Global Value Investing | Thomas Russo | Talks at Google

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
[MUSIC PLAYING] SPEAKER 1: Hello, everyone. Welcome to another great episode of Talks at Google. We have a really special guest here today, Mr. Tom Russo. He needs no introduction. Mr. Tom Russo of Gardner, Russo and Gardner is an exceptional value investor. He graduated from Dartmouth College with a degree in history and Stanford with degrees in law and business. He has previously spoken at Google about investing. From the last time he was here last summer, he was awarded the Graham and Dodd, Murray, Greenwald Prize for Value Investing. He also serves as a charter member of the Advisory Board of the Heilbrunn Center at the Columbia School of Business. Today he will touch upon two very important aspects of his investing. First, the reduction of agency costs. The only thing that comes to mind when people say agency costs is Mr. Warren Buffett's quote, "Lethargy bordering on sloth-- TOM RUSSO: [LAUGHS] SPEAKER 1: --remains the cornerstone of our investment style." Mr. Russo is an exemplar of the buy and hold strategy and has held many of his positions for decades. Secondly, he will talk about the capacity to reinvest. In doing so, he'll touch upon factors which form a sort of a checklist for him as he makes his decisions. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Tom Russo. TOM RUSSO: Thank you very much indeed. [APPLAUSE] Speaking here-- it reminds me of what it must have been like at the catacombs of ancient Rome, where there were people sort of who were underground because of the Roman army marching above. And they were pursuing their own novel view of the world, and the concept that within the one company in the world has more information than anywhere else, there's a group of people here who believe that information can help you invest wisely as a way to add value, compared to the migration towards passive, the passive investors who are the, in fact, Roman army above us. Here we said, we'll talk about why it is that you can hope to make money by investing with a substantial point of view. So it's fun to be here. I'm delighted to have been asked to join, again. I'm going to really just jump right in and spend a little time on what I typically spend most of my time talking about, which is a three part process of what it is that I look for in investing. Because I've given a bit of the same talk earlier, and Sarab thought it might be interesting to touch on some other thoughts. So in addition to what we'll go through at the start, I've supplemented the comments with things I most worry about. And they're in the form of a checklist, and then mistakes that I've made. Hopefully, we'll run out of time, and I won't get to the mistakes that I've made. But to start off, I had the great fortune of having grown up in the investment business. After Dartmouth College, I worked on Wall Street during a period of time when inflation was notorious. It was 1977 to 1979, 1980. And interest rates went from 6% to 18%. And you know, you're seared as an investor by what you experience when you're first starting out. That was an extraordinary experience. I suspect those in your generation who fall prey to bitcoin may end up seeing similar painful moments in the investment business. And you'll learn very good lessons from that. But watching the fixed income markets really writhe during my training was terrific. I went back to Stanford business and law school and had the great good fortune at both schools to have spent time with two legends. At Stanford Law School, Charlie Munger was on the board of visitors. And I had a chance to meet with him when I was launching my investing career, and he was very influential. Then Warren Buffett came to our value investing seminar. And I think that's really the thing that confirmed for me the approach to investing would be characterized by sloth and lethargy, and all of the other sins of inactivity. Because what they described was an investment process which was very long term minded. And you know, if you look at the first slide, when I arrived, Warren was really just moving from the world of $0.50 dollar bill investing to franchise investments. Franchise investing, where there is economic goodwill that yields a return above what a commodity would. And so the $0.50 dollar bill approach that typified early value investors doesn't scale. And it's taxable. And the first point Warren made to our class was the government only gives you one break as an investor. That's the tax deferral on unrealized gains. And so if you can find a business that has the ability to reinvest its current cash flow into creating greater wealth, and you don't have to sell those shares, you don't have to pay tax. That's very profound. Most people with very high turnover portfolios just don't get it. So that's one thing. The second point is, though, if you're going to depend on that reinvestment, then the person who runs the business for you, the actual management, has to be trustworthy. They're your agents, managements, and if they don't represent your interests, then the process won't work. They must be owner minded. And then the next thing you'll need if you're going to buy and hold, is you have to have a business that has a competitive mode, a business that will absorb reinvestment, and return you for it. And so, for example, with Berkshire, he started out with a textile mill. And it absorbed a lot of capital. And it destroyed value along the way. And so what you're looking for is a business that has the capacity for reinvestment. And you really start-- it has to have a durable, competitive edge. And for me, for some people, that edge is technology. I guess the assembled masses here would have a technology orientation. For me, it's consumer brands. Consumer brands have the great benefit of having the consumer believe there to be no adequate substitute. Once I was at a conference in the spirits industry, and I described why it was that I liked the spirits industry so well. And I said it was because if somebody offered you a drink and they asked what you wanted-- if you said a Jack Daniel's and they came back and said, no we only have Jim Beam-- the proper answer in the world that I inhabit is, no, thank you. I would rather have water than what is not my brand. That brand loyalty is terrifically important. And so, if you're going to have the capacity to reinvest, if you have a brand, and you can invest behind expanding that brand into different adjacent categories or geographies, it's extremely valuable. And for me, my goal is to find global brands. Because there you have the ability to expand into the parts of the world that themselves should grow. If you think about the developing and emerging markets, via population growth, you have consumer disposable income growth. You have GDP growth. You have the growth of infrastructure for distribution. You have all of that ahead of us. And that's really the area that, for me, welcomes our investments. You also have a very interesting factor that the brands that I typically favor are brands that are kind of leftover from the West during a period of time when it was colonial. We own Nestle. We own Unilever. We own Heineken. We own Cadbury. These were products that went around the world, but in a very thin way. They're the products of people who lived in countries that they controlled, but they alone could afford. Say, oh, gosh, [INAUDIBLE] or Nescafe or Maggie Soup-- those were products that the countries in which we do a lot of business today were present. They were advertised, but they were very expensive. They were very inaccessible. And they were, because of both, they've become very aspirational. And so as markets around the world now begin to prosper-- that second spouse begins to work, they have a more modern lifestyle-- where they reach is to the products that they once aspired to have a chance. And we tend to, then, own businesses that have massive amounts of free cash flow from the mature Western markets, where it cannot be deployed profitably. But they have the great good fortune of unmet demand in the developing markets. And so the organic reinvestment is so much safer than trying to redeploy your capital into some wholly new product in some wholly new geography. Our job is simply to reactivate more deeply. Now that requires-- to do it right, you need multinational and multi-lingual management. And then multicultural, I should say multi-lingual and multicultural. Now for example, if I asked this audience here how many people speak more than one language? This is Google. How many speak more than two? The hands keep going up? Over three? OK, so it's an extraordinary capacity. At Kraft Foods, for example, they speak 0.9 languages. In Nestle's headquarters, the senior management speak four or five languages. And the ability for that to help them move around the world is extremely valuable, as you will have experienced here given your skills. Multicultural is a little more nuanced. For example, in an audience like this in the US, I can usually safely say, without any answers coming back to me, who's your favorite cricket player? I think in this audience I must have a high percentage who could answer the question. Well, that's a big deal. You know, 1.7 billion people will go to bed tonight thinking fond thoughts of just one thing, which is cricket. And as an American trying to travel the world, your effectiveness just doesn't have the same impact if you don't have those references and those talents. But few companies in the world take the re-investment possibilities and invest the right amount. And that's really because of agency costs. The inability to invest the right amount arises in part from the fact that American companies, typically American companies-- that's why 70% of my assets are invested in non-US based companies, because I think we are much more apt to find the talent base, the historic brands in parts of the world through companies that are headquartered in Europe than in the US-- the US doesn't have the same dynastic history. And they certainly suffer from one thing, which is the vast reliance on stock options as compensation. And stock options, unfortunately, deliver one variable to the investment process that shouldn't really necessarily be a factor. And that's time. For a stock option to reward you, it has to be worth something on a given day. And so the managements whose fortunes depend heavily on stock options become very attuned to days. This day they'll either be worth something, or they'll be worthless. And in the process of making sure that the shares can be worth as much as humanly possible at any given time, managements of US-based companies all too often fall prey to Wall Street, who promises them a high valuation if they only agree to make the quarterly earnings every quarter. I was talking to somebody recently about this subject, about the need to show quarterly earnings. And he raised his hands, and said, I used to work for a Silicon Valley-based company. I will not name it, because I will be blackballed, but anyways, a Silicon Valley company. And they said every quarter, about a month left in the quarter, we'd get the directive, which is-- stop spending money. Because blank, the head of the company, wants to make his quarterly bonus hurdle, and we need to show profits. Now when you're in a company-- I hope, I certainly expect that not to be the case here-- I don't suspect they take away ping pong balls or bananas or cappuccinos as you near quarter. And I hope not, because that would show that the firm's still vigorously on the right path. But when you find that companies gauge their spending off of reported income, which Wall Street suggests that if you only make the number-- and the number's a reported income number, which is completely fictitious, anyways-- if you make that number they will recommend your shares. The shares will be worth more, because the multiple will apply to this fictional number called earnings per share. And you'll have a higher valuation. That game is extraordinarily corrosive for businesses trying to build long term wealth. Because what you really want to do is just the opposite. So to make the investments that are proper, the trouble is, is that when they start out they're extremely burdensome on reported profits. And so what you'd need to have are managements that have the capacity to make the right investments for the very longest term without fear of losing their jobs, or without fear of takeovers. And because of that, most public companies don't have control over the share registry. And if they do invest the right amount for the very longest term, they end up at risk in the short term-- the loss of their job, the loss of corporate control. And so in our portfolios, I was once characterized as an investor by four numbers. One of them is 70% of our holdings are non-US, companies that are headquartered away from the US. 70% of the companies are in the top 10 holdings. We're very concentrated investors. The top three holdings, on behalf of my clients, are 30% of the assets. So we're very concentrated. And 65% of our companies are still controlled by the founding families. And what that means is that, when it's right to spend, to activate, let's say Life Boy in India, or it's right to spend to activate more [INAUDIBLE] or more Maggie Noodle Soup, they will spend that money. Assured that if you build a new factory-- these factories tend to be very lumpy. In Nestle's case, for example, it costs about $350 million to build a Maggie factory or a powdered milk factory or a decaffeinated coffee factory. Well, each of those are core pillars to their business. And when they build something like that, typically they end up building it when the initially installed capacity is running at over capacity. And you all understand. If you're running at over capacity, you are overstating profitability. Because you've more than fully absorbed the fixed costs, and you're operating at efficiency ratios that are not sustainable for the long term. And so ideally, if you're one of our portfolio companies, we want you to pour money into these markets to chase after the initiated demand. And you have to build a second factory. Well, the moment you start down that path, you start to accrue enormous amount of expenses in and around the process of building. But the real trick is that, very soon after it switches on, you're going to take the factory that might have been running at 120% of capacity at unsustainable margins, and you're going to bring over half the volume. And both your factories are now running at half capacity. Well, you've just blown a hole through your margins. And it's not until each of those factories then themselves become fully absorbed that you're going to be back in business. However, the fact that the reported profits dropped as they did, though bothersome to some, for us, trained under Buffett with the idea of the capacity to suffer through such burdens on reported profits when developing wealth, the wealth picks up as those businesses come back into full absorption. And suddenly you realize that you've met the demand you created and you're ready to build a third factory, let's say, or a fourth. In order to survive to that outcome, management has to be protected. And the best way that I've found to help protect management against those adverse outcomes is through family control. So whether it's Brown-Forman, which is controlled by the Brown family, whose discipline over the years-- I've owned the shares-- to roll out Jack Daniel's, their core product globally, has richly rewarded us. Think of 1986 when we bought the shares. They had collapsed because of a mistake in the acquisition. And they were only left with Jack Daniel's, which was about a four million case brand per year, making them $300 and some million a year. And they had a 400,000 case Jack Daniel's business globally. The family, who had lost a considerable amount of their fortune as a result of mismanagement, dedicated themselves to rolling Jack Daniel's out globally, with all the expense that it suggested. Their earnings would go down substantially as they took their US-based Jack Daniel's profits and directed that money and the expenses attached to it to developing a taste for Jack Daniel's around the world. That was back in 1986. Today, they still do four million cases in the US. It's gone up in profitability because the cases today are more valuable in the US, because consumers have returned to bourbon. And they like to have honey or they like to have fire. They like to have all sorts of flavoring. And they're making more money off their US business. But the US business did not grow. The value of the investment in Brown-Forman arose from the fact that the global consumer could be romanced with the brand and the product and all the rest through heavy investments upfront. But once the consumer accepts the product, they develop a lifetime value. Because they'll drink x bottles a year with x margin per person, and you can calculate the return on that investment. You can assure yourself that you'll have nothing but losses up front. But over time, you absorb those losses, and you're back in business. And in the case of Jack Daniel's the 400,000 cases in the rest of the world today are 13 million cases. And they make about $100 a case. So they've picked up value, earnings of about $1.3 billion. And it's really only been permitted them because during the period of investment, they were allowed-- they had management who ran the business, had the capacity to suffer through censure by sell-side analysts who were disappointed that they were no longer making the numbers. And they actually had threats from outside activists to come in and try to dislodge corporate control with family control, which is existing in something like 65% of my portfolio. The families can say to those who wish to disrupt, go away. We wish to have a profitable dynastic future. And we don't really care about quarterly or annual earnings. That's an extremely valuable pond in which we fish. So the capacity to suffer concept was sort of first delivered to me through Berkshire. And if you take a look, well, I think we've pretty much gone over that. But take a look at Berkshire. There are a couple of examples there which are so instructive. In Geico's case, they bought Geico and only had a million policyholders. A policyholder at Geico is worth $2,000. That's the net present value of all of their future streams of earnings. And it's a very high number because there's high persistency at Geico. Very few people cancel. And so if you have a client insured, they're worth $2,000. And when they bought the business, there were only a million of them. So the business was worth $2 billion, plus or minus. The trouble is when you bring on stream a new insured, the first year they have a loss of $250 per insured. They make $150 annually off of an insured. But bringing one onboard loses them $250. So if you think about the math, when Warren bought the business, they had a million policyholders earning $150. That's $150 million of profit. So if the next year they wanted to grow the business by a million policyholders, look what happens to reported profits. It goes to minus $100 million. The $150 that they were earning suddenly gets overwhelmed by the $250 million that attaches to the million new insured. Now Warren bought the business. They only had a million insured. Now 14 years later, he said in his annual report, that Geico, for all of those who are his partners and want to understand what it is that they own, because Warren has said that he would like to always buy shares of Berkshire at the right price. Berkshire would love to repurchase its shares. The trouble is that Warren doesn't want to buy from someone who's uninformed about its worth. So periodically, he gives us through the annual report gems like he did three years ago when he said, and by the way, Geico is worth $20 billion more than what we paid for it. And the reason was is that, since he acquired it, at the cost of income, he started to push hard. He took his advertising from $30 million to $900 million a year. You know that, because every commercial on television is a caveman or a gecko or something else. He grew the insured base down to over $11 and 1/2-- no, I'm sorry. Excuse me. It's at $13 million today. And so he's added 11 million, 12 million policyholders times $2,000 dollars per person. That's $24 billion dollars today. What's very interesting is this year, because there are lots of catastrophes all over the country, weather related, Berkshire's competitors-- their dire, sort of life battle competitors, decided not to renew business this year and not to go after new business. Because they were showing losses in other businesses and they wanted to report numbers that satisfied the sell side who had expectations about what they should do. In the environment where the losses elsewhere were so grave, they backed away. Warren picked up a million and a half policyholders this year, because he has no care whatsoever about his reported profits. Now he's fortunate, because he controls 40% of the company. And other people friendly to him control the rest. Nobody's going to take over Berkshire if they under report profits in Geico because they've taken on the business that their competitors forwent because they had to show numbers differently than Berkshire. Berkshire has created the world that it occupies by focusing only on value and not reported profits. Anyone else could do it, but it takes the kind of discipline. And Berkshire thrives on that. Another example-- equity index put options-- this is an interesting one. When 2000-- let's take a look here. This is it. If you look here, it's very hard to read. Anyways, Berkshire-- some 10, 15 years back-- had the opportunity to receive from an insurance conglomerate $5 billion of premium, with the obligation that he would make good any decline in the value of that portfolio from $37 billion dollars to any number below. For $5 billion in cash, which they gave Berkshire, Berkshire pledged to make them whole, whatever the decline took. Now nobody else could make a pledge that the insured, the person actually seeking insurance would actually trust. Because few would keep enough liquidity around that, if the markets really did melt down to zero, that they could actually be good for the money. Well, Berkshire has $110 billion of cash on the balance sheet and has kept a huge cash hoard the entire time. So the insured paid him $5 billion, which is way too much money-- in part because he alone will have the money to make good on the commitment if it happened that the equity markets went to zero globally. He also was paid far too much money because no other insurance company would bid the business. Because once they've established that they have an obligation to make whole anything below $37 billion, they face mark to market. And what that means-- mark to market-- means that if equity markets around the world declined, he'd have to pass the amount of his obligations increase through the income statement. And so-- I bet this has a little red button here. I can probably point to it anyway. If you look at something like 2008, you'll see in one of the years he passed through his income statement a $6 billion quote, unquote "loss." It really isn't a loss. He had 10 or 15 years yet before the contract matured. It was just a valuation mark. No other insurance company, publicly held, could withstand that type of a markdown based on mark to market. And so I think Berkshire succeeded in that investment largely because they did not have competitors willing to take on the same risk. Let's go back a second here. All right. Berkshire-- OK, let's take a look. OK. Well, we're going to move on to the second topic, which is one of the things I really do focus on. Obviously, the numbers-- in some ways, the factors I most fear are businesses which fail in the areas that I most esteem in Berkshire. And so at the start would be agency costs. And I can assure you that probably 90% of the investments I look at, I just pass on. Because I just don't trust that the people who run the business will have our interests at heart and make investments for the longest term. And one of the examples I'd say is if a business is focused on the near term, they'll either do one of two things. They'll either fear saying no to Wall Street when the right answer is yes, or saying yes to Wall Street when the right answer is no. I'll give you an example of this, and it is sort of an interesting one on many levels, but it has to do with Heineken. I first bought Heineken in 1986. It was a mature Western market. 25% of the profitability of Heineken was from the United States. And they had no exposure in developing emerging markets. Today, they have 75% of their business in developing emerging markets. 5% of the profits comes from the US. And the two most profitable markets are Mexico first and Vietnam second. So the business has completely transformed itself by virtue of their willingness to suffer through the burden on investment along the way for the past 25 years since I've held the stock. Well, a couple of years ago, they had a chance to buy a Brazilian brewer, which would have doubled their size. They have a 12% market share. This business had 16%. And AB InBev, Budweiser's parent company, had the rest. Wall Street clamored for them to buy that business. Because it would give them extra scale in that market. Problem was the price. It was a $5 billion acquisition. Wall Street clamored on them to say yes, do it. Heineken ran the numbers and said, no. Walked away. Four years later, the buyer, Kiran, came back to the market and said, not a good business, not suitable for us. We'd like to sell it. Wall Street, having watched it underperform for that period of time, said absolutely don't even go close to it. No, don't even think about buying that business. Heineken took a look at. Thought-- looked pretty interesting. They bought it for $720 million dollars. Now you can make a lot of money buying something for $720 instead of $5 billion. And Wall Street-- and Heineken is 51% controlled in shareholdings by the family. So when first pressured to buy it for $5 billion, the family said no. It's stupid. Doesn't make any sense. At $720, when they were threatened if they bought it, they'd be downgraded by every analyst-- who cares? It's $720 million for 18-- it was 16% of the market. The real trick was that, having bought it at $720, they now recognize they have a billion dollars that will be passed through the income statement putting it together. They have to move factories and breweries around. They have to redo their distribution agreements. They're going to be spending a tremendous amount of money, and that's going to burden the income statement for the foreseeable future. And that burden is what Wall Street really hates. And that's why they recommended around the news of this event that they've gone mad. They're entering in the market that cost somebody else $3 billion, $4 billion. And the share price weakened. Along came another company called SAB Miller, South African Breweries Miller Beer. And they were being pursued by Budweiser. And of course, what do they do, well, they lob a takeover offer to buy Heineken. The shares had gone down. And the market was disappointed they bought the Brazilians. They sent a letter to Heineken saying we'd like to take you over for a very high price. Heineken said no, thanks, goodbye. They have 50.1 percent of the vote, and they don't have to worry about Wall Street's pressure. Now in this context, they've already become as profitable and as large as they have because of their capacity to suffer through the upfront cost of their investments. But this episode, they said no when Wall Street clamored yes. They said yes when Wall Street said no. And then as a result of that, the bad reception when the shares went down. They were offered a take over to which they said no. And we will continue to hold the shares. I've held them since 1986. And I think that's a pretty good example of how that works. So let's jump on to the section that is what I most worry about. Here we go-- factors I most fear. The first one is the first and only, really, is agency costs. Huh. Have we lost it? Yeah, there it is. And you know the list is enormous, the businesses that I've owned that have suffered and we've actually sold them because of agency costs. Citibank, at one point, had a business whereby they would underwrite bonds even if the market had no interest in them. And they'd put them in something called the side pocket, SIV. And in a sense, the bankers were issuing debt on behalf of businesses which had no buyers. And so they created a vehicle alongside the balance sheet of Citibank in which they would park these unsold bonds. At the end of the year, the management would get their bonuses for having produced the bonds. And at some point, off balance sheet, they sat festering and the burden, ultimately, on Citibank. And when I was described that condition, I sold the shares immediately. Citibank turned out to be a complete disaster thereafter. It dropped by 98% since we sold those shares. And it was a complete disaster, but for one thing for us personally-- is that through it we met a man named Ajay Banga, who's the CEO of MasterCard. And we bought MasterCard soon thereafter for $20 a share. It's now $170. It's been the best investment that we've probably made. And the investment really was based on the character and caliber of this business leader, who was exceptional and unrivaled. We did not buy MasterCard at the first iteration. But it was a tremendous dividend that came as a result of our activities there. International Speedway is a business that we owned. And a family, called the France family, owned the NASCAR franchise. And international Speedway was a public vehicle which owned tracks. And just like Coca-Cola has a conflict with its bottlers, to have the bottlers spend more money so Coke the brand could become more valuable, in this case, International Speedway embarked upon a shareholder driven mandate to build more tracks around the country. NASCAR is a great business. You know, it's basically a branding opportunity for companies that want to reach middle America, and it was regionally defined historically. And they went on a hunt for new locations. And they built seven more places. Ultimately, they threatened the franchise because of oversaturation. And at the end of it all, they were trying to build for $500 million a racetrack in Staten Island over a waste dump. And of course, a completely ridiculous extension at that point, benefiting the family because they get more revenue because of more sites. But destroying value all along at the company International Speedway. That was a misalignment of interests, and you can see those. Second thing I fear the most is lack of natural reinvestment. As I said, the businesses that we own have a very natural reinvestment, which is they just go back to the markets where they've longstandedly existed, and invest to build distribution, marketing brand awareness, and all the rest. So we own Wells Fargo. It's a domestic business. At some point, we will sell it, because it doesn't really have the reinvestment opportunities. We call that opportunity white space. And to give you an order of magnitude, we own several brewers in Africa. There's 400 million barrels of beer consumed a year. And the businesses that we collectively own only manufacture 100 million of those barrels. There's 300 million barrels that are available as a natural opportunity to reinvest. What I fear most is the understanding that some companies don't know what is enough. Berkshire's excellent at that. And it made us a tremendous amount of money knowing that a certain investment is very, very valuable, and not to reach for something that's beyond the realization potential. So for example, in the one I'm thinking of with Berkshire, understanding what is enough-- in the midst of the financial crisis of 2010, they issued a $6 billion preferred to-- or they bought $6.2 billion preferred from Bank of America. This is 6%. They were only making half a percent on their cash, so a big improvement off the cash. But really, what they got from it was-- in return for their goodwill that's conferred upon them by virtue of their credit review of Bank of America-- was valuable enough that Bank of America gave Berkshire 700 million call options at $7 a share, which was the then market price that lasted for 10 years. That has made Berkshire $22 billion. So a modest looking preferred 6%, beneficial for them because there's a tax shield by dividends, but still modest. With that warrant attached, turns $6 billion dollars into $28. It's extraordinary. Now you know, other people at the same time reach for yield. But if you reach for yield, and it's too high, chances are you'll get what the yield suggests, which is more risk than you care for. Anyway, so by far and away, the next factor I fear is corruption. And I'll give you a couple of fun examples. In response. Most of Richemont's competitors, luxury goods company, most of their competitors in Russia did business with a facilitator. And the facilitator was really the Chechnyan mob. And the way that works is, you know, they'll get you into anything upfront. But then they're your silent partner for the rest of your time. And Richemont has enough money that they don't need a silent partner. They were shown a building. There's a twin building on the main boulevard for shopping for luxury. And they were shown one that they could move into immediately for $500,000 a year rent. The next door was the same building, kind of in poor repair. The one that they could go into was fully repaired. The next door one they bought for $25 million dollars. Instead of taking a half a million a year lease for the whole building, they paid $25 million for the building that they bought. They wanted independence. And it had an upfront cost. They did nothing but lose money. But over time, they owned their future. The people who take the early bait, come in to get active quickly in that market, rue the fact that they ever met the group. Because for the rest of time, they'll take more and more and more money. It's the mob. And Richemont not caring about near term income, because it's controlled by the Rupert family-- they want wealth, not reported profits-- paid way over the top. But they bought certainty. I visited Heineken in St. Petersburg. And they had a factory that-- this corruption-- that they had to hire a local mob "for security", quote, unquote. Because it's very hard under IFRS to stash bribes in an income statement. So you figure out something like security. So they had hired this group to deliver 50 people walking around with machine guns in this warehouse full of beer that they just brewed. And then they all wore brown shirts. And inside, there were a group of people with machine guns who had white shirts. I said, why are the white shirt people with machine guns-- well, those are the people we hire to protect against the mob who we have to pay. This is a difficult way to do business. And unfortunately, it's all too common. We still hold Heineken, despite that. But it gives you a sense of what we're attuned to at least. Agency costs, you know the story there. Excise tax-- that's very interesting. Our businesses have a price in elastic demand. That means that governments understand that they can raise the price on our products and the consumers will keep consuming. Whether it's cigarettes, beer, or spirits, that's the case. However, around the world there's a new product, which is this thing here which Philip Morris has invented. Which is a heat not burned cigarette replacement. They developed this over the past four years. They spent $2.5 billion dollars developing this, destroying their reported profits for 2 and 1/2 years. But they realized that if they didn't transition from traditional cigarettes to the next generation, someone else would. And so they invested to destroy their own business ultimately, and came up with this thing. Since they've launched it, five million Japanese have converted fully to this product and they've given up combusted cigarettes. So it's a very big deal. And when they launch throughout the world, they're given a big discount in excise taxes. And that excise tax discount is what helps underwrite the cost of developing this product and sending it worldwide. So taxes are usually confiscatory and drive away pricing pop elasticity. But in some instances, they'll adopt something like this product with an idea towards helping the society. So we just go on, regulation-- you know, you see it all over the world. In India, you cannot import spirits. If there's one thing that in India is a bankable outcome, it is their passion for scotch whisky as a broad statement. And let me ask here, of any Indians here, what is it that would be most likely to travel home through duty free with an Indian? It's one thing. You all have the same idea? It's Johnny Walker Black Label two bottles. It's Black Label. That's just it. The Indians drink 125 million cases of scotch-like products. But the tariff barriers are so horrific that you can't really bring in scotch. That's why it's a duty free thing. Scotland produces 75 million barrels a year. And we own three-- we own four Scotch producers. And we believe that over time that regulation, because of WTO and all of the other forces that open up markets that want to themselves be open to trade elsewhere, that we will see a world where Indians will get really what they prefer, which is a high quality imported heritage beverage. And the target market-- there's 125 million cases. And so regulation prevents it now. In India, we own shares of United Brewery. We own 50% of United Brewery through Heineken. It's very hard to get economics right for breweries, because you have to have a brewery in each province. And obviously, breweries scale at a much different level than the provincial demand. And there are only 13,000 legal outlets for beer in India. It's 1.4 billion people. And so all of those forces that relate to regulation will, over time, open up, and I think lead to our business's success. We talked about taxation. We have-- oh, it's very funny, with different culture references. A Chinese company came about, maybe eight years ago, created by two people who had studied and trained in the US. I met with them. They sold leaf and paper for the cigarette industry. They went public. I met with them. They spoke perfect English. They knew everything about accounting, all the rest. And I thought, gosh, that's amazing. Because for 25 years, I've met with the management, senior management of Japan Tobacco, third largest tobacco company in the world. We still talk to them through interpreters. 25 years later, they still-- there's a fiction of interpreters. You know, and it really makes a big difference in terms of your ability to understand. I visited Korea and met with a man from Latte Confectionery, to give you an example of how cultural differences can play against you. I asked the interpreter to ask the CFO who we're with, what the future cash flow looked like for the next and coming years. And they spoke Korean together for about 40 minutes. And the answer came back better. The answer came back, you know, better. OK. I can't invest on that. And the last example, and again, it's just a story. But it's true and fun. I went to see Asahi Beer. And I spoke through an interpreter for four hours just like that. And complete-- same kind of conclusionary answers came back. And we finished a miserable experience. And afterwards, we swapped business cards. And the man who received the card said, oh, you're from Lancaster. I grew up in Reading. Now he's in Japan. And he's the Director of Investor Relations for Asahi Beer, Japanese beer. But he spent eight years of his life as a teenager living 20 minutes from where our offices are in Pennsylvania. And he spent four hours of my life torturing me with a translator, only to finish up by saying, oh, I grew up in Lancaster. You're in Reading. And so that's something that I fear the most is the inability to get information. And then a quick look at some mistakes. Newspapers-- I lost a lot of money on newspapers. They just completely missed you guys. Newspapers co-opted radio when it first came about. They co-opted television stations. They understood that they needed to buy up cable business. They did everything related to media and entertainment and advertising to keep the power and the franchise within their own industry. And along came eBay and Amazon, early days. And they went straight to newspapers, and said, let's partner. You've got the market. We've got the next gen. Let's do it together, perfect. And the newspapers have become so monopolistic fat and lethargic and slothful that they said, no, we want to keep it ourselves. But they just blinked in this case. And we sold all of our newspapers. And it was a disappointment. These are mistakes of comission. I actually own those. And mistakes of omission are interesting. Mastercard, at the IPO we did not buy it. They lacked a dynamic leader. Ajay Banga came along later on. It went up fivefold after the IPO. We did not own it. Then it dropped 80% back to something close to the start. And we bought it the second time around. But only because of the quality of the CEO who came in, who's one of the most masterful leaders in business now. He's Indian. He started-- excelled at the finest school and is extraordinarily talented. I omitted to buy Moutai. I saw someone-- are you from China? China-- so Moutai. The shares collapsed five years ago and when Xi went after banqueting and luxury in his attempt to get rid of corruption. The shares collapsed and have advanced eight-fold over the past four years. And the market value of Moutai might be $400 billion. They make 70-- and what's the number they make $7 billion or some number that is just unfathomable. But it's a brand that I didn't buy, because I assumed at some point that as China became a more open nation with more people traveling around the world they would surely leave that product, which no one can drink outside of China, and aspire to the things that the rest of the world like. And it hasn't happened, and they've made an extraordinary fortune. And the other thing is it was controlled by the Communist Party and the army. And I just felt like that would be a fairly high level of agency cost. I passed Alibaba at the IPO agency cost. I mean, what could be more strong than to know that Alibaba's Jack Ma already took $6 billion illicitly from Yahoo through AliPay? So that seemed like it was probably a strike against them. But it's done extremely well. And Google-- I haven't purchased their shares, even though I am extraordinarily impressed with their ability to recruit the best and the brightest, you included. And the notion of allowing those here to share and participate in developing products without a lot of ownership amongst age groups or divisions-- so it's an extraordinary company. I take my hat off to you. I should have bought the shares a long time ago. But I'll say open minded on them. You know, I think I'm going to call that-- oh, no, I have something at the end here. Let's go back quickly. I'll share with you a couple of the things that I think about as I reflect over investments, courtesy of these two gentlemen. So you can look at Charlie Munger's musings-- "invert, invert, invert." I suspect most of you know all of these points because you're students of investing. But that invert is very similar to what Warren said when he said if something's not worth doing at all, don't do it. Invert means go to where you want to end up, and then reason backwards the most efficient way to get there. And just don't go to the other places along the way that tie up most people's bother. Figure it out, and then work back from the outcome you desire. Warren-- Charlie talked once about-- this is very profound. They owned 7% of Freddie Mac, which was the largest mortgage insurance company, government-sponsored entity. And I was at the annual meeting for Charlie's company. And someone said why did you sell it? Because a guy who actually quite a whiner-- he was whining at Charlie Munger, saying the stock was at 47 when you sold it. It's now 70. Why did you sell that? And should we think about replacing you as the investment officer? And Charlie was a bit peeved. And he looked out at this guy, waited for a long time. And he said in response to the question, why did you sell it, he said because we felt like it, simple as that. It's such a powerful answer. It turns out that there were reasons. They had put junk bonds in their portfolio. They had retained mortgages instead of just securitizing them. And they were going into subprime to sort of generate unnatural reinvestment when they should have been patient, anyways. All those were going on. But he basically said, you know, we spent all of our lifetime trying to figure out businesses. And when you have a response based on your judgment that you can't actually put your finger on, you're still supposed to act on it. Most people overly value knowledge, thinking that it is the trump card when beliefs well-informed are really what you have to act on. But basically what Charlie said is they felt uncomfortable some reason, but just the general development. And so they sold $7 billion worth of a stock. Now, most people would be fired if they operated with what seems so thin as a reason. But you spend your life developing judgment. And then failure to act on it because you're still waiting for more information is dangerous. The world is full of an 80/20 rule, and in many instances 80% is enough. So that's one. Warren and Charlie were asked this year at the meeting why they didn't do something that was quite dangerous to their capital. And they said basically it's because they want to be rational, not brilliant. Another firm, an insurance business, did something that cost them $3 billion. Warren didn't. And the reason was that the other firm was looking for something that would be brilliant and Warren and Charlie passed because they just needed the very simple test of being irrational. I think I'm going to stop. [INAUDIBLE] asked me to give one last thing, which is my own lessons learned. And I say that the first one is compound interest. And that's a career story. You'll start your career out now. And 20 years from now, it'll depend on those little steps that you take well that over time add up to big results. And you'll see people in business early on who take big steps early on. And you should know that along the way, they'll probably fall along the side. And staying the course and building a platform that's very cumulative is a good character. You know, Buffett says it. I think it's true. Reputation takes a lifetime to build, and you can destroy it in a minute. So I mean, that's clear. And he also says how many people he finds in his life who spend a lifetime sort of gaining wealth and do so at the risk of their reputation, which at the end, when they're rich, the only thing they care about is their reputation. So just make sure that you recognize that if you give it up, you're not going to get it back very easily. Capacity to do nothing is vastly, vastly underappreciated. But sloth and lethargy, as they say at Berkshire-- but for me, just not acting as often I suppose. I turned over-- I have a slide I didn't show you. Last year, our portfolio return was 1.8%, 1.8%. And then, my business school professor who sent me down this journey of value investing globally, said everybody should make sure that you have a folly. Something that makes no sense that just adds enjoyment, pure, and that can't be justified. Those are some things I leave you with. Those are from-- courtesy of what you learn as you go along. There's a little time left for questions. I hope you have some, and I'm sorry if I ran late. Yep? Yeah. [APPLAUSE] Thank you. AUDIENCE: So I'd love to hear, Tom, more about the five C's. And maybe if we could just start with the last one. What is a folly of yours? TOM RUSSO: I say art, probably. My wife and I both like art. We like art by artists who we know. We don't participate, you know. I think in art there's a component that's it's just inspirational. And we stay within that, rather than enter the world of commercial art, which is what draws many people to it. That would be one thing that's quite of interest to us. I'd say certainly a folly is my tennis game. Because the prospects of it adding much value over time is quite low. But I'm still quite interested. So those are the two. AUDIENCE: And Tom, I remember when speaking on the phone you also said about the importance of character. TOM RUSSO: Yeah. AUDIENCE: And how even more than let's say talent and intellect, you consider character and culture to be key. I was wondering in terms of life experiences that you draw from, inspirations that you draw from, if you could talk to us a little bit more. Especially because, not only here, but a lot of people on the video are going to be youngsters who are looking at your talk for inspiration. So that would appeal to them. TOM RUSSO: Well, all's I can say is, when you get cultures right, they have an extraordinary benefit. And Nestle would be the place where I learned this. And it was a business that just had a shared vision and had the ability to align decisions along what was asked of them as a culture, as well as the economic promise of it. I suspect that that culture here is extraordinary. And as I said, I was here five years ago when I first spoke. And I was with the group after the presentation. And a very young person who found his way, as so many do here, with enormous talent provided an answer to a question of a person in his mid to late 40s who just had suggested he was stumped. And this very young person said, have you considered the following? And you know, the room was silent. There were sort of 12 people in the room. I thought, oh, this kid's going to get his legs chopped off. And the older guy said, no, but it's a great idea. And so he said that in front of all of us, recognizing that he didn't have that insight. This guy did. He was half his age. And he felt perfectly comfortable applauding that as a possible source of a solution. It's a very valuable cultural thing. It does not exist in most companies. Most companies are terribly territorial over ideas, very loath to shed praise broadly, and really loathe to extend a hand to someone else. This is an extraordinary character, and one that I would hope is preservable. So that's a plug for yourselves. But it's an important one. AUDIENCE: And on compound interest, I remember you had said to me something along the lines of the returns being so back ended that for the first, maybe decade or two of your career, you didn't get a lot of recognition. I mean, stuff that just comes to you. Maybe if you could talk to us a little bit about that, people might find that inspiring as well. TOM RUSSO: No, I must say, I was at the hotel this morning. I came upon this. Well, that's sort of interesting. He was a classmate of mine in business school. And he didn't start out owning the Warriors. But he ended up owning the Warriors. And he's interviewed in here. And he said, when he was eight or nine, he came upon the first indoor basketball court he ever had. And he said someday I may own it. But he started out in business. And it was just like this. But with the right direction and a couple of good breaks and character that protected him from overreaching too soon, he ends up with his dream. And I thought that was quite telling. And I was impressed to see it. But I think the remarkable notion is that a series of small things add up over time and can richly reward. AUDIENCE: Was that your experience, too? TOM RUSSO: Absolutely. I mean, I was with some investors recently who had, over the past decade, extraordinarily sort of visible and dynamic and active businesses, and they've all, at some level or other, sort of shut them down or restricted them, moved them back. And he said, well, what's the difference? How can you still be doing this, and you don't even do anything? You know, you don't buy stocks. You hold companies for a long time. And I sort of gave the same answer. It was just by just staying to the same thing we've been able to, I think, find some interesting businesses that, because of their own culture and character have been able to redeploy capital internally without worrying about quarterly numbers that's allowed it to stretch out and deliver value over time. But you'll see a handful of businesses like that. Yes? AUDIENCE: Is age of a business a factor into when you decide to invest in something? Because there's all this talk of getting into things early and then it's a very scary aspect to start off with, because a lot of things just end up being Wall Street gimmicks. TOM RUSSO: Yes. AUDIENCE: And so is age a factor when you look at investable business? TOM RUSSO: So for me, I oversee about $14 billion. And so I don't really have the luxury of deploying that into businesses that are really young, other than you and Amazon. I mean, there's this extraordinary phenomenon right now where dynamic new businesses are also enjoying extraordinary high valuations. So I have the liquidity and the right to invest in these new businesses and haven't yet. I'm impressed. And I see within them something more than what I have been led to believe up until recently, which is that, oh, these are mere technology businesses. It's just much more disruptive, more deeply disruptive. But size usually would keep me out of new companies. But that's no justification here because your caps are so large. And I think the four leading members of things have a market capitalization. What you have is $2 trillion or something? AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. TOM RUSSO: More than $2 trillion. So there's plenty for me to find. So also new is the kind of the threatened destroyer of our businesses in many instances. Think about Jack Daniels. And suddenly you have Bulleit and you have Hudson Whiskey. And the more difficult the search of discovery is for something that's new and new, the more it's rewarded today. And so across all of our investments, we actually are engaged in mortal warfare against the new, while at the same time trying to reinterpret that which made those businesses which we rely upon once great will allow them to continue to stay great. So they have to become new in themselves. And that's what this thing was all about. Here's a tobacco company which is the most profitable company in the world coming up with a product that's destined to eliminate the business which they've relied upon for so long. One of the musings that Charlie Munger has, which I think is so profound, about Berkshire Hathaway is he said, at some point, that which made us great at Berkshire is most likely not to be that which will keep us great or allow us to become more great. I actually don't have it up there. But no, I see it. It's that which made Berkshire great. It's right in the middle. And you know, he's 94, and understands that if you don't modify what's gotten you well-served today, you run the risk of missing the next turn. We've run over. Yes, do you have a question? AUDIENCE: You said you did not have a very good experience in the newspaper industry, right? TOM RUSSO: Yes. AUDIENCE: So what are your learnings from that experience. And how do you suggest us to evaluate media companies? TOM RUSSO: Well, it really is just an excessive amount of contentedness that the industry fell into when they finally had all basically merged into single newspaper towns. And I have a funny view on this. I sort of take it back to almost the time of Watergate, when newspapers played such an important role. "The Washington Post" played such a important role in breaking open a political scandal that the role of newspapers at that moment sort of changed. And they really took a turn towards sort of trying to find the next story, the next story, along those big headline grabbing ways. And the best newspapers, the ones that really make money and that are really part of the community are those which are focused intently on local. And so they have seven pictures of the high school football team engaged. And they have stories about who was arrested, who was married, who died. It's the stuff of the communities that really create. But the lure of Pulitzer Prize-winning kind of expose journalism became hyper-charged after Watergate. And I think that that shriveled, just sort of shredded the intimate relationship that a paper had with its town. And the papers that still exist are those-- and they still make some money. But they're a lot thinner, and they focus on the area. Now advertising, as you better than anyone else would know, is becoming a really fascinating story of sort of personal testimonials and a personal search for something that you can friend and then tell others about. And that is very interesting. Because newspapers as they were historically set up as advertising vehicles, the advertising paid for the content. And the content is what drew the eyeballs that advertisers cared about. Today the advertising is very specific, very purposeful. And so the ancillary advertising that arose from just the presence of having content that you wanted to see and you accidentally saw an advertisement next to it is very old-fashioned. Advertising these days is placed with a purpose, and it's often itself. You know, it's not collateral. And accordingly, it's becoming far more effective. Because the idea is that information informs that you were about to buy a red sweater, because of all of the prior steps you've taken. And you know, the guy who sells red sweaters wants to know about that on time. And so that's a very different world. It's very powerful. SPEAKER 1: And with that, I think we're out of time. Thank you so much, Mr. Russo. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] TOM RUSSO: Pleasure.
Info
Channel: Talks at Google
Views: 34,924
Rating: 4.8554215 out of 5
Keywords: talks at google, ted talks, inspirational talks, educational talks, Global Value Investing, Factors that I Most Fear, Thomas Russo, thomas russo investor, value investing, ivey business school
Id: IzEvI1HOwN8
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 71min 33sec (4293 seconds)
Published: Mon Feb 26 2018
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.