Warren Buffett Is A Growth Investor

Published in Investing on 26 August 2009

Value investors are lazy, and need incredible luck to win. Follow Buffett and go for growth.

This article forms part of our Duelling Fools feature on 'value vs growth investing'. Read the case for value investing and then vote in our poll.

I'll keep this simple…

The way to make serious money from the stock market is to invest in superior businesses when they are trading at a fair price.

Got that?

The absolute key is finding superior businesses, and by superior business, I'm talking about companies with long-term sustainable competitive advantages.

Unfortunately, such beasts are few and far between. Over in the US, a company like Microsoft was once considered to be the poster child for competitive advantage. Since March 1986, an investment in Microsoft is up a massive 24,344%. That's what I call growth investing!

Google is another example of a company with a sustainable competitive advantage. Many have tried and all have failed to break their absolute stranglehold on the search market.

Google Was A Value Share

Google has only been a public company for five years, yet in that time, including the huge stock market correction we've just experienced, Google shares are up 330%. Even more impressively, in that same time period, the S&P 500 is flat.

Here is a forgotten fact about Google… when it floated in August 2004, the shares were valued at more than 100 times earnings.

So-called value investors wouldn't have touched Google shares with a barge-pole. But they were wrong. Value investors couldn't see past the end of their nose. Once they see a P/E above something like 12, they go into an apocalyptic fit.

Just Say No To Brown Cardigans

It's best to keep well away from value investors. If you see one in a pub, steer well clear. They'll be able to talk the hind legs off a P/E ratio, and if you get sucked into their spell, you'll soon be drinking stout, wearing brown cardigans, flared trousers and horn-rimmed glasses.

And you'll also soon be closing yourself off from investing in some of the very best companies out there on the stock market.

You see, Google is one of the very best companies in the world. At the time of its float, Google was growing fast, continuing to take market share, and building sustainable competitive advantages in its enterprising culture, superior advertising platform, and brand loyalty.

All any smart investor had to do was look forward a couple of years, look at Google's superior growth rate and its powerful business model, to realise it was under-valued, even at 100 times earnings.

Clap-Trap

I can feel the value investors shouting at the computer screen, screaming "ridiculous", "what clap-trap" and even the odd obscenity at me. They simply cannot and will not accept that you sometimes need to pay up to buy true quality shares.

Value investors would rather spend their time sifting around the dregs of the stock market, looking for a company trading below book value, on a P/E of 2 and a dividend yield of 13%.

There is only one reason the shares would be trading on such a lowly rating -- it's a crap company. I've done crap companies. It's a nerve wracking experience. At any moment, a profit warning is just around the corner. At any moment, that juicy dividend yield of 18% can and does shrink to a big fat 0%. A trailing P/E of 2 can quickly turn to a forward P/E of 85.

These are "cigar-butt" type investments. They were given that name by the doyen of value investors, Benjamin Graham, because you could only get one more puff out of them before they were extinguished.

An Incredibly Risky Strategy

Call me simple, but I think that's an incredibly risky strategy. The success or failure of your investment comes down to timing. You have to watch the shares like a hawk, guessing the best time to buy and the best time to sell. Good luck with that strategy. If you ask me, life's too short. Plus, as all good investors know, you can't time the market.

The value investors will happily quote "all investing is value investing" at growth investors till the stout dribbles down their cardigan. Well guess what? I agree.

What the value investors are missing is the quality of the company. They focus exclusively on the share price. Growth investors focus first on the quality of the company, and secondly on the share price.

Growth investors might be prepared to pay 15 or 20 times earnings to buy shares in a company operating in an attractive industry and which has a sustainable competitive advantage.

Buffett Is A Growth Investor

Even Warren Buffett is a growth investor. One Wall Street analyst called Coca-Cola "very expensive" around the time Buffett started buying it. It wasn't a typical value stock. But as Buffett once said about Coca-Cola: "If you gave me $100 billion and said, take away the soft drink leadership of Coca-Cola in the world, I'd give it back to you and say it can't be done."

You can forget your speculative investments in junk stocks like Avis Europe (LSE: AVE), Trinity Mirror (LSE: TNI) or even Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS). Sure, you might get lucky and one of them might shoot to the moon. Or you could end up with Raymarine (LSE: RAY), down 86% over the past 12 months, but very cheap, trading on a trailing P/E of 1 and a trailing dividend yield of 18%.

Do you feel lucky?

Give me quality, high margin, recurring revenue, growing shares like Autonomy (LSE: AU), IG Group (LSE: IGG), Admiral Group (LSE: ADM) and Ashmore Group (LSE: ASHM) any day. Buy them when they are trading at a fair price, sleep well, and watch your investment compound higher and higher in the years to come.

The Final Word From The Master Himself

I'll leave the final word to growth investor Warren Buffett, the second richest person in the world. He didn't get to be worth $37 billion by buying shares in crap companies.

"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price."

Don't forget to vote!

Vote now in our Duelling Fools poll.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Gengulphus 26 Aug 2009 , 12:03pm

{i]It's best to keep well away from value investors. If you see one in a pub, steer well clear. They'll be able to talk the hind legs off a P/E ratio, and if you get sucked into their spell, you'll soon be drinking stout, wearing brown cardigans, flared trousers and horn-rimmed glasses.[/i]

That passage is a debate-loser as far as I'm concerned - someone who feels the need to attack a straw-man stereotype of his opponents in the debate is clearly very short of good arguments...

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the dangers of "cigar butt" companies (also known as "Value traps") and the need for growth. But then, so does every decent Value investor I'm aware of - for example, one of TMFPyad's favourite 'outers' is forecast growth.

Both styles want the shares they buy to be cheap and to have good growth prospects - the difference between them lies in which they stress more, not in whether they regard both as important. (At least when practiced sensibly - I'm sure there are 'Value investors' around who go purely for cheapness without any regard to the company's prospects, but I'm equally sure there are 'Growth investors' around who go purely for growth prospects without regard for how expensive the shares have become - witness the tech boom. I don't regard either of them as a type of investor to follow!)

I'm a bit of a mix myself - somewhat more temperamentally inclined to the Value approach, but I've got quite a few investments (including my current biggest investment) that are much better fits to a Growth approach. So as far as the issues at stake in this debate are concerned, I'm on the fence more than anything else.

But as I indicated at the start of this comment, you've lost the debate as far as I'm concerned. David Holding has my vote.

Gengulphus

Afrosia 26 Aug 2009 , 12:25pm

You haven't mentioned any fundamentals (that were visible at the time) that made Google worthy of a P/E > 100 though. Everyone is a genius with hindsight, but what made Google worthy of the high price tag at the time?

I have never considered value investing to be the same as the "bargain basement" investing described above and will always consider a company's future growth prospects.

So, value or growth? Whenever you hear people arguing about whether something is black or white, it is nearly always some kind of grey.

TMFGoogly 26 Aug 2009 , 12:28pm

Maybe I've hit a raw nerve. It was only adding a bit of lightheartedness to the article. You know, the amuse bit out of educate, amuse and enrich. Sorry if it might offend some people.

If you like, I can make fun of growth investors, those fast-car driving yuppies you spot at City wine bars, paying a fortune for a bottle of cheap champagne, forever chasing fast women, just like they are forever chasing the next big stock market winner. One day they might get lucky, another day they might take home a dud and lose their dignity and all their money.

Vote Googly!

UncleEbenezer 26 Aug 2009 , 2:45pm

Interesting selection of good companies. Are you enjoying growth on AU bought in 2000? And as for ASHM, that was definitely a value share when I bought it about six months ago - even at twice the price it's still a middling yield.

Google a growth story, yes indeed, but how much did you lose on its predecessor as media-darling Yahoo, and a lot of wannabe-googles?

Are you *sure* it's not about timing?


/me is p***ed off with himself for not having bought AU when it was down at about 800.

Gengulphus 26 Aug 2009 , 3:01pm

Maybe I've hit a raw nerve. It was only adding a bit of lightheartedness to the article. You know, the amuse bit out of educate, amuse and enrich. Sorry if it might offend some people.

No raw nerves involved, and no offense - while as I said I'm temperamentally somewhat more of a Value investor, I score 0 out of 4 on "drinking stout, wearing brown cardigans, flared trousers and horn-rimmed glasses"! ;-)

It's just that I've learnt through many years of watching debates on message boards (and elsewhere)that attacking your opponents in the debate rather than their position is a dead giveaway that what is being written is short of arguments. It immediately puts me on the alert for other similar signs, such as attacking a caricature of the opponents' position rather than their actual position - and that's exactly what I found when I looked. And what was left once I'd cleared all of those distractions out of the way wasn't much of an argument, I'm afraid to say - not much more than "if you pick the right growth company, you can make serious money" and a few hints about what you're looking for in such a company.

I'm not in any way outraged by your article - just very disappointed by it. If the ~40% of it that was spent attacking Value investors (or making rather heavy-handed fun of them if you prefer) had instead been spent putting the case for Growth investing more fully, it would have been a far more worthwhile contribution to the debate...

Gengulphus

jonesjeff 26 Aug 2009 , 8:44pm

Value investing should consider the condition of the company, otherwise how do you know you are getting value?
GARP (Growth At Reasonable Price) seems OK to me.

GASP (Growth At Silly Price) does not. Yes I just made that one up. Is there an established term for this?

RobinnBanks 26 Aug 2009 , 10:54pm

Last GASP - I like it! There should be such a term jonesjeff - I agree with GARP also!
Companies which grow in value are best in my opinion, and I'm sure Warren Buffet said that too.

TMFTigger 27 Aug 2009 , 11:26am

I think GASP could catch on as well :-)

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.