This Is Why You'll Never Be a Great Investor

Published in Investing on 18 January 2010

But this simple solution takes time, something most people don’t have enough of.

Recently, something heartbreaking happened to me: While crammed into a middle seat on a flight, I realised that I may never become a great investor.

Tired from a long week, and bored out of my mind, I ignored the more sensible reading material I'd brought along and picked up the in-flight magazine. Before long, I stumbled across an advertisement -- and a troubling fact.

Wasted opportunities

"Over 92% of people who own exercise equipment and 88% of people who own health club memberships do not exercise." the ad stated. The more I read that line, the less possible it seemed. But to be honest, at my own gym, only about one-third of the people even look like they've ever been inside such a place before.

I guess going through the motions makes them feel good about themselves. But why would so many people spend money and then not even pretend to exercise?

Four words that opened my eyes

At one point, all of these people had an "I can do it" moment: a brief burst of inspiration brought on by a friend, a personal trainer, or even an infomercial. They came to believe that with a little effort, they could truly get in shape. I should know -- I'm one of them.

Now, I've gone to the gym fairly regularly for years, and I get my fair share of exercise. But have I ever really reached my loftiest fitness goals? Nope.

Is that because I'm lazy, or I'm undisciplined, or I just don't have the genes for it? Sure, a lack of discipline or even genetics might be good reasons. But the real reason lies in four heartbreaking words ...

"I don't have time"

Time is our most precious resource, and lack of it is the No. 1 reason people don't go to the gym ... or travel the world ... or, well, you name it. It could also be the reason you never become a great investor, or make the kind of money you want in the stock market.

Becoming a master investor takes an almost impossible amount of time. Warren Buffett began his investing career at 10, and he's been practicing for hours a day ever since. Obviously, he's spent his time well.

But what about those of us who don't have the time it takes to become great investors or uncover life-changing investments? What about those of us who barely have time to keep up with the companies we already own?

Take you, for example

Suppose you own a balanced portfolio consisting of the following widely followed companies. Well, here's just some of the reading you should be doing to keep up with them:

CompanyNo. of Pages in Most
Recent Annual Report
No. of Articles on
Yahoo! Finance Last Week
BG Group (LSE: BG)14012
Barclays (LSE: BARC)33015
Tesco (LSE: TSCO)1408
GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK)21217
Cadbury (LSE: CBRY)14819
Total:97071

In theory, you should be reading roughly 970 pages of annual reports and 71 articles per week just to keep up with these five companies you may already own... let alone all the reading involved to find other companies that could make you rich.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know you probably want to be a master investor -- just like I want to be in excellent physical shape. But I don't have time to read 970 pages of annual reports and 71 articles per week. Do you?

Is there any hope?

Absolutely. Though investing is a hobby for most of us, devoting an hour or two a week to your portfolio will give you a huge advantage as you build your long-term wealth.

Unlike the in-flight ad I saw, which dubiously promoted an £8,000-plus machine that provided a total-body workout in four minutes a day, I can't promise that successful investing will be easy.

However, if you're looking for a shortcut to becoming a better investor, consider one of the newest offerings from the Motley Fool. It's called Champion Shares PRO, and it gives passionate yet time-strapped investors an all-access pass to follow along as Maynard Paton and David Kuo use their skill, expertise and experience to invest £50,000 of The Motley Fool's own money in ordinary UK companies. If you're ready to start reaching your investment goals, I urge you to click here to learn more about Champion Shares PRO right now.

More on the economy and the markets:

> If you're in the market for buying shares, consider opening an online broker account with The Motley Fool's Share Dealing Service. You can buy and sell shares in real time for a flat rate of just £10. Click here to find out how you can open an account for free today. There is no obligation to trade.

> A version of this article was published originally on Fool.com. It has been updated by Bruce Jackson who has an interest in GlaxoSmithKline.

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.

WealthyInvestor 18 Jan 2010 , 10:04am

There is a rather key point missing in this article. Whilst I agree that time is always an issue, invest in the right companies in the first place and invest your time 'upfront', get it right and you don't need to read 970 pages a week.

You only need to read 970 pages or more in companies you are considering investing in, but have not yet done so, and that is what most people don't seem to do.

However, I do agree that time is an issue in the sense that unless you have several millionaire family members willing to hand you a very large amount of cash to invest as Mr Buffet did when he first started, you are unlikely to see the kind of returns that value investing and compounding can provide to the wealthy elite.

Stuck in an airport myself recently due to the transport chaos caused by the snow I took a moment to reflect on how long it would take me to accrue the kind of wealth I want based on some reasonable and conservative assumptions about returns going forward, and my conclusion was that I needed at least 120 years.

Perhaps I should take your lead and get to the gym more.

k8r4u 18 Jan 2010 , 11:40am

Unless I'm missing something, you need to read 970 pages of annual reports a YEAR, not a WEEK.

One of us sure ain't going to make the grade ...

curedum 18 Jan 2010 , 11:57am

A wise man once said "It's more profitable to give advice than to take it".

Caveat emptor

RiverCactusMario 18 Jan 2010 , 3:04pm

Hi guys. I think you've misunderstood that sentence. I read it as saying 970 pages of company reports (pause), plus 71 articles a week.

Neil

crockett123 18 Jan 2010 , 3:16pm

If you read these annual reports, will you understand them. Not the obvious bits of course, but the bits they don't want you to notice that they hide away. Of course you should read the annual reports (annually!), but you may find more useful information in the articles.

abrahamisaacs 18 Jan 2010 , 3:17pm

Hey guess what, I DO read annual reports. But only about 20 a year (whereas I read in Lowenstein's biography of Warren Buffett that he reads 2,000 a year). You are perfectly right about time: I don't have the time to read more annual reports due to the chaos of family and work obligations. Buffett has managed those aspects of his life very well (or not so well if you are one of his family members, possibly).

WealthyInvestor 18 Jan 2010 , 3:58pm

I think the point is not how many pages of company reports you read a week, month, year,or on Tuesday evenings between 7-9pm, but rather that the effort is made to investment the time in securing the knowledge and understanding of a prospective investment prior to investing in it, and that having taken the decision to do so unless something fundamentally shifts in the business it is reasonable to expect to invest less time researching the business after you have invested than before.

In effect, the investing equivalent to think first, jump later.

I am sure Warren Buffet does not investigate and research Coca Cola in as much detail now as he did prior to aggressively investing billions in it.

Do the research part right, understand the business in as much depth as you can, and you shouldn't need to aggressively pour over everything that is said or written about it, although of course I am looking at this from the perspective of an investor, not a trader.

guykguard 18 Jan 2010 , 5:07pm

Who can disagree that we're all short of time. And, like money, it can only be spent once.
I wonder whether any Annual Report is worth more than about 30 seconds of anyone's time. What did anyone learn from the nauseating editions of Enron's annual brag? Northern Rock's fairy tales ? RBS's fig leaves?
Personally, I read the Chairman's statement, with plenty of salt grains handy; the cash flow statement; the auditors statement; and the names of the senior management. These give me a feel for the competence of the management and the health of the business, which I judge to be critical criteria for Foolish investment.
On this basis I like to think I can judge whether my cash is indirectly in the hands of relatively capable, honest and reliable people. I'm reasonably happy to leave the rest to them, and get on with my own life.

paulwalling 19 Jan 2010 , 3:47am

And this is why fool ain't half what it used to be.

You've just read an advertising feature for Champion Shares PRO - a Fool product - exhorting the reader to do their homework - or join up.

But if the author had done HIS homework, he would know that the Champion Shares PRO shut their doors on new members some considerable time ago !!

It seems the Fool doesn't even know what the Fool's doing - let alone being competent to advise on other companies! So how can anyone any longer have any faith in any of the advice given on this site ??

Wakey Wakey MF!! You were great when in the ascendent - seems to me you've started down the slippery slope of sloppiness already. Beware....

LongWayHome 19 Jan 2010 , 9:31am

Small investors hoping to thrash the market should not be reading the reports on those companies anyway. Most large companies are valued more or less correctly by the stock market (in the absense of bubbles) because there are so many eyes watching them. Beating the crowd on companies like these does require a Herculean effort and complete dedication.

Smaller companies in the 10-100 million market cap range offer much better opportunities, specially when selected by traditional value criteria where a potential "outer" can be identified. These companies are frequently covered very poorly by the larger investment world because they are too small for meaningful investment or far too illiquid for them to build up a worthwhile position. This means to keep up to date there are fewer reports to read (quite often just the RNS's from the companies themselves) and the reaction to what is clearly great news can take long enough that a private investor can get in well before the news is finally "in the price".

LastChip 19 Jan 2010 , 2:52pm

I think this may raise a few eyebrows, but I believe you don't need to read company reports at all.

In most cases, it's a complete waste of time, as many are designed to mislead anyway.

There are some simple fundamentals you need to know;

Does the company make consistent net profits?

How much debt does it carry and is it manageable?

And YES! I do like to see a dividend, preferably rising.

I then personally look at how much the directors are paid and if I consider it excessive; stop there. They're not using my money to get rich on!

Most importantly, where is the company share price within the trend at this point in time? If it's been towards the bottom and it's definitely rising; I'm interested. If it's already near a peak; I'm not.

And that's it folks!

Now you could argue that's insanity, but is it?

The market is a gambling den. Sure, it's dressed up as something special, with all sorts of gobbledegook peddled by interested parties. But at the end of the day, it reacts in exactly the same way as buying apples at the local market. If there's too many of a given product, the price goes down and visa-versa. If those apples are already old and are likely to go bad within a day or so, they won't sell.

So, does this strategy(?) work? It does for me. If I compare myself to professional fund managers, I probably average about the same, without their fees. I don't do as well as the top people, but most professionals don't either. I get more winners than losers which is what counts. Importantly, it costs me very little time.

I've got better things to do with what remains of my life, without pouring over company accounts. How boring can you get?

Time is money. If you can't earn more per hour than driving a bus, then some thing's wrong with your time management.

abrahamisaacs 19 Jan 2010 , 4:20pm

LastChip - interesting but most of the info you identified comes from the annual report anyhow. If you are using other websites to get that info it will have originated from the annual report. So does that not mean annual reports are good?

GuyKGuard - I agree the chairman's statement and auditors report should be read with a grain of salt. I spend most of my time in the balance sheet, P&L, cashflow and the notes to the accounts. That's where the real info is. In this way I avoided all the dot com poppers as it allowed me to see through the hype. I also avoided the much hyped Aero Inventory due to its disastrous cash flows (it went bankrupt late last year). So I remain a big fan of reading annual reports with rigour and scepticism. My latest one is Lloyds who reported a "proforma" loss for 2009 half year but when you read up to page 87 of the interim results you found that actualy they made a profit. The market has priced it badly which represents a buying opportunity today. Yes it takes time to cut through the hype and sometimes misleading information, but it is possible to do.

LastChip 19 Jan 2010 , 5:40pm

abrahamisaacs, yes it's true, the information I use is directly derived from company reports, but I don't usually plough through them to find it. Straight forward information such as I've quoted, can be found almost anywhere on financial sites all over the web.

The point I'm making is, it is (imho) not necessary or even desirable to send many hours wading through company reports, particularly when at the end of it all, you may well decide, that particular company is not for you anyway.

If you want to unearth hidden gems, then yes, you will probably have to go down that road, but, I would suggest, that hour for hour, pound for pound, at the end of the day, you probably won't have done any better than me.

To me, it's about efficiency of time, and in fact there was a recent podcast with a guest that suggested something very similar. Take your profit after a year, divide it by the hours you have spent in total on investment decisions and then decide if it's been financially worthwhile. If you come out at a couple of quid an hour, then you may as well have cleaned cars. It's more profitable!

jaizan 19 Jan 2010 , 10:38pm

Why would you even THINK about investing in Tesco?

Only invest in what you expect to outperform.
Look at the top line figures & the cosy little consensus to recommend this stock amongst most the journalists.

Then walk away, as this tells you something.....

54Nick 20 Feb 2010 , 12:18pm

I agree with Lastchip, its almost impossible to read right though and digest the whole report. Look for the main fundamental items that you consider important,to hell with the rest, I also follow up on their latest news items to ensure there isn't something I may have missed.
I also back up the fundamentals and view the technical charts to ensure the market also currently favours the stock or appear to be favourably changing thier minds.

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.