**(FULL ARTICLE AT FOCUSED COMPOUNDING)**

A Focused Compounding member sent me this email:

*“I've just become a FC member and I've been listening to the very interesting podcasts from day one. Really enjoying them. Those have convinced me to purchase a membership of 1 year (for now).*

* *

*I have a question that has been spinning my head for a while now.*

* *

*Everybody is looking for this gem of a company with a sustainable competitive advantage and consequently… a high sustainable ROIC or ROIIC.*

* *

*But when you invest in a company at 2 times invested capital doesn't that hurt your compounding effect big time in the long term (ROIC of 20% becomes 10%?)? Or am I pursuing the wrong train of thought here?”*

Yes, it does hurt your compounding. But, paying more than you normally would – in terms of price-to-book – for a great business may not hurt your long-term compounding quite as much as you think. However, there’s a tendency for investors to focus more on how high the company’s return on capital, growth rate, etc. is right now instead of how long those high rates of return on capital, of sales and EPS growth, etc. can last. What matters a lot – as I’ll show using numbers in a minute – is how long you own a stock and how long it keeps up its above average compounding.

Think of it this way. If you buy the stock market as a whole, it tends to return about 10% a year. A great business might be able to compound at 20% a year. So, how much more can you pay for a great business than you would pay for the S&P 500? It might seem the simple answer is that you can pay twice as much for a great business. However, that’s only true if you’re planning to sell the stock in a year. That’s because 20% / 2 = 10%. So, paying 2 times book value gets you the same return right out of the gate in a great business as what you’d have in the S&P 500.

When value investors like Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, and Phi Fisher talk about how it’s fine to pay up for great, durable businesses – they mean if you intend to be a long-term shareholder and if the company continues to compound at high rates far into the future. This makes all the difference in what kind of price-to-book value you can afford to pay.

To figure out how much more you can pay for a great business and still beat the market, you can actually just sit down and work out the math.

Here's what matters...

* Price / Asset (equity, invested capital, etc.)

* Amount of earnings reinvested in the business

* Return on that reinvestment

Over shorter holding periods in stocks reinvesting less of their earnings each year – ** the price you pay** matters more.

Over longer holding periods where the stock is reinvesting almost all of their earnings each year – the ** return on reinvestment** matters more.

A company's maximum growth rate tends to be set by its return on capital. Of course, they could issue stocks, borrow money, etc. for a time. But, ** in the long-run** the only way a company can really have high EPS growth is by having a high enough return on capital. Otherwise, it wouldn't produce enough earnings to grow by that much each year. The easiest way for a company to compound at a high rate for a long time is simply to produce enough cash to fund its own high growth rate.

Okay. So, a company with a high rate of return and a lot of opportunity to grow is the kind of business you can afford to pay a higher multiple of book value for. From now on, let’s talk in terms of rate of compounding instead of just return on capital.

So, let’s pretend we’ve found a company with a high compounding rate. Now, we want to figure out what multiple of book value we can afford to pay for this company.

Say a stock compounds book value by 20% per year for 20 years (this is equivalent to having a 20% after-tax return on capital and always reinvesting 100% of the earnings back into the business). And let’s say you hold this stock for 20 years.

How much does it matter how much you paid?

If you pay 1x book value you make 20% a year for 20 years.

If you pay 2x book value you make 16% a year for 20 years.

If you pay 3x book value you make 14% a year for 20 years.

If you pay 4x book value you make 12% a year for 20 years.

If you pay 5x book value you make 11% a year for 20 years.

If you pay 6x book value you make 10% a year for 20 years.

This is what you make for holding a stock for 20 years – not what you make for “flipping” the stock by buying at a lower price-to-book today than it will trade at in the future. In other words, I assumed the same exit price – in terms of price-to-book – for all of those 6 scenarios (you always sell at one times book value).

So, thinking purely as a long-term shareholder, if you pay a bargain price (1x book value) for a great company with a really long period of growth ahead of it – you can make much, much more than the stock market overall.

But, even if you pay 6 times more for that great business with a really long period of growth ahead of it – you can still do about as well as the stock market overall.

So, truly long-term growth investors aren't wrong. If you find Southwest Airlines or Wal-Mart in the 1970s or Amazon in the 1990s or 2000s it will pay off – ** if you hold the stock long enough**.

A really simple way to think of it is this:

The SHORTER your holding period in a stock, the more important the PRICE YOU BUY AT (P/E, P/B, etc.) and the PRICE YOU SELL AT (P/E, P/B, etc.)

The LONGER your holding period in a stock, the more important the RETURN ON CAPITAL / GROWTH RATE of the company you've invested in.

Basically, value investing works AND growth investing works. Buying and selling value stocks – paying a lower P/E, P/B etc. and then selling at a higher P/E, P/B, etc. works.

And HOLDING good, growing businesses also works.

One of the best ways to think about this is to remember this formula.

Your "hold" return in a stock is:

*Free Cash Flow Yield (that’s Free Cash Flow / Market Cap) + Growth = “Hold Return”*

So, if you buy a stock that pays you out a 4% dividend and is growing at 6% a year – then, you can make 10% a year for as long as you own the stock without having to sell at a higher P/E, P/B, etc. than you bought at.

But, then you have the "trade" return in the stock.

So, let's say you buy a stock – like a net-net – that doesn't grow. Say the stock trades at 0.6 times NCAV. You'd make 19% over a 3-year holding period even if the stock didn't grow. You'd make 11% a year if you had to hold the stock for 5 years. So, because the “trade return” on a net-net is so higher (greater than 10% a year over more than 5 years, if you buy in at a greater than 40% discount), you can afford to hold a non-growing net-net for a long time and still match the market or even beat it.

However, good investments usually combine both aspects. A decent hold return or a decent trade return combined with a really good form of the other kind of return.

In other words, great investments are often “growth businesses” bought at “value stock” prices and then sold at “growth stock” prices.

For example, let's say I buy a stock with a 15% free cash flow yield and 3% growth. I make 18% a year while I hold it. But, then, say the stock doubles its FCF multiple (so the FCF yield drops to 7.5%) by the time I sell it in 5 years.

In that case, you'd make a return of greater than 30% a year (you have a double-digit return from a good free cash flow yield and a double digit return from buying at a really low Price/FCF multiple and selling at a "normal" one within 5 years).

That’s obviously a great situation. Many good long-term investments don’t look that good on the face of them. But, they do combine positive contributions from both the “hold return” and the “trade return”.

Let’s look at what can go wrong if you pay too much for a stock.

We said you could pay 6 times book value for a stock that compounds book value at 20% a year. You’d do okay. Not great. But, okay. You’d match the market. But, what if it turns out the stock only compounds at 10% a year for 20 years? In that case, you’d only make about 1% a year. So, the extra 10% a year in compounding – between 20 years of compounding at 20% a year and 20 years of compounding at 10% a year – is the difference between having a long-term stock performance that matches the market versus one that is a very bad outcome (a stock that does nothing for two full decades).

Now, growth investors may argue I’ve been unfair here. If a business is a really great compounder and it ** stays** a really great compounder – it should trade at a higher multiple of book value even when you sell it. This would make a big difference in your long-term return.

For example, let’s say you have a stock that you pay 6 times book value for today. It compounds book value per share at 20% a year for the next 20 years. And then, at the end of those 20 years, it ** still** trades at 20 times book value. In that case, you would – of course – make a 20% annual return.

This is the argument that investors often make when projecting out their own long-term returns in a great, growing business. They assume the stock will grow at more like 20% a year rather than the market’s normal return of 10% a year – plus they assume that, because the stock keeps growing at an above average rate, it’ll keep having an above-average price-to-book ratio.

There’s a logical problem with this argument. The argument isn’t wrong. It’s right. But, it leaves you with no margin of safety. You think you’re going to make 20% a year for 20 years, because you are paying 6 times book value for a stock that will compound its value at 20% a year ** and** then will

**trade at 6 times book value.**

*still*

But, what happens if the stock grows at 10% a year instead of 20% a year?

Well, your two defenses here – the two reasons you think you’re going to get a good return in this stock – are that you expect an above-average growth rate and then you expect to exit the stock at an above-average price-to-book ratio ** because** the stock will still have an above-average growth rate. Really, you are projecting both the growth rate that happens while you own the stock and the price at which you exit the stock based on a single projected data point: how fast this stock will grow.

All you’re doing is going all in with a bet on the stock’s future growth rate.

I talked about the “hold return” you can get in a stock (because it’s a great, growing business) while you own it and the “trade return” you can get when you sell a stock (because you sell it for more than you bought it for).

Well, if you assume both a high growth rate in a stock while you own it and a high price-to-book ratio when you sell it (because, it’ll still be a growth stock) – then, you’re really only making one bet. You’re betting the stock will still be growing at an above average rate far into the future. That is sometimes a difficult bet to make. And, if you’re wrong, there’s no protection on the downside. But, if you’re right – then, paying a price-to-book ratio of anywhere up to 6 times book value can make sense – if you’re buying the right business. Overall, though, it’s the durability of this growth that matters more than you’d think. Buying a stock that will compound at 30% a year for the next 4 years is nowhere near as good a deal as buying a stock that will compound at 15% a year for the next 40 years.

*To learn about our managed accounts, email Andrew at **info@focusedcompounding.com** or call or text him at 469-207-5844.*