Showing posts with label growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label growth. Show all posts

Saturday, November 15, 2014

When Should You Sell a Good Stock?

With the market riding high again, you might be thinking about selling a few holdings and reinvesting the cash when stocks have fallen again.

Buy low, sell high. That's the idea, right?

But before you hit the sell button, consider Philip Fisher's answer to the question, "Should an investor sell a good stock in the face of a potentially bad market?" 
Even if the stock of a particular company seems at or near a temporary peak and that a sizable decline may strike in the near future, I will not sell the firm's shares provided I believe that its longer term future is sufficiently attractive... 
My belief stems from some rather fundamental considerations about the nature of the investment process. Companies with truly unusual prospects for appreciation are quite hard to find for there are not too many of them. However, for someone who understands and applies sound fundamentals, I believe that a truly outstanding company can be differentiated from a run-of-the-mill company with perhaps 90 percent precision.
It is vastly more difficult to forecast what a particular stock is going to do in the next six months...For these reasons, I believe that it is hard to be correct in forecasting the short-term movement of stocks more than 60 percent of the time no matter how diligently the skill is cultivated. This may well be too optimistic an estimate. 
So, putting it in the simplest mathematical terms, both the odds and the risk/reward considerations favor holding. 
It's a point worth re-emphasizing. You have much higher odds of identifying a truly outstanding company than guessing how that company's stock will perform in the next six months. Play the odds accordingly.

Lesson learned...hopefully

I haven't always followed this advice. In April 2006, I bought shares of Core Laboratories (CLB), a high-quality and advantaged oil & gas services company, for a split-adjusted price near $26. Two years later, with oil prices near record highs, I sold the stock near $58 and patted myself on the back for a job well done.

Don't pull out your flowers and water your weeds.
(Photo taken at Kew Gardens by my wife. Nice, huh?)
I felt particularly good about my decision during the financial crisis when oil prices plunged and Core Labs fell back around $30.

Had I capitalized on my sheer luck and bought back into Core Labs after it dipped, this story might have had a happier ending, but alas I did not.

In fact, my portfolio's subsequent returns would have been markedly better had I done nothing at all. Fast forward to today and Core Labs is trading at $139 and was up to almost $200 earlier this year.

Now, it's possible that I'm looking back at this case with a serious case of hindsight bias, but my selling decision in 2008 wasn't due to a lower opinion of Core Labs' business or its management. Instead, I wanted to lock in my 123% gain after a strong run in oil prices. Not a terrible decision, of course, but not a good one either.

To see how it's supposed to work, fund manager Chuck Akre* said in an interview earlier this year that his firm has owned shares of Markel (MKL) for over 20 years and that they didn't sell during down times. During that 20+ year timeframe, according to Akre, Markel's book value per share increased 14% annualized and its stock price has grown at least at the same rate.

If you're playing at home, those kind of annualized returns will turn a $10,000 investment into just under $140,000 over 20 years.

Bottom line

While there are some good reasons to sell a stock, trading in and out of great companies in an effort to time the stock price is not one of them. Pressing the pause button on compounding can be hazardous to your wealth.

What do you think? Let me know on Twitter @toddwenning.

Related posts:
What I've been reading/watching this week:

Stay patient, stay focused.

Best,

Todd
*I own shares of Akre Focus Fund




Sunday, August 18, 2013

How to Find a Good Dividend Growth Stock - Part 3

Over the last two weeks, we've been searching for promising dividend growth stocks that trade on the U.S. markets. Our original objective was to identify "quality dividend-paying small- to mid-cap companies with sustainable competitive advantages and the potential for 7%+ annual dividend growth over the next 7-10 years."

After running a broad screen to reduce the number of initial contenders, we put six companies through the Dividend Compass spreadsheet to get a better feel for the health of the companies' dividends. 


Of course, all of that work was based on historical data. Today, we'll dig deeper into the two finalists -- 
MTS Systems and WD-40 Company -- to determine how those names might perform going forward. Further, the research we've already done shows that both companies have solid balance sheets, are consistent generators of free cash flow, and have established good dividend track records. As such, we won't spend too much time digging into those data points today.

Instead, we'll look at the two companies' competitive advantages (if they indeed exist), management quality, and consider their current valuations to determine whether or not they're worthy of investment right now.

The finish line is in sight


After digging into WD-40 and MTS this week, it's clear that the screening and Dividend Compass process uncovered two promising companies. Indeed, they check off a number of Peter Lynch's 13 signs of a perfect stock. Among them: little analyst coverage (officially, MTSC has two analysts, WDFC has four analysts), they each have a niche, and the companies are buying back stock (though this isn't always a great thing, in my opinion).


As with most endeavors, the hardest part of the investing process is the last stretch. Most investors go through the screening process and read historical financial statements. Where you can separate yourself as an investor is in this last stretch of research -- digging for the qualitative factors and getting a feel for valuation.


MTS Systems (MTSC)


What does the company do? 

MTS Systems supplies test systems and industrial sensors to a number of end-markets such as the automotive, aerospace, fluid power, and manufacturing sectors (i.e. mostly cyclical industries). About 80% of revenue comes from the test segment, which designs force and motion systems for determining a new product's mechanical properties; MTS commands a 16% market share of the global testing product and service industry. The sensors segment helps customers improve the efficiency and safety of their automated manufacturing processes and also measures fluid displacement and liquid levels; MTS has a 6% share of the global sensors market. 


Source: MTS

MTS also has a wide geographical reach, with an established presence in the world's major manufacturing centers.

Source: MTS
Does it have sustainable competitive advantages?

Historical financials seem to suggest that MTS has a sustainable competitive advantage. It may lie in the "mission critical" nature of its products. Firms investing many millions of dollars in large industrial products simply cannot afford to forgo strenuous mechanical and fatigue testing before rolling the new product out to customers. The warranty or recall risk from a flawed piece of equipment may well outweigh the testing cost. Further, some products may be required to undergo such testing due to government regulation. But these could simply be industry-level advantages rather than a specific advantage to the firm. 

Where MTS may set itself apart is with its established brand and reputation in the industry for doing quality testing, particularly for larger-scale projects. I'd imagine that most smaller-scale product testing can be done internally and that the competition for smaller-scale projects is pretty fierce. Larger-scale testing projects can last up to three years, however, and there are probably only a few companies that can handle such work -- MTS being one of them -- and customers are unlikely to switch providers halfway through the testing period. As such, I'd say MTS has a slight advantage stemming from switching costs for larger projects, but the depth of the moat will fluctuate along with demand for these larger-scale projects. 

How about management?

The MTS leadership team is relatively new, by which I mean less than two years in their roles. It seems a few years ago that the company got in a little trouble regarding some disclosure items relating to government contracts. This appears to have been one of the primary drivers behind the August 2011 resignation of the former CEO and the re-shuffling of the executive suite. Such dramatic moves are necessary when there's been an ethics issue, but it also likely means that the company will be in transition mode for a few years. Unless you know a lot about the new management team (I don't) and the effect the changes are having at the ground level (again, I don't), it's hard to make a bold turnaround call (so I won't).

Short-term cash bonus metrics are based on EPS, EBIT, revenue, and orders. Not my favorite set of metrics, but not terrible given that MTS remains squarely in the growth stage of its lifecycle. In time, I'd prefer to see less emphasis on top-line growth and more emphasis on free cash flow and profit growth.

Biggest concern? 

With 40% of testing orders coming from Asia, I have some concerns regarding the Chinese economy -- specifically, how the shift from an investment- and manufacturing-driven economy to a customer-driven one may affect demand for MTS's testing services in the region. MTS aims to double its revenue to $1 billion by 2018 and robust demand from the Chinese market will likely be necessary to achieve that goal. 

Is it a good buy today?

MTS's average return on equity over the last five years is about 18% and its dividend policy is to pay out approximately 30% of earnings, implying a back-of-the-envelope sustainable growth rate of between 12-13%. Not bad against a P/E ratio of 18.6 times (~1.5 PEG), but not a slam dunk, either. 

Doing some DCF work on MTS with a range of reasonable growth assumptions, I'd put a base case fair value near $60 per share, which is in-line with today's market price. I'd need a margin-of-safety of at least 20% with this type of business, so a good entry point might be closer to $48. 

MTS is definitely a good one to watch in the event of a market pullback and there's significant dividend growth potential, but given my uncertainty around its sustainable competitive advantages and a newer management team, I wouldn't make it more than 2% of my portfolio.

WD-40 Company (WDFC)


What does the company do? 

Anyone who's spent time in a garage, fixing squeaky hinges around the house, or worked on bicycles has likely used a WD-40 product. In fact, the vast majority of the company's revenues are based on the original WD-40 formula (WD-40 stands for “Water Displacement perfected on the 40th try”) and the company's documented over 2,000 uses for the secret formula. The company also owns a number of related consumer/industrial cleaning products such as Lava soap and X-14 mildew stain remover. Its products are sold in 187 countries, so the company does have a wide geographic reach (about 40% of sales are U.S.-based).




Does it have sustainable competitive advantages?

For starters, the WD-40 brand name is extremely valuable. I can't even name a substitute product. It's a trusted brand, can charge a premium price, and I'd even argue that there's a slight emotional connection to the brand (i.e. "this is the brand that my dad always used in the garage"). Beyond the brand, the company's ability to build upon a single secret formula and create multiple products is an example of economies of scope. This results in a cost advantage that would-be competitors would struggle to match if they attempted to go head-to-head with WD-40 on a certain product line. 
Source: WD-40
The company's ability to consistently generate double-digit returns on capital is another indication that an economic moat is likely present. Finally, another telling statistic: in 2012, WD-40 generated nearly $1 million in revenue per employee. I like to see at least $250,000 in revenue per employee, so this is definitely a sign of a strong company. 

How about management?

One thing that I really like about WD-40's management team is that all seven corporate officers been with the company for more than 15 years. My personal preference is for the companies I own to promote from within and to have a deep bench of talent in the event an executive leaves or retires. This is particularly true for a company with a strong corporate culture, as it supports cultural continuity. Now, a company with a rotten corporate culture may need to hire an outsider to shake things up, but all else equal I prefer internal promotion in the executive suite. 

CEO Garry Ridge has been with the firm since 1987 and the CEO since 1997. During his tenure, the stock is up 319% cumulative, or about 9.2% annualized, compared to a 200% gain, or 6.9% annualized, for the S&P 500 over the period. The stock's also outperformed the S&P 500 by about 40 percentage points over the last five years. All this is to say that long-term shareholders should be fairly happy with the way the company's performed under Ridge's leadership. WD-40 also keeps the chairman position separate from the CEO role, which is textbook best practice for corporate governance. 

I'm not crazy about management's bonus incentives, which are primarily linked to EBITDA. EBITDA is one of my least favorite financial metrics (Buffett called trumpeting EBITDA a "pernicious practice" in the 2002 letter; Munger called it "(expletive) earnings") because interest, taxes, and depreciation are natural and recurring shareholder expenses that shouldn't be ignored. I could rant on about EBITDA, but I'd much prefer this otherwise high quality company to use more shareholder-focused incentive metrics such as net income, free cash flow, and/or economic value added (EVA).

Biggest concern? 

A potentially limited growth runway. With its products already in 187 countries and a sizeable portfolio of products already built around the WD-40 brand, what will drive top-line growth in the medium-term? I have no doubt that consumers will continue to buy WD-40, but can the company deliver high-single digit/low-double digit earnings growth without becoming more active on the M&A front? 

Is it a good buy today?

WD-40's consistency and high quality hasn't been overlooked by the market and the stock has historically traded at a premium. WD-40's five-year average P/E is 19.1 times versus 17.2 times for the S&P; today it's trading at 22.7 times. Not exactly cheap on that basis. But what about growth? Based on the company's five-year average return on equity near 19% and its dividend payout ratio near 50%, the "sustainable growth rate" is about 9-10%. An implied PEG ratio near 2x isn't great, either. Its current dividend yield of 2.1% is also well-below its five year average closer to 3%. 

Running a quick valuation on WD-40, I put a fair value on the shares at $52 (currently $58.52). I'd look to buy with at least a 15% margin-of-safety, so a good buy-around price today would be $44. 

I really like WD-40 as a company. Hopefully the EBITDA-based incentive metrics go away, but otherwise I'd be happy to own WD-40 in the event of a market pullback. Ideally, I'd like to pick up the stock with a yield closer to 3%, which is about what I'd get if the stock traded near $44. 

Bottom line

MTS Systems and WD-40 are both intriguing dividend growth candidates, but neither appears to be a good value at the moment. MTS has more dividend growth potential than WD-40, but also carries more risk. 

All in all, I think this was a worthwhile exercise. We dug into two promising dividend growth opportunities and now have two good names to keep on our watchlists.

What do you think? Please let me know in the comments section below. Note: I switched the comments format back to the normal setting as the Google+ format was simply not working well. You can also reach me @toddwenning on Twitter.

Other posts in this series:

How to Find a Good Dividend Growth Stock: Part 3

Thanks as always,

Todd
@toddwenning

Saturday, August 3, 2013

How to Find a Good Dividend Growth Stock - Part 1

Thought I'd try something different here on the Clear Eyes Investing blog. I was planning to add a few dividend growth stocks to my watchlist -- maybe even buy one or two if they're trading at a good price -- and figured I'd share my research process over the course of three blog posts.
  • In today's post, I'll establish a research objective, screen for ideas, and put each of the ideas through a "five-minute sniff test" to determine whether or not they're worthy of further research. 
  • In next week's post, I'll put the handful of remaining stocks through the Dividend Compass spreadsheet in order to learn a little more about the companies and the dividends' sustainability and growth potential. 
  • In the final installment, I'll hopefully have two or three good ideas that have passed the initial tests. I'll do more detailed research on the select names, consider their valuations, and potentially invest in them. 
I hope this will be an interactive process. So please share your comments, questions, and criticisms along the way!

Step 1: Set an objective

Identify quality dividend-paying small- to mid-cap companies with sustainable competitive advantages and the potential for 7%+ annual dividend growth over the next 7-10 years.

Step 2: Screen for ideas

To focus my search on a few promising names, I used Yahoo! Finance's free screening tool and set up four parameters:
  • Market cap: Between $500 million and $3 billion 
  • Yield: Between 2% and 4%
  • Return on assets: >= 5%
  • Profit margin: >= 10%
I typically include a metric for financial leverage such as debt/equity, but depending on how many companies show up in the screen, I'd rather evaluate leverage manually. Also, for this exercise, I'm sticking with shares that trade on the U.S. markets, but the same process and principles should apply to other markets.

Here are the results (click to enlarge):

Yahoo! Finance 
First, I need to double-check the screen result data to make sure its accurate. This is a good practice even with premium screeners, but errors are much more frequent with free screeners. Lo and behold, there are some inconsistencies with the dividend yields. Here are the corrected figures (click to enlarge):

*a triple-check revealed AWR's ttm yield is 2.6%...amazing how inconsistent data can be across providers

Right off the bat, then, we can eliminate a few names as their yields fall outside my desired range. Textainer Group and Giant Interactive have yields that are too high for an ideal dividend growth investment. Perhaps they're good value or even high yield investments, but from a dividend growth perspective, you have to wonder why they're trading with such high yields in a bullish market like we have today. You would think that if the companies had strong growth prospects that the stocks would be bid up to the point where the yields better approximated the Russell 2000 Index average yield of 1.4%.

I'm also going to eliminate Weight Watchers International, The Buckle, and Oxford Industries. Good companies perhaps, but their yields fall well below the 2% minimum. MTS Systems and Choice Hotels are right on the border, but we'll hang onto them for now.

With the list whittled down, let's put the remaining 12 names through the five-minute sniff test.

Step 3: The Five-Minute Sniff Test

With so many stocks to sort through in a typical screening exercise, it helps to have a "sniff test" process in order to make the most of your time.

A few things I check before moving forward with a dividend growth stock idea are:
  • Has the company paid a dividend for at least five consecutive years without dividend cuts?
  • Has the dividend been increased by at least 7% on average over the last five years? 
  • Is the five-year average return on equity/capital over 12%?
  • Has the company generated free cash flow in at least four of the past five years?
  • Is the debt/equity below one?
Fortunately, this information is also fairly easy to find using free sources and public filings. Morningstar*, for example, lists key ratios going back 10 years and financials going back five years. I also consulted Yahoo! Finance dividend history for each company.

Here's how the remaining dozen companies fared (click image to enlarge):


After the sniff test, we have five companies that checked off all the boxes: Computer Programs & Systems, Innophos Holdings, Compass Minerals, WD-40, and MTS Systems. I'm also going to pass Quality Systems through to the next round on account of its five-year dividend growth rate being 6.96% -- just below the 7% threshold. It would have scored 5 of 5 had I rounded up 4 basis points...

Sturm, Ruger & Co also scored an impressive 4 of 5 and its recent dividend growth has been nice, but it reinstated its dividend less than five years ago in May 2009. I'm also going to discard the five companies that scored 3 of 5. They may make for good investments from a value or growth perspective, but I'm less convinced that they're attractive dividend growth candidates.

American States Water checked off the two dividend boxes, but its 10-year CAGR dividend growth is just 4.9%. It might be worth looking into if you have some spare time; however, for the purposes of this exercise I'm keeping the list of candidates as manageable as possible.

Next steps

This is a good list of companies to consider. I currently own Compass Minerals and have watched WD-40 for some time, so I'm looking forward to seeing how they score on the Dividend Compass in next week's post.

If you'd like to stay up-to-date with the posts in this series, you can subscribe by email or RSS using the tools in the right-hand column. Or just check back next weekend.

Again, please share your feedback and questions in the comments section below, or contact me on Twitter @toddwenning.

Other posts in this series:

How to Find a Good Dividend Growth Stock: Part 1
How to Find a Good Dividend Growth Stock: Part 2

Thanks for reading.

Best,

Todd
@toddwenning on Twitter

*My employer

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Philip Fisher's 15 Points to Look for in a Common Stock

After reading Peter Lynch's Beating the Street a few weeks ago, I decided to read another investing classic: Philip Fisher's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits. As one of the pioneers of the modern investing industry, Fisher is often credited with laying the groundwork for what we know as growth investing today.

First written in 1958 -- nearly 25 years after Graham and Dodd's Security Analysis established the framework for value investing --  Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits is cut from a very different cloth than Graham and Dodd. For instance, at many points in the book, Fisher says a high price-to-earnings ratio should not be an automatic turn-off for investors.

Here's one such example:
If the company is deliberately and consistently developing new sources of earning power, and if the industry is one promising to afford equal growth spurts in the future, the price-earnings ratio five or ten years in the future is rather sure to be as much above that of the average stock as it is today...This is why some of the stocks that at first glance appear highest priced may, upon analysis, be the biggest bargains. 
This approach is clearly different from traditional value investing. No "net-nets" or "cigar butts" here -- Fisher is more interested in finding and investing in the few excellent companies in the market. Valuation may matter, but it's secondary to identifying top-notch businesses.

In the book, Fisher lays out "15 Points to Look for in a Common Stock" that can help investors do just that.

1. Does the company have products or services with sufficient market potential to make possible a sizable increase in sales for at least several years?

Fisher splits outstanding companies into two camps: "fortunate and able" and "fortunate because they are able". The former group consists of well-run companies that also benefit from a secular tailwind. Modern examples might be Amazon and eBay, both of whom have benefited mightily from the Internet revolution. As the Internet has grown, so have these companies' fortunes. Some of their success can certainly be attributable to excellent execution, but these companies' long-range sales curves extended as more and more people embraced online shopping.

The latter group consists of companies that create their own luck by reinventing the business by introducing new products or shifting strategy. In the book, Fisher uses the example of DuPont, which expanded its chemical offerings well beyond blasting powder and consequently lengthened its long-range sales curve.

2. Does the management have a determination to continue to develop products or processes that will still further increase total sales potentials when the growth potentials of currently attractive product lines have largely been exploited?

This may sound a lot like the previous point, but as Fisher says, this point is "a matter of management attitude." Consider Apple: Steve Jobs could have stopped with the iPod and would have been long remembered for revolutionizing the way we listen to music. Early investors would have made good money riding only the iPod's success. But what really made Apple a top-performing stock for the past decade was Jobs' drive to make sure that the iPod was followed by the equally-revolutionary iPhone and iPad products.

Few companies will match Apple's success, but the example does show how identifying companies with management teams intent on staying on the offensive with new products/processes can reward shareholders by having an extended long-range sales curve.

3. How effective are the company's research and development efforts in relation to its size?

Most R&D analysis begins and ends with the tried-and-true "R&D spending as a percentage of sales" metric. Though this ratio can reveal how current R&D spending compares with the past, it tells us very little about what kind of returns the company is getting on each R&D dollar. Admittedly a difficult figure to determine, you can look at the success of recent product launches as a sign of R&D productivity. Ideally, you want a company's R&D spending to be dedicated to creating or enhancing its economic moat. Firms that not only create new products but also create unique production methods will benefit more than companies that just create new products that can be quickly replicated by existing techniques in the industry.

4. Does the company have an above-average sales organization?

This is an often overlooked area of research -- indeed, one that I've under-appreciated over the years. The reason for this common oversight, as Fisher rightly notes, is that there's no accounting measure or ratio -- as there is for research and development, for example -- that captures marketing spending and effectiveness.

But the quality of a sales force matters. Think about it this way: Ever been to a restaurant with crappy service? Even if the food is good, because of a bad service experience you're much less likely to go back or recommend the place to friends. The same thing occurs in business all the time.

Analyzing the quality of a company's sales force requires a more qualitative approach. If you can, ask customers, suppliers, competitors who has the best sales force in the industry. If you can get the company on the phone, ask them how their sales force is rewarded. If you don't have access to those parties, a Google search may reveal something helpful.

5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?

As Fisher puts it, "the greatest long-range investment profits are never obtained by investing in marginal companies." That is, if the company isn't doing anything remarkable, nothing is changing, and its margins are razor-thin, there's no point buying it. In most cases, I look for companies able to consistently generate 10%+ margins. There are exceptions -- for example, firms can have low profit margins and high asset turnover and generate good returns on equity (see: Costco, Wal-Mart, etc.).

6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?

The investing community often falls into the trap of extrapolating present trends. If a company's margins have averaged 8% over the last five years, for example, many forecasts will assume about 8% margins over the next five years, too. As such, the market price for the stock has a good chance of implying about 8% margins going forward. So when a company is able to break away from historical trends and boost margins to, say 15%, that will have a profound impact on the stock price and investors who anticipated that move will be rewarded.

7. Does the company have outstanding labor and personnel relations?

Put another way, "Are rank-and-file employees passionate about working for the company?" Though this is rare, when employees are enthusiastic the productivity levels can be extraordinary. It's precisely these companies that can truly deliver better-than-expected profit margins and returns on capital even if the market is skeptical. When doing your research on this point, reach out to people in your network who may work for the company or industry to find out who has passionate employees. LinkedIn, Glassdoor, and other websites may also provide some quality information about employee morale.

8. Does the company have outstanding executive relations?

Similar to Point #7, but more focused on executive motivation and passion for the job. Excessive management pay packages is certainly cause for concern, but you also want the executives to be appropriately compensated. Otherwise, they'll likely have one eye on the business and one eye on the door.

9. Does the company have depth to its management? 

I've debated this point with others in the investment industry and I've heard good counterarguments, but there is something to be said for a company that can retain employees -- especially in this day and age -- for 10+ years and promote them to senior positions.That is usually a sign that highly-skilled people like working for the company (see Point 7) and have bought into the culture and mission. Conversely, a company that needs to frequently hire from the outside might have trouble retaining key employees or might be looking to change the corporate culture. Hiring outside executives to repair a defective corporate culture is often necessary, but it can also disrupt operations for a few years and you may want to put your investing dollars elsewhere unless you know a lot about the specific situation.

10. How good are the company's cost analysis and accounting controls?

Financial sleuths can examine the consistency of a company's assumptions for pension accounting, depreciation, revenue recognition, etc. Firms that frequently change these assumptions to make the numbers "work" each year should be avoided. Also consider management incentives (found on the annual proxy statement) to see if executives have moving targets each year or lowered hurdles that have enabled management to earn a healthy bonus regardless of performance.

11. Are the other aspects of the business, somewhat peculiar to the industry involved, which will give the investor important clues as to how outstanding the company may be in relation to its competition?

This question can be rephrased as "Does the company have an economic moat?" By doing a competitive analysis of the firm against its peers, we can begin to figure out if the company is relatively advantaged and, more importantly, if that advantage is sustainable or unsustainable. (Here's a video about understanding economic moats.)

12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?

Long-term shareholders naturally want a management team with an eye toward building long-term value rather than just managing for short-term results. While it's true that the long-term is made up of many short-terms, you also don't want companies to consistently forgo value-enhancing projects or squeeze important suppliers/customers just because it might hurt the quarterly EPS.

13. In the foreseeable future will the growth of the company require sufficient equity financing so that the larger number of shares then outstanding will largely cancel the existing stockholders' benefit from this anticipated growth?

Basically, you want to find companies that are financially healthy enough to fund their growth investments with internally-generated cash or with reasonable amounts of debt. Firms that consistently need to issue equity (and dilute current shareholders' stake in the process) should be avoided.

14. Does the management talk freely to investors about its affairs when things are going well but "clam up" when troubles and disappointments occur?

Take a look through the company's reports and conference call transcripts following a particularly poor quarter or year. Is management forthcoming about mistakes they've made or is everything sugar-coated or blamed on the economy/weather/markets? If management takes ownership for the company's underperformance and thoroughly explains the steps they're taking to improve the business, you might just have a winner.

15. Does the company have a management of unquestionable integrity?

The key word here is unquestionable. A management team that has any history of dishonesty, fraud, or ignoring shareholder interests will likely repeat this behavior and you don't want to be in their way when they do. I've made this mistake fairly recently, actually, and even though the company checked off a lot of boxes on the good side of the ledger, management's lack of integrity should have outweighed all those points.

Thanks to the Internet and company filings, we have plenty of ways to analyze management track records and behavior at current and former companies. The key here is when in doubt about a management's integrity, just walk away.

More to come

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits is a must-read for serious investors, but I wouldn't recommend it as a book that new investors should read first. It was written for experienced professional investors, has some dated company examples, and assumes the reader has a certain level of access to the company that most retail investors don't have. Most of Fisher's lessons, however, are evergreen and the book is full of great quotes that I'll list in a subsequent post.

For a list of other good investing books, click here.

Thanks for reading!

Best,

Todd
@toddwenning on Twitter