How to Think Like Warren Buffett, Part 9

Filed in archive Investing on September 15, 2006

In part 9 of our 29-part series (only 20 to go!) on Warren Buffett's words of wisdom, we peruse Buffett's assessment of Berkshire Hathaway's 1985 performance.

1985 was a big year for Berkshire, as Buffet makes clear from the get-go:

"You may remember the wildly upbeat message of last year's report: nothing much was in the works but our experience had been that something big popped up occasionally. This carefully-crafted corporate strategy paid off in 1985. Later sections of this report discuss (a) our purchase of a major position in Capital Cities/ABC, (b) our acquisition of Scott & Fetzer, (c) our entry into a large, extended term participation in the insurance business of fireman's Fund, and (d) our sale of our stock in General Foods."

And the numbers ain't bad, either:

"Our gain in net worth during the year was $613.6 million, or 48.2%. It is fitting that the visit of Halley's Comet coincided with this percentage gain: neither will be seen again in my lifetime."

Buffett, however, predicts that recent gains won't be sustainable:

"One factor probably transitory - is a stock market that offers very little opportunity compared to the markets that prevailed throughout much of the 1964-1984 period. Today we cannot find significantly-undervalued equities to purchase for our insurance company portfolios. The current situation is 180 degrees removed from that existing about a decade ago, when the only question was which bargain to choose."

Buffett knew his stuff, as a stock market crash was less than two years away at this point.

Berkshire Hathaway's size is also making it difficult to sustain high percentage returns at this point:

"...an iron law of business is that growth eventually dampens exceptional economics. just look at the records of high-return companies once they have amassed even $1 billion of equity capital. None that I know of has managed subsequently, over a ten-year period, to keep on earning 20% or more on equity while reinvesting all or substantially all of its earnings."

Buffett makes the case that institutional investors are actually less rationale than individual investors, illustrating with a story:

Ben Graham told a story 40 years ago that illustrates why investment professionals behave as they do: An oil prospector, moving to his heavenly reward, was met by St. Peter with bad news. "You're qualified for residence", said St. Peter, "but, as you can see, the compound reserved for oil men is packed. There's no way to squeeze you in." After thinking a moment, the prospector asked if he might say just four words to the present occupants. That seemed harmless to St. Peter, so the prospector cupped his hands and yelled, "Oil discovered in hell." Immediately the gate to the compound opened and all of the oil men marched out to head for the nether regions. Impressed, St. Peter invited the prospector to move in and make himself comfortable. The prospector paused. "No," he said, "I think I'll go along with the rest of the boys. There might be some truth to that rumor after all."

1985 was the year Berkshire Hathaway gave up on its textile businesses, part of an industry-wide trend in the U.S.:

"...in the end nothing worked and I should be faulted for not quitting sooner. A recent Business Week article stated that 250 textile mills have closed since 1980. Their owners were not privy to any information that was unknown to me; they simply processed it more objectively. I ignored Comte's advice - "the intellect should be the servant of the heart, but not its slave" - and believed what I preferred to believe.

The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction of the U.S. minimum wage."

The moral of the story: don't row against the tide:

"My conclusion from my own experiences and from much observation of other businesses is that a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row (though intelligence and effort help considerably, of course, in any business, good or bad). Some years ago I wrote: "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." Nothing has since changed my point of view on that matter. Should you find yourself in a chronically-leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks."

A point on stock options, which could probably be extended to many forms of employee compensation:

"First, stock options are inevitably tied to the overall performance of a corporation. Logically, therefore, they should be awarded only to those managers with overall responsibility. Managers with limited areas of responsibility should have incentives that pay off in relation to results under their
control. The .350 hitter expects, and also deserves, a big payoff for his performance - even if he plays for a cellar-dwelling team. And the .150 hitter should get no reward - even if he plays for a pennant winner. Only those with overall responsibility for the team should have their rewards tied to its results."

Finally, in 1985 Berkshire Hathaway acquired Scott Fetzer, which might mean nothing to you, but one of the Scott Fetzer companies is about two minutes from my home, and from the outside of its messy industrial exterior, one would never guess that Warren Buffett had anything whatsoever to do with it. Which I suppose is another lesson we all hear but often forget--don't judge a book by its cover.