The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Published by Vedh Invests, 2019-06-23 05:53:18



Commentary on Chapter 7 187

experiment. It’s the end of 1989, and you’re Japanese. Here are the

• Over the past 10 years, your stock market has gained an annual
average of 21.2%, well ahead of the 17.5% annual gains in the
United States.

• Japanese companies are buying up everything in the United
States from the Pebble Beach golf course to Rockefeller Center;
meanwhile, American firms like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Finan-
cial Corp. of America, and Texaco are going bankrupt.

• The U.S. high-tech industry is dying. Japan’s is booming.

In 1989, in the land of the rising sun, you can only conclude that
investing outside of Japan is the dumbest idea since sushi vending
machines. Naturally, you put all your money in Japanese stocks.

The result? Over the next decade, you lose roughly two-thirds of
your money.

The lesson? It’s not that you should never invest in foreign markets
like Japan; it’s that the Japanese should never have kept all their
money at home. And neither should you. If you live in the United
States, work in the United States, and get paid in U.S. dollars, you are
already making a multilayered bet on the U.S. economy. To be prudent,
you should put some of your investment portfolio elsewhere—simply
because no one, anywhere, can ever know what the future will bring at
home or abroad. Putting up to a third of your stock money in mutual
funds that hold foreign stocks (including those in emerging markets)
helps insure against the risk that our own backyard may not always be
the best place in the world to invest.


The Investor and Market Fluctuations

To the extent that the investor’s funds are placed in high-grade

bonds of relatively short maturity—say, of seven years or less—he
will not be affected significantly by changes in market prices and
need not take them into account. (This applies also to his holdings
of U.S. savings bonds, which he can always turn in at his cost price
or more.) His longer-term bonds may have relatively wide price
swings during their lifetimes, and his common-stock portfolio is
almost certain to fluctuate in value over any period of several

The investor should know about these possibilities and should
be prepared for them both financially and psychologically. He will
want to benefit from changes in market levels—certainly through
an advance in the value of his stock holdings as time goes on, and
perhaps also by making purchases and sales at advantageous
prices. This interest on his part is inevitable, and legitimate
enough. But it involves the very real danger that it will lead him
into speculative attitudes and activities. It is easy for us to tell you
not to speculate; the hard thing will be for you to follow this
advice. Let us repeat what we said at the outset: If you want to
speculate do so with your eyes open, knowing that you will proba-
bly lose money in the end; be sure to limit the amount at risk and to
separate it completely from your investment program.

We shall deal first with the more important subject of price
changes in common stocks, and pass later to the area of bonds.
In Chapter 3 we supplied a historical survey of the stock market’s
action over the past hundred years. In this section we shall return
to that material from time to time, in order to see what the past
record promises the investor—in either the form of long-term
appreciation of a portfolio held relatively unchanged through


The Investor and Market Fluctuations 189

successive rises and declines, or in the possibilities of buying
near bear-market lows and selling not too far below bull-market

Market Fluctuations as a Guide to Investment Decisions

Since common stocks, even of investment grade, are subject to
recurrent and wide fluctuations in their prices, the intelligent
investor should be interested in the possibilities of profiting from
these pendulum swings. There are two possible ways by which
he may try to do this: the way of timing and the way of pricing.
By timing we mean the endeavor to anticipate the action of the
stock market—to buy or hold when the future course is deemed
to be upward, to sell or refrain from buying when the course
is downward. By pricing we mean the endeavor to buy stocks
when they are quoted below their fair value and to sell them when
they rise above such value. A less ambitious form of pricing is
the simple effort to make sure that when you buy you do not
pay too much for your stocks. This may suffice for the defen-
sive investor, whose emphasis is on long-pull holding; but as
such it represents an essential minimum of attention to market

We are convinced that the intelligent investor can derive satis-
factory results from pricing of either type. We are equally sure that
if he places his emphasis on timing, in the sense of forecasting, he
will end up as a speculator and with a speculator’s financial
results. This distinction may seem rather tenuous to the layman,
and it is not commonly accepted on Wall Street. As a matter of
business practice, or perhaps of thoroughgoing conviction, the
stock brokers and the investment services seem wedded to the
principle that both investors and speculators in common stocks
should devote careful attention to market forecasts.

The farther one gets from Wall Street, the more skepticism one
will find, we believe, as to the pretensions of stock-market forecast-
ing or timing. The investor can scarcely take seriously the innumer-
able predictions which appear almost daily and are his for the
asking. Yet in many cases he pays attention to them and even acts
upon them. Why? Because he has been persuaded that it is impor-
tant for him to form some opinion of the future course of the stock

190 The Intelligent Investor

market, and because he feels that the brokerage or service forecast
is at least more dependable than his own.*

We lack space here to discuss in detail the pros and cons of mar-
ket forecasting. A great deal of brain power goes into this field, and
undoubtedly some people can make money by being good stock-
market analysts. But it is absurd to think that the general public can
ever make money out of market forecasts. For who will buy when
the general public, at a given signal, rushes to sell out at a profit? If
you, the reader, expect to get rich over the years by following some
system or leadership in market forecasting, you must be expecting
to try to do what countless others are aiming at, and to be able to
do it better than your numerous competitors in the market. There
is no basis either in logic or in experience for assuming that any
typical or average investor can anticipate market movements more
successfully than the general public, of which he is himself a part.

There is one aspect of the “timing” philosophy which seems to
have escaped everyone’s notice. Timing is of great psychological
importance to the speculator because he wants to make his profit in

* In the late 1990s, the forecasts of “market strategists” became more influ-
ential than ever before. They did not, unfortunately, become more accurate.
On March 10, 2000, the very day that the NASDAQ composite index hit its
all-time high of 5048.62, Prudential Securities’s chief technical analyst
Ralph Acampora said in USA Today that he expected NASDAQ to hit 6000
within 12 to 18 months. Five weeks later, NASDAQ had already shriveled to
3321.29—but Thomas Galvin, a market strategist at Donaldson, Lufkin &
Jenrette, declared that “there’s only 200 or 300 points of downside for the
NASDAQ and 2000 on the upside.” It turned out that there were no points
on the upside and more than 2000 on the downside, as NASDAQ kept
crashing until it finally scraped bottom on October 9, 2002, at 1114.11. In
March 2001, Abby Joseph Cohen, chief investment strategist at Goldman,
Sachs & Co., predicted that the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index would
close the year at 1,650 and that the Dow Jones Industrial Average would
finish 2001 at 13,000. “We do not expect a recession,” said Cohen, “and
believe that corporate profits are likely to grow at close to trend growth
rates later this year.” The U.S. economy was sinking into recession even as
she spoke, and the S & P 500 ended 2001 at 1148.08, while the Dow fin-
ished at 10,021.50—30% and 23% below her forecasts, respectively.

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 191

a hurry. The idea of waiting a year before his stock moves up is
repugnant to him. But a waiting period, as such, is of no conse-
quence to the investor. What advantage is there to him in having
his money uninvested until he receives some (presumably) trust-
worthy signal that the time has come to buy? He enjoys an advan-
tage only if by waiting he succeeds in buying later at a sufficiently
lower price to offset his loss of dividend income. What this means is
that timing is of no real value to the investor unless it coincides
with pricing—that is, unless it enables him to repurchase his shares
at substantially under his previous selling price.

In this respect the famous Dow theory for timing purchases and
sales has had an unusual history.* Briefly, this technique takes its
signal to buy from a special kind of “breakthrough” of the stock
averages on the up side, and its selling signal from a similar break-
through on the down side. The calculated—not necessarily
actual—results of using this method showed an almost unbroken
series of profits in operations from 1897 to the early 1960s. On the
basis of this presentation the practical value of the Dow theory
would have appeared firmly established; the doubt, if any, would
apply to the dependability of this published “record” as a picture
of what a Dow theorist would actually have done in the market.

A closer study of the figures indicates that the quality of the
results shown by the Dow theory changed radically after 1938—
a few years after the theory had begun to be taken seriously on
Wall Street. Its spectacular achievement had been in giving a sell
signal, at 306, about a month before the 1929 crash and in keeping
its followers out of the long bear market until things had pretty
well righted themselves, at 84, in 1933. But from 1938 on the Dow
theory operated mainly by taking its practitioners out at a pretty
good price but then putting them back in again at a higher price.
For nearly 30 years thereafter, one would have done appreciably
better by just buying and holding the DJIA.2

In our view, based on much study of this problem, the change in
the Dow-theory results is not accidental. It demonstrates an inher-
ent characteristic of forecasting and trading formulas in the fields
of business and finance. Those formulas that gain adherents and

* See p. 3.

192 The Intelligent Investor

importance do so because they have worked well over a period, or
sometimes merely because they have been plausibly adapted to the
statistical record of the past. But as their acceptance increases, their
reliability tends to diminish. This happens for two reasons: First,
the passage of time brings new conditions which the old formula
no longer fits. Second, in stock-market affairs the popularity of a
trading theory has itself an influence on the market’s behavior
which detracts in the long run from its profit-making possibilities.
(The popularity of something like the Dow theory may seem to cre-
ate its own vindication, since it would make the market advance or
decline by the very action of its followers when a buying or selling
signal is given. A “stampede” of this kind is, of course, much more
of a danger than an advantage to the public trader.)

Buy-Low–Sell-High Approach

We are convinced that the average investor cannot deal success-
fully with price movements by endeavoring to forecast them. Can
he benefit from them after they have taken place—i.e., by buying
after each major decline and selling out after each major advance?
The fluctuations of the market over a period of many years prior to
1950 lent considerable encouragement to that idea. In fact, a classic
definition of a “shrewd investor” was “one who bought in a bear
market when everyone else was selling, and sold out in a bull mar-
ket when everyone else was buying.” If we examine our Chart I,
covering the fluctuations of the Standard & Poor’s composite index
between 1900 and 1970, and the supporting figures in Table 3-1 (p.
66), we can readily see why this viewpoint appeared valid until
fairly recent years.

Between 1897 and 1949 there were ten complete market cycles,
running from bear-market low to bull-market high and back to
bear-market low. Six of these took no longer than four years, four
ran for six or seven years, and one—the famous “new-era” cycle of
1921–1932—lasted eleven years. The percentage of advance from
the lows to highs ranged from 44% to 500%, with most between
about 50% and 100%. The percentage of subsequent declines
ranged from 24% to 89%, with most found between 40% and 50%.
(It should be remembered that a decline of 50% fully offsets a pre-
ceding advance of 100%.)

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 193

Nearly all the bull markets had a number of well-defined char-
acteristics in common, such as (1) a historically high price level, (2)
high price/earnings ratios, (3) low dividend yields as against bond
yields, (4) much speculation on margin, and (5) many offerings of
new common-stock issues of poor quality. Thus to the student of
stock-market history it appeared that the intelligent investor
should have been able to identify the recurrent bear and bull mar-
kets, to buy in the former and sell in the latter, and to do so for the
most part at reasonably short intervals of time. Various methods
were developed for determining buying and selling levels of the
general market, based on either value factors or percentage move-
ments of prices or both.

But we must point out that even prior to the unprecedented bull
market that began in 1949, there were sufficient variations in the
successive market cycles to complicate and sometimes frustrate the
desirable process of buying low and selling high. The most notable
of these departures, of course, was the great bull market of the late
1920s, which threw all calculations badly out of gear.* Even in 1949,
therefore, it was by no means a certainty that the investor could
base his financial policies and procedures mainly on the endeavor
to buy at low levels in bear markets and to sell out at high levels in
bull markets.

It turned out, in the sequel, that the opposite was true. The

* Without bear markets to take stock prices back down, anyone waiting to
“buy low” will feel completely left behind—and, all too often, will end up
abandoning any former caution and jumping in with both feet. That’s why
Graham’s message about the importance of emotional discipline is so
important. From October 1990 through January 2000, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average marched relentlessly upward, never losing more than
20% and suffering a loss of 10% or more only three times. The total gain
(not counting dividends): 395.7%. According to Crandall, Pierce & Co., this
was the second-longest uninterrupted bull market of the past century; only
the 1949–1961 boom lasted longer. The longer a bull market lasts, the
more severely investors will be afflicted with amnesia; after five years or so,
many people no longer believe that bear markets are even possible. All
those who forget are doomed to be reminded; and, in the stock market,
recovered memories are always unpleasant.

194 The Intelligent Investor

market’s behavior in the past 20 years has not followed the former
pattern, nor obeyed what once were well-established danger sig-
nals, nor permitted its successful exploitation by applying old rules
for buying low and selling high. Whether the old, fairly regular
bull-and-bear-market pattern will eventually return we do not
know. But it seems unrealistic to us for the investor to endeavor to
base his present policy on the classic formula—i.e., to wait for
demonstrable bear-market levels before buying any common
stocks. Our recommended policy has, however, made provision
for changes in the proportion of common stocks to bonds in the
portfolio, if the investor chooses to do so, according as the level
of stock prices appears less or more attractive by value stan-

Formula Plans

In the early years of the stock-market rise that began in 1949–50
considerable interest was attracted to various methods of taking
advantage of the stock market’s cycles. These have been known as
“formula investment plans.” The essence of all such plans—except
the simple case of dollar averaging—is that the investor automati-
cally does some selling of common stocks when the market
advances substantially. In many of them a very large rise in the
market level would result in the sale of all common-stock holdings;
others provided for retention of a minor proportion of equities
under all circumstances.

This approach had the double appeal of sounding logical (and
conservative) and of showing excellent results when applied retro-
spectively to the stock market over many years in the past. Unfor-
tunately, its vogue grew greatest at the very time when it was
destined to work least well. Many of the “formula planners” found
themselves entirely or nearly out of the stock market at some level
in the middle 1950s. True, they had realized excellent profits, but in
a broad sense the market “ran away” from them thereafter, and

* Graham discusses this “recommended policy” in Chapter 4 (pp. 89–91).
This policy, now called “tactical asset allocation,” is widely followed by insti-
tutional investors like pension funds and university endowments.

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 195

their formulas gave them little opportunity to buy back a common-
stock position.*

There is a similarity between the experience of those adopting
the formula-investing approach in the early 1950s and those who
embraced the purely mechanical version of the Dow theory some
20 years earlier. In both cases the advent of popularity marked
almost the exact moment when the system ceased to work well. We
have had a like discomfiting experience with our own “central
value method” of determining indicated buying and selling levels
of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The moral seems to be that
any approach to moneymaking in the stock market which can be
easily described and followed by a lot of people is by its terms too
simple and too easy to last.† Spinoza’s concluding remark applies
to Wall Street as well as to philosophy: “All things excellent are as
difficult as they are rare.”

Market Fluctuations of the Investor’s Portfolio

Every investor who owns common stocks must expect to see
them fluctuate in value over the years. The behavior of the DJIA
since our last edition was written in 1964 probably reflects pretty
well what has happened to the stock portfolio of a conservative
investor who limited his stock holdings to those of large, promi-
nent, and conservatively financed corporations. The overall value
advanced from an average level of about 890 to a high of 995 in

* Many of these “formula planners” would have sold all their stocks at the
end of 1954, after the U.S. stock market rose 52.6%, the second-highest
yearly return then on record. Over the next five years, these market-timers
would likely have stood on the sidelines as stocks doubled.
† Easy ways to make money in the stock market fade for two reasons: the
natural tendency of trends to reverse over time, or “regress to the mean,”
and the rapid adoption of the stock-picking scheme by large numbers of
people, who pile in and spoil all the fun of those who got there first. (Note
that, in referring to his “discomfiting experience,” Graham is—as always—
honest in admitting his own failures.) See Jason Zweig, “Murphy Was an
Investor,” Money, July, 2002, pp. 61–62, and Jason Zweig, “New Year’s
Play,” Money, December, 2000, pp. 89–90.

196 The Intelligent Investor

1966 (and 985 again in 1968), fell to 631 in 1970, and made an
almost full recovery to 940 in early 1971. (Since the individual
issues set their high and low marks at different times, the fluc-
tuations in the Dow Jones group as a whole are less severe than
those in the separate components.) We have traced through the
price fluctuations of other types of diversified and conservative
common-stock portfolios and we find that the overall results are
not likely to be markedly different from the above. In general, the
shares of second-line companies* fluctuate more widely than the
major ones, but this does not necessarily mean that a group of well-
established but smaller companies will make a poorer showing
over a fairly long period. In any case the investor may as well
resign himself in advance to the probability rather than the mere
possibility that most of his holdings will advance, say, 50% or more
from their low point and decline the equivalent one-third or more
from their high point at various periods in the next five years.†

A serious investor is not likely to believe that the day-to-day or
even month-to-month fluctuations of the stock market make him
richer or poorer. But what about the longer-term and wider
changes? Here practical questions present themselves, and the psy-
chological problems are likely to grow complicated. A substantial
rise in the market is at once a legitimate reason for satisfaction and
a cause for prudent concern, but it may also bring a strong tempta-
tion toward imprudent action. Your shares have advanced, good!

* Today’s equivalent of what Graham calls “second-line companies” would
be any of the thousands of stocks not included in the Standard & Poor’s
500-stock index. A regularly revised list of the 500 stocks in the S & P index
is available at
† Note carefully what Graham is saying here. It is not just possible, but prob-
able, that most of the stocks you own will gain at least 50% from their low-
est price and lose at least 33% from their highest price—regardless of which
stocks you own or whether the market as a whole goes up or down. If you
can’t live with that—or you think your portfolio is somehow magically exempt
from it—then you are not yet entitled to call yourself an investor. (Graham
refers to a 33% decline as the “equivalent one-third” because a 50% gain
takes a $10 stock to $15. From $15, a 33% loss [or $5 drop] takes it right
back to $10, where it started.)

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 197

You are richer than you were, good! But has the price risen too high,
and should you think of selling? Or should you kick yourself for
not having bought more shares when the level was lower? Or—
worst thought of all—should you now give way to the bull-market
atmosphere, become infected with the enthusiasm, the overconfi-
dence and the greed of the great public (of which, after all, you are
a part), and make larger and dangerous commitments? Presented
thus in print, the answer to the last question is a self-evident no, but
even the intelligent investor is likely to need considerable will
power to keep from following the crowd.

It is for these reasons of human nature, even more than by calcu-
lation of financial gain or loss, that we favor some kind of mechan-
ical method for varying the proportion of bonds to stocks in the
investor’s portfolio. The chief advantage, perhaps, is that such a
formula will give him something to do. As the market advances he
will from time to time make sales out of his stockholdings, putting
the proceeds into bonds; as it declines he will reverse the proce-
dure. These activities will provide some outlet for his otherwise
too-pent-up energies. If he is the right kind of investor he will take
added satisfaction from the thought that his operations are exactly
opposite from those of the crowd.*

Business Valuations versus Stock-Market Valuations

The impact of market fluctuations upon the investor’s true situ-
ation may be considered also from the standpoint of the share-
holder as the part owner of various businesses. The holder of
marketable shares actually has a double status, and with it the
privilege of taking advantage of either at his choice. On the one
hand his position is analogous to that of a minority shareholder or
silent partner in a private business. Here his results are entirely
dependent on the profits of the enterprise or on a change in the
underlying value of its assets. He would usually determine the
value of such a private-business interest by calculating his share of
the net worth as shown in the most recent balance sheet. On the

* For today’s investor, the ideal strategy for pursuing this “formula” is rebal-
ancing, which we discuss on pp. 104–105.

198 The Intelligent Investor

other hand, the common-stock investor holds a piece of paper, an
engraved stock certificate, which can be sold in a matter of minutes
at a price which varies from moment to moment—when the mar-
ket is open, that is—and often is far removed from the balance-
sheet value.*

The development of the stock market in recent decades has
made the typical investor more dependent on the course of price
quotations and less free than formerly to consider himself merely a
business owner. The reason is that the successful enterprises in
which he is likely to concentrate his holdings sell almost constantly
at prices well above their net asset value (or book value, or
“balance-sheet value”). In paying these market premiums the
investor gives precious hostages to fortune, for he must depend on
the stock market itself to validate his commitments.†

This is a factor of prime importance in present-day investing,
and it has received less attention than it deserves. The whole struc-
ture of stock-market quotations contains a built-in contradiction.
The better a company’s record and prospects, the less relationship
the price of its shares will have to their book value. But the greater
the premium above book value, the less certain the basis of deter-
mining its intrinsic value—i.e., the more this “value” will depend
on the changing moods and measurements of the stock market.
Thus we reach the final paradox, that the more successful the com-
pany, the greater are likely to be the fluctuations in the price of its
shares. This really means that, in a very real sense, the better the

* Most companies today provide “an engraved stock certificate” only upon
special request. Stocks exist, for the most part, in purely electronic form
(much as your bank account contains computerized credits and debits, not
actual currency) and thus have become even easier to trade than they were
in Graham’s day.
† Net asset value, book value, balance-sheet value, and tangible-asset value
are all synonyms for net worth, or the total value of a company’s physical
and financial assets minus all its liabilities. It can be calculated using the bal-
ance sheets in a company’s annual and quarterly reports; from total share-
holders’ equity, subtract all “soft” assets such as goodwill, trademarks, and
other intangibles. Divide by the fully diluted number of shares outstanding to
arrive at book value per share.

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 199

quality of a common stock, the more speculative it is likely to be—at
least as compared with the unspectacular middle-grade issues.*
(What we have said applies to a comparison of the leading growth
companies with the bulk of well-established concerns; we exclude
from our purview here those issues which are highly speculative
because the businesses themselves are speculative.)

The argument made above should explain the often erratic price
behavior of our most successful and impressive enterprises. Our
favorite example is the monarch of them all—International Busi-
ness Machines. The price of its shares fell from 607 to 300 in seven
months in 1962–63; after two splits its price fell from 387 to 219 in
1970. Similarly, Xerox—an even more impressive earnings gainer
in recent decades—fell from 171 to 87 in 1962–63, and from 116 to
65 in 1970. These striking losses did not indicate any doubt about
the future long-term growth of IBM or Xerox; they reflected instead
a lack of confidence in the premium valuation that the stock mar-
ket itself had placed on these excellent prospects.

The previous discussion leads us to a conclusion of practical
importance to the conservative investor in common stocks. If he is
to pay some special attention to the selection of his portfolio, it
might be best for him to concentrate on issues selling at a reason-
ably close approximation to their tangible-asset value—say, at not
more than one-third above that figure. Purchases made at such
levels, or lower, may with logic be regarded as related to the

* Graham’s use of the word “paradox” is probably an allusion to a classic
article by David Durand, “Growth Stocks and the Petersburg Paradox,” The
Journal of Finance, vol. XII, no. 3, September, 1957, pp. 348–363, which
compares investing in high-priced growth stocks to betting on a series of
coin flips in which the payoff escalates with each flip of the coin. Durand
points out that if a growth stock could continue to grow at a high rate for
an indefinite period of time, an investor should (in theory) be willing to pay
an infinite price for its shares. Why, then, has no stock ever sold for a
price of infinity dollars per share? Because the higher the assumed future
growth rate, and the longer the time period over which it is expected, the
wider the margin for error grows, and the higher the cost of even a tiny mis-
calculation becomes. Graham discusses this problem further in Appendix 4
(p. 570).

200 The Intelligent Investor

company’s balance sheet, and as having a justification or support
independent of the fluctuating market prices. The premium over
book value that may be involved can be considered as a kind of
extra fee paid for the advantage of stock-exchange listing and the
marketability that goes with it.

A caution is needed here. A stock does not become a sound
investment merely because it can be bought at close to its asset
value. The investor should demand, in addition, a satisfactory ratio
of earnings to price, a sufficiently strong financial position, and the
prospect that its earnings will at least be maintained over the years.
This may appear like demanding a lot from a modestly priced
stock, but the prescription is not hard to fill under all but danger-
ously high market conditions. Once the investor is willing to forgo
brilliant prospects—i.e., better than average expected growth—he
will have no difficulty in finding a wide selection of issues meeting
these criteria.

In our chapters on the selection of common stocks (Chapters 14
and 15) we shall give data showing that more than half of the DJIA
issues met our asset-value criterion at the end of 1970. The most
widely held investment of all—American Tel. & Tel.—actually sells
below its tangible-asset value as we write. Most of the light-and-
power shares, in addition to their other advantages, are now (early
1972) available at prices reasonably close to their asset values.

The investor with a stock portfolio having such book values
behind it can take a much more independent and detached view of
stock-market fluctuations than those who have paid high multipli-
ers of both earnings and tangible assets. As long as the earning
power of his holdings remains satisfactory, he can give as little
attention as he pleases to the vagaries of the stock market. More
than that, at times he can use these vagaries to play the master
game of buying low and selling high.

The A. & P. Example

At this point we shall introduce one of our original examples,
which dates back many years but which has a certain fascination
for us because it combines so many aspects of corporate and
investment experience. It involves the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co. Here is the story:

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 201

A. & P. shares were introduced to trading on the “Curb” market,
now the American Stock Exchange, in 1929 and sold as high as 494.
By 1932 they had declined to 104, although the company’s earnings
were nearly as large in that generally catastrophic year as previ-
ously. In 1936 the range was between 111 and 131. Then in the busi-
ness recession and bear market of 1938 the shares fell to a new low
of 36.

That price was extraordinary. It meant that the preferred and
common were together selling for $126 million, although the com-
pany had just reported that it held $85 million in cash alone and a
working capital (or net current assets) of $134 million. A. & P. was
the largest retail enterprise in America, if not in the world, with a
continuous and impressive record of large earnings for many
years. Yet in 1938 this outstanding business was considered on
Wall Street to be worth less than its current assets alone—which
means less as a going concern than if it were liquidated. Why?
First, because there were threats of special taxes on chain stores;
second, because net profits had fallen off in the previous year; and,
third, because the general market was depressed. The first of these
reasons was an exaggerated and eventually groundless fear; the
other two were typical of temporary influences.

Let us assume that the investor had bought A. & P. common in
1937 at, say, 12 times its five-year average earnings, or about 80. We
are far from asserting that the ensuing decline to 36 was of no
importance to him. He would have been well advised to scrutinize
the picture with some care, to see whether he had made any mis-
calculations. But if the results of his study were reassuring—as
they should have been—he was entitled then to disregard the mar-
ket decline as a temporary vagary of finance, unless he had the
funds and the courage to take advantage of it by buying more on
the bargain basis offered.

Sequel and Reflections

The following year, 1939, A. & P. shares advanced to 1171⁄2, or
three times the low price of 1938 and well above the average of
1937. Such a turnabout in the behavior of common stocks is by no
means uncommon, but in the case of A. & P. it was more striking
than most. In the years after 1949 the grocery chain’s shares rose

202 The Intelligent Investor

with the general market until in 1961 the split-up stock (10 for 1)
reached a high of 701⁄2 which was equivalent to 705 for the 1938

This price of 701⁄2 was remarkable for the fact it was 30 times the
earnings of 1961. Such a price/earnings ratio—which compares
with 23 times for the DJIA in that year—must have implied expec-
tations of a brilliant growth in earnings. This optimism had no jus-
tification in the company’s earnings record in the preceding years,
and it proved completely wrong. Instead of advancing rapidly, the
course of earnings in the ensuing period was generally downward.
The year after the 701⁄2 high the price fell by more than half to 34.
But this time the shares did not have the bargain quality that they
showed at the low quotation in 1938. After varying sorts of fluctua-
tions the price fell to another low of 211⁄2 in 1970 and 18 in 1972—
having reported the first quarterly deficit in its history.

We see in this history how wide can be the vicissitudes of a
major American enterprise in little more than a single generation,
and also with what miscalculations and excesses of optimism and
pessimism the public has valued its shares. In 1938 the business
was really being given away, with no takers; in 1961 the public was
clamoring for the shares at a ridiculously high price. After that
came a quick loss of half the market value, and some years later a
substantial further decline. In the meantime the company was to
turn from an outstanding to a mediocre earnings performer; its
profit in the boom-year 1968 was to be less than in 1958; it had paid
a series of confusing small stock dividends not warranted by the
current additions to surplus; and so forth. A. & P. was a larger com-
pany in 1961 and 1972 than in 1938, but not as well-run, not as
profitable, and not as attractive.*

There are two chief morals to this story. The first is that the stock
market often goes far wrong, and sometimes an alert and coura-

* The more recent history of A & P is no different. At year-end 1999, its
share price was $27.875; at year-end 2000, $7.00; a year later, $23.78; at
year-end 2002, $8.06. Although some accounting irregularities later came
to light at A & P, it defies all logic to believe that the value of a relatively sta-
ble business like groceries could fall by three-fourths in one year, triple the
next year, then drop by two-thirds the year after that.

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 203

geous investor can take advantage of its patent errors. The other is
that most businesses change in character and quality over the
years, sometimes for the better, perhaps more often for the worse.
The investor need not watch his companies’ performance like a
hawk; but he should give it a good, hard look from time to time.

Let us return to our comparison between the holder of mar-
ketable shares and the man with an interest in a private business.
We have said that the former has the option of considering himself
merely as the part owner of the various businesses he has invested
in, or as the holder of shares which are salable at any time he
wishes at their quoted market price.

But note this important fact: The true investor scarcely ever is
forced to sell his shares, and at all other times he is free to disregard
the current price quotation. He need pay attention to it and act
upon it only to the extent that it suits his book, and no more.* Thus
the investor who permits himself to be stampeded or unduly wor-
ried by unjustified market declines in his holdings is perversely
transforming his basic advantage into a basic disadvantage. That
man would be better off if his stocks had no market quotation at
all, for he would then be spared the mental anguish caused him by
other persons’ mistakes of judgment.†

Incidentally, a widespread situation of this kind actually existed
during the dark depression days of 1931–1933. There was then a
psychological advantage in owning business interests that had no
quoted market. For example, people who owned first mortgages
on real estate that continued to pay interest were able to tell them-
selves that their investments had kept their full value, there being
no market quotations to indicate otherwise. On the other hand,
many listed corporation bonds of even better quality and greater

* “Only to the extent that it suits his book” means “only to the extent that the
price is favorable enough to justify selling the stock.” In traditional brokerage
lingo, the “book” is an investor’s ledger of holdings and trades.
† This may well be the single most important paragraph in Graham’s entire
book. In these 113 words Graham sums up his lifetime of experience. You
cannot read these words too often; they are like Kryptonite for bear markets.
If you keep them close at hand and let them guide you throughout your
investing life, you will survive whatever the markets throw at you.

204 The Intelligent Investor

underlying strength suffered severe shrinkages in their market
quotations, thus making their owners believe they were growing
distinctly poorer. In reality the owners were better off with the
listed securities, despite the low prices of these. For if they had
wanted to, or were compelled to, they could at least have sold the
issues—possibly to exchange them for even better bargains. Or
they could just as logically have ignored the market’s action as
temporary and basically meaningless. But it is self-deception to tell
yourself that you have suffered no shrinkage in value merely
because your securities have no quoted market at all.

Returning to our A. & P. shareholder in 1938, we assert that as
long as he held on to his shares he suffered no loss in their price
decline, beyond what his own judgment may have told him was
occasioned by a shrinkage in their underlying or intrinsic value. If
no such shrinkage had occurred, he had a right to expect that in
due course the market quotation would return to the 1937 level or
better—as in fact it did the following year. In this respect his posi-
tion was at least as good as if he had owned an interest in a private
business with no quoted market for its shares. For in that case, too,
he might or might not have been justified in mentally lopping off
part of the cost of his holdings because of the impact of the 1938
recession—depending on what had happened to his company.

Critics of the value approach to stock investment argue that
listed common stocks cannot properly be regarded or appraised in
the same way as an interest in a similar private enterprise, because
the presence of an organized security market “injects into equity
ownership the new and extremely important attribute of liquidity.”
But what this liquidity really means is, first, that the investor has
the benefit of the stock market’s daily and changing appraisal of
his holdings, for whatever that appraisal may be worth, and, second,
that the investor is able to increase or decrease his investment at
the market’s daily figure—if he chooses. Thus the existence of a
quoted market gives the investor certain options that he does not
have if his security is unquoted. But it does not impose the current
quotation on an investor who prefers to take his idea of value from
some other source.

Let us close this section with something in the nature of a para-
ble. Imagine that in some private business you own a small share
that cost you $1,000. One of your partners, named Mr. Market, is

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 205

very obliging indeed. Every day he tells you what he thinks your
interest is worth and furthermore offers either to buy you out or to
sell you an additional interest on that basis. Sometimes his idea of
value appears plausible and justified by business developments
and prospects as you know them. Often, on the other hand, Mr.
Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the
value he proposes seems to you a little short of silly.

If you are a prudent investor or a sensible businessman, will you
let Mr. Market’s daily communication determine your view of the
value of a $1,000 interest in the enterprise? Only in case you agree
with him, or in case you want to trade with him. You may be happy
to sell out to him when he quotes you a ridiculously high price,
and equally happy to buy from him when his price is low. But the
rest of the time you will be wiser to form your own ideas of the
value of your holdings, based on full reports from the company
about its operations and financial position.

The true investor is in that very position when he owns a listed
common stock. He can take advantage of the daily market price or
leave it alone, as dictated by his own judgment and inclination. He
must take cognizance of important price movements, for otherwise
his judgment will have nothing to work on. Conceivably they may
give him a warning signal which he will do well to heed—this in
plain English means that he is to sell his shares because the price has
gone down, foreboding worse things to come. In our view such sig-
nals are misleading at least as often as they are helpful. Basically,
price fluctuations have only one significant meaning for the true
investor. They provide him with an opportunity to buy wisely
when prices fall sharply and to sell wisely when they advance a
great deal. At other times he will do better if he forgets about the
stock market and pays attention to his dividend returns and to the
operating results of his companies.


The most realistic distinction between the investor and the spec-
ulator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements.
The speculator’s primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting
from market fluctuations. The investor’s primary interest lies in
acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market

206 The Intelligent Investor

movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they
alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to
buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from
buying and probably would be wise to sell.

It is far from certain that the typical investor should regularly
hold off buying until low market levels appear, because this may
involve a long wait, very likely the loss of income, and the possible
missing of investment opportunities. On the whole it may be better
for the investor to do his stock buying whenever he has money to
put in stocks, except when the general market level is much higher
than can be justified by well-established standards of value. If he
wants to be shrewd he can look for the ever-present bargain oppor-
tunities in individual securities.

Aside from forecasting the movements of the general market,
much effort and ability are directed on Wall Street toward selecting
stocks or industrial groups that in matter of price will “do better”
than the rest over a fairly short period in the future. Logical as this
endeavor may seem, we do not believe it is suited to the needs or
temperament of the true investor—particularly since he would be
competing with a large number of stock-market traders and first-
class financial analysts who are trying to do the same thing. As
in all other activities that emphasize price movements first and
underlying values second, the work of many intelligent minds con-
stantly engaged in this field tends to be self-neutralizing and self-
defeating over the years.

The investor with a portfolio of sound stocks should expect their
prices to fluctuate and should neither be concerned by sizable
declines nor become excited by sizable advances. He should
always remember that market quotations are there for his conve-
nience, either to be taken advantage of or to be ignored. He should
never buy a stock because it has gone up or sell one because it has
gone down. He would not be far wrong if this motto read more
simply: “Never buy a stock immediately after a substantial rise or
sell one immediately after a substantial drop.”

An Added Consideration

Something should be said about the significance of average mar-
ket prices as a measure of managerial competence. The shareholder

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 207

judges whether his own investment has been successful in terms
both of dividends received and of the long-range trend of the aver-
age market value. The same criteria should logically be applied in
testing the effectiveness of a company’s management and the
soundness of its attitude toward the owners of the business.

This statement may sound like a truism, but it needs to be
emphasized. For as yet there is no accepted technique or approach
by which management is brought to the bar of market opinion. On
the contrary, managements have always insisted that they have no
responsibility of any kind for what happens to the market value of
their shares. It is true, of course, that they are not accountable for
those fluctuations in price which, as we have been insisting, bear no
relationship to underlying conditions and values. But it is only the
lack of alertness and intelligence among the rank and file of share-
holders that permits this immunity to extend to the entire realm of
market quotations, including the permanent establishment of a
depreciated and unsatisfactory price level. Good managements
produce a good average market price, and bad managements pro-
duce bad market prices.*

Fluctuations in Bond Prices

The investor should be aware that even though safety of its prin-
cipal and interest may be unquestioned, a long-term bond could
vary widely in market price in response to changes in interest rates.
In Table 8-1 we give data for various years back to 1902 covering
yields for high-grade corporate and tax-free issues. As individual
illustrations we add the price fluctuations of two representative
railroad issues for a similar period. (These are the Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe general mortgage 4s, due 1995, for generations one of
our premier noncallable bond issues, and the Northern Pacific Ry.
3s, due 2047—originally a 150-year maturity!—long a typical Baa-
rated bond.)

Because of their inverse relationship the low yields correspond
to the high prices and vice versa. The decline in the Northern

* Graham has much more to say on what is now known as “corporate gov-
ernance.” See the commentary on Chapter 19.

208 The Intelligent Investor

Pacific 3s in 1940 represented mainly doubts as to the safety of the
issue. It is extraordinary that the price recovered to an all-time high
in the next few years, and then lost two-thirds of its price chiefly
because of the rise in general interest rates. There have been star-
tling variations, as well, in the price of even the highest-grade
bonds in the past forty years.

Note that bond prices do not fluctuate in the same (inverse) pro-
portion as the calculated yields, because their fixed maturity value
of 100% exerts a moderating influence. However, for very long
maturities, as in our Northern Pacific example, prices and yields
change at close to the same rate.

Since 1964 record movements in both directions have taken place
in the high-grade bond market. Taking “prime municipals” (tax-
free) as an example, their yield more than doubled, from 3.2% in
January 1965 to 7% in June 1970. Their price index declined, corre-
spondingly, from 110.8 to 67.5. In mid-1970 the yields on high-
grade long-term bonds were higher than at any time in the nearly
200 years of this country’s economic history.* Twenty-five years earlier,
just before our protracted bull market began, bond yields were at
their lowest point in history; long-term municipals returned as little
as 1%, and industrials gave 2.40% compared with the 41⁄2 to 5% for-
merly considered “normal.” Those of us with a long experience on
Wall Street had seen Newton’s law of “action and reaction, equal
and opposite” work itself out repeatedly in the stock market—the
most noteworthy example being the rise in the DJIA from 64 in
1921 to 381 in 1929, followed by a record collapse to 41 in 1932. But
this time the widest pendulum swings took place in the usually
staid and slow-moving array of high-grade bond prices and yields.
Moral: Nothing important on Wall Street can be counted on to
occur exactly in the same way as it happened before. This repre-

* By what Graham called “the rule of opposites,” in 2002 the yields on long-
term U.S. Treasury bonds hit their lowest levels since 1963. Since bond
yields move inversely to prices, those low yields meant that prices had
risen—making investors most eager to buy just as bonds were at their most
expensive and as their future returns were almost guaranteed to be low. This
provides another proof of Graham’s lesson that the intelligent investor must
refuse to make decisions based on market fluctuations.

TABLE 8-1 Fluctuations in Bond Yields, and in Prices of Two Representative Bond Issues, 1902–1970

Bond Yields Bond Prices


AAA S&P A. T. & S. F. Nor. Pac.
4s, 1995 3s, 2047
Composite Municipals

1902 low 4.31% 3.11% 1905 high 1051⁄2 79
1920 high 6.40 5.28 1920 low 69 491⁄2
1928 low 4.53 3.90 1930 high 105 73
1932 high 5.52 5.27 1932 low 75 463⁄4
1946 low 2.44 1.45 1936 high 1171⁄4 851⁄4
1970 high 8.44 7.06 1939–40 low 991⁄2 311⁄2
1971 close 7.14 5.35 1946 high 141 943⁄4
1970 low 51 323⁄4
1971 close 64 371⁄4

210 The Intelligent Investor

sents the first half of our favorite dictum: “The more it changes, the
more it’s the same thing.”

If it is virtually impossible to make worthwhile predictions
about the price movements of stocks, it is completely impossible to
do so for bonds.* In the old days, at least, one could often find a
useful clue to the coming end of a bull or bear market by studying
the prior action of bonds, but no similar clues were given to a com-
ing change in interest rates and bond prices. Hence the investor
must choose between long-term and short-term bond investments
on the basis chiefly of his personal preferences. If he wants to be
certain that the market values will not decrease, his best choices are
probably U.S. savings bonds, Series E or H, which were described
above, p. 93. Either issue will give him a 5% yield (after the first
year), the Series E for up to 55⁄6 years, the Series H for up to ten
years, with a guaranteed resale value of cost or better.

If the investor wants the 7.5% now available on good long-term
corporate bonds, or the 5.3% on tax-free municipals, he must be
prepared to see them fluctuate in price. Banks and insurance com-
panies have the privilege of valuing high-rated bonds of this type
on the mathematical basis of “amortized cost,” which disregards
market prices; it would not be a bad idea for the individual
investor to do something similar.

The price fluctuations of convertible bonds and preferred stocks
are the resultant of three different factors: (1) variations in the
price of the related common stock, (2) variations in the credit
standing of the company, and (3) variations in general interest
rates. A good many of the convertible issues have been sold by
companies that have credit ratings well below the best.3 Some of
these were badly affected by the financial squeeze in 1970. As a
result, convertible issues as a whole have been subjected to triply
unsettling influences in recent years, and price variations have
been unusually wide. In the typical case, therefore, the investor
would delude himself if he expected to find in convertible issues
that ideal combination of the safety of a high-grade bond and price

* An updated analysis for today’s readers, explaining recent yields and the
wider variety of bonds and bond funds available today, can be found in the
commentary on Chapter 4.

The Investor and Market Fluctuations 211

protection plus a chance to benefit from an advance in the price of
the common.

This may be a good place to make a suggestion about the “long-
term bond of the future.” Why should not the effects of changing
interest rates be divided on some practical and equitable basis
between the borrower and the lender? One possibility would be to
sell long-term bonds with interest payments that vary with an
appropriate index of the going rate. The main results of such an
arrangement would be: (1) the investor’s bond would always have
a principal value of about 100, if the company maintains its credit
rating, but the interest received will vary, say, with the rate offered
on conventional new issues; (2) the corporation would have the
advantages of long-term debt—being spared problems and costs of
frequent renewals of refinancing—but its interest costs would
change from year to year.4

Over the past decade the bond investor has been confronted by
an increasingly serious dilemma: Shall he choose complete stability
of principal value, but with varying and usually low (short-term)
interest rates? Or shall he choose a fixed-interest income, with
considerable variations (usually downward, it seems) in his princi-
pal value? It would be good for most investors if they could
compromise between these extremes, and be assured that neither
their interest return nor their principal value will fall below a
stated minimum over, say, a 20-year period. This could be
arranged, without great difficulty, in an appropriate bond contract
of a new form. Important note: In effect the U.S. government has
done a similar thing in its combination of the original savings-
bonds contracts with their extensions at higher interest rates. The
suggestion we make here would cover a longer fixed investment
period than the savings bonds, and would introduce more flexibil-
ity in the interest-rate provisions.*

It is hardly worthwhile to talk about nonconvertible preferred
stocks, since their special tax status makes the safe ones much more
desirable holdings by corporations—e.g., insurance companies—

* As mentioned in the commentary on Chapters 2 and 4, Treasury Inflation-
Protected Securities, or TIPS, are a new and improved version of what Gra-
ham is suggesting here.

212 The Intelligent Investor

than by individuals. The poorer-quality ones almost always fluctu-
ate over a wide range, percentagewise, not too differently from
common stocks. We can offer no other useful remark about them.
Table 16-2 below, p. 406, gives some information on the price
changes of lower-grade nonconvertible preferreds between Decem-
ber 1968 and December 1970. The average decline was 17%, against
11.3% for the S & P composite index of common stocks.


The happiness of those who want to be popular depends on
others; the happiness of those who seek pleasure fluctuates
with moods outside their control; but the happiness of the wise
grows out of their own free acts.

—Marcus Aurelius


Most of the time, the market is mostly accurate in pricing most stocks.
Millions of buyers and sellers haggling over price do a remarkably
good job of valuing companies—on average. But sometimes, the price
is not right; occasionally, it is very wrong indeed. And at such times,
you need to understand Graham’s image of Mr. Market, probably
the most brilliant metaphor ever created for explaining how stocks
can become mispriced.1 The manic-depressive Mr. Market does not
always price stocks the way an appraiser or a private buyer would
value a business. Instead, when stocks are going up, he happily pays
more than their objective value; and, when they are going down, he is
desperate to dump them for less than their true worth.

Is Mr. Market still around? Is he still bipolar? You bet he is.
On March 17, 2000, the stock of Inktomi Corp. hit a new high of
$231.625. Since they first came on the market in June 1998, shares
in the Internet-searching software company had gained roughly
1,900%. Just in the few weeks since December 1999, the stock had
nearly tripled.
What was going on at Inktomi the business that could make Inktomi
the stock so valuable? The answer seems obvious: phenomenally fast

1 See Graham’s text, pp. 204–205.


214 Commentary on Chapter 8

growth. In the three months ending in December 1999, Inktomi sold
$36 million in products and services, more than it had in the entire
year ending in December 1998. If Inktomi could sustain its growth
rate of the previous 12 months for just five more years, its revenues
would explode from $36 million a quarter to $5 billion a month. With
such growth in sight, the faster the stock went up, the farther up it
seemed certain to go.

But in his wild love affair with Inktomi’s stock, Mr. Market was over-
looking something about its business. The company was losing
money—lots of it. It had lost $6 million in the most recent quarter, $24
million in the 12 months before that, and $24 million in the year before
that. In its entire corporate lifetime, Inktomi had never made a dime in
profits. Yet, on March 17, 2000, Mr. Market valued this tiny business at
a total of $25 billion. (Yes, that’s billion, with a B.)

And then Mr. Market went into a sudden, nightmarish depression.
On September 30, 2002, just two and a half years after hitting
$231.625 per share, Inktomi’s stock closed at 25 cents—collapsing
from a total market value of $25 billion to less than $40 million. Had
Inktomi’s business dried up? Not at all; over the previous 12 months,
the company had generated $113 million in revenues. So what had
changed? Only Mr. Market’s mood: In early 2000, investors were
so wild about the Internet that they priced Inktomi’s shares at 250
times the company’s revenues. Now, however, they would pay only
0.35 times its revenues. Mr. Market had morphed from Dr. Jekyll to Mr.
Hyde and was ferociously trashing every stock that had made a fool
out of him.

But Mr. Market was no more justified in his midnight rage than he
had been in his manic euphoria. On December 23, 2002, Yahoo! Inc.
announced that it would buy Inktomi for $1.65 per share. That was
nearly seven times Inktomi’s stock price on September 30. History will
probably show that Yahoo! got a bargain. When Mr. Market makes
stocks so cheap, it’s no wonder that entire companies get bought
right out from under him.2

2 As Graham noted in a classic series of articles in 1932, the Great Depres-
sion caused the shares of dozens of companies to drop below the value of
their cash and other liquid assets, making them “worth more dead than

Commentary on Chapter 8 215


Would you willingly allow a certifiable lunatic to come by at least five
times a week to tell you that you should feel exactly the way he feels?
Would you ever agree to be euphoric just because he is—or miserable
just because he thinks you should be? Of course not. You’d insist on
your right to take control of your own emotional life, based on your
experiences and your beliefs. But, when it comes to their financial
lives, millions of people let Mr. Market tell them how to feel and what to
do—despite the obvious fact that, from time to time, he can get nuttier
than a fruitcake.

In 1999, when Mr. Market was squealing with delight, American
employees directed an average of 8.6% of their paychecks into their
401(k) retirement plans. By 2002, after Mr. Market had spent three
years stuffing stocks into black garbage bags, the average contribu-
tion rate had dropped by nearly one-quarter, to just 7%.3 The cheaper
stocks got, the less eager people became to buy them—because they
were imitating Mr. Market, instead of thinking for themselves.

The intelligent investor shouldn’t ignore Mr. Market entirely. Instead,
you should do business with him—but only to the extent that it serves
your interests. Mr. Market’s job is to provide you with prices; your job
is to decide whether it is to your advantage to act on them. You do not
have to trade with him just because he constantly begs you to.

By refusing to let Mr. Market be your master, you transform him into
your servant. After all, even when he seems to be destroying values,
he is creating them elsewhere. In 1999, the Wilshire 5000 index—the
broadest measure of U.S. stock performance—gained 23.8%, pow-
ered by technology and telecommunications stocks. But 3,743 of the
7,234 stocks in the Wilshire index went down in value even as the
average was rising. While those high-tech and telecom stocks were
hotter than the hood of a race car on an August afternoon, thousands
of “Old Economy” shares were frozen in the mud—getting cheaper and

The stock of CMGI, an “incubator” or holding company for Internet

3 News release, The Spectrem Group, “Plan Sponsors Are Losing the Battle
to Prevent Declining Participation and Deferrals into Defined Contribution
Plans,” October 25, 2002.

FIGURE 8-1 From Stinkers to Stars

Company Business 1999 Total Return 2002 Final value
2000 2001 of $1,000
Angelica industrial uniforms –43.7 94.1 invested
Ball Corp. metal & plastic packaging –12.7 1.8 19.3 46.0 1/1/1999
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants fast food –45.5 19.2 55.3 2.1
Family Dollar Stores discount retailer –25.1 63.9 66.2 5.0 1,328
International Game Technology gambling equipment –16.3 33.0 41.1 11.2 2,359
J B Hunt Transportation trucking –39.1 136.1 42.3 26.3 1,517
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers apparel –62.5 21.9 38.0 201.6 1,476
Lockheed Martin defense & aerospace –46.9 50.0 57.1 24.7 3,127
Pier 1 Imports home furnishings –33.2 58.0 39.0 10.3 1,294
UST Inc. snuff tobacco –23.5 63.9 70.5 1.0 2,665
21.6 32.2 1,453

Wilshire Internet Index 139.1 –55.5 –46.2 –45.0 315
Wilshire 5000 index (total stock market) 23.8 –10.9 –11.0 –20.8 778

Sources: Aronson + Johnson + Ortiz, L.P.;

Commentary on Chapter 8 217

start-up firms, went up an astonishing 939.9% in 1999. Meanwhile, Berk-
shire Hathaway—the holding company through which Graham’s greatest
disciple, Warren Buffett, owns such Old Economy stalwarts as Coca-
Cola, Gillette, and the Washington Post Co.—dropped by 24.9%.4

But then, as it so often does, the market had a sudden mood
swing. Figure 8-1 offers a sampling of how the stinkers of 1999 be-
came the stars of 2000 through 2002.

As for those two holding companies, CMGI went on to lose 96% in
2000, another 70.9% in 2001, and still 39.8% more in 2002—a cumulative
loss of 99.3%. Berkshire Hathaway went up 26.6% in 2000 and 6.5% in
2001, then had a slight 3.8% loss in 2002—a cumulative gain of 30%.


One of Graham’s most powerful insights is this: “The investor who
permits himself to be stampeded or unduly worried by unjustified mar-
ket declines in his holdings is perversely transforming his basic advan-
tage into a basic disadvantage.”

What does Graham mean by those words “basic advantage”? He
means that the intelligent individual investor has the full freedom to
choose whether or not to follow Mr. Market. You have the luxury of
being able to think for yourself.5

4 A few months later, on March 10, 2000—the very day that NASDAQ hit its all-
time high—online trading pundit James J. Cramer wrote that he had “repeat-
edly” been tempted in recent days to sell Berkshire Hathaway short, a bet that
Buffett’s stock had farther to fall. With a vulgar thrust of his rhetorical pelvis,
Cramer even declared that Berkshire’s shares were “ripe for the banging.” That
same day, market strategist Ralph Acampora of Prudential Securities asked,
“Norfolk Southern or Cisco Systems: Where do you want to be in the future?”
Cisco, a key to tomorrow’s Internet superhighway, seemed to have it all over
Norfolk Southern, part of yesterday’s railroad system. (Over the next year, Nor-
folk Southern gained 35%, while Cisco lost 70%.)
5 When asked what keeps most individual investors from succeeding, Gra-
ham had a concise answer: “The primary cause of failure is that they pay too
much attention to what the stock market is doing currently.” See “Benjamin
Graham: Thoughts on Security Analysis” [transcript of lecture at Northeast
Missouri State University Business School, March, 1972], Financial History
magazine, no. 42, March, 1991, p. 8.

218 Commentary on Chapter 8

The typical money manager, however, has no choice but to mimic Mr.
Market’s every move—buying high, selling low, marching almost mind-
lessly in his erratic footsteps. Here are some of the handicaps mutual-
fund managers and other professional investors are saddled with:

• With billions of dollars under management, they must gravitate
toward the biggest stocks—the only ones they can buy in the
multimillion-dollar quantities they need to fill their portfolios. Thus
many funds end up owning the same few overpriced giants.

• Investors tend to pour more money into funds as the market rises.
The managers use that new cash to buy more of the stocks they
already own, driving prices to even more dangerous heights.

• If fund investors ask for their money back when the market drops,
the managers may need to sell stocks to cash them out. Just as
the funds are forced to buy stocks at inflated prices in a rising
market, they become forced sellers as stocks get cheap again.

• Many portfolio managers get bonuses for beating the market, so
they obsessively measure their returns against benchmarks like
the S & P 500 index. If a company gets added to an index, hun-
dreds of funds compulsively buy it. (If they don’t, and that stock
then does well, the managers look foolish; on the other hand, if
they buy it and it does poorly, no one will blame them.)

• Increasingly, fund managers are expected to specialize. Just as in
medicine the general practitioner has given way to the pediatric
allergist and the geriatric otolaryngologist, fund managers must
buy only “small growth” stocks, or only “mid-sized value” stocks,
or nothing but “large blend” stocks.6 If a company gets too big, or
too small, or too cheap, or an itty bit too expensive, the fund has
to sell it—even if the manager loves the stock.

So there’s no reason you can’t do as well as the pros. What you
cannot do (despite all the pundits who say you can) is to “beat the
pros at their own game.” The pros can’t even win their own game!
Why should you want to play it at all? If you follow their rules, you will
lose—since you will end up as much a slave to Mr. Market as the pro-
fessionals are.

6 Never mind what these terms mean, or are supposed to mean. While in
public these classifications are treated with the utmost respect, in private
most people in the investment business regard them with the contempt nor-
mally reserved for jokes that aren’t funny.

Commentary on Chapter 8 219

Instead, recognize that investing intelligently is about controlling
the controllable. You can’t control whether the stocks or funds you buy
will outperform the market today, next week, this month, or this year; in
the short run, your returns will always be hostage to Mr. Market and
his whims. But you can control:

• your brokerage costs, by trading rarely, patiently, and cheaply
• your ownership costs, by refusing to buy mutual funds with

excessive annual expenses
• your expectations, by using realism, not fantasy, to forecast your

• your risk, by deciding how much of your total assets to put at

hazard in the stock market, by diversifying, and by rebalancing
• your tax bills, by holding stocks for at least one year and, when-

ever possible, for at least five years, to lower your capital-gains lia-
• and, most of all, your own behavior.

If you listen to financial TV, or read most market columnists, you’d
think that investing is some kind of sport, or a war, or a struggle for
survival in a hostile wilderness. But investing isn’t about beating oth-
ers at their game. It’s about controlling yourself at your own game.
The challenge for the intelligent investor is not to find the stocks that
will go up the most and down the least, but rather to prevent yourself
from being your own worst enemy—from buying high just because Mr.
Market says “Buy!” and from selling low just because Mr. Market says

If you investment horizon is long—at least 25 or 30 years—there is
only one sensible approach: Buy every month, automatically, and
whenever else you can spare some money. The single best choice for
this lifelong holding is a total stock-market index fund. Sell only when
you need the cash (for a psychological boost, clip out and sign your
“Investment Owner’s Contract”—which you can find on p. 225).

To be an intelligent investor, you must also refuse to judge your
financial success by how a bunch of total strangers are doing. You’re
not one penny poorer if someone in Dubuque or Dallas or Denver

7 See the brilliant column by Walter Updegrave, “Keep It Real,” Money, Feb-
ruary, 2002, pp. 53–56.

220 Commentary on Chapter 8

beats the S & P 500 and you don’t. No one’s gravestone reads “HE

I once interviewed a group of retirees in Boca Raton, one of
Florida’s wealthiest retirement communities. I asked these people—
mostly in their seventies—if they had beaten the market over their
investing lifetimes. Some said yes, some said no; most weren’t sure.
Then one man said, “Who cares? All I know is, my investments earned
enough for me to end up in Boca.”

Could there be a more perfect answer? After all, the whole point of
investing is not to earn more money than average, but to earn enough
money to meet your own needs. The best way to measure your invest-
ing success is not by whether you’re beating the market but by
whether you’ve put in place a financial plan and a behavioral discipline
that are likely to get you where you want to go. In the end, what mat-
ters isn’t crossing the finish line before anybody else but just making
sure that you do cross it.8


Why, then, do investors find Mr. Market so seductive? It turns out that
our brains are hardwired to get us into investing trouble; humans are
pattern-seeking animals. Psychologists have shown that if you present
people with a random sequence—and tell them that it’s unpre-
dictable—they will nevertheless insist on trying to guess what’s coming
next. Likewise, we “know” that the next roll of the dice will be a seven,
that a baseball player is due for a base hit, that the next winning num-
ber in the Powerball lottery will definitely be 4-27-9-16-42-10—and
that this hot little stock is the next Microsoft.

Groundbreaking new research in neuroscience shows that our
brains are designed to perceive trends even where they might not
exist. After an event occurs just two or three times in a row, regions of
the human brain called the anterior cingulate and nucleus accumbens
automatically anticipate that it will happen again. If it does repeat, a
natural chemical called dopamine is released, flooding your brain with
a soft euphoria. Thus, if a stock goes up a few times in a row, you
reflexively expect it to keep going—and your brain chemistry changes

8 See Jason Zweig, “Did You Beat the Market?” Money, January, 2000, pp.

Commentary on Chapter 8 221

as the stock rises, giving you a “natural high.” You effectively become
addicted to your own predictions.

But when stocks drop, that financial loss fires up your amygdala—
the part of the brain that processes fear and anxiety and generates the
famous “fight or flight” response that is common to all cornered ani-
mals. Just as you can’t keep your heart rate from rising if a fire alarm
goes off, just as you can’t avoid flinching if a rattlesnake slithers onto
your hiking path, you can’t help feeling fearful when stock prices are

In fact, the brilliant psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tver-
sky have shown that the pain of financial loss is more than twice as
intense as the pleasure of an equivalent gain. Making $1,000 on a
stock feels great—but a $1,000 loss wields an emotional wallop more
than twice as powerful. Losing money is so painful that many people,
terrified at the prospect of any further loss, sell out near the bottom or
refuse to buy more.

That helps explain why we fixate on the raw magnitude of a market
decline and forget to put the loss in proportion. So, if a TV reporter
hollers, “The market is plunging—the Dow is down 100 points! ” most
people instinctively shudder. But, at the Dow’s recent level of 8,000,
that’s a drop of just 1.2%. Now think how ridiculous it would sound if,
on a day when it’s 81 degrees outside, the TV weatherman shrieked,
“The temperature is plunging—it’s dropped from 81 degrees to 80
degrees! ” That, too, is a 1.2% drop. When you forget to view chang-
ing market prices in percentage terms, it’s all too easy to panic over
minor vibrations. (If you have decades of investing ahead of you,
there’s a better way to visualize the financial news broadcasts; see the
sidebar on p. 222.)

In the late 1990s, many people came to feel that they were in the
dark unless they checked the prices of their stocks several times a
day. But, as Graham puts it, the typical investor “would be better off if
his stocks had no market quotation at all, for he would then be spared
the mental anguish caused him by other persons’ mistakes of judg-

9 The neuroscience of investing is explored in Jason Zweig, “Are You Wired
for Wealth?” Money, October, 2002, pp. 74–83, also available at http:// _short/index.htm. See
also Jason Zweig, “The Trouble with Humans,” Money, November, 2000, pp.

222 Commentary on Chapter 8


Stocks are crashing, so you turn on the television to catch the
latest market news. But instead of CNBC or CNN, imagine that
you can tune in to the Benjamin Graham Financial Network. On
BGFN, the audio doesn’t capture that famous sour clang of the
market’s closing bell; the video doesn’t home in on brokers
scurrying across the floor of the stock exchange like angry
rodents. Nor does BGFN run any footage of investors gasping
on frozen sidewalks as red arrows whiz overhead on electronic
stock tickers.

Instead, the image that fills your TV screen is the facade of
the New York Stock Exchange, festooned with a huge banner
reading: “SALE! 50% OFF!” As intro music, Bachman-Turner
Overdrive can be heard blaring a few bars of their old barn-
burner, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet.” Then the anchorman
announces brightly, “Stocks became more attractive yet again
today, as the Dow dropped another 2.5% on heavy volume—the
fourth day in a row that stocks have gotten cheaper. Tech
investors fared even better, as leading companies like Microsoft
lost nearly 5% on the day, making them even more affordable.
That comes on top of the good news of the past year, in which
stocks have already lost 50%, putting them at bargain levels not
seen in years. And some prominent analysts are optimistic that
prices may drop still further in the weeks and months to come.”

The newscast cuts over to market strategist Ignatz Anderson
of the Wall Street firm of Ketchum & Skinner, who says, “My
forecast is for stocks to lose another 15% by June. I’m cau-
tiously optimistic that if everything goes well, stocks could lose
25%, maybe more.”

“Let’s hope Ignatz Anderson is right,” the anchor says cheer-
ily. “Falling stock prices would be fabulous news for any
investor with a very long horizon. And now over to Wally Wood
for our exclusive AccuWeather forecast.”

Commentary on Chapter 8 223

ment.” If, after checking the value of your stock portfolio at 1:24 P.M.,
you feel compelled to check it all over again at 1:37 P.M., ask yourself
these questions:

• Did I call a real-estate agent to check the market price of my
house at 1:24 P.M.? Did I call back at 1:37 P.M.?

• If I had, would the price have changed? If it did, would I have
rushed to sell my house?

• By not checking, or even knowing, the market price of my house
from minute to minute, do I prevent its value from rising over time?10

The only possible answer to these questions is of course not! And
you should view your portfolio the same way. Over a 10- or 20- or 30-
year investment horizon, Mr. Market’s daily dipsy-doodles simply do not
matter. In any case, for anyone who will be investing for years to come,
falling stock prices are good news, not bad, since they enable you to
buy more for less money. The longer and further stocks fall, and the
more steadily you keep buying as they drop, the more money you will
make in the end—if you remain steadfast until the end. Instead of fear-
ing a bear market, you should embrace it. The intelligent investor
should be perfectly comfortable owning a stock or mutual fund even if
the stock market stopped supplying daily prices for the next 10 years.11

Paradoxically, “you will be much more in control,” explains neurosci-
entist Antonio Damasio, “if you realize how much you are not in con-
trol.” By acknowledging your biological tendency to buy high and sell
low, you can admit the need to dollar-cost average, rebalance, and
sign an investment contract. By putting much of your portfolio on per-
manent autopilot, you can fight the prediction addiction, focus on your
long-term financial goals, and tune out Mr. Market’s mood swings.

10 It’s also worth asking whether you could enjoy living in your house if its
market price was reported to the last penny every day in the newspapers
and on TV.
11 In a series of remarkable experiments in the late 1980s, a psychologist at
Columbia and Harvard, Paul Andreassen, showed that investors who
received frequent news updates on their stocks earned half the returns of
investors who got no news at all. See Jason Zweig, “Here’s How to Use the
News and Tune Out the Noise,” Money, July, 1998, pp. 63–64.

224 Commentary on Chapter 8


Although Graham teaches that you should buy when Mr. Market is
yelling “sell,” there’s one exception the intelligent investor needs to
understand. Selling into a bear market can make sense if it creates a
tax windfall. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code allows you to use your
realized losses (any declines in value that you lock in by selling your
shares) to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income.12 Let’s say you
bought 200 shares of Coca-Cola stock in January 2000 for $60 a
share—a total investment of $12,000. By year-end 2002, the stock
was down to $44 a share, or $8,800 for your lot—a loss of $3,200.

You could have done what most people do—either whine about
your loss, or sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened.
Or you could have taken control. Before 2002 ended, you could have
sold all your Coke shares, locking in the $3,200 loss. Then, after wait-
ing 31 days to comply with IRS rules, you would buy 200 shares of
Coke all over again. The result: You would be able to reduce your tax-
able income by $3,000 in 2002, and you could use the remaining
$200 loss to offset your income in 2003. And better yet, you would
still own a company whose future you believe in—but now you would
own it for almost one-third less than you paid the first time.13

With Uncle Sam subsidizing your losses, it can make sense to sell
and lock in a loss. If Uncle Sam wants to make Mr. Market look logical
by comparison, who are we to complain?

12 Federal tax law is subject to constant change. The example of Coca-Cola
stock given here is valid under the provisions of the U.S. tax code as it stood
in early 2003.
13 This example assumes that the investor had no realized capital gains in
2002 and did not reinvest any Coke dividends. Tax swaps are not to be
undertaken lightly, since they can be mishandled easily. Before doing a tax
swap, read IRS Publication 550 ( A
good guide to managing your investment taxes is Robert N. Gordon with
Jan M. Rosen, Wall Street Secrets for Tax-Efficient Investing (Bloomberg
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2001). Finally, before you pull the trigger, con-
sult a professional tax adviser.


I, _____________ ___________________, hereby state that I am an investor
who is seeking to accumulate wealth for many years into the future.

I know that there will be many times when I will be tempted to invest in
stocks or bonds because they have gone (or “are going”) up in price, and
other times when I will be tempted to sell my investments because they have
gone (or “are going”) down.

I hereby declare my refusal to let a herd of strangers make my financial
decisions for me. I further make a solemn commitment never to invest
because the stock market has gone up, and never to sell because it has
gone down. Instead, I will invest $______.00 per month, every month,
through an automatic investment plan or “dollar-cost averaging program,”
into the following mutual fund(s) or diversified portfolio(s):



I will also invest additional amounts whenever I can afford to spare the

cash (and can afford to lose it in the short run).
I hereby declare that I will hold each of these investments continually

through at least the following date (which must be a minimum of 10 years
after the date of this contact): _________________ _____, 20__. The only
exceptions allowed under the terms of this contract are a sudden, pressing
need for cash, like a health-care emergency or the loss of my job, or a
planned expenditure like a housing down payment or a tuition bill.

I am, by signing below, stating my intention not only to abide by the terms
of this contract, but to re-read this document whenever I am tempted to sell
any of my investments.

This contract is valid only when signed by at least one witness, and must
be kept in a safe place that is easily accessible for future reference.

Signed: Date:

_____________ ___________________ _______________ ____, 20__


_____________ ___________________

_____________ ___________________


Investing in Investment Funds

One course open to the defensive investor is to put his money

into investment-company shares. Those that are redeemable on
demand by the holder, at net asset value, are commonly known as
“mutual funds” (or “open-end funds”). Most of these are actively
selling additional shares through a corps of salesmen. Those with
nonredeemable shares are called “closed-end” companies or funds;
the number of their shares remains relatively constant. All of the
funds of any importance are registered with the Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC), and are subject to its regulations and

The industry is a very large one. At the end of 1970 there were
383 funds registered with the SEC, having assets totaling $54.6 bil-
lions. Of these 356 companies, with $50.6 billions, were mutual
funds, and 27 companies with $4.0 billions, were closed-end.†

There are different ways of classifying the funds. One is by the
broad division of their portfolio; they are “balanced funds” if they
have a significant (generally about one-third) component of bonds,
or “stock-funds” if their holdings are nearly all common stocks.
(There are some other varieties here, such as “bond funds,” “hedge

* It is a violation of Federal law for an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end
fund, or an exchange-traded fund to sell shares to the public unless it has
“registered” (or made mandatory financial filings) with the SEC.
† The fund industry has gone from “very large” to immense. At year-end
2002, there were 8,279 mutual funds holding $6.56 trillion; 514 closed-end
funds with $149.6 billion in assets; and 116 exchange-trade funds or ETFs
with $109.7 billion. These figures exclude such fund-like investments as
variable annuities and unit investment trusts.


Investing in Investment Funds 227

funds,” “letter-stock funds,” etc.)* Another is by their objectives, as
their primary aim is for income, price stability, or capital apprecia-
tion (“growth”). Another distinction is by their method of sale.
“Load funds” add a selling charge (generally about 9% of asset
value on minimum purchases) to the value before charge.1 Others,
known as “no-load” funds, make no such charge; the manage-
ments are content with the usual investment-counsel fees for han-
dling the capital. Since they cannot pay salesmen’s commissions,
the size of the no-load funds tends to be on the low side.† The buy-
ing and selling prices of the closed-end funds are not fixed by the
companies, but fluctuate in the open market as does the ordinary
corporate stock.

Most of the companies operate under special provisions of the
income-tax law, designed to relieve the shareholders from double
taxation on their earnings. In effect, the funds must pay out vir-
tually all their ordinary income—i.e., dividends and interest
received, less expenses. In addition they can pay out their realized
long-term profits on sales of investments—in the form of “capital-
gains dividends”—which are treated by the shareholder as if they
were his own security profits. (There is another option here, which
we omit to avoid clutter.)‡ Nearly all the funds have but one class

* Lists of the major types of mutual funds can be found at
pdf/g2understanding.pdf and
CategoryReturns.html. Letter-stock funds no longer exist, while hedge funds
are generally banned by SEC rules from selling shares to any investor
whose annual income is below $200,000 or whose net worth is below $1
† Today, the maximum sales load on a stock fund tends to be around 5.75%.
If you invest $10,000 in a fund with a flat 5.75% sales load, $575 will go to
the person (and brokerage firm) that sold it to you, leaving you with an initial
net investment of $9,425. The $575 sales charge is actually 6.1% of that
amount, which is why Graham calls the standard way of calculating the
charge a “sales gimmick.” Since the 1980s, no-load funds have become
popular, and they no longer tend to be smaller than load funds.
‡ Nearly every mutual fund today is taxed as a “regulated investment company,”
or RIC, which is exempt from corporate income tax so long as it
pays out essentially all of its income to its shareholders. In the “option” that

228 The Intelligent Investor

of security outstanding. A new wrinkle, introduced in 1967, divides
the capitalization into a preferred issue, which will receive all the
ordinary income, and a capital issue, or common stock, which will
receive all the profits on security sales. (These are called “dual-
purpose funds.”)*

Many of the companies that state their primary aim is for capital
gains concentrate on the purchase of the so-called “growth stocks,”
and they often have the word “growth” in their name. Some spe-
cialize in a designated area such as chemicals, aviation, overseas
investments; this is usually indicated in their titles.

The investor who wants to make an intelligent commitment in
fund shares has thus a large and somewhat bewildering variety of
choices before him—not too different from those offered in direct
investment. In this chapter we shall deal with some major ques-
tions, viz:

1. Is there any way by which the investor can assure himself of
better than average results by choosing the right funds? (Subques-
tion: What about the “performance funds”?)†

2. If not, how can he avoid choosing funds that will give him
worse than average results?

3. Can he make intelligent choices between different types of
funds—e.g., balanced versus all-stock, open-end versus closed-
end, load versus no-load?

Graham omits “to avoid clutter,” a fund can ask the SEC for special permis-
sion to distribute one of its holdings directly to the fund’s shareholders—as
his Graham-Newman Corp. did in 1948, parceling out shares in GEICO to
Graham-Newman’s own investors. This sort of distribution is extraordinarily rare.
* Dual-purpose funds, popular in the late 1980s, have essentially disap-
peared from the marketplace—a shame, since they offered investors a more
flexible way to take advantage of the skills of great stock pickers like John
Neff. Perhaps the recent bear market will lead to a renaissance of this
attractive investment vehicle.
† “Performance funds” were all the rage in the late 1960s. They were equiv-
alent to the aggressive growth funds of the late 1990s, and served their
investors no better.

Investing in Investment Funds 229

Investment-Fund Performance as a Whole

Before trying to answer these questions we should say some-
thing about the performance of the fund industry as a whole. Has
it done a good job for its shareholders? In the most general way,
how have fund investors fared as against those who made their
investments directly? We are quite certain that the funds in the
aggregate have served a useful purpose. They have promoted
good habits of savings and investment; they have protected count-
less individuals against costly mistakes in the stock market; they
have brought their participants income and profits commensurate
with the overall returns from common stocks. On a comparative
basis we would hazard the guess that the average individual who
put his money exclusively in investment-fund shares in the past
ten years has fared better than the average person who made his
common-stock purchases directly.

The last point is probably true even though the actual perfor-
mance of the funds seems to have been no better than that of com-
mon stocks as a whole, and even though the cost of investing in
mutual funds may have been greater than that of direct purchases.
The real choice of the average individual has not been between
constructing and acquiring a well-balanced common-stock portfo-
lio or doing the same thing, a bit more expensively, by buying into
the funds. More likely his choice has been between succumbing to
the wiles of the doorbell-ringing mutual-fund salesman on the one
hand, as against succumbing to the even wilier and much more
dangerous peddlers of second- and third-rate new offerings. We
cannot help thinking, too, that the average individual who opens a
brokerage account with the idea of making conservative common-
stock investments is likely to find himself beset by untoward influ-
ences in the direction of speculation and speculative losses; these
temptations should be much less for the mutual-fund buyer.

But how have the investment funds performed as against the
general market? This is a somewhat controversial subject, but we
shall try to deal with it in simple but adequate fashion. Table 9-1
gives some calculated results for 1961–1970 of our ten largest stock
funds at the end of 1970, but choosing only the largest one from
each management group. It summarizes the overall return of each
of these funds for 1961–1965, 1966–1970, and for the single years

TABLE 9-1 Management Results of Ten Large Mutual Fundsa

(Indicated) 5 years, 10 years, 1969 1970 Net Assets,
5 years, 1966–1970 1961–1970 December
–14.3% +2.2%
1961–1965 (all +) –11.9 –6.4 1970
(all +) –7.4 +2.2 (millions)
–12.7 –5.8
Affiliated Fund 71% +19.7% 105.3% –10.6 +2.3 $1,600
Dreyfus 97 +18.7 135.4 –80.0 –7.2 2,232
Fidelity Fund 79 +31.8 137.1 – 4.0 +0.6
Fundamental Inv. 79 + 1.0 + 4.0 –9.1 819
Invest. Co. of Am. 82 +37.9 81.3 –13.3 –3.8 1,054
Investors Stock Fund 54 + 5.6 152.2 –10.3 –2.9 1,168
Mass. Inv. Trust 18 +16.2 2,227
National Investors 61 +31.7 63.5 – 8.9 –2.2 1,956
Putnam Growth 62 +22.3 44.2
United Accum. 74 – 2.0 112.2 – 8.3 +3.5 747
104.0 –11.6 +8.7 684
Average 72 18.3 72.7 1,141
Standard & Poor’s
77 +16.1 105.8 $13,628 (total)
composite index 78 + 2.9
DJIA 104.7

a These are the stock funds with the largest net assets at the end of 1970, but using only one fund from each management group. Data supplied
by Wiesenberger Financial Services.

Investing in Investment Funds 231

1969 and 1970. We also give average results based on the sum of
one share of each of the ten funds. These companies had combined
assets of over $15 billion at the end of 1969, or about one-third of all
the common-stock funds. Thus they should be fairly representative
of the industry as a whole. (In theory, there should be a bias in this
list on the side of better than industry performance, since these bet-
ter companies should have been entitled to more rapid expansion
than the others; but this may not be the case in practice.)

Some interesting facts can be gathered from this table. First, we
find that the overall results of these ten funds for 1961–1970 were
not appreciably different from those of the Standard & Poor’s 500-
stock composite average (or the S & P 425-industrial stock aver-
age). But they were definitely better than those of the DJIA. (This
raises the intriguing question as to why the 30 giants in the DJIA
did worse than the much more numerous and apparently rather
miscellaneous list used by Standard & Poor’s.)* A second point is
that the funds’ aggregate performance as against the S & P index
has improved somewhat in the last five years, compared with the
preceding five. The funds’ gain ran a little lower than S & P’s in
1961–1965 and a little higher than S & P’s in 1966–1970. The third
point is that a wide difference exists between the results of the indi-
vidual funds.

We do not think the mutual-fund industry can be criticized for
doing no better than the market as a whole. Their managers and
their professional competitors administer so large a portion of all
marketable common stocks that what happens to the market as a
whole must necessarily happen (approximately) to the sum of their
funds. (Note that the trust assets of insured commercial banks
included $181 billion of common stocks at the end of 1969; if we
add to this the common stocks in accounts handled by investment
advisers, plus the $56 billion of mutual and similar funds, we must
conclude that the combined decisions of these professionals pretty
well determine the movements of the stock averages, and that the

* For periods as long as 10 years, the returns of the Dow and the S & P 500
can diverge by fairly wide margins. Over the course of the typical investing
lifetime, however—say 25 to 50 years—their returns have tended to converge
quite closely.

232 The Intelligent Investor

movement of the stock averages pretty well determines the funds’
aggregate results.)

Are there better than average funds and can the investor select
these so as to obtain superior results for himself? Obviously all
investors could not do this, since in that case we would soon be
back where we started, with no one doing better than anyone else.
Let us consider the question first in a simplified fashion. Why
shouldn’t the investor find out what fund has made the best show-
ing of the lot over a period of sufficient years in the past, assume
from this that its management is the most capable and will there-
fore do better than average in the future, and put his money in that
fund? This idea appears the more practicable because, in the case
of the mutual funds, he could obtain this “most capable manage-
ment” without paying any special premium for it as against the
other funds. (By contrast, among noninvestment corporations the
best-managed companies sell at correspondingly high prices in
relation to their current earnings and assets.)

The evidence on this point has been conflicting over the years.
But our Table 9-1 covering the ten largest funds indicates that the
results shown by the top five performers of 1961–1965 carried over
on the whole through 1966–1970, even though two of this set did not
do as well as two of the other five. Our studies indicate that the
investor in mutual-fund shares may properly consider compara-
tive performance over a period of years in the past, say at least five,
provided the data do not represent a large net upward movement of
the market as a whole. In the latter case spectacularly favorable
results may be achieved in unorthodox ways—as will be demon-
strated in our following section on “performance” funds. Such
results in themselves may indicate only that the fund managers are
taking undue speculative risks, and getting away with same for the
time being.

“Performance” Funds

One of the new phenomena of recent years was the appearance
of the cult of “performance” in the management of investment
funds (and even of many trust funds). We must start this section
with the important disclaimer that it does not apply to the large
majority of well-established funds, but only to a relatively small

Investing in Investment Funds 233

section of the industry which has attracted a disproportionate
amount of attention. The story is simple enough. Some of those in
charge set out to get much better than average (or DJIA) results.
They succeeded in doing this for a while, garnering considerable
publicity and additional funds to manage. The aim was legitimate
enough; unfortunately, it appears that, in the context of investing
really sizable funds, the aim cannot be accomplished without
incurring sizable risks. And in a comparatively short time the risks
came home to roost.

Several of the circumstances surrounding the “performance”
phenomenon caused ominous headshaking by those of us whose
experience went far back—even to the 1920s—and whose views,
for that very reason, were considered old-fashioned and irrelevant
to this (second) “New Era.” In the first place, and on this very
point, nearly all these brilliant performers were young men—in
their thirties and forties—whose direct financial experience was
limited to the all but continuous bull market of 1948–1968. Sec-
ondly, they often acted as if the definition of a “sound investment”
was a stock that was likely to have a good rise in the market in the
next few months. This led to large commitments in newer ventures
at prices completely disproportionate to their assets or recorded
earnings. They could be “justified” only by a combination of naïve
hope in the future accomplishments of these enterprises with an
apparent shrewdness in exploiting the speculative enthusiasms of
the uninformed and greedy public.

This section will not mention people’s names. But we have
every reason to give concrete examples of companies. The “perfor-
mance fund” most in the public’s eye was undoubtedly Manhattan
Fund, Inc., organized at the end of 1965. Its first offering was of 27
million shares at $9.25 to $10 per share. The company started out
with $247 million of capital. Its emphasis was, of course, on capital
gains. Most of its funds were invested in issues selling at high mul-
tipliers of current earnings, paying no dividends (or very small
ones), with a large speculative following and spectacular price
movements. The fund showed an overall gain of 38.6% in 1967,
against 11% for the S & P composite index. But thereafter its perfor-
mance left much to be desired, as is shown in Table 9-2.

234 The Intelligent Investor

TABLE 9-2 A Performance-Fund Portfolio and Performance

(Larger Holdings of Manhattan Fund, December 31, 1969)

Shares Issue Price Earned Dividend Market
Held 1969 1969 Value
(thousands) (millions)

60 Teleprompter 99 $ .99 none $ 6.0
190 Deltona 601⁄2 2.32 none 11.5
280 Fedders 34 1.28 $ .35 9.5
105 Horizon Corp. 531⁄2 2.68 none 5.6
150 Rouse Co. 34 none 5.1
130 Mattel Inc. 641⁄4 .07 8.4
120 Polaroid 125 1.11 .20 15.0
244a Nat’l Student Mkt’g 281⁄2 1.90 .32 6.1
56 Telex Corp. 901⁄2 .32 none 5.0
100 Bausch & Lomb 773⁄4 .68 none 7.8
190 Four Seasons Nursing 66 1.92 .80 12.3b
20 Int. Bus. Machines 365 none 7.3
41.5 Nat’l Cash Register 160 .80 3.60 6.7
100 Saxon Ind. 109 8.21 1.20 10.9
105 Career Academy 50 1.95 none 5.3
285 King Resources 28 3.81 none 8.1
.43 none

Other common stocks 93.8

Other holdings 19.6

Total investmentsc $244.0

a After 2-for-1 split.
b Also $1.1 million of affiliated stocks.
c Excluding cash equivalents.

Annual Performance Compared with S & P Composite Index

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

Manhattan Fund – 6 % +38.6% – 7.3% –13.3% –36.9% + 9.6%
S & P Composite –10.1% +23.0% +10.4% – 8.3% + 3.5% +13.5%

Investing in Investment Funds 235

The portfolio of Manhattan Fund at the end of 1969 was
unorthodox to say the least. It is an extraordinary fact that two of
its largest investments were in companies that filed for bankruptcy
within six months thereafter, and a third faced creditors’ actions in
1971. It is another extraordinary fact that shares of at least one of
these doomed companies were bought not only by investment
funds but by university endowment funds, the trust departments
of large banking institutions, and the like.* A third extraordinary
fact was that the founder-manager of Manhattan Fund sold his
stock in a separately organized management company to another
large concern for over $20 million in its stock; at that time the man-
agement company sold had less than $1 million in assets. This is
undoubtedly one of the greatest disparities of all times between the
results for the “manager” and the “managees.”

A book published at the end of 19692 provided profiles of nine-
teen men “who are tops at the demanding game of managing bil-
lions of dollars of other people’s money.” The summary told us
further that “they are young . . . some earn more than a million dol-
lars a year . . . they are a new financial breed . . . they all have a
total fascination with the market . . . and a spectacular knack for
coming up with winners.” A fairly good idea of the accomplish-
ments of this top group can be obtained by examining the pub-
lished results of the funds they manage. Such results are available
for funds directed by twelve of the nineteen persons described in
The Money Managers. Typically enough, they showed up well in
1966, and brilliantly in 1967. In 1968 their performance was still
good in the aggregate, but mixed as to individual funds. In 1969
they all showed losses, with only one managing to do a bit better
than the S & P composite index. In 1970 their comparative perfor-
mance was even worse than in 1969.

* One of the “doomed companies” Graham refers to was National Student
Marketing Corp., a con game masquerading as a stock, whose saga was
told brilliantly in Andrew Tobias’s The Funny Money Game (Playboy Press,
New York, 1971). Among the supposedly sophisticated investors who were
snookered by NSM’s charismatic founder, Cort Randell, were the endow-
ment funds of Cornell and Harvard and the trust departments at such presti-
gious banks as Morgan Guaranty and Bankers Trust.

236 The Intelligent Investor

We have presented this picture in order to point a moral, which
perhaps can best be expressed by the old French proverb: Plus ça
change, plus c’est la même chose. Bright, energetic people—usually
quite young—have promised to perform miracles with “other
people’s money” since time immemorial. They have usually been
able to do it for a while—or at least to appear to have done it—and
they have inevitably brought losses to their public in the end.*
About a half century ago the “miracles” were often accompanied
by flagrant manipulation, misleading corporate reporting, outra-
geous capitalization structures, and other semifraudulent financial
practices. All this brought on an elaborate system of financial con-
trols by the SEC, as well as a cautious attitude toward common
stocks on the part of the general public. The operations of the new
“money managers” in 1965–1969 came a little more than one full
generation after the shenanigans of 1926–1929.† The specific mal-
practices banned after the 1929 crash were no longer resorted to—
they involved the risk of jail sentences. But in many corners of Wall
Street they were replaced by newer gadgets and gimmicks that
produced very similar results in the end. Outright manipulation of
prices disappeared, but there were many other methods of draw-
ing the gullible public’s attention to the profit possibilities in “hot”
issues. Blocks of “letter stock”3 could be bought well below the
quoted market price, subject to undisclosed restrictions on their
sale; they could immediately be carried in the reports at their full
market value, showing a lovely and illusory profit. And so on. It is

* As only the latest proof that “the more things change, the more they stay
the same,” consider that Ryan Jacob, a 29-year-old boy wonder, launched
the Jacob Internet Fund at year-end 1999, after producing a 216% return at
his previous dot-com fund. Investors poured nearly $300 million into
Jacob’s fund in the first few weeks of 2000. It then proceeded to lose
79.1% in 2000, 56.4% in 2001, and 13% in 2002—a cumulative collapse of
92%. That loss may have made Mr. Jacob’s investors even older and wiser
than it made him.
† Intriguingly, the disastrous boom and bust of 1999–2002 also came
roughly 35 years after the previous cycle of insanity. Perhaps it takes about
35 years for the investors who remember the last “New Economy” craze to
become less influential than those who do not. If this intuition is correct, the
intelligent investor should be particularly vigilant around the year 2030.

Click to View FlipBook Version
Previous Book
Next Book