were still quite a few of
them at
end
of the year to constitute a complete portfolio.
Commentary on chapter 1
Why do
you think the brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange always burst
into cheers when the bell rings at the close of trading, regardless of the
market's performance that day? Because
whenever you trade, they make money whether you make it or not. By speculating instead of investing,
you reduce the chances of increasing your own wealth, and increase the chances
of increasing someone else's wealth .
The investor calculates what a share
is worth, based on the value of their businesses .
The speculator bets that a stock
will rise in price because someone else will be willing to pay more for it.
she. (…)
For the investor, what Graham called values
"quotation"
matters much less. Graham
urges you to invest only if you would feel comfortable owning a stock, even
if you had no way of knowing its price.
daily . As Graham
advised in an interview, "Ask yourself: If there wasn't a market for these stocks, would you be willing to make
an investment in this company in
these stocks ?" conditions?".
(Forbes, January 1, 1972, p.90).
Unsafe
at high speed
The
financial video game
Oscar
Wilde jokingly remarked that a cynic "knows the price of everything and
knows the value of nothing." According to that statement, the stock market
is a complete cynic, but in the late 1990s, the market would have left Wilde
himself speechless. A mere
clumsily expressed opinion about the price that a stock might reach could be
the cause of that stock reaching
to double its price, without anyone having
bothered to examine, even above, its value.
From formula to failure
In
any case, doing crazy trading is not the only form of speculation. During the
last decade or so, a speculative formula was promoted after
another,
and then, when that formula became popular, it was thrown away.
Take advantage of the calendar
(own summary) If investors loaded their portfolio with
small-company stocks in the second half of December and held them through
January, they could outperform the market by five to ten percent. In short,
small company stocks were turning into momentary opportunities due to these
factors. The January effect is a stock market phenomenon that is characterized
by an abnormally high rise in prices in the first days of January, in contrast
to the declines that occur in the last days of December of the previous year.
This pattern, known as one of the “Calendar Anomalies,” tends to primarily
affect smaller companies whose stocks are more volatile.
It is a warning
about the price evolution in December, January of the shares,
HOWEVER,
I think today you could look at it with the INDICES---
precisely, from smaller companies.
Stick to “what works”
Apply the “The Crazy Four” method
How is it possible
for a portfolio made up of only four stocks to be sufficiently diversified to
offer “security of principal”?
All
of this reinforces Graham's warning that speculation should be treated the same
way veteran gamblers treat their visits to the casino:
—
You should never deceive
yourself, believing that you are investing when in reality you are speculating.
—
Speculation becomes mortally dangerous the moment one begins to take it
seriously.
— You should put strict limits on the amount
you are willing to bet .
Episode 2
The investor and inflation
-NOT READ, the comments were read. A summary (IN SPANISH) https://www.reddit.com/r/la_mente_maestra/comments/youggc/el_inversor_inteligente_resumen_cap%C3%ADtulo_2_el/?rdt=59597
–
Commentary on chapter 2
Something
key: the inflation experienced in Latin American countries is generally much
HIGHER than that experienced in the US
The illusion of money
They call it the “illusion of money.” If you
get a 2% pay increase in a year when inflation is 4%, you will almost certainly
feel better than if you took a 2% pay cut in a year when inflation is zero.
Half
protection
Two
acronyms to the rescue
(Recommends taking refuge
in) REIT. Real Estate Investment Trusts are
entities that own real estate.
residential
and commercial nature, and are dedicated to its exploitation through rental.(…)
TIPS. TIPS, or Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, are obligations of the
US Administration, first issued in 1997, that automatically increase in value when
the inflation rate rises.
Chapter 3
A century of stock market history:
The level of stock prices in early 1972
-NOT READ, the comments were read. A summary:
Commentary on chapter 3
Bullish
chickweed
When
Graham asked, "Can this carelessness go unpunished?" he was aware
that the eternal answer to that question is no. Like an angry Greek god, the
stock market destroyed all those who had come to believe that the high returns
of the late 1990s were some kind of divine right .
Survival of the best fattened: which
is technically known as "survival predisposition." Therefore, these
indices grossly overvalue the results obtained by real-life investors who lacked the perfect divination
skills to know exactly which were the seven companies to buy.
Actions.
The harder the fall will be
As a lasting antidote to this kind of bullish
nonsense, Graham encourages the intelligent investor to ask himself some
simple, skeptical questions.
·
Why do future stock returns always
have to be the same as past returns?
·
When all
investors accept the theory that stocks are a guaranteed way to make money in
the long term , won't the market end up with excessively high prices ?
·
When that
happens , how will future
profitability be high?
By
the late 1990s, inflation was fading, corporate profits seemed to be booming,
and most of the world was at peace. That did not mean, nor would it ever mean,
that it was interesting to buy shares at any price. Since
the profits that companies can generate are finite, the price that investors
should be willing to pay for the shares must also be finite.
The limits of optimism
Although
all investors know that they are supposed to buy low and sell high, in practice
they often end up doing the opposite. Graham's warning in this chapter
It's
very simple: "According to the rule of contrasts", the more enthusiastic investors become
about the stock market in the long term, the more likely it is that they will
end up making mistakes in the short term .
And now that?
Stock market performance depends on three
factors:
Chapter 4
General Portfolio Policy: The Defensive Investor
-NOT READ, the comments were read. A summary: https://edudinerodotcom.wordpress.com/2022/01/06/resumen-capitulo-4-el-inversor-inteligente-por-benjamin-graham/
Commentary on chapter 4
There
are two ways to be a smart investor:
—
Continually researching, selecting and monitoring a dynamic combination of stocks, bonds or investment
funds .
—
Creating a permanent portfolio that runs on autopilot and requires no more
effort (even if it generates very little emotion).
If
you have time on your hands, are highly competitive, think like sports fans,
and enjoy complex intellectual challenges, the active method is for you.
If
you are always overwhelmed, want simplicity and don't like to think about
money, the passive method is for you.
(Some
people feel more comfortable combining the two methods; creating a portfolio
that is mostly active and partly passive, or vice versa.)
Will he dare or will he choke?
Instead
of buying and holding their stocks, many people end up buying at high prices, selling at low prices ,
and holding nothing but their own heads on their hands.
This is a rule Graham insists on, persists with, and never gives
up on: the clumsiness of buying/high selling/low
Because so few investors have the
fortitude to hold on to stocks in a declining market, Graham insists that
everyone should have a minimum of 25% in bonds .
That cushion, he says, will give him the courage to keep the rest of his money
in stocks, even at a time when stocks are performing dismally.
NOTE:
·
Bonds on the stock market are
considered a fixed
income instrument, because there is an exact amount to be paid on a
defined date.
·
They are financial instruments
that allow those who purchase them to receive, at the end of the period agreed
upon with the issuing entity, the reimbursement of the capital invested plus interest . For this
reason, they are known as debt securities.
·
The main difference between bonds
and obligations is the period of time for which they are subscribed. Bonds
establish a short and medium-term maturity period, between 2 and 5 years, while
debentures are long-term
investments that can mature up to 30 years.
Once
you've set these percentage goals, change them only as your life circumstances
change. Don't buy more stocks because the stock market is up; Don't sell them
because they have gone down. The essence of Graham's method is to replace
impressions and hunches with discipline. Fortunately, by structuring your
retirement savings plan it's easy to put your investment portfolio on permanent
autopilot.
Let's say you are comfortable with a relatively high level of risk , for example 70% of your assets in
stocks and 30% in bonds . If the stock price in the general market increases by 25% (and
bonds remain level ), you will have just under 75% in stocks and only 25% in
bonds. Visit your retirement savings plan's website (or call their
toll-free number) and
sell enough of your funds in stocks to rebalance your portfolio to your target ratio of 70- 30 .
The
key is to perform these
rebalancing operations according to a predictable and patient plan : without doing it so
frequently that you end up going crazy, nor so infrequently that their objectives are constantly
thwarted . We recommend that you do it every six months, no more and no
less, on easy-to-remember dates such as New Year's and June 30.
The details of investing in fixed income
Cash is not bad
Options outside of public administration
Chapter 5
The Defensive Investor and Common Stocks
-NOT
READ, the comments were read. A summary: https://coggle.it/diagram/YYQxPjwHOoiNzNRt/t/el-inversor-inteligente-benjamin-graham-cap%C3%ADtulo-5
Commentary on chapter 5
The best defense is a good offense
Should
you buy what you know?
First
let's examine one thing that the defensive investor always has to guard
against: the belief that you can pick stocks without doing any prep work . In
the 1980s and early 1990s, one of the slogans of
The
most popular investment was “buy
what you know.” Peter Lynch , who ran Fidelity Magellan from 1977 to
1990, a period in which it achieved the best track record ever obtained by a
fund.
investment,
was the most charismatic defender of that proposal. Lynch claimed that amateur
investors had an advantage that professional investors had forgotten how to
use: "The
power of
ordinary knowledge.
If
you discover a great new restaurant, a nice car, a
toothpaste
or a pair of jeans, or if you notice that there are always cars in the parking
lot of a nearby company, or that work continues late at night at a company
headquarters.
early
in the morning, you will
have a personal perception about those stocks that the professional
analyst or portfolio manager could never perceive. In Lynch's words, "over a lifetime of buying cars or cameras you acquire a sense of
what is good and what is bad, what sells and what doesn't... and the most
"The important thing is that you know it before Wall Street knows
it."
Peter Lynch with
John Rothchild , One Up on
Wall Street (Penguin, 1989),
p . 23. ( SUMMARY IN THIS
SAME BLOG)
Lynch's
rule, "You can outperform experts by using your advantage by investing in
companies or sectors you already know," is not entirely unwise, and
thousands of investors have benefited from putting it into practice over the
years. . However, Lynch's rule can only work if you also respect its corollary:
“Finding a promising
company is only the first part. "Next you have to do the research." In
its
benefit,
it should be noted that Lynch insists that no one should ever invest in a
company, no matter how fantastic its products are or how saturated its parking
lot is, without studying
its status.
financial and without estimating the
value of their activity. Unfortunately,
most stock buyers have ignored that part of his recommendation.
Familiarity
breeds complacency. In television news reports, isn't it always the neighbor,
or one of the criminal's best friends, or the criminal's father who says in a
voice of disbelief, "He was a very nice person"? This is because whenever we are too
close to a person or thing, we take our beliefs for granted, instead of questioning them as
we do when they are related to something that is more distant to us.
Can he manage alone?
Do it yourself
reminding
you, as if being tapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper, that selling quickly is a cardinal
investment sin
Don't
invest in just one stock, or even a small number of different stocks . If you are not
willing to spread your bets, you should not bet at all. Graham's
indication that
recommended owning stocks
of between 10 and 30 companies is
still a good starting point for investors who want to select their own stocks,
but these investors should also
Make sure you
are not overly exposed to a single sector.
That
is, minimum 10 shares (ideally 30)
from
DIFFERENT economic sectors…idea:
10
stocks, 5 sectors; 30 stocks,10 sectors
If
after setting up an investment
portfolio on autopilot If
you discover that you trade more than twice a year ,
or that you spend more than one or two hours a month, in total, dedicating
yourself to your investments, something has gone horribly wrong . Don't let the ease of use
and sense of immediacy of the Internet seduce you into becoming a profiteer. A defensive investor enters, and
wins, the race by standing still.
Here, a key conversation
reappears:
you must decide how much to
put into a medium, long term investment portfolio (Graham and his commentator
suggest 75%)…
and then, it's your
decision,
at what pace does it move
with the rest
Get help
Outsource . Mutual funds are the best way for the
defensive investor to take advantage of the benefits of owning stocks without
the drawbacks of having to look after their own portfolio. With a relatively
low price, you can get a high level of diversification and convenience by
letting a professional choose and monitor the stocks on your behalf. In their
brightest version, that is, in indexed portfolios, investment funds do not
They
require virtually no supervision or maintenance. Index funds are a type of
investment that is very unlikely to cause any type of
suffering
or surprise, even if we forgot about them for 20 years. They are the defensive
investor's dream come true. For more detailed information, please read chapter
9.
Smooth the way
In
essence, eyes that do not see, a heart that does not feel. The most appropriate
way to implement money cost averaging is to create a portfolio of index funds that hold all the
stocks or bonds worth owning. In this way, you not only renounce the
game of guessing the evolution that the market will follow, but also the task
of trying to identify which sectors of the market, and which actions or
obligations within those sectors, are going to achieve the best results. top
results.
That is, buy INDICES
(in some Hollywood movies
they explain someone's enrichment or “financial freedom” like this, in the same
way some of the free rich ( nomadas )
They say that is the way:
ACQUIRE INDICES… WITH S.
Let's
say you can set aside $500 a month. Hiring three types of funds referenced to
different indices and applying the monetary cost averaging technique,
allocating
·
$300 to a
fund that has the entire US stock market,
·
100 dollars
to another fund that has foreign stocks and
·
100 dollars
to a fund that has obligations of the United States,
You
are guaranteed to own virtually every investment on the planet worth owning.
At the time of writing this
summary, 2024;
(part of the series “After
20,000”)
the relationship would be,
perhaps (…),
of 250 in US stocks, 100 in
Asia, 50 in Europe and
100 obligations…
because?,
because the planet is
moving towards ASIA…
(the comment to Graham was
written HALF A CENTURY ago)
According
to Ibbotson Associates , the important financial research firm, if it had invested 12,000 dollars
(46.8 million COP) in an index referenced to the Standard & Poor's 500 at
the beginning of 1929, ten years later it would only have 7,223 dollars left .
That is, everything, at once...
However,
if he had started with a mere 100 dollars and had simply
invested another 100 dollars (776.7 THOUSAND COP) every month, by August 1939
his money would have reached 15,571 dollars.
That is, gradually...
Although
it was not possible for retail investors to buy the entire S&P 500 index until 1976, the
example nevertheless demonstrates the effectiveness of buying more shares when the
share price evolves downward.
Best
of all, after you've created a portfolio on permanent autopilot with index funds at its core,
you'll be able to answer every question about the market with the strongest
answer a defensive investor can offer: "I don't know." , I do not
care".
If
someone asks if bonds are
going to achieve better results than stocks , simply answer "I don't know, and I
don't care"; After all, you are automatically purchasing both .
Will
stocks of healthcare companies
do better than stocks of high-tech companies ? "I do not know, and I do not
care". You are the
permanent owner of both.
What
will be the next Microsoft? "I don't know, I don't care," as long as
it's big enough to belong in the portfolio, your index fund will have it , and you'll reap
the rewards.
Will
foreign stocks do better than U.S. stocks? "I do not know, and I do not
care"; If they have it, you will take advantage of the benefit, if they
don't, you will be able to buy more at lower prices
Chapter 6
Portfolio policy for the entrepreneurial investor: Negative
method
-NOT
READ, the comments were read. A summary: https://www.mindomo.com/es/mindmap/el-inversor-inteligente-eaeb332a2ed1451ba3d3828beca794ca
Commentary on chapter 6
The scum of the earth?
However,
it would have taken just
a 30-second glance at WorldCom's bond prospectus to see that these bonds had
nothing to offer except their yield, and everything to lose. In two of
the previous five years, WorldCom's pre-tax results (the profits made by the
company before paying the amount owed to the Tax Agency) were insufficient to cover its fixed
charges (the cost of paying interest to holders obligations) for the
impressive figure of 4.1 billion dollars. WorldCom could only cover payments
related to those obligations by borrowing more from banks. Furthermore, with
this new monstrous dose of obligations, WorldCom was increasing its interest
costs by another 900
million
dollars a year.
The
Vodka and Burrito Investment Portfolio
Die
like operators die
As we have seen in chapter 1, intraday operations, in which
shares are held in the portfolio for periods of a few hours, are one of the
best weapons that have been invented to
commit
financial suicide . Maybe some of your trades
will make money, most of them will lose money, but your broker will make money on all of them .
Your
own eagerness to buy or sell a stock will end up reducing the results you get.
A person who is desperate to buy a stock may end up bidding 10 cents more than the stock's most
recent price before sellers are willing to part with it. That additional cost, called “market
impact,” never shows up in your brokerage account, but it is real. If you're too eager to buy 1,000
shares of a company and drive its price up by just 5 cents, you've
just cost yourself $50, which may be invisible, but it's very real . On the other hand, when panicked investors are frantic to
sell a stock and dump it at a price lower than its most recent price, the
market shock hits again.
The
lesson is clear: don't do anything, stay still. It's about time everyone
recognized that the term "long-term
investor" is redundant . The long-term investor is the
only type of investor that exists . A person who cannot hold on to stocks for more than a
few months at a time is doomed to end up as a loser, not a winner.
Not for getting up early...
Finance
professors Jay Ritter and William Schwert have shown that if you had allocated
a total of only $1,000 to all initial public offerings in January 1960, at their initial
offering price, and sold them
at the end of that month , and there would have been
reinvested again in each batch of
IPOs in each successive month, his investor portfolio would have been worth more than 533,000
quintillion
Unfortunately,
for every IPO like Microsoft's that turns out to be a big
success,
there are thousands of failures. Psychologists Daniel Kahnerman and Amos
Tversky have shown that when humans estimate the probabilities or frequency of
an event, the assessment is not based on how often the event actually occurred,
but on how notable the examples that occurred in the past are. last.
We
all want to buy “the next Microsoft,” precisely because we know we didn't buy
the first Microsoft. However, we all conveniently overlook the fact that most
other IPOs were horrible investments. He could only have made those $533,000
quintillion if he
had never missed a single one of those rare triumphs of the IPO market, and
that is practically impossible .
Finally,
most of the high returns from initial public offerings are obtained by members
of an exclusive private club, the large investment banks and investment
companies that obtain the shares at the initial (or "subscription")
price, before before the shares begin trading publicly. The biggest increases
usually occur with such a small number of shares that not even large investors
can get their hands on a share; There are simply not enough shares outstanding.
If,
like virtually every other investor, you can only get access to IPOs after their shares have
skyrocketed by the initial exclusive price , your results will be dire. From 1980 to 2001, if
you had bought the shares of a typical initial public offering at their first
closing public trading price and
held them for three years , you would have underperformed the market by
more than 23 years.
percentage
points per year
More
important is the fact that acquiring the shares in an initial public offering
is a bad idea because it flagrantly violates one of the most important rules
laid out by Graham: regardless
of the number of people who want to buy a share, you should only buy shares if that
Purchasing offers an economical way to become a desirable business owner . At its peak price on its first day of
trading, investors were valuing VA Linux shares at a total of $12.7 billion.
What was the value of the company that had issued the shares? VA Linux was less
than five years old and had achieved total cumulative sales of $44 million from
its software and
services, although it had lost $25 million in the process. Last quarter's
fiscal results indicated that VA Linux had achieved sales of $15 million,
although it had incurred losses of $10 million to achieve those sales. This
company, therefore, lost practically 70 cents of every dollar that entered its
coffers. VA Linux's accumulated deficit (the amount by which total expenses had
been greater than its revenues) was $30 million.
However,
it seems like a good idea to buy...and sell immediately...is that right?
Chapter 7
Portfolio policy for the entrepreneurial investor: Positive
aspects
-READ PARTLY? the comments were read. A
summary: https://www.mindomo.com/es/mindmap/el-inversor-inteligente-eaeb332a2ed1451ba3d3828beca794ca
Growth
stock method
The reader would have the
right to ask himself if it is not true that the truly large fortunes obtained
with actions are precisely those accumulated by those who made a commitment
substantial in the early
years of a company in whose future they had great confidence, and by
those who held on to their original shares with unwavering faith as their
investments multiplied by 100 or more . The
answer is yes".
However, large fortunes with investments in a single company are
almost always achieved by people who maintain a close relationship with that
specific company, through an employment relationship, a family connection,
etc., which justifies the fact that they place a much of their resources in a
single medium and remain committed in all circumstances, despite the numerous
temptations to sell at apparently high prices over the years. An investor who
does not have that close personal contact will constantly have to face the
question of whether he has too much of his funds in that one medium * ( The current equivalent of
investors "who have a close relationship with the company in
question" are the so-called people who exercise control, senior managers
or directors who help run the company and who own large blocks of shares. Managers such as Bill Gates
of Microsoft or Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway have direct control over
the destiny of a company , and outside investors want to see that these top
managers maintain their large stake as a vote of confidence . However, lower-level managers
and ordinary workers cannot influence the company's stock price with their
individual decisions; therefore therefore,
They should not place more than a small percentage of their assets in
the shares of the company of which they are employees . As for outside investors, it
doesn't matter how well they think they know the company; the same objection
applies ). Each decline, however temporary it turns out to be in the long
run, will accentuate your problem; On the other hand, pressures, both internal
and external, may force you to accept what at first glance appears to be a
substantial profit, although in the long run it ends up being less than the
prosperity that could have awaited you if you had kept your investment.
until
the end.
Although
I looked for the original in English: https://download.library.lol/main/233000/e8647599ac32f0c5eb4333351811c886/Benjamin%20Graham%2C%20Jason%20Zweig%2C%20Warren%20E.%20Buffett%20-%20The%20Intelligent%
20Investor-Harper%20Business%20%281973%29.pd f
I have a big question,
because the text sounds contradictory, it says YES…
but then try to refute it
(in general Graham believes that investors should be
shareholders (trivia: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/legal-team-voided-musks-tesla-230039948.html
)
Three
recommended fields for “entrepreneurial investment”
To
obtain better than average investment results over a long period of time, a
selection or operation policy is necessary that is appropriate on two fronts:
(1)must pass the
objective or rational test of its underlying reasonableness and
(2) It must be different from the policy
followed by the majority of investors or speculators .
Our
experience and our studies lead us to recommend three investment methods that
meet these criteria.
1.
The
relatively unpopular large company
In 34 tests
conducted by Drexel & Company (now Drexel Firestone) * with one-year holding periods
from 1937 to 1969,
Cheaper
stocks performed clearly worse than
the DJIA in only three cases ;
The results
were more or less the
same in six cases ;
and cheap stocks 25? They obtained
results clearly better than the average in 25 years .
The
consistently better result of stocks with
low
multiplier is shown (table 7.2) in the average results of successive five-year
periods, when compared with those of the DJIA and those of the group of ten
stocks with the highest multiplier.
This
example of negative results should not vitiate conclusions based on more than
30 experiments, but the fact
that it happened recently provides an element of special negative weighting .
Perhaps the aggressive investor should start with the “low multiplier” idea, and add some other
quantitative and qualitative requirement to that idea when organizing
his portfolio.
2.
Acquisition
of second-hand securities
A bargain stock is one
that, based on facts established through analysis , appears to be worth considerably more than the price
indicated by its price.
At
the lower levels of the general market a large proportion of common stocks are
bargain stocks, measured by these criteria.
(A
typical example is General Motors
when
it sold for less than 30 in 1941,
quote
that was equivalent to 5
for the 1971 shares .
It had been earning more than $4 and
paying $3.50 or more in
dividends .)
3.
Model
of occasion actions of second level companies
4.
Special
situations or "rescues"
More general consequences of our investment rules
Commentary on chapter 7
It takes
great daring and great caution to amass a great fortune; when it has been
achieved,
it takes ten times more daring and caution to preserve it.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild
The situation is nothing
In
an ideal world, the intelligent investor would only hold stocks when they are
cheap and sell them when they are overpriced, at which point he would fill the
portfolio with bonds.
and
cash until stocks became cheap enough to buy again. From 1966 to the end of
2001, one study claims, $1 held permanently in stocks would have risen to
$11.71. However, if it had left the market Just
before the five worst days of each year, the original dollar would have risen
to $987.12
If
we had followed the recommendations of the best 10% of all market analysis
bulletins, we would have obtained a 12.6% annualized return between 1991 and
1995. However, if we had
not
heeded
these recommendations and had
By keeping our money in a market index
fund ,
we would have gotten 16.4%.
Note the insistence... not on actions, but on INDICES...
Everything that goes up...
The
faster these companies grew, the more expensive their shares became. When stocks grow faster than
companies, investors always end up regretting it
A great company is not a great investment if you pay too much for
its shares . The
more a stock goes up, the more likely it seems that it will continue to go up .
However, that instinctive belief is radically contradicted by the fundamental
law of financial physics: The
more
The bigger they get, the slower
they grow.
But, there if a HIGHLY RISKY but interesting key appears : and it is pure
SPECULATION ,
you can, for example, invest 100 dollars (or less)
on a stock that is going up, earn 20,
and then
repeat the action (with 100),
the moment the stock falls…
in an eternal flea cycle:
I enter, I leave, I evaluate…. I enter …. I retire…
It depends a lot - as they insist - on the discipline
Stocks of growing companies are
interesting to buy when their prices are reasonable ,
but when their price-to-earnings
ratio rises well above 25 or 30 , things get ugly :
This decline caused J&J's share price to go from a PER of 24
to one of 20, compared to the profits of the previous 12 months. At this lower
level, Johnson & Johnson could once again become a growth stock with room to grow , becoming
an example of what Graham
called " the
relatively unpopular large company "
Should you put all your eggs in one basket?
By
keeping all their eggs in the single basket that had allowed them to enter the
list , in sectors that
had experienced spectacular growth in the past , such as oil and gas, or
appliances
computer
science, or basic manufacturing, the rest of the members disappeared from the
list. When the bad times came, none of these people, despite the great
advantages that immense assets can bring, were properly prepared. They were
only able to stand still and close their eyes to the horrific crunch caused by
the changing economy.
constant
while crushing their only basket
and all their eggs that were deposited in it
The basket of opportunities
find
the day's lists of stocks that have hit their lowest point in the last year; a
simple and fast way to locate
net
working capital requirements . ( Online , try it at
http://quote.morningstar.com/highlow.html?msection=HighLow).[updated by
blogger: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/stocks/newfiftytwoweekhighsandlows
- -- https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/nasdaq-52-week-hi-low
---- https://www.barchart.com/stocks/highs-lows
-- https://
finance.yahoo.com/u/yahoo-finance/watchlists/fiftytwo-wk-low/ --- https://www.investing.com/equities/52-week-high
?
To
check whether a stock is selling for less than its net working capital value (what
Graham fans call "net net"), download or order the most recent annual
or quarterly report from the company's or company's website. EDGAR database in
www.sec.gov.
Subtract from the
company's current assets its total liabilities, including preferred stock and
long-term debt .
As
of October 31, 2002, for example, Comverse Technology had $2.4 billion in
current assets and $1 billion in total liabilities, bringing net working
capital to $1.4 billion. With less than 190 million shares and a trading price
of less than $8 per share, Comverse had a total market capitalization of less
than $1.4 billion. Comverse's stock, which was valued below the value of cash
and
stock
of Comverse, caused the company's permanent business to be sold for practically
nothing. As Graham well knew, it
is possible to lose money on stocks like those of
Comverse ,
and that's why you
should only buy these types of stocks if you can identify a couple dozen at a
time and patiently hold them in your portfolio. However, on the very
rare occasions when Don Mercado generates such a high number of genuine
bargains, you are virtually guaranteed to make money.
Blogger's note: that example: does
NOT work ,
In fact, in 10 years that company DISAPPEARED.
Comverse technology - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
What is your foreign policy?