Not Yet Ready for a long-term Solution - Weekly Blog # 936

 

 

 

Mike Lipper’s Monday Morning Musings

 

Not Yet Ready for a long-term Solution

  

Editors: Frank Harrison 1997-2018, Hylton Phillips-Page 2018

 

 

 

Preface

I was hoping to start a series of blogs on the selection of smart securities investment strategies for multi-generational ownership. Unfortunately, the current data does not lead to a positive view. The breakdown of the twenty-hour cease fire negotiation with the Iranians confirms that this was a week of data confusion. The historical odds were against progress in the search for political and economic solutions.

 

Our Side

The investment mode for the week is captured by the changes in the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) sample survey of the next six month’s market outlook. The bullish outlook improved slightly to 35.7% from 33.6% the prior week, a gain of 2.1% in a not highly disciplined survey. What is perhaps a little more insightful is a drop in the bearish measure to 43.0% from 51.4%, a decline of 8.4 %. During the survey week, many pundits were enthused about the forthcoming ceasefire meeting. (I expect Sunday morning’s announcement of a failure to get an agreement will materially impact this coming week’s results.)

 

The two largest stock market exchanges reflected different views, with only 31% of NYSE stocks falling vs 53% of NASDAQ stocks declining. (The NASDAQ market has younger, more speculative companies, with a larger number of companies reporting losses, including some private debt funds.)

 

Consumer sentiment was reported to be lowest in 70 years. Moody’s (*) raised the chance of a recession in the next 12 months to 48.6%. One of their executives is quoted as saying “we could already be in a recession”. 

(*) Owned in managed accounts.

 

Iranians’ View

The first thing to remember is that Iran is the modern name for Persia, which was the dominant political/military power in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Persia was briefly lost to Alexander the Great and later to the Ottomans but was never effectively occupied by foreign forces.

 

The current view of the Iranians is that Trump is losing this war. He is driven to achieve a quick victory to guarantee a positive mid-term election this year, at least in the House. The Iranians are believers in the German strategist Carl von Clausewitz’s statement that “war is an instrument of policy by other means”. Our President went to a military high school, but I believe he at best learned infantry tactics, not strategy. He did not participate in the ROTC at University of Pennsylvania. The current Secretary of War did not have any professional exposure at West Point or VMI and thus was not schooled in strategy. One of Clausewitz’s beliefs was getting the other side to give up the will to fight. Unfortunately, since WWII the US has won wars but lost the peace in getting their opponent to give up the willingness to fight. The last time we achieved it was through the Marshal Plan, named after General George Marshal a graduate of VMI who rebuilt the industrial strength of Germany.

 

While the potential for nuclear warfare was a concern, the far greater risk to the US, Britain, Europe, Mid East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia were already active sleeper cells. At this point we have not yet organized an effective counterforce.

 

It is no wonder the weekend discussions did not produce positive results. Consequently, it may be too early to invest new long-term money.

 

These are controversial views. Please exchange your thoughts. I am always a student and need to learn.

                                        

 

 

Did you miss my blog last week? Click here to read.

Mike Lipper's Blog: We Have a Management Problem - Weekly Blog # 935

Mike Lipper's Blog: Is History Rhyming Again? - Weekly Blog # 934

Mike Lipper's Blog: Bifocal Analysis: Short & Long-Term - Weekly Blog # 933

 

 

Did someone forward you this blog?

To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please

subscribe by emailing me directly at AML@Lipperadvising.com

 

Copyright © 2008 – 2023

A. Michael Lipper, CFA

 

All rights reserved.

 

Contact author for limited redistribution permission.

Critical Decisions: Successors, Appreciation and Preservation - Weekly Blog # 523

Introduction

The combination of long flights and attendance at the Berkshire Hathaway* Revival meeting has led me to think more prominently about the structure of successful investment processes. I have often said that if one slashes the wrist of a securities analyst (even before they become portfolio managers), a historian will bleed.

I have been thinking about the failure of the conqueror of the ancient world Alexander the Great, whose key lieutenants were for the most part bad successors. In contrast, I compared that result with today’s most profitable company, Apple* and the succession of Tim Cook to the product/service genius Steve Jobs. (This not a prediction as to the future of Apple or its shareholders.) Currently we are in the public succession disclosure phase of the distinctive leaders of two companies: JPMorgan Chase* and the aforementioned Berkshire Hathaway. I believe both successful and less successful command changes should be studied in terms of responsibilities for our families and non-profits we care about.
*Held in client and/or personal portfolios

The Wrong Instincts

I have sat on a number of non-profit boards officially or observed them as their external investment manager. I have noted a number of habits that usually led to long-term sub par results. Choices are made by committee which tends to favor the politically skilled candidates. Frequently it is deemed important that the new leader get along well with the existing staff. Often what is needed for optimum survival  is to either seriously remove staff or materially change their way of thinking and executing. This is particularly true for academic groups where the new person is meant to solve the single biggest short-term problem facing the institution without upsetting too many of the existing “warhorses.”

Another road to failure is setting up a competitive horse race. Not to say that the best person not often wins, but all too often some of the better people leave in disappointment, which weakens the firm even if the best person wins. Unfortunately, we have seen this approach in financial organizations. Just think of the number of CEOs that have come out of GE and a number of leading brokerage firms. The same thing happens with both non-profits as well as families.

Successful Patterns

When Steve Jobs recognized that his deteriorating health would lead to the need for a new leader he chose Tim Cook. He was not a “product guy” like Jobs, but was the master of the supply chain manufacturing and selling all the wonderful new products that were dreamed up by Jobs and his tight design crew. Further, Jobs told his appointed successor not to do things they way he (Jobs) would do them, but the way that made sense for Tim Cook. Under the successor, the shareholders (and I presume the Job’s estate) have seen their assets multiply a number of times. I suspect that Steve Jobs’ thinking was in part shaped by having been fired from Apple in 1985 to avoid taking it into bankruptcy. Luckily he learned a lot with new responsibilities and was better prepared to be Apple’s CEO the second time.   

Selecting Two American Generals

We have benefited from two US Presidents making controversial decisions to lead our Army at critical points. President Abraham Lincoln chose a cashiered Ulysses S. Grant to lead the Union forces through a brutal campaign, first in the Midwest and then the South. Grant who graduated from the US Military Academy at the bottom of his class, accepted the surrender of Robert E. Lee who graduated at the top of his West Point class and is generally believed to have been the best general of the Civil War era. Lincoln’s selection of Grant was key to the eventual Union victory.

When it came to choosing the commanding general for the US-led invasion of Europe, President Franklin Roosevelt turned down the highly respected, most senior Army officer General George Marshall

(later a brilliant Secretary of State) in favor a much younger and junior officer, Dwight Eisenhower. I suspect FDR’s thinking was shaped by the fact that for a number of peacetime years Eisenhower was on the staff of the very difficult, but brilliant General Douglas MacArthur, who not only graduated at the top of his West Point class but also returned to the Academy as superintendent.  I believe that the President felt that if Eisenhower could get along with MacArthur he could work with the difficult British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. Being a politician himself, Roosevelt recognized the importance and skills of another politician.

People Skills Part of Asset Allocation

Warren Buffett believes his greatest contribution to the success of Berkshire Hathaway is making major asset allocation judgments. Beyond the required investment skill to make these decisions, he has the ability to “sell” his decision both internally within the firm, and also to his outside audience which he does very well. In looking at these decisions, with the help of Charlie Munger, he uses both capital appreciation and capital preservation strategies in building Berkshire Hathaway for the next generations of owners. While Buffett likes to portray Berkshire as a long-term thinker, he can afford to do that as long as he has a bountiful supply of cash or short-term paper.

With Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger as models, the approach that we recommend to prospective clients is based on our Lipper TIMESPAN Portfolios^®. For illustrative purposes only we have divided an institution’s or individual’s portfolio into four unequal timespan sub-portfolios. Each portfolio is assigned a portion of both capital appreciation and capital preservation securities and strategies which can be modified if conditions and specific needs dictate. The following table is illustrative and can be modified when required:

Lipper TIMESPAN Portfolio®	% Capital Appreciation	% Capital Preservation
Operational (Short-term)	25%	75%
Replenishment (Cyclical)	50%	50%
Endowment (Present lives)	60%	40%
Legacy (Future Lives)	80%	20%

Source: Lipper Advisory Services, Inc.

Please let me know how you would allocate resources for which you feel responsible.

N.B. One of our long-term subscribers who is both an accomplished mathematician and a successful money manager properly called to my attention that I gave the late Stephen Hawking a Nobel Prize that was not awarded to him. Further he reminds me that his theories were never confirmed by measurement. I plead guilty of being in awe of him as a person and the work he did at Caltech.

__________

Did you miss my blog last week?  Click here to read.

Did someone forward you this blog?  To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please subscribe using the email buttons in the left margin of Mikelipper.Blogspot.com or by emailing me directly at Mikelipper@Lipperadvising.com

Copyright © 2008 - 2018

A. Michael Lipper, CFA

All rights reserved

Contact author for limited redistribution permission.