Buffet and Munger are learning about market perception

by Kris_Tuttle on March 10, 2009

Since we’ve always been in tech­nol­ogy our paths haven’t crossed much with firms like Berk­shire Hath­away.  They have long eschewed invest­ments of a tech­nol­ogy sort with the refrain that they focus on “busi­nesses they can understand.”

Few would bother to argue with that stance.  One isn’t likely to out­per­form by know­ing less than oth­ers about an indus­try or an under­ly­ing busi­ness.  Tech­nol­ogy com­pa­nies also have an extra high-octane com­po­nent that has to do with the com­pa­nies posi­tion­ing and investor per­cep­tion.   There are often giant dis­par­i­ties between where two very sim­i­lar com­pa­nies trade from a val­u­a­tion stand­point.  It’s not unusual to see one com­pany trad­ing at 1x sales and 12x earn­ings with another at 5x or even 10x sales and over 50x earn­ings.  These large gaps exist even when we nor­mal­ize mar­gins.    Get­ting these dif­fer­ences right can be as impor­tant as under­stand­ing the fun­da­men­tals about the tech­nol­ogy busi­ness itself.  Yet another rea­son to avoid tech­nol­ogy invest­ing unless you have a real edge.

Some­thing hap­pened to the boys at Berk­shire that we didn’t expect.  They stum­bled into the per­cep­tion prob­lem from another direc­tion — options and deriv­a­tives.  The first time this got reported and the stock tanked, we bought shares in $BRK for the very first time.  They rapidly recov­ered their lost value and we sold due to the large gain in a very short period of time in a mar­ket that puts a pre­mium on keep­ing dry pow­der around every day.

A few weeks later we read the Berk­shire share­holder let­ter and imme­di­ately saw the prob­lem.  War­ren Buf­fet and Char­lie Munger cer­tainly under­stand what they are doing and their new­found expo­sure to long-term options and deriv­a­tives looks like a good deci­sion from a dol­lars and sense stand­point.  How­ever it’s put a cloud of doubt into the story and cre­ates a risk that long-term core hold­ers in the shares may decide that the com­pany is no longer what they understood.

We’ve observed that options are a real blind spot for many peo­ple, no mat­ter how smart they are.  We spent a heated hour or two in the White Horse Tav­ern in NYC try­ing to explain them to a friend who had a PhD in physics to no avail.   Since then we’ve worked with scores of ana­lysts and found that many have a hard time get­ting even the most basic options con­tracts and state­gies.  There’s just some­thing about them (like sta­tis­tics or chem­istry or draw­ing a horse) that blocks the mind.

War­ren took great pains to fully explain their expo­sure in the share­holder let­ter and why large fluc­tu­a­tions in stated value and the bal­ance sheet were not “real” in his sense of the word.   The prob­lem is the major­ity of his share­hold­ers may never be able to fully under­stand and feel com­fort­able with the new story.

The real ques­tion for us is do they under­stand the val­u­a­tion hair­cut they may have given $BRK thanks to this new facet of mar­ket per­cep­tion?  Unless the sit­u­a­tion reverses itself the gains made from these new posi­tions may not be enough to off­set lower investor con­fi­dence in their asset value and invest­ment approach.

[Research 2.0 has no posi­tion in $BRK at the time of this writing.]

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: