How Peter Lynch Destroyed the Market

Published in Investing Strategy on 6 September 2010

These 8 simple tips helped the investing guru turn some investors into millionaires.

Peter Lynch didn't just beat the stock market... he absolutely destroyed it.

Reflect on his record for a second. Lynch ran Fidelity's Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990, beating the S&P 500 in all but two of those years. He averaged annual returns of 29%. That's a mind-blowing figure. It means that $1 grew to more than $27; if you invested as little as $37,000 with him in 1977, you were a millionaire in 1990.

Fortunately for us, he's willing to share his secrets. To achieve his stunning track record, he clung to eight simple principles. Here they are.

1. Know what you own

Seems elementary, right? But as someone who talks to lots of investors, I can report that you'd be shocked at how few investors actually do their research. 

Scroll down to No. 7 for a good first step in getting ahead of the game.

2. It's futile to predict the economy and interest rates (so don't waste time trying)

After 2008's crash, there was a distinct increase in armchair economists. We financial types do enjoy water cooler talk about interest rates, trade deficits, debt levels, etc. But there's a danger in converting thought into action.

A country's economy is an extraordinarily complex system, with millions of people acting in their own self-interest and responding to each others' actions, government incentives, and external shocks. And that's before we factor in our increasingly frequent interactions with the rest of the world.

Trying to time the market is futile. Set up a financial plan that allocates your assets based on your risk tolerance, so that you can sleep at night.

3. You have plenty of time to identify and recognise exceptional companies

Lynch mentions that Wal-Mart was a 10-bagger -- i.e. its stock rose to 10 times its initial price -- 10 years after it went public. Even if you had gotten in after waiting a decade, though, you'd be sitting on a 100-bagger.

Some would argue that it's still not too late to get in on Wal-Mart, decades after going public. While the company's no longer a monster growth story, it continues to crank out 20% returns on equity year after year. That type of consistent figure is a huge positive indicator of management's ability to effectively allocate capital.

I could tell a similar tale about Microsoft's early growth years, right on down to its still-impressive current return on equity (42%).

Here in the UK, ARM Holdings' (LSE: ARM) share price bobbled around 100p for 6 long years after the dot com bust. Yet in the last 18 months it has jumped to the heady heights of around 370p, giving patient investors a wonderful return. With its dominance of the smartphone market, who's to say ARM won't get back to its dot com bubble peak of around 1,000p?

The lesson of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and ARM? You don't need to immediately jump into the first hot share tip you just heard about. There's plenty of time to do your research first. See No. 1.

4. Avoid long shots

Lynch claims he was 0-for-25 in investing in companies that had no revenue but a great story. Remember, the guy who averaged 29% returns had complete blow-outs on all his long shots. You and I are unlikely to do much better.

Instead, a better option is to use companies with proven track records as your baseline. Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB), Tesco (LSE: TSCO), and Unilever (LSE: ULVR) are selling for 8, 12, and 13 times forward earnings, respectively. This is what the market is charging for solid, low-to-moderate-growth companies that dominate (or at least co-dominate) their spaces. 

Expect to pay more for higher-growth prospects, but make sure the risk-reward trade-off on an unproven company is worth it.

Here's your  chance to guarantee your place on the next enrolment to Champion Shares PRO! For 2 weeks in September we will be opening our  doors to new subscribers to join our remarkable, one-of-a-kind investing service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a  select number of our one million plus readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click  here to join the priority waiting list

5. Good management is very important; good businesses matter more

The pithier Lynchism is: "Go for a business that any idiot can run -- because sooner or later, any idiot is probably going to run it."

For a prototypical example of a so-easy-a-caveman-could-run-it company, think the aforementioned Unilever.

6. Be flexible and humble, and learn from mistakes

Lynch has said: "In this business, if you're good, you're right 6 times out of 10. You're never going to be right 9 times out of 10."

You're going to be wrong. Diversification and the ability to honestly analyse your mistakes are your best tools to minimise the damage.

7. Before you make a purchase, you should be able to explain why you're buying

Specifically, you should be able to explain your thesis in three sentences or less. And in terms an 11-year-old could understand. 

Once your simply stated thesis starts breaking down, it's time to sell.

8. There's always something to worry about.

Lynch noted that investors made a killing in the 1950s despite the very new threat of nuclear war. There are plenty of fears to choose from right now, but we've survived a Great Depression, two world wars, an oil crisis, and double-digit inflation.

Always remember, if our worst fears come true, there'll be a heck of a lot more to worry about than some stock market losses. Lynch's parting shot is that investing is more about stomach than brains.

Peter's principles in action

So there you have it. These are the eight principles Peter Lynch used to bring the market to its knees. 

They seem simple, but trust me, sticking to them is harder than it sounds.

More on the economy and the markets:

> For two weeks in September we will be opening the doors of our Champion Shares PRO newsletter service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list.

> A version of this article, written by Anand Chokkavelu, was originally published on Fool.com. Bruce Jackson, who has an interest in Microsoft and Shell, has updated it.

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.

theRealGrinch 06 Sep 2010 , 10:00am

NB $37,000 in 1977 was ALOT of money :-)

Luniversal 06 Sep 2010 , 11:37am

Great, an inspirational piece that isn't about the wit and wisdom of W----- B------.

Let's have more, about more and different sages.

JGH03 06 Sep 2010 , 3:01pm

Peter Lynch didn't just beat the stock market... he absolutely destroyed it.

Not true. The market is still there. He didn't destroy it, he beat it.

DashingDave123 06 Sep 2010 , 3:24pm

These rules are so vague as to be useless. Do your research he says, but what research can predict the future of companies? Everything about them has already been investigated exhaustively by thousands of city analysts and brokers and is already in the price. Anyone can use historical price records to turn up companies that have done well in the past, like Wal-Mart and Microsoft. All that tells you is what you should have invested in years ago, if only you had known what the future held.

Of course this is really just an advert for Champion Shares.

F958B 06 Sep 2010 , 5:09pm

DashingDave

I can predict the future of the shares that I own (AZN, GSK, IMT, NG., NWG, SSE, SVT, UU., VOD).
I predict that next year - as a combined portfolio - the profits and dividends will be a few percent higher than last year.

As for my portfolio's share prices? Who knows? - but they'll probably be a few percent higher too. If not, I'll still be enjoying a 5-6% net dividend yield from a relatively stable and dependable portfolio; the large and relatively secure dividend payout is my reason for owning the shares (Lynch's rule #7).
On the other hand, how much profit and dividend will RBS or LLOY declare? I haven't a clue, so I'm not a holder.

Portfolios are like a team of players - they don't all have to do well, but as long as they're generally working well as a group and delivering results in aggregate, then that's all that matters. However, a steady and dependable group of players is preferable to an erratic and unpredictable group of players.

guykguard 06 Sep 2010 , 5:51pm

A journalist's life is not easy: I know! But theRealGrinch is not wrong to describe 37 grand in 1977 as a LOT of money -- he might have added a comparison to make his point even clearer.
Using the US Consumer Price Index as a deflator, MeasuringWorth calculates the original investment to be the equivalent of about $80,000 in 1990. Mr Lynch's fund seems to have done pretty well, but the average annual REAL rate of return on investment was about 21%. A dollar invested with Mr Lynch in 1977 would have grown to about $12 in 1990, or 13 years later.
It is A-MAZING to me that TMF staff and contributors can so often make such mistakes in the elementary mathematics of finance.
May I ask TMF's harrassed staff kindly to issue a correction to the misleading first paragraph of what was, otherwise, an interesting list of distinctly underwhelming reflections on investment policy?

TMFFlaneur 06 Sep 2010 , 9:31pm

@guykguard - If you don't think that Peter Lynch's return - real or nominal - isn't absolutely out-of-the-park, then I think you're on the wrong website. Or else you're George Soros, in which case can I have your autograph please? ;)

We should all be so unlucky to suffer the indignity of inflation impacting our 29% p.a. nominal returns!

dvcann 07 Sep 2010 , 2:13pm

How would the Lynch words of wisdom fare if applied to the last 10-12 years, rather than the old period quoted?
He highlights Unilever," a caveman could run it".
Looking at the NY price only - and this also applies to P&G, a similar business in many ways - perhaps a caveman has been!
Unless your buy/sell timing was fortunate, you'd only see benefit from dividends, and would probably not cover inflation over the period, especially after tax.

tux222 07 Sep 2010 , 4:51pm

I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't, reads "One up on Wall Street" instead of the lines above. Unlike most books on investing, this one is a great read. A bit dated, but to my mind still more use than most of the others.


RobinnBanks 18 Oct 2010 , 11:20am

And, "Beating The Street," is another excellent investing book by Peter Lynch that is as good as, "One Up On Wall Street."
Inflation may have reduced his real return, but Peter still made an average of 29% p.a. increase on an initial investment; and inflation affects everyone's return equally.

RobinnBanks 18 Oct 2010 , 11:24am

Please let's have more of this type of article: it's one of TMF's best.

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.