Tim du Toit is a value investor based out of Hamburg, Germany. Tim is the editor and founder of Euro Share Lab. On his website he reveals what more than 20 years of equity investment have taught him Euro Share Lab
I met Josh the first time in 2006, at the value investment seminar I attend each year in Italy. In that year Josh was finishing up his MBA at Columbia University specialising in value investing.
Since then we’ve kept in touch through e-mail and each year had long talks at the seminar in Italy where in 2010 he also started presenting.
In 2007, directly after finishing his MBA Josh started an investment partnership called Greenlea Lane Capital Partners, named after the street he grew up on.
At the seminar in 2011 all the investors were licking their wounds and discussing how the last few years of dreadful stock market performance has impacted their net worth as well as that of their clients.
Josh surprised everyone when he mentioned that from 2007 to the end of 2010 the partnership he manages returned 55% to investors compared to the 2.4% of the Russell 3000 index. On a yearly basis over four years this equals 11% compared to the 0.6% of the index.
Needless to say we were all very impressed with the performance in arguably the worst for years of market performance in the last half a century.
What you will immediately notice when meeting Josh is his soft-spoken nature. He does not boast, is not arrogant and will hardly say anything about his partnerships or its performance except if he’s asked about it.
But when you start talking to him you will immediately notice that he knows exactly what he’s doing. He has excellent investment ideas which he has researched from top to bottom. With no question about numbers, business strategy and management’s incentives he cannot answer immediately.
After hearing his presentation about pricing power at the value investing seminar in Italy in 2011 I immediately thought that you will benefit if I could convince Josh to explain his investment approach, where he gets his investment ideas and mistakes he has made in an interview.
I was really pleased when Josh agreed to the interview below (Emphasis mine).
How did you get started in investing?
After graduating college in 2001, I did sell side equity research at a large investment bank. There, I was exposed to the basics of financial analysis, but we did not have a sound framework for judging the quality of businesses or valuing them.
A lot of the recommendations we made seemed arbitrary, so I found myself searching for something that made more sense.
I was very lucky that my father pointed me in the right direction, giving me the book The Quest for Value, which is about economic value added. From there, I went onto Bruce Greenwald’s Value Investing: From Graham to Buffett and Beyond, and I started reading Warren Buffett’s letters to shareholders. Like so many value investors, I was hooked immediately.
What attracted you to value investing?
My experience on the sell side showed me how it is crucial to have a framework for decision-making that could be reduced to fundamental principles that are clear and indisputable.
Value investing is attractive because it makes sense.
The underlying logic is to buy assets for less than they are worth, because this simultaneously increases the potential for gain and decreases the potential for loss. At the same time, value investing—in large part because it is so simple—is difficult to put into practice in a disciplined manner over a long period of time.
It is human nature to muck up the works. This explains why something that is so easy to understand does not extinguish itself. It keeps working because it runs contrary to human nature.
How would you describe your investment philosophy?
My approach is to think of each investment as if it were the family business. We own 100% and our wealth is determined by the earning power of the business over time. There would be certain prices I would sell for in an instant, and certain prices that would be clearly too low.
The intrinsic value is somewhere in between.
Over the years, I would want the earning power of my business to at least keep up with nominal GDP; otherwise, it is likely that there are better stores of wealth available to me, and I would be inclined to sell my business.
This means that there must be minimal risk of competitors hurting my market position, or of technological change rendering my business model obsolete.
What is even better is if the business has the opportunity to compound at high rates of return. Most of my investments have the ability to compound intrinsic value at double-digit rates for a long time. If this is true, then there is less need for multiple expansion to produce an attractive investment return.
It is possible to make a lot of money investing in medium or worse quality assets, relying for your returns on the convergence of price and value. But if you stick with businesses that increase in value over the years, then time is your friend.
My experience strongly suggests that timing is the trickiest part of investing, so I am comfortable with an approach that minimizes the importance of getting the timing right.
How do you typically find ideas and what is your selection process before an idea gets added to your portfolio?
The basic sources that I use to generate ideas—publications, screens, talking with other investors, and so on—are probably not very different from what most investors utilize.
I have found, though, that the way I organize my process is somewhat atypical because of the narrow focus on great businesses.
My goal each day is to expand the list of companies that I would like to buy if presented with an attractive price. I do, of course, prioritize research on ideas that seem like they may be currently cheap, but most of the time I am expanding my knowledge base in order to maximize the future opportunity set.
In terms of research on individual companies, I strive to be very comprehensive and careful. One nice thing about making a small number of large investments is that you generally do not have to feel rushed during the research process.
What are your ideas concerning portfolio composition and the value of individual holdings in relation to the portfolio?
Right now we have 8 investments, and the top 5 represent about 70% of our capital.
I prefer a relatively concentrated portfolio because it complements the focus on great businesses, and because it fits with my temperament. I enjoy the research process and do not mind going for long periods of time without making a new investment.
I would find it unsatisfying to have investments that are not large enough to make a meaningful contribution to the performance of the overall portfolio. For me, having many small positions would be more stressful than having a few, high-conviction investments.
But I also believe that there are many valid approaches.The key is to know yourself and tailor your investment strategy to your own idiosyncrasies.
Do you follow any key risk-management guidelines in managing your portfolio?
I usually invest between 5% and 15% of capital in each holding. I generally avoid allowing an appreciated position to exceed 25%, or allowing aggregate investments in a single industry to exceed 1/3 of the portfolio.
I would be comfortable if any one of my investments were much larger than it actually is. Sizing positions below my ultimate comfort level and imposing concentration limits is important because things go wrong.
Describe some of your most notable investment mistakes and what did you learn from them?
One of the most significant lessons I have learned is how risky it is to invest in unproven business models. I do not have a precise definition of “unproven,” but if a company lacks a substantial history of successful operations (say, 10 years), and I find myself struggling to work through the logic of why its business model should thrive over time, then it’s likely “unproven.”
I have made two small investments in unproven businesses and was wrong both times.
One of these was a company called ZipRealty (ZIPR). ZIPR had an innovative approach to the residential real estate brokerage business, and in success mode it would have been a phenomenal company. In fact, there was a significant and growing body of evidence that ZIPR’s model was working; however, it was not conclusive, and I spent a great deal of time attempting to figure out if ZIPR’s operations were sustainable and scalable.
Unfortunately, the original business model did not work nearly as well as had been hoped, and now the company is fundamentally shifting its strategy. In retrospect, it is painfully obvious that the analysis I was undertaking with this investment was simply too difficult. I was seduced by the hope of