tisdag 1 maj 2012

Intervju med Josh Tarasoff

Josh Tarasoff grundade Greenlea Lane Capital 2006 och använder sig av s.k. värdeinvesteringsstrategier. Josh Tarasoff brukar också vara en återkommande föreläsare på olika seminarier med tema värdeinvestering. Dagens IT-teknik har ju gjort det möjligt att deltaga i dylika utan att man fysiskt behöver vara på plats.

Josh använder sig av en koncentrerad portfölj. Ofta utgör de fem största innehaven det mesta av portföljen. Utöver det så ska Josh också använda sig av en enkel checklista bestående av följande punkter.

1) minimal risk of product obsolescence
2) minimal financial leverage
3) high return on incremental capital
4) strong, sustainable competitive position
5) pricing power
6) potential for long-term unit growth
7) demonstrated propensity to return capital to shareholders
8) management economically aligned with shareholders

Jag har inte själv intervjuat Josh, men nedan följer ett utdrag från en intervju med honom som jag tycker är mycket läsvärd. För den som är intresserad av intervjun i original och i sin helhet så finns den i så fall här

What attracted you to value investing?

Value investing is attractive because it makes sense.

The underlying logic is to buy assets for less than they are worth, because this simultaneously increases the potential for gain and decreases the potential for loss. At the same time, value investing—in large part because it is so simple—is difficult to put into practice in a disciplined manner over a long period of time.

It is human nature to muck up the works. This explains why something that is so easy to understand does not extinguish itself. It keeps working because it runs contrary to human nature.

How would you describe your investment philosophy?

My approach is to think of each investment as if it were the family business. We own 100% and our wealth is determined by the earning power of the business over time. There would be certain prices I would sell for in an instant, and certain prices that would be clearly too low.

The intrinsic value is somewhere in between.

Over the years, I would want the earning power of my business to at least keep up with nominal GDP; otherwise, it is likely that there are better stores of wealth available to me, and I would be inclined to sell my business.

This means that there must be minimal risk of competitors hurting my market position, or of technological change rendering my business model obsolete.

What is even better is if the business has the opportunity to compound at high rates of return. Most of my investments have the ability to compound intrinsic value at double-digit rates for a long time. If this is true, then there is less need for multiple expansion to produce an attractive investment return.

It is possible to make a lot of money investing in medium or worse quality assets, relying for your returns on the convergence of price and value. But if you stick with businesses that increase in value over the years, then time is your friend.

My experience strongly suggests that timing is the trickiest part of investing, so I am comfortable with an approach that minimizes the importance of getting the timing right.

How do you typically find ideas and what is your selection process before an idea gets added to your portfolio?

The basic sources that I use to generate ideas—publications, screens, talking with other investors, and so on—are probably not very different from what most investors utilize.

I have found, though, that the way I organize my process is somewhat atypical because of the narrow focus on great businesses.

My goal each day is to expand the list of companies that I would like to buy if presented with an attractive price. I do, of course, prioritize research on ideas that seem like they may be currently cheap, but most of the time I am expanding my knowledge base in order to maximize the future opportunity set.

In terms of research on individual companies, I strive to be very comprehensive and careful. One nice thing about making a small number of large investments is that you generally do not have to feel rushed during the research process.

What are your ideas concerning portfolio composition and the value of individual holdings in relation to the portfolio?

I prefer a relatively concentrated portfolio because it complements the focus on great businesses, and because it fits with my temperament. I enjoy the research process and do not mind going for long periods of time without making a new investment.

I would find it unsatisfying to have investments that are not large enough to make a meaningful contribution to the performance of the overall portfolio. For me, having many small positions would be more stressful than having a few, high-conviction investments.

But I also believe that there are many valid approaches. The key is to know yourself and tailor your investment strategy to your own idiosyncrasies.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Väldigt trevlig sammanfattning. Tack! Gillar hans approach, jag måste läsa mer av honom :)

  2. Blev mycket intresserad. Mr Tarasoff verkar väldigt vettig och klok. Tack för ett intressant inlägg.

  3. Tack själva för responsen. Ja, jag tycker också han låter vettig. :)