1/

That’s a possibility.

Buffett has this concept of “owner earnings”: how much cash can be safely taken out of a business each year without hurting it?

Take out more than this, and we risk hurting the business’s competitive position, earning power, unit volume, etc.

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll help you work out how much money you need to retire.

2/

The goal is simple.

You want to accumulate a *large* portfolio of assets.

How large?

Well, you should be able to quit your job. And you and your family should be able to live comfortably for decades -- just off of the income generated by this portfolio.

3/

This is the crux of the "FIRE" movement.

FIRE stands for "Financially Independent, Retired Early".

The basic philosophy is: keep your spending needs low. Save a large portion of your income. Invest these savings. With luck, you'll be able to retire early.

4/

FIRE advocates have a rule they love to cite: the 4% rule.

The 4% rule says: your annual expenses in retirement should not exceed 4% of your portfolio.

You can use this rule to calculate how large a portfolio you need to accumulate before you can quit your job and retire.

5/

For example, suppose you and your family need $40K/year to live comfortably in retirement.

Then you need to accumulate a portfolio that's at least $1M.

Another way to say this is: your portfolio should be at least 25 times your annual expenses in retirement.

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll walk you through the key differences between *earnings* and *cash flows*.

The punch line: Just because a company reports $1 of *earnings*, it does NOT mean the company has $1 more *cash* to distribute to owners.

2/

Before we look at a company's *earnings*, it's useful to understand the concept of Net Worth.

Net Worth (also called Book Value, or Shareholder's Equity) is simply the difference between what a company *owns* (ie, its assets) and what it *owes* (ie, its liabilities).

3/

Companies typically *own* a bunch of assets.

These include cash, "accounts receivable" (ie, money owed to the company by customers), "inventory" (ie, raw materials and finished products), "property, plant, and equipment" (ie, land, buildings, and factories), etc.

4/

Also, companies typically *owe* money or services to others (liabilities).

These include "accounts payable" (money owed to suppliers), "wages payable" (ie, money owed to employees for work they've already done), debt taken out by the company that has to be repaid, etc.

5/

Net Worth is what remains after we net out what a company *owns* against what it *owes*.

Companies that *own* more than they *owe* have positive net worth.

Companies that *owe* more than they *own* have negative net worth.

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll help you understand Markov Chains.

In life, and in investing, we often come across situations where luck/chance plays a major role.

And Markov Chains are often a great way to model and analyze such situations.

2/

Here's what prompted me to write this thread.

Earlier this week, I conducted a Twitter poll.

In the poll, I posed a question that required a bit of probabilistic reasoning.

The good news: over 10,000 people responded.

The bad news: ~87% got the answer wrong!

3/

Here's the question I asked.

Imagine we have 2 volunteers: Alice and Bob.

We give them each a fair coin.

We ask Alice to keep tossing her coin until she sees a Heads immediately followed by a Tails (ie, the pattern HT).

4/

We ask Bob to keep tossing his coin until he sees two consecutive Heads (ie, the pattern HH).

The question is: on average, who will take more tosses to get to their "target pattern" -- Alice or Bob?

Or will they both on average take the same number of tosses?

5/

More precisely:

Suppose Alice takes A tosses on average to get her HT.

And Bob takes B tosses on average to get his HH.

Then, which is the bigger number: A or B?

Or are they both the same number?

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll help you understand the basics of Binomial Thinking.

The future is always uncertain. There are many different ways it can unfold -- some more likely than others. Binomial thinking helps us embrace this view.

2/

The S&P 500 index is at ~3768 today.

Suppose we want to predict where it will be 10 years from now.

Historically, we know that this index has returned ~10% per year.

If we simply extrapolate this, we get an estimate of ~9773 for the index 10 years from now:

3/

What we just did is called a "point estimate" -- a prediction about the future that's a single number (9773).

But of course, we know the future is uncertain. It's impossible to predict it so precisely.

So, there's a sense of *false precision* in point estimates like this.

4/

To emphasize the uncertainty inherent in such predictions, a better approach is to predict a *range* of values rather than a single number.

For example, we may say the index will return somewhere in the *range* of 8% to 12% (instead of a fixed 10%) per year.

5/

10 years from now, this implies an index value in the *range* [8135, 11703]:

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll walk you through the P/E Ratio.

Why do some companies trade at 5x earnings and others trade at 50x earnings?

When I first started investing, this was hard for me to understand.

So, let me break it down for you.

2/

Imagine we have 2 companies, A and B.

Let's say both companies will earn $1 per share next year.

And both companies will also GROW their earnings at the SAME rate: 10% per year. Every year. Forever.

3/

Suppose A trades at a (forward) P/E Ratio of 10. So, each share of A costs $10.

And B trades at a P/E Ratio of 15. So, each share of B costs $15.

Which is the better long term investment: A or B?

4/

If you had asked me this question 10 years ago, I would have said: hands down A!

After all, both A and B earn the same ($1/share). And they grow at the same rate (10%/year).

But A is CHEAPER than B (10 vs 15 P/E).

So, of course A is the better long term investment.

Right?

5/

The answer is: NOT necessarily.

B -- the MORE "expensive" looking stock -- could *still* end up being the better investment.

Why? Because it's not just about earnings, or how fast earnings will grow.

It's about how *capital efficient* this growth will be.

A director whose moderate income is heavily dependent on directors' fee and who hopes mightily to be involved to join other boards in order to earn more fees is highly unlikely to offend a CEO or fellow directors, is not an independent director.

Ben Graham's "The Intelligent Investor" is a horrible book if you're using it purely for the quant formulas in today's Markets, but probably THE BEST BOOK if you're interested in learning about the core investing concepts, and eternal truths about the Markets & its participants.

Below are few of my fav quotes organized by topic.

1⃣ Discipline

2⃣ Investing vs Speculation

3⃣ Mr. Market

4⃣ Bear Markets

Live tweeting highlights from our discussion with @SamitVartak moderated by @ishmohit1 and the DIA gang. @saket1974 @saketreddy @dadalife369 @cautkarshpandey @vishal_chandi

So let’s begin -

1. Before looking at the valuation of a business, look at the fundamentals first.

On cyclicals -

2. We look for profit power, the ability of the company to control price and gauge profit. This is why we don’t look at cyclicals.

3. With cyclicals, oftentimes the promoters themselves cannot predict pricing and profitability.

On building a portfolio -

1. Reducing the size of your portfolio too much can make it harder to find big winners, the ones that can give up to 40x in 10 years.

2. I look at 15-20 stocks as a balance between not spreading yourself too thin and not takeing too much risk.

On taking away market share -

1. Creating disruptions and innovating with new products allows you to take away market share. Example #APLApollo and the DFT technology.

2. Cash cows don’t deliver outsized returns for an investor. Aggression and innovation is needed.

On themes -

1. It is very difficult to pre-empt a theme before it happens and predict how it will play out. Instead of that, I look for data.

2. Deleveraging and capex is taking place. Companies have become lean in this period.

Stocks need not move for few years and then give huge returns in a single year. Always staying invested is the only way to benefit from these movements. Most of us become impatient and quit thereby foregoing gains.

1/9 I have noticed a counterintuitive benefit from sharing my portfolio publicly. This isn't call for you to share your portfolio publicly; I'm aware it is not feasible/rational for many out there.

I'm just explaining how I think it helps *me*.

2/9 Before talking about the benefit, let me briefly mention the potential negative.

Well, the negative is probably obvious. Sharing my portfolio publicly may create a commitment bias. It's hard to change your mind once you propagate all the bullish pov on stocks you own.

3/9 There is truth to that, especially since I say I intend to be long-term investor.

It would create a cognitive dissonance if I get in and out of stocks every few months and yet claim myself long-term oriented simultaneously. So I kinda have to remain invested unless...

4/9 ...I think I've compelling reasons to sell.

While that sounds like a lot of negatives, I'm increasingly thinking the opposite.

If in 30 years I discover my return severely lagging the index, I already know who the culprit is. It isn't Fed, Xi, or any US President. It's me.

5/9 Essentially, I need to save my portfolio from my own worst tendencies.

Not having the option to flipping stocks every other month is likely to work in favor of my eventual goal of long-term ownership of great businesses.