1 tip for finding undervalued stocks

Recycle Friday! Featuring something we already wrote for someone else’s blog, but liked enough to eventually want back. Last spring this ran on Free From Broke. Today, we’ve updated it for a more mature audience.

1 Tip for finding undervalued stocks

Nah. Shop at the place next door, with the higher prices.

Why do people get excited when their favorite retailer holds a sale, but not when Wall Street does?

Let’s start with the obligatory disclaimer – this is not an encouragement nor a discouragement to buy or sell particular securities, stocks carry risk, consult a financial advisor but you don’t have to, etc.  That was for that infinitesimally small segment of the population that is a) literate enough to read this post, yet b) dumb enough to do whatever a disembodied online voice suggests.  There, now you can read the post absolved of any obligation to think.

Most investors know, in theory, that it’s foolish to buy at the top of the market and sell at the bottom. (Of course, human nature means that the opposite is true in practice – otherwise the top and bottom wouldn’t be where they are.)  But it’s equally foolish to assume that the market will carry you along indefinitely if you just buy a flat representation of it and don’t research at all.  We have 12+ years of real-world evidence of that.  Factoring in inflation, the Dow has risen by an average of .4% annually since February of 1997.  Your index fund would have been better off if it had collected tin cans since the Packers last won a Super Bowl.

There is such a thing as overdiversification. You might find stability in a comprehensive index fund, but it’s impossible to find any significant value.  Buying a basket of Dow stocks, or something similar like a Wilshire 5000 index fund, will likely give fantastic returns over an 80-year period.  If you plan on not waiting until you’re 115 years old to enjoy your money, there are more targeted ways to go about attempting to build wealth in the stock market.

Instead, look at companies that are temporarily wounded, i.e. whose stock sells at a discount. Earlier this year, when the global CEO of Toyota (NYSE: TM) was being grilled on Capitol Hill for selling cars to people who confused the brake with the accelerator, the company’s stock sank.  But some fleeting bad PR can’t negate a decades-long reputation for value and quality.  A few weeks after our demonstrative congressmen and senators finally pulled the curtain on their combination political theater/witch trial, Toyota stock had quietly gained 15%.

Around the time Toyota emerged from a bruising at the unfair hands of public opinion, British Petroleum (NYSE: BP) made Toyota’s problems look trivial.  BP traded at $60.48 the day the Deepwater Horizon spill began.  Today it’s at $36.52, a 60% drop.  The rig’s manufacturer, Transocean (NYSE: RIG), has fallen from $92.03 to $50.04 over the same period, a 46% decline.  Fortunately for Transocean, it’s in an industry with few players.  Also, most people had barely heard of it since it doesn’t sell directly to the public.  (When was the last time you bought an oil rig?)  This distinguishes Transocean from BP, which plasters its logo everywhere and goes out of its way to embed itself in the public consciousness.  Thanks to that insistence, almost everyone identifies the Gulf of Mexico spill with BP more than they do Transocean.

Both BP and Transocean have otherwise healthy financials that can normally withstand a one-time event. Then again, Deepwater Horizon is some event.  But a wounded company isn’t a doomed company: despite the Exxon Valdez disaster, ExxonMobil went from pariah to the world’s most profitable company in just a few years.  Johnson & Johnson rebounded after the Tylenol scare of 1982 and came back stronger than ever.  There are several ways to murder a company along with its stock: obsolescence (Atari), poor economics (General Motors) and rampant crime (Enron) are three of the most efficient.  But for a temporarily disabled company with a history of success and goodwill (in the general sense, not the accounting sense)?  A resurgence is more likely than you think.  Don’t confuse a broken bone with a bullet wound through the cranium.

One more time: there’s always value somewhere in the stock market, but very rarely can you make money simply by buying into the market as a whole.  In fact, the times when the market (as a whole) rises fastest are when the gains are most dubious and tentative – case in point, the dot-com bubble and ensuing crash.  More accurately, there’s always value in the stock market among particular entrants.  Finding the ones whose stock prices have suffered for no better reason than that of public perception is as wise a place as any to start.

OMG THE MARKETS TOOK A HIT TODAY

No, they didn’t.

The markets are among the least volatile things in commerce.

EVERY trader looks like this, all the time. He could have just found out that his daughter got engaged and he'd still look the same way. "Crap, now I have to pay for a g.d. wedding."

Last Thursday, the Dow fell 11 points, which is a big enough story to lead the business news. Considering that the Dow opened the day at 12,037, that means it lost a crushing .09% of its value.

Granted, that means that at that rate, the Dow’s entire value would be worthless by May 2015.

By the same logic, the temperature in Fairbanks, AK was 85º on July 9 and -15º this morning. At that rate, by May 2015 Fairbanks will hit absolute zero, everything will turn solid and motion will stop.

These things are cyclical. Everything rebounds, and it usually doesn’t take that long.

Biggest Dow % losses of the last 75 years
October 19, 198722.6
October 26, 19878.0
October 15, 20087.9
October 18, 19377.8
December 1, 20087.7
October 9, 20087.3
October 27, 19977.2
September 17, 20017.1
September 29, 20087.0

The chance that 6 of the 7 biggest losses of all time would happen in the same 19-day annual period are 145,337 to 1.

Why was October 19, 1987, a/k/a Black Monday, such an outlier?

Two major reasons.

The market was unduly, maybe artificially high that morning, fueled by speculation that had kept the Dow rising all summer. The Dow was actually higher at the end of 1987 than at the start.

Also, it took the traders a while to get used to new technology. This was the first time that firms could program computers to take certain orders at certain prices. Not only that, but for the first time brokers could now process orders contingent on what level other stocks were selling at. A shareholder of railroad operator XYZ could order his broker to sell if railroad stock JKL fell to a certain price. We take this for granted now, but back then the traders were still only recently removed from executing every trade by hand.

What happened a week later?

Overworry. The traders were reeling from the previous week’s fall, plus all weekend long they were anxious to get to work and act conservatively – i.e. get into cash and not be part of the volatility. That works fine for one trader, but when everyone does it, you get the very volatility you were trying to avoid – the human equivalent of cows overgrazing on public lands, then ultimately going hungry.

Same thing. This one is attempting to negotiate with God, swearing to quit snorting coke once and for all if He'll only let the dry cleaner not notice the baggie he left in his suit pocket

What are the chances of 4 of the top 9 losses coming in the same 9-week period in 2008, during which we not only elected a new president, but had one of the two biggest ideological shifts in history between a president and his successor?

283,026,075 to 1. Almost the same as the chances of us choosing a person at random in the United States, and that person turning out to be you.

Does that mean we’re heading to an inevitable future of up-and-down stock prices? Not necessarily, and this will wrap up nicely with one more chart, below.

Look at the numbers. A 7% loss happens about once a decade. People frequently lose 7% of their savings balances – withdrawing $140 when you have $2000 in the account – and rarely feel aghast about it. How is that different than if it happens with any other investment (or in the case of the Dow, a representation of a mere 30 investments of the hundreds of thousands available)?

Oh, one more thing:

Biggest Dow % gains of the last 75 years
4 days after the 6th biggest loss11.1
15 days after that, i.e. 13 days after the 3rd biggest loss10.9
11 days after the biggest loss10.1
3½ months after the 5th biggest loss6.8

If you want to sell your position in a Dow index fund, and you’re worried that it isn’t at a high enough price, wait a couple of weeks.

Here are the top 20 advances and declines of 2010:

May 103.90May 20-3.60
May 272.85May 6-3.20
July 72.82June 4-3.15
June 102.76June 29-2.65
September 12.54February 4-2.61
December 12.27July 16-2.52
June 22.25August 11-2.49
June 152.10January 22-2.09
July 221.99May 4-2.02
August 21.99January 21-2.01
November 41.96April 27-1.90
September 241.86November 16-1.59
October 51.80May 14-1.51
February 161.68October 19-1.48
August 271.65June 22-1.43
November 181.57April 30-1.42
February 91.52June 24-1.41
January 41.50August 19-1.39
July 131.44August 30-1.39
May 121.38May 7-1.33

Just about every large movement (to the extent that these movements are large) is nullified by a comparable movement on the other side of the ledger. If this doesn’t convince you to buy-and-hold, and not obsess over daily market movements, nothing will.

**This post is featured in the cupid edition of the Carnival of Personal Finance**

and

**Baby Boomers Blog Carnival Eightieth Edition**

Is a flat tax feasible?

US Taxcode

Not enlarged to show texture

Formally, federal tax law is a particular chapter (Title 26) of the United States Code. The federal tax law contains 11 subtitles, which among them comprise 9,833 sections.

The number of words in the tax code? No one knows. Seriously, no one knows. The lower bound seems to be 16,000 pages, and even that’s not definite. A conservative 250 words per page, and that’s 4 million words. Even counting the number of sections is exhausting. They go from 1 to 9873, and counting, but plenty of numbers are missing.

The IRS estimates that it collected $2,691,538,000,000 in the last fiscal year available, 2007. There are three horrible truths enclosed in that statement, the first one being that $2.7 trillion is way too much money to run a government:

-There’s an electronic record of everything. The IRS should be able to calculate how much it collects to the penny, not merely to the nearest million dollars.
-Ditto for the most recent year available. Why can’t the IRS have accurate figures for 2009, or at least 2008?

That’s about $8,900 per person, not counting the hours that go into calculating the tax we each owe.

Thus our recommendation of the diagonal tax. This is what’s commonly referred to as a “flat” tax, but that name implies that we’d all pay the same rate. No serious flat tax plan really works that way, because it makes it difficult for low-income people to ever catch up and build any wealth. The proposal involves a standard deduction for every taxpayer, ideally enough to cover all cost-of-living expenses. Tax collectors then levy a flat tax on the remainder after the deduction, which means the tax is anything but flat.

The Tax Foundation estimates that we spend a total of $25 billion and 21 hours per taxpayer preparing or getting other people to prepare our taxes. 174 million returns a year, that’s almost 3.7 billion hours. Estimate an average wage of $16/hour, that’s another $58 billion in opportunity cost.

There’s more. The IRS has 101,000 employees. Assuming they each work 1800 hours a year, that’s 181,800,000 hours. A diagonal tax form would be the size of the fabled postcard, and wouldn’t require any creature more advanced than a trained chimp to process it. Let’s assume that a diagonal tax could reduce the ranks of the IRS teatsuckers by 90%, and that the average IRS employee makes $20/hour. That’s another $3,272,400,000 we could save. The very act of collecting taxes costs our economy $86 billion a year before one dollar goes to anything other than the IRS’ own continued existence. Granted, that’s only 3% of the IRS’ returns, but it’s a start.

So…how to confiscate that $2.7 trillion by fairer means?

The Census Bureau estimates that 47.37% of all Americans make under $25,000 a year. That’s the set of all Americans, not the subset of tax filers, so we have to account for that. Does $25,000 sound like a reasonable amount to keep exempt from taxes? Let’s make that the standard deduction then and, using the Census Bureau’s remaining numbers, figure out how much income remains taxable.

Can you trust us that we did the math accurately? You can repeat the results yourself. We used this page and calculated how much income remains in each bracket after deducting $25,000 per person. We assumed that the numbers were evenly distributed in each bracket. For instance, the chart says that 9,192,000 Americans made between $25,000 and $27,500 last year. We thus assumed that the average person among those 9,192,000 made $26,250. This might be reasonable and might not, but there’s little room for fluctuation in the numbers. We then repeated the process for every bracket up to $95,000– $100,000.

The taxable income of all Americans making under $100,000 would thus total about $2,251,340,000,000.

Subtracting that from the nation’s gross domestic product, and dividing by the number of people making over $100,000, our conclusion?

If our elected representatives authorized a straight 28% tax, given the $25,000 exemption, the IRS’ tax collectors would take in as much as they do today.

How would that affect you? It’s easy to figure out. If you make $30,000, your tax bill would be $1,400 – an effective tax rate of an eminently livable 4.7%. If you make $90,000, you’d pay $18,200, or barely 20%.

HOWEVER:

You wouldn’t waste your time looking for artificial ways to reduce your tax bill, counterintuitive activities such as tallying up your gambling losses. You wouldn’t have to save a single receipt. Doing your taxes would take 8 seconds. Not only would everything run more simply and efficiently, but more to the point, you’d have incentive to continue working and helping the economy grow.

Right now, the highest marginal tax rate in the United States is 35%. Reduce it to 28%, and it’d be at its lowest level since 1931.

The downside? Politicians wouldn’t be able to curry favor with certain people. Lobbying for a particular industry (which means, by definition, doing so at others’ expense) wouldn’t make any sense. You wouldn’t get punished for not having kids, or rewarded for borrowing money to buy a house – but if you tell the average person that he’s gaining a tax advantage, even if he’s losing a concomitant smaller one, all he’ll think about is the latter. Heck, the authors have a standing bet that at least one commenter will mention that it’s unfair to tax poor and rich people at the same rate, conveniently ignoring the part about the standard deduction. God bless our uneducated country.

**This post is featured in the Tax Carnival #78**