• The stock market is filled with individuals who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

    Philip Arthur Fisher

Subscribe to our updates

The Quarterly Report

Iron Capital’s quarterly investment newsletter through which we share our views on investing your assets in the current market environment.

  • The Quarterly Report
  • Third Quarter 2018
  • Iron Capital Advisors


Freedom works. Why is this so hard for us to understand? It is in our nature to want to control, to believe that someone has to be in control. This theme runs through every ancient religion, and overcoming that desire to control is central to all of them. Yet capitalism and its political partner, democracy, will always have their critics.

  • The Quarterly Report
  • Second Quarter 2018
  • Iron Capital Advisors

The Power of Compounding Works in Both Directions

Behold the power of compounding, when one event piles on top of another, then another. In the investing world we usually talk about compounding and how it impacts investment returns. Albert Einstein may have won a Nobel Prize for his theory of relativitiy, but when asked what the greatest invention in human history was, he said, “compound interest.”

  • The Quarterly Report
  • First Quarter 2018
  • Iron Capital Advisors

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Have you ever taken something back to a store and all the store will give you is a store credit? It is aggravating, isn’t it? You may not wish to buy anything else in that store. What you really want is your money back so you can go anywhere. With international trade, this is the way local currency works. China takes dollars. Dollars are like store credits, they eventually have to be used here if you want your value.

  • The Quarterly Report
  • Fourth Quarter 2017
  • Iron Capital Advisors

This is Crazy: Tulips, Dot-coms and Bitcoin

My wife loves flowers. Her Mom and Dad both liked digging in the dirt, as they say, and they grew lots of things. This was a little different for me when we first got together; my Mom baked, and she was (still is – though she does it much less now) fantastic at it. While I did not grow up in a home that had lots of flowers, I do understand their value.

  • The Quarterly Report
  • Third Quarter 2017
  • Chuck Osborne

Profitability & Sustainability

The need to produce profits also promotes sustainability, which is a very popular notion in our culture today. Most of the time, people who use this word today are speaking of environmental sustainability…I am speaking of economic sustainability.

  • Socialism is supposedly more popular with people under the age of 30 than capitalism. Have you heard that? There are several such polls around. The question I have for those who make such claims is very simple: Can any of those respondents define those two terms? I have my doubts.

    For most of my adult life, this conversation was not necessary. Any time someone tried to attack capitalism, all one had to do was point to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the success of the Reagan / Thatcher reforms in the U.S. and U.K. One did not have to be an economic scholar to see the obvious contrast. Total collapse versus huge success, this wasn’t nuance. Most people, especially in the investment world in which I live, thought this conversation – which had taken up so much oxygen in the 20th century – was over.

    I had not heard anyone even try to argue against capitalism since Bill Clinton declared the age of big government over in 1992. Then, the financial crisis hit a decade ago. We started getting bank failures, and the anti-capitalism crowd was magically brought back to life. The actual crisis was caused, as all true crises are, by a confluence of things all happening at once. This, by definition, is complicated. I tell my children this all the time, especially my son: complicated things are just combinations of several simple things. Break it down into pieces and everything becomes simple, but the whole is complex.

    The long-lost big government/anti-capitalism crowd, however, had a very simple one-word explanation for the whole thing: greed. Greed caused the crisis. That explanation sold because it was simple, and it easily identified a culprit: greedy Wall Street bankers. Of course, the idea that greed explained the crisis was and remains absolutely absurd. We wrote about this at the time. There are so many holes in that argument that one could not possibly count them all, but primarily for this argument to work, it would mean that greed was somehow new. People have always been greedy, we do not live in a constant state of financial crisis. Milton Friedman said it best when he said, “Of course it is always the other guy who is greedy, we are never greedy.”

    Wall Street helped the simpleton’s cause by providing anecdotal stories of incredibly greedy, and frankly often stupid, bankers. I have been in this business a long time, and most people in it do not fit that description, but those that do are ever-present. They contribute to every crisis, but they do not explain a crisis. Let me be clear: this does not excuse the mortgage banking industry or the Wall Street bankers who financed the industry. They certainly deserve their portion of the blame.

    However, the crime in that explanation was that it completely exonerated a group that deserves at least an equal portion of the blame: government politicians and regulators. The oft-used quote of the “blame capitalism” crowd was that the crisis was caused by the “unregulated banking industry.” I suppose that I should have known then that the post-modernist idea of truth being whatever you feel it is had taken over our discourse. If there is an industry more regulated than the financial industry I would like to see it. Yet, I had college-educated people who had purchased multiple homes over the course of their lives look at me in all seriousness and claim that the mortgage industry was unregulated. I would ask them, “Was there a lawyer at your closing? How many disclosures and documents did you have to sign?” That is regulation. The OCC, SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and various state agencies all regulate financial firms and have since at least the 1930s.

    Capital requirements, which were way too low, were set by regulators. The entire sub-prime mortgage market – the source of the crisis – was created by regulatory requirements. Ultimately what caused actual failures were the investments that the banks had made with their reserves, and again, what they were allowed to invest in was determined by regulation. Yet somehow this idea of “unregulatedness” caught on, while the regulators who were supposed to be providing oversight got rewarded with more power.

    This idea has somehow remained. Just in the last year I had a conversation with an individual about the sad state of our healthcare system and the high price of drugs. He told me without hesitation that it was because the pharmaceutical companies were unregulated. My mouth dropped. Then I asked him what he thought the FDA did? It is regulation that grants these companies monopolies on their breakthroughs. Yet today any industry that is unpopular is evidently “unregulated.” That word must not mean what I think it means, because the truth is the most-hated companies in America are always in the most regulated industries. Therefore, for those who keep using the word, it must not mean free of regulation.

    This misinformed idea magically overnight brought back some sort of legitimacy for the word socialism. I suspect, since these supporters do not know what unregulated means, they probably don’t actually know what socialism means. Socialism is an economic system under which the government owns the means of production. The first thing to understand about socialism is that it is not, as many believe, a political theory or system. It is an economic system. Some would believe that the two cannot be separated, but that is not correct and it is very important in actually understanding socialism. Socialism’s opposite is capitalism, which is also an economic system. Socialism is usually associated with totalitarian political systems, and capitalism is associated with democratic political systems. However, there have been democratic countries who have experimented with socialism, and both the Soviet Union (in its infancy) and currently China have experimented with capitalism.

    Many may be familiar with Friedrich Hayek’s most famous book, “The Road to Serfdom.” Hayek argues in the book that economic freedom is a necessary element of political freedom. (If I were king for a day this book would be mandatory reading for all high school students in America, but that is another issue.) The book was inspired by Hayek’s life experience. As an Austrian he watched Germany embrace socialism, and he understood the role this played in allowing the Nazis to establish complete control over the country. Yes, you read that correctly: The economic system in Nazi Germany was socialism. Socialism is the natural economic system of any totalitarian form of government. The official name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. I know this seems strange to the modern- day, capitalist-hating young socialist to whom anyone he does not like is automatically compared to Hitler, but when it came to economics, Hitler was a socialist.

    As was Stalin. The two may have been on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but from an economic standpoint, the only difference between fascism and communism is who the tyrants are. Tyranny is tyranny, and socialism is tyranny. When I was a young economics student we referred to capitalism and socialism as simply a free economy versus a command economy. These titles are perhaps more clear. Do we want an economy where we are each free to act as we desire, or do we wish to be commanded by some authority?

    To me, the answer to that question is as self-evident today as it was when our founding fathers found it to be self-evident. Liberty is our defining quality as a country, or it has been. Today many are asking for our freedom to be reduced. On college campuses there are actual arguments about limiting the freedom of speech. Thankfully most advocates for such are losing, but that it is even dreamed of in this country is more than a little scary.

    Of course, it is only the other person’s speech that they wish to silence. Isn’t that always the case? There is no doubt that the best political system would be a monarchy…as long as I get to be king. Similarly, socialism is great if you are part of the ruling elite who get to tell everyone else what to do. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works. Hayek’s most powerful realization was that given human nature, when you place that much power in government, the type of person who becomes attracted to wielding that power is usually some flavor of tyrant. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    But what about the less fortunate? A free world can be a cruel world, there is no doubt. I wish everyone who claims to support the ideas of economists like Friedman and Hayek actually read their work. I mean read as in word for word, not the Reader’s Digest version which made Hayek a household name. Both Friedman and Hayek argue for the necessity of a social safety net provided by government. They also pointed out potential pitfalls and certainly criticized specific programs, but both believed that a safety net was absolutely needed in any civilized society.

    John Maynard Keynes is another famous economist who is often thought to be on the opposite side of most issues from Friedman and Hayek. This is because he endorsed government intervention in the economy in an effort to soften the blows of recessions. While that is true, what is often lost is the motive behind this intervention. Keynes feared that if government did not step in to thwart some crisis, then the day would come when people would begin to abandon capitalism altogether. He wanted to save capitalism, not replace it. Keynes and Friedman did disagree, but not on the superiority of capitalism: Keynes thought government should stimulate the economy through fiscal policy, while Friedman thought monetary policy was superior. In truth their differences a far more about nuance than anything fundamental. It is the politicians who possess a bumper-sticker understanding of economics that create this supposed divide.

    Keynes did speak more about income redistribution. However, it is important to understand that Friedman addressed inequality in his book “Capitalism and Freedom,” which was published in 1962. His work at that time showed a direct relationship between inequality and regulation. This makes sense if one thinks about it: the more things are controlled by the government, the more one has to know how to work the system. In other words, regulation rigs the system; in fact, it is the only way to rig a system. Rigged systems prevent social mobility, and economists today have shown that there is a link between social mobility and more equality overall.

    Freedom works. Why is this so hard for us to understand? It is in our nature to want to control, to believe that someone has to be in control. This theme runs through every ancient religion, and overcoming that desire to control is central to all of them. Yet capitalism and its political partner, democracy, will always have their critics. I think Winston Churchill said it best when he said, “Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried, in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”. The same can be said of capitalism. It’s the worst form of economics, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Hopefully, all those under-30 year-olds who think they want to try socialism will come to realize that before they actually lose their freedom.

    Warm regards,

    Chuck Osborne, CFA, Managing Director


  • On July 19 the best golfers in the world will begin to compete for The Open Championship, often referred to as The British Open on this side of the pond. This year they are playing at a course named Carnoustie. Golf fans remember this course as the one that hosted this event in 1999, which saw one of the most memorable and painful golf finishes most have ever witnessed.

    It was the 128th Open and on Sunday, a French golfer named Jean van de Velde came to the final hole with a three- shot lead. The last hole at Carnoustie is a long, difficult par four. Even with the three-shot lead, van de Velde decided to use his driver off the tee. At the time the announcers were saying they thought that was a mistake. If he simply played safe, he would be the champion.

    The announcers proved to be correct. Van de Velde’s drive went well right of the fairway. In fact, he got lucky: the drive was so far to the right that it flew over a creek (they call it a burn over there) and onto another hole. Now it was decision time. He made a mistake; would he admit it, take his medicine and just get himself back into play, or would he try to undo his mistake? Van de Velde did the latter. He went for the green, and five strokes later finally finished with his three-shot lead gone. He lost in the playoff. Paul Lawrie won, but no one outside of his immediate family remembers that. The 1999 Open will always be remembered as the greatest collapse in the history of golf.

    Behold the power of compounding, when one event piles on top of another, then another. In the investing world we usually talk about compounding and how it impacts investment returns. Albert Einstein may have won a Nobel Prize for his theory of relativitiy, but when asked what the greatest invention in human history was, he said, “compound interest.” He is attributed for having said, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it… he who doesn’t…pays it.” In other words, prudent people save in order to purchase something. They invest their savings, and that savings earns a return, or interest. This grows their purchasing power. Impatient people borrow to buy things. They pay interest on those loans and end up reducing their buying power by paying more over time.

    The compounding effect comes from the interest earned on your interest. For example, if one invests $100 and earns 8 percent over the next year, then she will have gained $8 for a total of $108. If the next year she earns the same 8 percent, then she will earn $8.64 for a total of $116.64. The $0.64 is the interest she earned on her interest. This is how money grows.

    Today we use computers to illustrate this growth when we conduct financial plans, but when I started in my career we simply used something called the rule of 72. If one knows the average annual return that he will obtain on his investment, then he can divide that number into 72 and approximate how long it will take him to double his money. If he gets an 8 percent return then his money will double in nine years. It takes the same nine years for $10,000 to turn into $20,000 as it does for $20,000 to turn into $40,000. My first boss used to say that it is the last double that gets you there.

    However, compounding does not only work in the positive direction. Too often we ignore the damage caused by compounding mistakes. The first mistake almost never causes insurmountable damage, it is the compounding of mistakes that leads to ruin. In investing this leads to a phenomenon known as whipsawing. Markets move in cycles, and if an investor is out of sync with the market cycle, then it becomes easy to compound that mistake. For example, stocks of banks and stocks of technology companies often – not always, but often – move at different times.

    It is not uncommon for bank stocks to go nowhere while technology stocks are booming, or vice versa. So, if an investor buys the stock of a bank and it just sits there while stocks of technology companies grow, then he has made a “mistake.” Now what? Most investors will then attempt to undo their mistake by selling the bank stock and buying the stock of a technology company. Of course, most do this just in time for the market cycle to change and then they watch bank stocks grow while their technology stock just sits there. This is whipsawing. Instead of missing out once, this investor missed out twice. The mistake has been compounded.

    People also compound their mistakes in financial planning. An easy example would be a person who fails to build an emergency savings fund. Stuff happens in life. Unexpected expenses will occur. It could be a health issue or a car repair. At our house this summer we have had to deal with the loss of two very large oak trees. Unexpected expenses will happen, and having an emergency fund to deal with such issues is very important.

    If one makes the mistake of not having such a fund, then she must rely on borrowing money to take care of these issues. Usually that takes the form of credit card debt, which is the worst way in the world to borrow money as the interest payments are often ridiculous. This debt weighs on people. Once again, the normal reflex is to undo the mistake – this time by paying as much as humanly possible to reduce that debt as quickly as possible. This actually sounds logical, right? The problem is that if one follows this course of action then she is not building up that emergency fund, and emergencies don’t stop happening just because she is still paying for the last one. Debts start to compound, and before one knows it she is buried in debt with seemingly no way out.

    Individuals are not the only ones who fall victim to compounding. Policymakers often fall into this trap. As I am writing this, The Wall Street Journal has reported on administration efforts to help farmers. Why do farmers need help? Because the administration decided to place tariffs on Chinese goods. The Chinese respond by placing tariffs on American crops. Now all of us will be paying more for anything that comes from China and we will be paying taxes to bail out farmers who can no longer sell their goods.

    Policymakers do this all the time. They increase regulations and raise taxes, which makes it more expensive to run a business. This means fewer jobs are created. Because there are fewer jobs, that means there are more people unemployed. More people unemployed leads to more poverty, which leads to poverty programs, which leads to some people deciding they would rather get government benefits than hold down a job. That leads to more unemployment. It is an endless cycle which eventually leads to more and more inequality and polarization. Sound familiar?

    How do we prevent compounding mistakes? Most of our readers know that when I’m not analyzing stocks I am often coaching youth sports. One of the things I learned my very first year was a clever little acronym for dealing with mistakes. C.L.a.P.! We clap for mistakes. The C stands for claiming the mistake. The L stands for learning from our mistake. The a is simply for and, and P is play through the mistake. I know what you are thinking, which is what I thought when I first heard it: How wonderfully gentle of us. No wonder colleges have to create “safe spaces.” But I was wrong. Clapping for mistakes isn’t a soft easy way out, it is hard.

    It is hard on everybody, but in my experience in two different ways. Most of the kids I have coached have trouble with the C. It is very difficult for most people to ever admit that they made a mistake. We simply are hard-wired to avoid admitting that we are less than perfect. In her book “Mindset,” Carol Dweck claims that people can be put into two broad categories: we either have a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. Fixed mindset means that one believes that talent drives performance and you are just born with talent or not. A growth mindset would say that skill drives performance, and that skill grows, and new skills can be learned.

    For someone with a fixed mindset, admitting a mistake is next to impossible. That would mean that they are not good at whatever it is they are doing. It could even mean that they are stupid, worthless, etc. Obviously that isn’t actually true, but that is how this person feels. To admit a mistake takes a growth mindset. For someone with a growth mindset mistakes are how we learn, even really stupid mistakes. One’s performance has nothing to do with who she is, it has everything to do with where she is on her journey. This isn’t easy.

    After we admit a mistake, then and only then can we learn from it. The first mistake is usually not fatal. Van de Velde could have simply hit a wedge shot to get himself back in play after his drive and he would be an Open Champion. Failure to learn is what kills us. It is hard to learn when one continually makes excuses.

    Finally, one must play through their mistake. There are very few mistakes in life, and certainly in finance, that cannot be overcome. Mistakes can be overcome, but mistakes cannot be undone. This is the second trap I mentioned. Some will admit their mistakes, but instead of just continuing to play the game from where they are now, they try to undo the mistake.

    Van de Velde tried to undo his mistake by attempting a near impossible shot in order to end with a score of par or better. He is not alone. It is common in sports to see a basketball player turn the ball over to the other team, then try to undo it by stealing it back, only to commit a foul. In football a quarterback may take a sack one play and try to get the yards back on the next, only to throw an interception. In baseball a player drops a fly ball and then tries to make a miracle throw to undo it, only to give up extra bases. We cannot erase the mistake, but we can keep playing the game.

    In finance, one cannot change the fact that he invested in a bank when he should have invested in a technology company. That cannot be undone, but we can make prudent decisions, including diversifying and not putting all our eggs in one basket. One cannot undo not having savings when needed, but she can begin to build that emergency fund while prudently dealing with her debt. We can overcome the mistake, but not by trying to undo it.

    Ultimately we want our earnings to compound, not our mistakes. Try to be the wise person Albert Einstein describes who understands compounding interest. Be the one who earns it, not the one who pays it. We all make mistakes, so the next time you do, clap and don’t compound.

    Warm Regards,

    Managing Director

    ~The Power of Compounding Works in Both Directions

  • Have you seen what children and dogs do to furniture? My family moved into our home in 2010. Our previous house had no formal living room; the entire downstairs was three big rooms – a big kitchen, a big dining room, and a great room. Our new house had a more traditional living room and a cozy den, and when we moved in my wife was excited to finally use some of the living room furniture she had inherited from her parents. We later added two chairs from my parents.

    I love our living room. Most of the furniture is antique and all of it has meaning to us. There is something cool about that, which we have largely lost in a society that now buys entire rooms of new furniture, all at once. It does, however, have one downside: nothing matches. We could fix that, as it is simply a matter of getting chairs and sofas reupholstered. We almost did it once, but a wiser, more experienced soul stopped us. She said, “You have small children and dogs, you can’t have nice things.”

    I was reminded of that sage advice earlier this year. A colleague and I were enjoying a very nice dinner in Mobile, AL. If you like seafood and are ever in Mobile, you have to go to Felix’s Fish Camp Grill. We were discussing the state of the union, as it were, and the unusual turn our politics had taken. Congress had passed tax reform and the stock market was at all-time highs. We came to the conclusion that if he desired, President Trump could cruise through the rest of his term and then walk away being remembered as a successful one-term president. Vice President Pence could run for office and no matter your politics, at least we would be back to more usual candidates.

    I will admit to being one of those who is still not convinced that Donald Trump ever really wanted to be president. I could be wrong, but I wonder if this all just started as a publicity stunt and then suddenly he started winning. But back to our point. You can have whatever political views you wish, but the U.S. presidency is won and lost based on the economy. Ronald Reagan did not win 49 states in 1984 because California and New York used to be “Red” states. Most people – the ones who don’t talk about politics – vote based on how they feel, and how they feel is largely based on how they are doing economically. The tax reform which had just passed is going to stimulate the economy. If Trump could avoid any disasters, things should be going well in 2020. That could give him a graceful exit, if he wants it, and set the stage for more traditional candidates to run a more traditional presidential election.

    Then things ran off the rails because of tariffs and a war on international trade. This brings to the forefront important questions which many of us thought we had long since passed having to answer: Why is trade so important? Why shouldn’t we “protect” our industries by using tariffs?

    The instinct to build walls against foreign products is understandable. There are few things harder on humans than change. It was hard when fewer and fewer workers were needed on the farm and many people were forced to leave their small communities to get work in the big manufacturing centers. Romanticizing the old days of rural life was an American pastime long before those manufacturing jobs started giving way to the service and information economies. Change is tough, and when it seems to be forced upon us by nameless faceless “foreigners,” it is easy to think that we can just stop it from happening by putting up barriers to trade.

    Of course, hiding behind barriers is no way to face life’s challenges. We know that personally, but this is true nationally as well. We may be nostalgic for old cars, but do we really want to live in Castro’s Cuba? That is what a society who builds walls against the outside world looks like.

    Those who support trade barriers often argue that we have such a large trade deficit. They fret that the trade deficit is a horrible thing – after all it is called a deficit, and deficits are by definition bad, right? Usually that is true, and in my opinion this unfortunate label causes a great deal of confusion. In fact, during the presidential campaign Trump often referred to the trade deficit in terms of us losing.

    Is that really true? Having a trade deficit means that we export less than we import. In other words, we are sending the rest of the world a relatively small amount of stuff, and for that stuff they are sending us back a large amount of stuff. We are giving a little and getting a lot. Who’s winning this game again?

    It is at moments like this that we mourn the loss of people like Milton Friedman, who could accurately describe economic issues in a way most everyone could understand. In 1978 he spoke on this issue. At that time, it was Japan who was the foreign disruptor instead of China. This is what Friedman had to say, “Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the Japanese flood us with steel. That will reduce employment in the American steel industry, no doubt. However, it will increase employment elsewhere in America. We will pay for that steel with dollars. What will the Japanese do with the dollars they get for the steel? They aren’t going to burn them. They aren’t going to tear them up. If they would, that would be best of all, because there’s nothing we can produce more cheaply than green pieces of paper, and if they were willing to send us steel, and just take back green pieces of paper, I can’t imagine a better deal!”

    Talking about the art of the deal. If we could get steel, aluminum and everything else we need for nothing more than green pieces of paper, that would be awesome. Economists know, of course, that currency is just a convenient store of value. In truth, what we are doing is bartering. We provide the world today with most of its technology, and in return, we get the products we desire. If they take fewer things from us than we get in return, then they get to hold dollars. What are they going to do with dollars?

    Have you ever taken something back to a store and all the store will give you is a store credit? It is aggravating, isn’t it? You may not wish to buy anything else in that store. What you really want is your money back so you can go anywhere. With international trade, this is the way local currency works. China takes dollars. Dollars are like store credits, they eventually have to be used here if you want your value.

    Today the U.S. is the largest, most trusted “store” in all of the world. That means our store credits can be traded, because there really isn’t anyone who wouldn’t want to take them, but even if China uses those dollars to buy stuff from Brazil, what is Brazil going to do with them? Ultimately there are only two things that can be done with dollars: they are either used to purchase U.S. goods, or they are used to invest in the U.S. If we have a trade deficit, then we have a matching investment surplus. That is good for our economy.

    There is a reason why trade deficits peak during economic booms and bottom during economic downturns. Of course, all we have discussed thus far is what a trade deficit is and how it really is not a bad thing. We have not mentioned the benefit of low-cost steel. Yes, this hurts the steel industry, but it helps every industry that uses steal and most importantly, it helps the consumer through lower prices. I believe this gets lost on many people, usually because of the very arguments one may have heard from the steel industry regarding these latest tariffs. “We are only adding a small amount to every car.” It is just a small amount, after the small amount that was added for the passenger air bag, and the small amount that was added for the emissions standards, etc.

    Lots of government-mandated items on cars are individually desirable, and all of them add just a little cost. But, when added up, the average car now costs more than half of the average family’s total income. This is what economists call rent-seeking, and it is one of the biggest dangers of an intrusive government. Every tariff brings large benefits to a few, in our example the steel industry, and brings small injury to the many. This creates a passive majority and a very active minority, which wins the day at the expense of the majority.

    In our case steel workers win and consumers lose. Who are the consumers? Everyone. That means everyone, including (ironically) the steel workers. Of course, it is noble to defend steel workers – we all love the iconic image of blue-collar, middle class America. So, let’s change our example, and instead of tariffs on steel, let’s say we are talking about bailing out banks. Suddenly this begins to look totally different. Let’s say we want to protect Wall Street bankers from the Chinese at the expense of everyone else in America. That doesn’t have the same political appeal, does it?

    Benefiting a sympathetic group over the rest of us seems very different from benefiting an unsympathetic group, but in fact it is not. Our founders understood that. It wasn’t about replacing a bad king with a good one. It was about not having a king at all. It is about creating a system of checks and balances where hopefully the greater good can win out over selfish interests.

    What is the greater good? Politicians like to see everyone as part of some definable group. They wish to silo us, divide and concur as it were. If they do group us together it is often as workers. This seems to be Trump’s vision; he is for the workers. Economists, on the other hand, see everyone as consumers. After all, the primary reason individuals go to work is to be able to consume. Most would choose not to work if consumption was possible without it, hence the retirement planning industry of which I am a part. If this were not the case, I would not have a job.

    The irony is that most of us are workers and all of us are consumers, yet workers’ interests and consumer interests are not always aligned. When in doubt, I say do what is right for the consumer. Do what is right for everyone. The healthier the consumer, the more they will consume, and the more good jobs there will be for all of us workers. They might be in the steel industry or they might not. That should be up to the consumer to decide.

    This is what we have always done at Iron Capital. Our clients are our primary concern, and the more we successfully focus on our clients (the consumers), the more we (the workers) benefit. A few years ago we changed our business model to become strictly referral-only. We do not spend an ounce of energy marketing our firm or selling our services. We focus entirely on taking care of our current client base. Once we did that, we ended up doing more new business than we had ever done in the past, because our clients are far better at selling our services than we ever were. This works for many other great businesses, and it can work for our nation as it has in the past.

    Until we grow up and learn that lesson as a nation, our economy will be a lot like my living room: a place where we just can’t have nice things.

    Warm Regards,

    Chuck Osborne
    CFA Managing Director

    ~This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

  • My wife loves flowers. Her Mom and Dad both liked digging in the dirt, as they say, and they grew lots of things. This was a little different for me when we first got together; my Mom baked, and she was (still is – though she does it much less now) fantastic at it. My father dug in the dirt, but only with his wedges…golf wedges that is, not any type of garden tool.

    My mother-in-law particularly liked orchids. The care it takes to keep them happy, so that they will bloom, is amazing. She had a gift for it and she passed that onto my wife. Unfortunately, my mother-in-law is no longer with us, but some of her orchids still are, and my wife would not trade them for all the tea in China.

    While I did not grow up in a home that had lots of flowers, I do understand their value. Like all self-respecting security  analysts, I am familiar with what many people think is the world’s first investment bubble. It probably is not, but we don’t know a whole lot about the investing world prior to
    seventeenth century Europe. This was the Dutch Golden Age; the Netherlands were the center of the civilized world, leading the way in trade, science, art, and of course military might. In 1602, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established by the Dutch East India Company. Investing in stocks was born.

    The problem with markets and the speculators that are attracted to them is that they are never satisfied with simply investing in companies. They always want something more exciting, and it doesn’t take long for them to find something, anything. In the 1630s they found tulips. The then-rare and
    exotic flower was all the rage. As their popularity grew speculators started to want in on the action, and the already-rising prices headed for the sky.

    The mania peaked in February 1637. One tulip type known as the “Viceroy” sold for 3,000 to 4,200 guilders depending on size. For perspective, the annual income of a skilled craftsman was about 300 guilders. In his classic 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackey records one transaction where twelve acres of land were traded for one tulip. Then, as suddenly as it had started, on February 3, 1637, the prices of tulips began to fall. On February 5 they dropped like a rock, and by May of that year their prices had dropped 99.999 percent.

    This episode in history has been discussed by economists ever since. Of course, like anything that happened so long ago, there are varying explanations and debates about how accurate the facts really are, but there is no doubt that the prices of tulips rose sharply and then collapsed in February 1637. Lesson learned, right?

    Of course not. There have been other bubbles in history, but why don’t we just fast forward to our lifetime, or at least mine. I remember vividly sitting with my boss in his boss’s office sometime in 1999. “The market is wrong, it is just plain wrong.” That was the statement from the elder statesman. My boss respectfully but firmly said, “The market is never wrong.” I remember being torn. I was too young to disagree with my immediate supervisor, but  the wisdom of the more seasoned veteran seemed more correct than not. Six months later I was in my former boss’s job and my lesson was learned. The market may not be wrong often, but it certainly can be wrong, and when it is, it is usually by a large margin.

    That brings us to bitcoin. So how many presents under your Christmas tree were purchased with the digital currency or so-called cryptocurrency? Really? Same here, my answer is also zero. That may be because it isn’t actually a currency, at least not one that can be used to do stuff like buy something. So, what is it?

    The truth is, I’m not really sure. That is not what worries me about the cryptocurrency, however. There have been many good investments that I did not understand the first time they were explained to me. I didn’t understand Google’s business model when they first went public. It did not take me long to figure it out. We now own shares in Alphabet, Google’s parent company. I didn’t fully appreciate the wonder that was the iPhone in 2007, but we made a good deal of money on Apple’s stock, which we no longer own. There are many things I don’t understand, but in my world, I have the good
    fortune of being connected to lots of smart people who can help explain complicated investments to me. This is what worries me about bitcoin and the rest of the crypto stuff: Not only do I not understand it, but no one who I have ever talked to or read does either. Let me explain.

    Here is how the usual bitcoin conversation goes:
    Me: What is it?
    Expert: It isn’t the currency, you can’t think of it that way. It is this technology called blockchain.
    Me: What is blockchain?
    Expert: It is like a giant ledger where you can record trades. It can allow you to transact wherever you want in the world.
    Me: But I can do that now.
    Expert: But this cuts out the middleman.
    Me: The middleman is there to verify the transaction.
    Expert: The ledger does that.
    Me: So we just say we did something and everyone believes us?
    Expert: Well no, there are these “miners” who must unlock the ledger for you. It takes a ton of computation and enough energy to light a small town.
    Me: So, there is a middleman?
    Expert: You just don’t get it, it’s complicated but trust me, everything will be blockchain within five years.
    Me: Why?

    That is how it goes. Sometimes the “expert” will be ruder than others. Some have actually called me, heaven forbid, old. When I was young, “old” often went with “wise,” but I don’t think millennials know that. There is a man who understood far more than me about the science of our physical world. His name was Albert Einstein, and he famously said, “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.” I have yet to meet the person who can explain bitcoin to a six-year-old.

    This is not unique. There is something about human nature and it starts at a young age. I love the Tom Hanks movie, “Big.” If you don’t remember, this is a movie where a young boy made a wish to be big and he woke up as a 30-year-old man. While trying to find a way to turn himself back, he had to get a job. In his first meeting, a superior was introducing a new product that made no sense, and the 30-year-old boy rose his hand and said, “I don’t get it.” It turns out none of the adults got it either, but they were not brave enough to admit it.

    I use this all the time. I call it having a Tom Hanks moment. Every analyst who has ever worked here and had to present an investment idea absolutely hates it when I have a Tom Hanks moment.

    The problem with the movie is that it implies that when we were young we were more honest with ourselves, and as we grew older we lost that ability. My son is 10. He is two years younger than Tom Hanks’ character in that movie. At least four times a week I’ll ask him if he knows what something, anything, is. “Yes, of course I do Dad.” So, what is it? “Well, aaaa… I can’t really explain it.” So, every time I try to tell him the same thing: There is no shame it not knowing something, it is only dangerous if you will not admit that you don’t know something.

    Just for the record, my son is not unique in this. As most of our readers know, I coach youth basketball. I will explain a drill to a group of 10-year-old boys and then ask, “Do you understand?” “Yes, Coach, we understand.” Then, two seconds later they are doing exactly what I told them not to do. One of these days I’ll learn to just stop asking the question, because I know the real answer. But this is human nature, and that nature often forces us to do crazy things. We are hard-wired to want to go with the crowd. There is safety in numbers. We want to know what others are doing, even when deep down we know that most others do it wrong. We have this desire to compare and contrast. We don’t want to miss out. Or, we are the exact opposite: We love being the naysayer, the contrarian, the one who always disagrees with popular opinion, Mr. or Ms. Let Me Tell You Why You’re Wrong. Neither of these natural tendencies are helpful when making investment decisions.

    The famous investor and Warren Buffett mentor, Benjamin Graham, put it best when he said, “You’re neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You’re right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right – and that is the only thing that makes you right.” So here are my facts and reasoning regarding bitcoin.

    I don’t know why we need it. No one has sufficiently convinced me that the world needs another form of currency. In fact, most of the backers don’t even bother attempting to explain this. Many say you buy bitcoin not because of the currency but because you wish to invest in the technology. However, a purchase of bitcoin is not an investment in the technology any more than buying an iPhone is an investment in technology. Buying shares of Apple would be investing in iPhone technology, but no such opportunity exists with bitcoin. These are the facts.

    In terms of reasoning, the future is always uncertain, but we can reason possible futures so let’s think about that. One possibility is that bitcoin does become the currency of the entire world. So what? That would mean that my house and my investment portfolio would simply be translated to bitcoin. I still don’t want to invest in the currency any more than I would in dollars or euros, etc. Another possibility with a greater likelihood of happening is that bitcoin goes away, but we find some use for the underlying technology, blockchain. Buying a bitcoin is not an investment in blockchain, so that doesn’t help. Regulators could also step in and shut it all down. Try buying something with a Confederate dollar.

    So, even if all the hype comes true one may not benefit from buying bitcoin today, but there are multiple scenarios where it becomes worthless. The investment conclusion is, we don’t fully understand what it is, and even if one thinks he does, there is no useful reason for owning it.

    Know what you own and why you own it. This is a cardinal rule in investing. Why would anyone buy bitcoins? Why did they buy tulips? We have seen this story before and it does not end well. At Iron Capital we will stick to prudent investing. If you wish to gamble on some technology still in search of a useful purpose then by all means do so, but know what you are doing. That is gambling and that is not what we do here.

    Warm Regards,

    Chuck Osborne, CFA
    Managing Director

    ~This is Crazy: Tulips, Dot-coms and Bitcoin

  • I have a daughter who just turned seven years old. Approximately 18 months ago she finally got over the phenomenon which will partially define children of her generation: Yes, I am speaking of the Disney movie Frozen. Much like earlier generations are defined by Bambi, The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid or The Lion King, my daughter’s time is marked by Frozen.

    My parents are lucky. Once the movie was out of the theaters there was no way for my generation to keep watching. My wife and I, on the other hand, have seen or usually just overheard Frozen at least 30 times. Fortunately for us, Disney is very good at throwing the parents some entertaining bones
    that go right over our children’s heads. One such scene in Frozen is when Princess Anna is going after her sister, Princess Elsa, aka the Snow Queen in the original fairy tale, who had inadvertently turned summer into winter. Just before she freezes to death, Anna comes upon a small store which is largely stocked with summertime goods, except in one small corner. The store owner charges her an outrageous amount for her winter supplies because, “These are from our winter stock, where supply and demand have a big problem.”

    This is when my confused daughter would look at me and wonder why I was laughing. She did not understand the humor of a price-gouging capitalist being plopped in the middle of a movie inspired by an old Hans Christain Andersen fairy tale. This is, however, many people’s view of what it means to be in a for-profit business: the cliché goes that it is all about gouging people, getting the most one can out of every sucker.

    Last quarter I wrote about healthcare. I courageously predicted that Congress would end up doing nothing. While it is always somewhat gratifying to be correct, I admit that was not my boldest of predictions. The reason I felt so comfortable in that prediction is because healthcare requires tough decisions, and politicians don’t do tough decisions. We need statesmen for that, but this term is so far removed from our current reality that it hasn’t even been degenderfied.

    One of our readers responded asking why I did not bring up insurance company profit margins as major driver of costs in our system. So, let’s bring it up.

    A few years back I was on the board of an industry group now known as the Atlanta Society of Financial and Investment Professionals. They provided new board members with an orientation/training session. The material finally got around to the finances of the organization, and the first slide simply read: Not-For-Profit is an Income Tax Designation, NOT a Business Plan. What did they mean?

    To understand what they meant one must understand the definition of profit. Investopedia.com defines it as follows: Profit is a financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs and taxes needed to sustain the activity. Any profit that is gained goes to the business owners, who may or may not decide to spend it on the business.

    To put it another way, to be profitable an organization must spend less money than it generates. Where have we heard this before? The number one goal for individuals in financial planning is to spend less than they make. It is the only way to be financially stable. If one spends more than he makes, it will not take long for him to go bankrupt. If one even spends exactly what she makes, she still is living paycheck to paycheck and is one bump in the road away from financial ruin. Why would an organization be any different?

    In fact, they are not. I have spent most of my career in for-profit businesses, but I also worked for the Life Office Management Association (LOMA) at one time. LOMA is an industry educational association and a not-for-profit organization. When I was there we had two cost-cutting reorganizations, and the second time the president was replaced with someone who could focus on the bottom line. Not-for-profit is a tax designation, not a business plan.

    Organizations, just like individuals, must spend less money than they make or they will eventually go bankrupt. But, this does not directly answer the question of whether the need for profit raises prices. Let’s think on this for a while. What organizations do you associate with the term “low prices”?

    My guess is that you came up with names like Amazon, Walmart, or maybe Dollar General. These organizations operate as for-profit entities. They are corporations, you know those evil things that provide people with everything they want, including jobs. Amazon recently purchased the grocery chain Whole Foods. Did you hear anyone saying, “Now that Whole Foods is owned by a business they are going to raise all their prices?” No, it was exactly the opposite.

    It is shocking to me how so many people who live in a world blessed by the freedom of capitalism do not understand it and even claim to despise it. Capitalism is driven by what Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen calls disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovation is not invention; it is not coming up with some grand new technology. That isn’t what innovative capitalists do. What they do is take technology that already exists and make it cheaper and more available to the masses. The profit motive does not drive prices up; in reality, it does the opposite.

    The motive for profits drives efficiency. It drives the quest to make one’s products available to more and more people. The only way to do that is to be better at what you do so that more people want what it is you offer, and to be able to give it to them at a price they find reasonable. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, no matter how many times you may have been told otherwise; he invented the production line, which was a way to produce cars so cheaply that everyone could afford one. He became a very rich man by selling cars at a price his own employees could afford. Today Amazon makes reading less expensive and Netflix brings entertainment to us less expensively. This is what capitalism’s profit motive does.

    If one wishes to criticize capitalism it would be much more accurate to mourn the demise of the local bookstore. Grocery stores replaced the local market and now grocery stores face off against Walmart on one side and Amazon on the other. One also could accurately point to situations where individuals cut corners to cut costs. These are far more accurate criticisms.

    What about high costs? In what areas of your life do you run into outrageous prices? My guess is the first two thoughts that came to your mind were healthcare and education – both industries dominated by not-for-profit organizations. I graduated from Wake Forest University is 1992. The last year of my college experience, the full cost of attending Wake Forest was $12,000. Upon graduation I purchased the first car I ever paid for myself: a Toyota Camry, which cost approximately $16,000. Today the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a Toyota Camry is $23,070, while today total cost at Wake Forest University is $66,512. Toyota is a for-profit corporation, while Wake Forest University would never stoop to such levels.

    The need to produce profits also does something else: It promotes sustainability, which is a very popular notion in our culture today. Most of the time, the people who use this word today are speaking of environmental sustainability (which is also possible only in a capitalistic society, but that is another topic). I am speaking of economic sustainability. The need for profit drives efficiency and innovation, and without these things organizations eventually collapse. We are beginning to see this already within education. Just a few years ago Sweet Briar College in Virginia shut its doors. Dedicated alumni bailed them out, but the college is still far from out of the woods. Moody’s has predicted that college closures will triple in 2017.

    When a for-profit organization suddenly becomes unprofitable, the reaction most of the time is to look for ways to cut costs. Leadership makes hard decisions which may sometimes mean cutting jobs. It is hard and unpopular, but often it is the only way to survive. On the other hand, at not-for-profits, the answer too often is to raise prices. Universities for too long have just raised tuition. This building isn’t working, let’s build a new one. Finance professors don’t like being part of the larger Economics or Business schools; fine, they can be their own department. We’ll just get a gift from an alum, or once again raise tuition. It is not sustainable.

    This is also true when making investments. I would be naive to believe that no lazy executive hasn’t looked at their bottom line shrinking and decided to raise prices. It does happen. Some companies can do it more easily than others; we call it having pricing power. It is the kiss of death.  Show me a company that is growing earnings primarily through raising prices, and I will show you a stock that should be sold immediately. The days of this company are numbered. When high prices exist in a world where others are free to compete, then competition is not far behind and that competition will deliver justice to price-hikers. If you don’t believe me, then ask Borders Books or Blockbuster or the hundreds of other companies who no longer exist today because they failed to compete.

    Another misconception is that all profits go to the owners. This is not true in most businesses and certainly not true in the best businesses. When profits are paid out to owners they come in the form of a dividend. It is true that at one point in our history the vast majority of profits were paid out to the owners. According the Wikipedia the average payout ratio – the percentage of profits given back to the owners – for the S&P 500 was 90 percent in the 1940s. Today that rate is 30 percent. The amounts not paid out to the owners are reinvested in growing the business. The better the business, the more money is usually reinvested. Amazon does not pay out any of its profits, nor does Netflix, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), or Facebook. That reinvestment leads to new products, new departments, new jobs and usually higher wages.

    So, does the insurance industry’s for-profit structure lead to higher cost in healthcare? The simple answer is no, it does not. I want to be clear that this does not mean that health insurance companies don’t share blame in the total mess that is our healthcare industry. They certainly do. I am simply saying that being for-profit is not the problem. When we think about our daily lives in terms of the things that bring us joy and bring us stress, this truth becomes self-evident. Would you rather order something from Amazon or wait in line at the post office? What is more fun, buying a new car or getting a new driver’s license?

    Granted, Disney films can bring joy and stress…joy to the child, stress to the parent who must listen to that song one more time…but our kids do eventually grow out of it. Fortunately, Disney is a profitable enterprise so our children will be able to take their kids to whatever hit they come up with at that time…and we can enjoy what is commonly known as grandparents’ revenge. Now that is a profitable and sustainable concept.

    Warm Regards,

    Chuck Osborne, CFA
    Managing Director

    ~Profitability & Sustainability