MONEY stocks

Stocks Go Up. Stocks Go Down. Deal With It.

The best tool for addressing anxiety about the stock market is information. Unfortunately, that isn't always enough.

Like some of our investment advisory clients, I fear the market sometimes. The way I combat that fear is with information. Markets go up, markets go down. Here’s what’s normal. Here’s where we are.

Last month, in conversation with one of my more nervous clients — when I had finished my list of market facts and cycles, when I had emailed my short and long-term charts — she replied, “And I’m supposed to be content with that?”

Essentially, yes. That’s the answer most financial professionals would have, if they’re honest.

I suppose you may find it strange, but that’s the kind of challenge I’m up for. It’s a challenge to try to keep clients calm when markets are anything but calm.

In 2008, many of my friends who are financial advisers were deeply affected by the trauma that clients experienced as markets worldwide experienced the worst decline since the Great Depression. They remain affected by it. Trauma is not too big of a word.

Today, I don’t fear the downturn. I speak.

In a downturn, people’s attention is most focused on sliding markets. They may hear what you have to say, but they may not listen to your various messages: Markets are risky. They go up and down. If you don’t take market risk, you limit your potential for capturing the gains when they do come. If you do take market risk, you’ve got to be able to see that downturns are a part of the deal. Shall I get out my trusty charts now and show you just how common it is for markets to fluctuate?

Probably I’d bore you if I did. What you probably want to know is what’s a good strategy for dealing with a volatile market.

You could move some money out of equities, of course. Or we could layer into the portfolio some exchange-traded funds that continuously move out of the most volatile stocks and into the less volatile ones. Both these moves will limit returns, but will also make the trends less upsetting.

But even if we lessen the throbbing uncertainty, we cannot eliminate it.

No one has overcome market cycles yet, no matter what they promise. Cue the charts.

And here’s the flip side: For all the confidence the clients might have in us, we can’t tell them when the markets will tumble. We can’t tell them when to run for the hills. Because no one can.

I feel I have gone down this road to every end I can find, looking for the analytics, the portfolio theory, the guru, the portfolio construction expertise, the economic underpinning, the macro-down and the bottom-up way of selecting exactly what would be the best globally diversified portfolio. I’ve made my own deal with risk and return. But none of that work changes the simple fact markets do go down periodically. Personally, I am content with that.

But for that client, this is not a comfortable fact.

It’s humbling, really, to have a discussion in which you cannot provide something which is very much wanted.

But it’s a smart discussion to have.

The client told me that when the market goes up again, I have permission to say, “I told you so.”

The market is up nearly 10% since we had that conversation, so I might. But when times are good in the markets, it’s the same as when times are bad: Clients don’t listen.

———-

Harriet J. Brackey, CFP, is the co-chief investment officer of KR Financial Services, a South Florida registered investment advisory firm that manages more than $330 million. She does financial planning for clients and manages their portfolios. Before going into the financial services industry, she was an award-winning journalist who covered Wall Street. Her background includes stints at Business Week, USA Today, The Miami Herald and Nightly Business Report.

MONEY retirement planning

This Simple Strategy Can Help You Build a Successful Retirement Plan

Fox and hedgehog
Bob Elsdale—Getty Images

Should you be smart as a fox or wise as a hedgehog in your retirement planning?

No, it’s not a trick question. Nor a trivial one. Indeed, knowing whether you act more like a fox or a hedgehog can help you improve your approach to retirement planning, making for a more enjoyable pre- and post-career life.

The fox vs. hedgehog debate goes back to a statement attributed to the ancient Greek poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Alluding to that line, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote a famous essay in 1953 titled, “The Fox and The Hedgehog.”

The idea behind the fox-hedgehog comparison is that you can divide people into two groups: hedgehogs, who see the world through the prism of a defining principle or idea, and foxes, who focus more on their experiences and the particulars of a given situation. You could say that hedgehogs are more likely to see the big picture, while foxes get into the weeds.

So what does this have to do with retirement planning?

Well, if you’re a fox, you’re always looking for some type of edge or way to exploit circumstances to your advantage. You track the ups and downs of the stock market with an eye toward getting in before a big upswing or out before a crash. You listen to investment pundits, hoping to score tips on stocks or sectors that are supposedly poised to outperform the market. Chances are you’ve been glancing at what the Dow and the S&P 500 have been doing as you’ve been reading this column.

In your continuing efforts to gain an edge, you’re also constantly on the lookout for exciting new investment opportunities—smart beta ETFs, the Bitcoin Trust, whatever—and revolutionary techniques that can enhance your reitrement-planning efforts. You probably believe that finding the best investments is the single most important thing to do to build a sizeable nest egg, when diligent saving actually trumps savvy investing.

If you’re a hedgehog, on the other hand, you’re probably more apt to believe that successful retirement planning comes down to following a few simple principles: saving regularly (preferably by putting your savings on autopilot), making the most of tax-advantaged accounts whenever you can and, to the extent possible these days, not pulling the trigger on retirement until you feel you have a large enough nest egg to give you a good margin of safety on withdrawals (as opposed to relying on some investing black-magic that’s supposed to help you squeeze more out of your assets).

As for new products and cutting-edge strategies, the hedgehog views them with more than a little skepticism and is more likely to see them as a gimmick or distraction than a can’t-miss opportunity. As a hedgehog, you believe it’s unlikely that the Next Big Thing can significantly improve on time-honored strategies like looking for ways to save a bit more, reining in investment costs and building a basic stocks-bonds portfolio that you rebalance periodically. So you’re more likely to pass on the latest fad, knowing that in the financial world, fads come along pretty frequently, and often leave disappointment in their wake.

Full disclosure: I’m primarily in the hedgehog camp. Thirty years of writing about retirement planning and investing has convinced me that true innovation is pretty rare, and that “sophisticated” strategies is often another way of saying “expensive” strategies. I believe that if you get the Big Things right—you save regularly, invest sensibly, set reasonable expectations and monitor your progress—you don’t have to resort to fancy techniques that too often have the potential to blow up on you.

That said, while we may live in a digital world, we humans are not digital. We’re analog. No one is solely a fox or a hedgehog. We may be more one than the other, but we have elements of both. And I think that whether you consider yourself mostly a fox or a hedgehog, you can learn from the other.

If you’re primarily a fox, for example, you might occasionally want to pull back and take a big-picture look at your retirement planning. You want to be sure that have a sound basic strategy in place and that you’re not undermining it by chasing every new product or approach that comes along. To help you improve your focus, you’ll probably want to cultivate some of the hedgehog’s skepticism.

Conversely, if you’re a hedgehog, you want to be careful that you don’t let your wariness about The New New Thing completely shut you off to the possibility of innovative approaches that may improve your planning and your retirement prospects. Truly transformative products, services and strategies may be rare, but they do come along.

ETFs have helped many investors lower investment expenses and their tax bills. New tools that can help you decide when to claim Social Security—which you can find in RDR’s Retirement Toolbox—really do have the potential for dramatically improving many people’s standard of living in retirement. You don’t want your “hedgehoggish” tendency to view the world from 30,000 feet make you overlook something at ground level that that may prove helpful to your planning. To prevent that from happening, try to think like the fox sometimes.

So the next time you’re contemplating your retirement planning, be sure to think like a hedgehog and make sure you’ve got a good overall retirement plan in place. Then make like a fox and see whether there’s anything worthwhile new or interesting that might help you improve your plan, even if incrementally.

Doing this will help you see from both fox’s perspective and the hedgehog’s. And you’ll reap the benefits of thinking, shall we say, like a hedgefox.

More from RealDealRetirement.com

Do You Know Your Retirement IQ? Take This Test

More Sex—And 3 Other Tips For A Happier Retirement

Can I Save On Retirement Investing Fees?

MONEY Markets

Here’s How Anyone Can Beat Professional Investors

141110_INV_PassiveInvesting
With cheap index funds, you can diversify without paying a premium. Herbert Gehr—Getty Images/Time & Life Picture

Statistically speaking, financial experts still can't match the "wisdom of the crowd."

Another day, another piece of evidence that active fund managers are no better at investing than lab rats.

This time, researchers at Bank of America found that more than 4 out of 5 managers have failed to beat the Russell 1000 index of large-company stocks so far this year. In fact, there’s been only one year in the last decade (2007) when a majority of active managers beat the market.

“It’s an incredibly competitive environment, with so many active managers looking for the next great investment, and it’s just not there,” says Alexander Dyck, a finance professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, who has co-authored an international comparison of active and passive strategies.

Dyck’s research found that in the United States, passive strategies work better than active management. That is, mutual funds that simply mimic an index actually return more money, post-fees, than funds managed by professionals making hands-on choices about what stocks, bonds, and other assets to hold.

That finding is a big deal because people who invest in active funds—say, in their 401(k)s or other retirement accounts—typically pay much higher fees than those who invest in passive funds. Thanks to active management, stock fund investors on average end up paying more than five times as much in expenses than they would with index funds; that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars, as the chart below shows.

Screen Shot 2014-11-11 at 4.54.47 PM (2)
Source: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/investingtruths/investing-truth-about-cost

When active funds do beat their benchmarks, that can make up for high fees (though evidence suggests even that scenario is rare). But with most returns so uninspiring, there doesn’t seem to be much remaining justification for active management, at least for the average investor. Better to stick with cheap index funds.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Dyck’s research, for example, found that active managers can still beat their benchmarks when they invest overseas—particularly in emerging markets like China, where investing in companies hand-picked by a professional tends to be a better bet than investing in a basket of stocks representing every company out there.

“In countries with significant governance risks, a plain old index gives you exposure to everything, including the good, the bad, and the ugly,” says Dyck.

But even though active investing outside of the U.S. seems to work for institutional investors who generally pay lower fees, Dyck says, it doesn’t mean it’ll be worth it for you. As a retail investor, you’ll almost always pay more than the professionals.

MONEY fix my mix

Get Free Help with Your Investing Challenges

Pile of money
B.A.E. Inc.—Alamy

MONEY is looking for people who are willing to share the details of their portfolio in exchange for a free workup with a financial planner.

Has the volatile market caused you to flee stocks for the security of cash and bonds?

Are you close to 100% in stocks but thinking now it might be time to dial back?

Would you like to rework your investments to generate more income from dividends and bonds?

If so, we’d like to help.

For an upcoming issue, MONEY is looking for people who’d be willing to share their portfolio and financial situation in the magazine, in exchange for having a top-shelf financial planner examine their investments from top to bottom and come up with a full and personalized financial plan.

You must be comfortable sharing details of your personal and financial life (including your real names) and being photographed for the story.

If interested, please fill out the form below. Please tell us a little about your investment challenges, and also include a few details about your family’s finances, including income, approximate savings, and debts. All of this information will be kept confidential until we talk and you agree to appear in the story.

Everybody has an investment challenge, so let’s hear yours!

MONEY financial advisers

What Is a Fiduciary, and Why Should You Care?

Your investments are at stake, explains Ritholtz Wealth Management CEO Josh Brown (a.k.a. The Reformed Broker).

MONEY stocks

Why Would Someone Start a New Stock Exchange?

Brad Katsuyama, CEO of IEX, talks about why he helped to build a startup stock exchange.

MONEY investing strategy

5 Mental Habits That Make Investors Rich

141106_INV_DreamInvestor
PeopleImages.com—Getty Images

Don't take yourself so seriously.

If I could build a dream investor from scratch, his name would be Paul.

Paul is an optimistic a-political sociopathic history buff with lots of hobbies who takes others’ opinions more seriously than his own.

Let me tell you why he is going to kick your butt at investing.

The sociopath

Psychologist Essi Vidling once interviewed a serial killer. Vidling showed the killer pictures of different facial expressions, and asked him to describe what the people were feeling. The murderer got most right, except pictures of people making fearful faces. “I don’t know what that expression is called, but it’s what people look like right before I stab them,” he said.

Paul couldn’t harm a fly. But a key trait of sociopaths is the ability to remain calm when others are terrified, so much that they don’t even understand why other people get scared. It’s also a necessity to becoming a good investor. In her book Confessions of a Sociopath, M.E Thomas writes:

The thing with sociopaths is that we are largely unaffected by fear … I am also blessed with a complete lack of sentiment … My lack of empathy means I don’t get caught up in other people’s panic.

Paul is like this, too. He doesn’t understand why people investing for 10 years get fearful when stocks have a bad 10 days. Recessions don’t bother him. Pullbacks entertain him. He thought the flash crash was kind of funny. He doesn’t care when his companies miss earnings by a penny. He’s immune to that stuff, which is a big advantage over most investors.

The a-political investor

Paul has political beliefs — who doesn’t?

But he knows that millions of equally smart people have opposite beliefs they are just as sure in. Since markets reflect the combined beliefs of millions of people, Paul knows that there is no reason to expect markets to converge on his personal beliefs, even if he is dead sure it is the truth. So he never lets his politics guide his investment decisions.

Paul knows that political moralizing is one of the most dangerous poisons your brain can come across, causing countless smart people to make dumb decisions. Even when he is bothered by political events, Paul repeats to himself in the mirror: “The market doesn’t care what I think. The market doesn’t care what I think.”

The history buff

Paul loves history. He loves it for a specific reason: It teaches him that anything is possible at any time, no matter how farfetched it sounds. “One damned thing after another,” a historian once described his field.

Paul knows that some people read history for clues on what might happen next, but history’s biggest lesson is that nobody has any idea, ever.

When people say oil prices can only go up, or have to fall, Paul knows history isn’t on their side — either could occur. He knows that when people say China owns the next century, or that America’s best days are behind it, history says either could be wrong.

History makes Paul humble, and prevents him from taking forecasts too seriously.

The hobbyist

Paul likes golf. He enjoys cooking. He reads on the beach. He has a day job that takes up most of his time.

Paul loves investing, but he doesn’t have time to worry about whether Apple is going to miss earnings, or if fourth-quarter GDP will come in lower than expected. He’s too busy for that stuff.

And he likes it that way. He knows investing is mostly a waiting game, and he has plenty of hobbies to keep him busy while he waits. His ignorance of trivial stuff has saved him thousands of dollars and countless time.

The open-minded thinker

Paul knows he’s just one of seven billion people in the world, and that his own life experiences are a tiny fraction of what’s to be learned out there.

He knows that everyone wants to think they are right, and that people will jump through hoops to defend their beliefs. He also knows this is dangerous, because it prevents people from learning. Paul knows that everyone has at least one firm, diehard belief that is totally wrong, and this scares him.

Paul is insanely curious about what other people think. He’s more interested in what other people think than he is in sharing his own views. He doesn’t take everyone seriously — he knows the world is full of idiots — but he knows the only way he can improve is if he questions what he knows and opens his mind to what others think.

The realistic optimist

Paul knows there’s a lot of bad stuff in this world. Crime. War. Hunger. Poverty. Injustice. Disease. Politicians.

All of these things bother Paul. But only to a point. Because he knows that despite the wrongs of the world, more people wake up every morning wanting to do good than try to do harm. And he knows that despite a constant barrage of problems, the good group will eventually win out in the long run. That’s why things tend to get better for almost everyone.

Paul doesn’t get caught up in doom loops, refusing to invest today because he’s worried about future budget deficits, or future inflation, or how his grandkids will pay for Social Security. Optimists get heckled as oblivious goofs from time to time, but Paul knows the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor of the long haul.

I’m trying to be more like Paul.

Related:

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel’s columns.

Related Links

MONEY retirement income

The Creepy Truth About Life Settlements

Actress Betty White presents the late producer Bob Stewart with a posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award during the 40th annual Daytime Emmy Awards in Beverly Hills, California June 16, 2013.
Actress Betty White has pitched life settlements to seniors. Danny Moloshok—Reuters

A new novel revolves around a murderous life settlements investor. That's fiction. But these products have very real risks for buyers and sellers.

Selling your life insurance policy is right up there with taking out a reverse mortgage when it comes to retirement income sources that most people would be better off not tapping. But folks do it anyway, while paying little attention to the costs and, as a new novel points out, the risks of a policy landing in the wrong hands.

Selling a life policy for a relatively large sum—known as a life settlement—has gotten easier over the last decade. Hedge funds, private equity funds, insurers and pension funds dominate the market, which totals around $35 billion, up from $2 billion in 2002. Individuals are investing in them too, through securities that represent a fraction of a bundle of life settlements, sometimes called death bonds.

How Life Settlements Work

Those most likely to be offered a life settlement, formerly known as a viatical, are individuals with a universal life insurance policy they no longer need or can’t afford—or who simply don’t want to pay the premiums. A term life policy that converts to a universal policy may also have value. Policyholders sell their insurance for more than they’d get by surrendering the policy to their insurer. If you have a death benefit of $1 million, you might have $100,000 cash surrender value but manage to get $250,000 from a third-party investor. The investor assumes future premium payments and collects $1 million at your death.

Not a bad deal, assuming you’re comfortable with the fact that someone out there has a financial interest in your demise. You get a bigger payout for a policy you were going to give up anyway. Life policies with total face value in the tens of billions of dollars lapse every year, according to industry estimates. Many of those policies have value in the secondary market.

As part of their ad campaign, the life settlement industry has enlisted actress Betty White, who pitches these deals for “savvy senior citizens needing cash.” Heck, she’s more persuasive than Fred Thompson is about reverse mortgages. But don’t be easily swayed. Aging celebrities from Henry Winkler to Sally Field are pitching all sorts of elder products these days in what amounts to an encore career—not a genuine endorsement.

The Privacy Risk

Okay, so what are the downsides to life settlements? For policyholders seeking to raise money, the creepiest risk by far is that you sell your policy to Tony Soprano, who understands that the quicker you die, the greater his rate of return. This is the extreme case explored in a new novel by Ben Lieberman, The Carnage Account. The lead character is a Wall Street high roller who buys up life settlements and dispatches the people with the biggest policies. “Very few products on Wall Street have been immune to exploitation,” says Lieberman, noting the wave of subprime mortgages that blew up in the financial crisis. “The abuse can now hurt more than your property. Instead of losing your house you can lose your life.”

Of course, Lieberman is a novelist with an active imagination. Life settlements have been around since the AIDS crisis, and there has never been a known case of murder for quick payoff, says Darwin Bayston, CEO and president of the Life Insurance Settlement Association. There have been only three formal complaints of any kind about life settlements to national regulators in the last three years, he says.

Yet Lieberman, who has a long Wall Street background, finds the entry of cutthroat hedge fund managers more than a little unsettling. Policies with insurers or held by pension funds remain largely anonymous inside huge portfolios. Institutions base their settlement offers on average life expectancies, knowing some policies will pay early and some will pay late.

But in smaller and more actively managed pools investors may pick and choose life policies that promise a quicker payoff, based on things like depression and mental illness, or clues from medical staff as to the most “valuable” policies. Life settlement investors are also targeting an estimated $40 billion of death benefits that policyholders might sell to fund long-term care needs, spinning it as socially conscious investing. How else will these seniors pay for end-of-life care? “Instead of credit risk or prepayment risk we now evaluate longevity risk,” Lieberman says. “This began as a way to help terminally ill patients. Now it incorporates perfectly healthy people and presents a way to bet against human life.”

One former life settlements investor told me he has seen third-party portfolios of life policies fully disclosing the names of the insured parties, which is the basis for the success of Lieberman’s fictional Carnage Account. In his novel, a murderous hedge fund manager gets this information and speeds up the whole process. Again, that’s fiction. But even Bayston concedes that a determined life settlements investor could get the identities of the insured people whose long lives are bad for investment returns.

The Financial Risks

Now, let’s look at the non-fiction risks with life settlements. For sellers, they are considerable, and include giving up your policy too cheaply and paying dearly for the transaction, and possibly becoming ineligible to buy another policy. Always check the cash surrender value first. Do not be swayed by brokers putting on a hard sale. They stand to collect commissions of up to 30% of the settlement. If you are determined to quit paying premiums, rather than sell the policy consider letting the cash value fund future premiums until the cash is exhausted. That’s a much better deal for heirs if you pass away in the interim. You can sell the policy when the cash value has been depleted—and get more for it then.

For buyers, settlements are complex and illiquid, and they may not pay out for many years. Given these hidden risks, they generally do not make sense for individual investors. Wall Street, meanwhile, benefits from their huge fees and expected long-run annual returns of 12% or more. Perhaps more important, settlements offer returns with no correlation to the financial market, which can be attractive to sophisticated investors and institutions, such as pension funds.

The life settlements industry has leveled off since the financial crisis, in large part because policies are taking longer to pay, thanks to increasing longevity. That drives down returns. Underscoring this risk to investors: the Society of Actuaries recently published revised mortality rates showing that a 65-year-old can now expect to live two years longer than someone that age just 14 years ago. But investors have been edging back into the market the last couple years, drawn by more realistic return assumptions and an anticipated flood of life policies held by boomers who will need cash to pay for assisted living.

Only in a novel do life settlements investors manage longevity risk with a hit man. But there are good reasons to be careful nonetheless.

MONEY General Electric

The Untold Story Behind GE’s Most Lucrative Business

A General Electric Co. employee examines a component for a gas turbine at the company's factory.
Fabrice Dimier—Bloomberg via Getty Images

GE’s services business should be a big story for investors.

The financial media these days has two stories when it comes to General Electric GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. GE -0.1862% the one that says GE is downplaying its banking business and the one that shows how GE is returning to its roots by “making stuff” again.

While both storylines are important to GE investors, a separate transformation taking shape inside the world’s seventh-largest company will steal the spotlight in the years to come. The seeds of GE’s next big breakthrough were planted nearly two decades ago, but they’re just now taking root as manufacturing enters a technology- and data-fueled era.

Read on to learn the untold story of GE’s most lucrative business and discover why it’s so important for shareholders to understand.

The one that (almost) got away

The origin of this story dates back to the early 1990s. Jack Welch, also known as “Neutron Jack,” was GE’s CEO, and he was busy making his mark on corporate America.

Quadrupling GE’s market value in roughly 14 years made Welch a superstar in the eyes of everyone from the media to stockholders. To business students around the country, he was the Michael Jordan of their future profession.

Like Jordan, Welch was a fierce competitor, and his unorthodox, assertive style of management took his team to the top: GE became the largest company in the world.

By the mid-1990s, however, this titan of industry faced a dilemma within GE’s walls.

His success to date had rested on strategies that boosted manufacturing efficiency, heightened competition among his managers, and focused strictly on markets in which GE could steamroll the competition. Each had its pros and cons, but the latter strategy specifically began to show signs of obsolescence in the mid-1990s.

This strategy had become known as the “No. 1 or No. 2″ policy at GE. It meant General Electric aimed to dominate the industries in which it operated, or else it would abandon the cause. Anything less than first or second place in market share was simply unacceptable.

As GE grew in size, this all-or-nothing style of thinking caused some serious problems. First off, the incentives were misaligned for GE’s managers. Its own leaders became hyperfocused on maintaining their market position in a given industry instead of thinking about how to expand into a new one. Expansion would mean growing their addressable market, of course, which could bump GE’s rank down a notch or two.

There was absolutely no incentive to grow outside of the box, per se, even if it made sense from a product or customer perspective. To use an analogy, it’s as if a traditional motorcycle manufacturer refused to enter the growing market for off-road dirt bikes because this would grow the arena in which it competed and would mean relinquishing its “No. 1 or No. 2″ position. While this might sound ridiculous, it was a prime example of how GE’s bureaucracy was creating perverse incentives.

And, in the worst-case scenarios, GE managers were given leeway to define their own markets. When this happened, they would often manipulate (read: shrink) their “industry size” in an attempt to look like they had a dominant market presence. Since GE’s underperformers could be shown the door at any moment, this move was a self-preservation no-brainer. But it was highly counterproductive for the company.

At the end of the day, the overriding focus on being first or second prevented managers from tackling new, promising opportunities in which GE might be the underdog at the outset. And the services business was one of these markets.

A “punch in the nose”

At the time, the business of maintaining and servicing heavy industrial equipment was loaded with entrenched players dispersed across the globe. In fact, GE’s potential competitors in this arena numbered in the thousands. One could compare the scenario to a major car manufacturer trying to nudge its way into an auto maintenance industry overpopulated with established, local mechanics.

Taking a backseat to entrenched players — even if it was in the best interests of GE’s customers — was simply unacceptable. It also seemed like small potatoes for a company of GE’s size.

But here was GE selling hundreds of proprietary products like gas turbines that would inevitably need regular maintenance and upgrades. Services might not have seemed glamorous, but it was an area in which GE had a unique and potentially durable advantage.

By 1995, Welch relented; ironically, it was his middle managers who convinced him that this market was too crucial to be overlooked. Welch did an about-face on his long-standing management mantra, and GE began to aggressively pursue services.

In 2000, Welch recalled how the light bulb went off and why he reversed course on services:

Rather than the increasingly limited market opportunity that had come from this number-one or number-two definition that had once served us so well, we now had our eyes widened to the vast opportunity that lay ahead for our product and service offerings. This simple but very big change, this punch in the nose, and our willingness to see it as “the better idea,” was a major factor in our acceleration to double-digit revenue growth rates in the latter half of the ’90s.

Welch’s refusal to set foot in industries in which he couldn’t dominate would be like Michael Jordan refusing to take some lower-percentage perimeter shots. It might make sense for a short stretch of time, but ultimately it underutilized the company’s talent and limited its ability to attack areas where the competition could be outmaneuvered.

The rise of services

Welch called his realization a “punch in the nose,” but he took it in stride. Within three years time, revenue from GE services reached $10 billion, and Welch was singing its praises in his annual letter to shareholders:

The opportunity for growth in product services is unlimited. We have the ability, using high-technology services, to make our customers’ existing assets (e.g., power plants, locomotives, airplanes, factories, hospital equipment and the like) more productive, and by doing so reduce their capital outlays. This growing capability, much of it information technology-based, will enable us to increase our revenues from product services by more than 30% in 1998 — to $13 billion.

What began as a maintenance-focused exercise was unfolding as a productivity-enhancing opportunity for GE customers. And that has continued behind the scenes for the last 15 years. Welch’s successor, Jeff Immelt, has carried the torch.

Under Immelt’s leadership, GE’s services capabilities have evolved and multiplied. Today, GE can actually diagnose problems in the company’s products in advance of a breakdown. For gas turbines and rail locomotives, it’s like a “check engine” light flashing on in your car, but with a real-time response from one of GE’s engineers connected via the industrial Internet.

The probability that a customer will actually have to visit the repair shop is greatly reduced — a big win for around-the-clock energy, airline, or rail operations.

For GE, it’s also a win. Long-term contractual service agreements deepen GE’s relationship with major clients. They enable engineers to better understand how their products are being used in the field, which can, in turn, influence the design process.

It’s also a highly lucrative business.

I’ve compared the equipment-and-services relationship to a razor-and-blade business model. This means the initial sale of GE equipment (the razor) is often accompanied by an even more profitable service relationship (the blade).

The following chart shows how much more profitable services are for General Electric relative to the operating margins of the company as a whole:

Services as reported in third-quarter 2014. Overall business as of 2013 year-end. Source: GE 10-Q, 10-K.

What’s more, services are growing. Once again, this segment is outpacing the rest of GE’s business, making up ground at a company that was hit hard by the financial crisis:

Source: GE's Services and Industrial Internet Presentation on Oct. 9, 2014 and SEC 10-K filings.
Source: GE’s Services and Industrial Internet Presentation on Oct. 9, 2014 and SEC 10-K filings.

Finally, services are scaling across the business. This means it’s starting to make a significant impact on the revenue and earnings of this massive conglomerate.

For instance, from 2011 to 2013, services accounted for 28% of revenue but 40% of earnings on average. Investors can expect services to be an even larger piece of the revenue and earnings pie going forward due to a huge pipeline of work.

Right now, the most important chart for GE investors is one of its $250 billion order backlog. Look at how GE’s backlog has ballooned and transformed from services-light to services-heavy over the past 13 years:

As of 2000 year-end and third-quarter of 2014. Source: GE's 2000 10-K and 2014 Q3 10-Q filing.
As of 2000 year-end and third-quarter of 2014. Source: GE’s 2000 10-K and 2014 Q3 10-Q filing.

What you need to know about the new GE

For investors, it’s important to recognize GE for what it is today.

It’s no longer a bank. In fact, GE expects to derive only 25% of operating earnings from lending by 2016. Lending, too, will be a services-driven business, with GE providing financial expertise — as well as money — to clients in a variety of industries.

It’s no longer an old-school manufacturer, either. Gone are the days of trying to win based on having the absolute lowest costs in the business.

Today, it’s all about enhancing products through services. How can customers reduce downtime? How can real-time data, robots, and connectivity make machines more efficient? Here’s how Immelt put it in a recent presentation on services and GE’s industrial Internet:

[T]his is the new battlefield. This is the new basis for competition. No matter who you invest in, if you are in the industrial space … this is the game of the future.

After two decades in the making, the future has arrived in the form of high-tech services at GE. Although it has generally flown under the radar in the mainstream financial press, the story of services is one that long-term GE investors simply can’t afford to ignore.

MONEY stocks

How to See the Stock Market Like Warren Buffett Does

Warren Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Jeff Kowalsky—Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ultimately, intelligent investors mustn't view stocks as numbers on screens or charts moving up and down, but as businesses.

When I say “stock,” what comes to mind?

If it’s one that you own, do you think of a chart that is hopefully moving upwards? If it’s one you’re thinking about owning, do you think about how a few important numbers and metrics stack up against those of its peers?

One of the greatest investors of all time — the one and only Warren Buffett — looks at stocks in a way that is easy to understand yet incredibly hard to manage. But his strategy is one we should all remember when we think about the stocks we own and the ones we’re thinking about investing in.

The simple wisdom

When Buffett discusses the progress of Berkshire Hathaway’s four biggest individual stock holdings — Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, American Express, and IBM — in his latest annual letter to shareholders, at no point does he mention their price.

Instead, he speaks of two critical things: Berkshire’s ownership stake in the companies themselves and how much of their bottom-line earnings are actually available to Berkshire because of that stake.

Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of each of the big four has grown over the last few years thanks to its purchase of larger positions in Wells Fargo and IBM plus the share repurchase efforts of the management teams at Coca-Cola and American Express.

youll-never-see-your-stocks-the-same-way-again-1_large

Although those slight increases in ownership may not raise any eyebrows, dominate headlines, or even inspire a Tweet, consider Buffett’s own words:

If you think tenths of a percent aren’t important, ponder this math: For the four companies in aggregate, each increase of one-tenth of a percent in our share of their equity raises Berkshire’s share of their annual earnings by $50 million.

And that brings us to our second point: It isn’t just the ownership stake that matters, but the actual results of the company that is owned. Buffett went on to say:

The four companies possess excellent businesses and are run by managers who are both talented and shareholder-oriented. At Berkshire, we much prefer owning a non-controlling but substantial portion of a wonderful company to owning 100% of a so-so business; it’s better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone.

As a result of both increased ownership and the continued success of Buffett’s “Big Four,” the portion of earnings available to Berkshire — although only the dividends paid out show up on its financial statements — has grown dramatically since 2011:

youll-never-see-your-stocks-the-same-way-again-2_large

But this growth is nothing new. In his 2011 letter to shareholders, Buffett said:

We expect the combined earnings of the four — and their dividends as well — to increase in 2012 and, for that matter, almost every year for a long time to come. A decade from now, our current holdings of the four companies might well account for earnings of $7 billion, of which $2 billion in dividends would come to us.

And while the earnings growth of the Big Four may not continue at its recent pace of more than 15% annually, $7 billion may even be a dramatic understatement.

The key takeaway

As Buffett’s famed mentor Benjamin Graham said in his seminal book The Intelligent Investor: “Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike.”

Ultimately, intelligent investors mustn’t view stocks as numbers on screens or charts moving up and down, but as businesses. We must largely ignore movements in stock prices and evaluate the fundamental business dynamics, knowing that over time stock prices will reflect changes in underlying fundamentals and the results of the business.

For example, since Chipotle CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC. CMG 0.6917% went public on Jan. 26, 2006, its stock has moved up or down by 5% roughly once every four weeks, or 132 times. But those investors who have patiently waited, ignoring the price gyrations and trusting in the company’s hugely successful business, would have seen a $1,000 investment grow to nearly $14,000 at the time of writing.

Examples like this show why Buffett once remarked, “The stock market is designed to transfer money from the active to the patient.”

Does this mean you should simply pour money into great businesses? No, because, as Buffett has also said, “A business with terrific economics can be a bad investment if the price paid is excessive.”

But we must see that whenever we make an investment, we must always consider it part-ownership in a company, not simply a stock. Buffett does, and so should you and I.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser