Barriers to Entry

To determine whether a company has a business moat ie whether it can defend its turf when competitors come in, we look at what is called Barriers to Entry, one of Porter's 5 Forces. I have identified a few common barriers but I must point out that the list is not exhaustive. Other barriers exist and it takes experience and knowledge to identify them. Again, investing is about life-long learning and hard-work. It is not about get-rich-quick.

Market share
This is the most basic edge a company can have over its competitors. When a company is the No.1 or No.2 in its field, it is simply much more difficult for the laggards or any newcomers to try enter their market. Esp if there are only 2 or 3 big players in the market. This is bcos standards are set and relationships have already been established, and the laggards and newcomers don't have the resources or time to beat the leaders.

Technological edge
This edge can be manifested in several ways. It can be simply authentic technological capabilities, like Toyota with its hybrid technology which it was the first to developed and remain the leader today. Or it can be superior manufacturing technology which allows the company to make stuff cheaper yet have similar or better quality. Like Samsung's LCD TVs.

High initial investment cost
Some businesses require very high start-up cost and this naturally deters competition. Oil/mineral exploration, wafer fabs, a telco network etc. It is simply not business that any Tom, Dick, Harry can start. Sometimes, it can only be started by the government. So when a business can earn a good return and its in one of these high start-up cost sectors, hmm, maybe it can be interesting.

Brand
This is one of the best barriers a company can ever build. Buffett prides his See's Candy, commenting how people will always buy See's Candy even when it keep raising prices. Great brands like Coca Cola, Louis Vuitton, Rolex and our beloved Ipod are simply immune to competition. No matter what the competitors do, people will still buy Coke to drink, LV bags, Rolex watches and the Ipod over Creative Mp3 players.

Regulations
This is the most tricky barrier. Sometimes it works very well for the company in question, but sometimes it simply screw things up. The investor has to become a political analyst to get this one right. Eg. oil fields in Indonesia and Russia. Although major co.s like Shell etc negotiated for rights to sell the oil in these fields some years ago with the respective govts, the contracts were void since oil prices shot through the roof. In the case of Russia, the rights were forced to be sold back to Russian co.s. Suck thumb right? Some value investors stay away from highly regulated sectors altogether.

So, as mentioned, there are other barriers and it takes time and experience to identify them. But when you know the company has got a good business moat, earns a good return, and reward shareholders, then go for it. In Singapore, some co.s that comes to mind would be your mass transport stocks, newspaper, telcos etc.

Index Investing vs Stock Picking

Our guru, Warren Buffett doesn't really like the idea of buying indices bcos it is not really investing per se. He thinks most pple stand a better chance if they follow simple investment rules like those governing Value Investing. But not everyone can be like him.

Another reason why some prefer stock picking is: index fund investing simply takes all the fun out of investing. It is like skipping the appetizer, the soup, the main course and going straight to the dessert. Investment is about pitting your wits against the market right? What's the point of just parking some money in some indices that move only 1% each day?

Well for most folks who really have no time to read up and study but yet want to say they are doing investments, it would be better for them to go buy index funds rather than spend the money on some structured pdts or unit trusts recommended by ignorant / totally unethical bankers that will probably give them poorer or even negative returns.

But for those reading this blog, well, we are different right? We are here to learn to pick stocks and beat the index. Sad to tell you the truth, chances of that happening is roughly 10%. This is a very well documented result and there is even a book that argues if you give darts to some monkeys and they simply throw the darts on some newspaper with all the stock quotes to "pick stocks", the resulting portfolio will do as well as the average fund manager's portfolio.

Nevertheless, the valiant shall not be discouraged. There is Value Investing and there are those Superinvestors fr Graham and Doddsville that made it right? Why not me? Well there are probably tens of millions of golfers around the world, why are we not like Tiger, Vijay or Phil? It takes years of hardwork to be good at anything. Value investing and/or stock picking is no exception.

But having said all that, stock picking is simply too fun to give up for many, including this blogger. Bcos even when you get just one stock right, it's more than enough satisfaction even though you may get another 10 stocks wrong hehe! It is like having kids, I guess. You lose sleep for 10 nights, there are the wailings, the worries when the baby is sick, worries when the baby is too fat, too thin etc. But in the end, that one smile is all it takes to make those sleepless nights and worries worthwhile. Emotional dividend yield 1000%, hehe!

So back to stock picking, although the chances of picking the 10 bagger is pretty slim, we can enhance our chances by sticking to the right investment philosophy. Well the tried and tested method that worked is of course *drumrolls* value investing lah. But it doesn't mean you studied all the literature about value investing then you will make money. Ah Beng knows the golf strokes and theory, but can he beat Tiger? Value investing just increase your chances. Of course, other investment philosophy may work too. After all it's a free market and there are pple who made millions out of day trading.

Maybe the trick is to have a certain % of your portfolio in indices and the rest in stock picking. That way you get to enjoy the best of both worlds. The index part of the portfolio will ensure you earn a good average return of 8-10% and the stock picking gives you the kick you want. So work hard, Tiger is not as high up as you think!

And how to tackle private bankers?

The private banking industry is booming in Asia and more so in Singapore. Hence we see banks like Citi, UBS, HSBC hiring bankers by the truckloads. They hope that their legions of private bankers will be able to capture AUM (Asset Under Management) and then they can churn their clients to collect lots of fees. Btw, that won't be the official stance, the official stance would be to help HNWIs (high net worth individuals), manage their wealth, do tax planning, investments etc. Sadly, 99% of them (my own guess) will fail to do their jobs.

Traditionally the private banking industry has done good segmentation and actually the name, "private banker" is only reserved for those in the highest hierachy, ie bankers that serve the richest clients, the UNHWI (ultra high net worth individuals, whoa, that's a cool acronym right? Go tell your wife/gf that you will become a UNHWI someday, hehe).

But now, everyone wants to call themselves private bankers, so even those behind the counters whose jobs are to con aunties and uncles into buying some crazy pdts by offering them free umbrellas call themselves private bankers.

Anyways, the job of the private banker is to help clients manage their wealth. But their commission is based on two criteria. 1. How much money they can con their clients to put with the bank. 2. How many pdts they can con their clients to buy.

The second criteria is what makes it most unethical bcos they must continuously sell clients new pdts in order to hit their tgts. ie like maybe 10 pdts per mth or something. And next mth, it's another 10 pdts. So they have to ask the client to buy pdt A today, sell pdt A next mth, then buy pdt B and sell B next mth and buy back pdt A etc. But we know that investments can only generate good return over the long run right? Btw long run means 10 to 20 yrs hor. If you buy and sell stuff mth in mth out, you are just generating comission for the banker, which is what they want and will not help you build your retirement nest egg.

So what is the best way to tackle the private bankers and the best way to do investment? The short answer is you don't have to talk to private bankers.

For most people, the best way to invest would be to buy index funds that have the lowest fees. Index funds are funds that try to mimick the performance of an index, like the STI, Hang Seng, Nikkei, S&P500 etc. They don't employ fund managers who claim that they can beat the benchmark, they just buy whatever is inside the index and hence most of these funds have no sales charges and minimal mgmt fees.

In Singapore, MAS has made some regulations on unit trusts/funds that cap the sales charge at 3% or something. That's actually still too high bcos investment on average only give you 8% per annum. So you pay on 3% on your first year of performance, you are left with 5%, that's a mere 2% better than fixed D! Imagine buying a PC and you need to pay the salesman 20-30% ie $200-300 of commission! On top of them, you pay 1% mgmt fee every year, usually for fund managers that will underperform the benchmark. So my own personal policy is to refrain from buying unit trusts whenever possible. But sometimes, unit trust can help you gain access to some sub-sectors that are not easily investable, eg. environment/green stocks or energy stocks etc.

Look for index funds that have 0% sales charge and probably 0.5-0.8% mgmt fee per year. Lower fees mean higher return back to you. One of the biggest index fund seller in the world is the Vanguard Group. It may be hard to get their pdts in Singapore though. That's when you get the help of the private banker, ask them to source all the index funds available. If they are any good in the first place, they can help you. My guess is: it's more difficult than striking lottery.

After you buy the fund, just leave it there. Don't be bothered by the daily or weekly or even monthly fluctuations, over the long run, all indices will go up, if history is any accurate, you will earn 8-10% per annum, ie you double your money every 6 to 8 yrs. When you have more money to spare, you should just buy more of the same. Of course, you can exercise some judgement and buy indices of growing economies, like China, India etc. Or diversify globally, ie. have some of these hot economies, but also of US and Europe and Singapore.

That is the simple truth about investment, just buy index funds, and you will do ok. Disappointed huh, why so much hype around financial advisers and private bankers right?

But what about stock picking? Next post!

So how to tackle the insurance agents?

I thought maybe I should provide some (even though still imperfect) answers to my questions in the last post.

On insurance, if the agent cannot help you then who can? For my own journey, I talked to other agents, then I talked to friends, and find out more from the net and newspaper and talked to experienced folks to try to get to the truth.

At first I thought surely there would be some good agents out there. After all, some agents do earn big bucks by selling insurance right? Sooo, I called up pple, asked for appointments, but soon realized that they were all the same. They are TRAINED to sell you the useless stuff, and TRAINED to "taiji away" the difficult questions.

Whenever I asked about term insurance, they would say,

"Oh, but they only cover you until 60 you know?"
"But after 60, my kids are grown up, I don't need too much insurance." I say.
Then they change topic, "But if you buy this life plan, it's like a savings plan, you still get your money back, plus 3-4% per year."
"But meanwhile I pay $2,000 per yr for the next 20 yrs to earn 3-4%? And get covered for $50,000?"
"$50,000 coverage will grow to $50,512 over time! Ok what about this investment link product, it is very good blah blah blah"
What the heck...

I even got one agent who claimed to have advised millionaires on how to buy insurance and still give me stupid recommendations. So in the end, I gave up. I started talking to friends and read up. And here are some conclusions that I gathered.

Use less than 10% of your annual salary on insurance, I recommend 5%. But agents will quote you 20%, saying its MAS regulation. I find it hard to believe. I don't spend 20% of my annual salary on ANYTHING, not even mortgage! 20% on insurance? WTF!

But for 5% you have to try to maximize coverage, it has to be at least 5 times your annual salary to be meaningful. So this is tough job for 99.999% of all insurance agents. Try to find one who can do that, someone young, willing to work hard and help you. My experience: no agent can, so you gotta do it yourself. And that is to buy SAFRA insurance, one of the cheapest around.

Don't get swayed by the agents. They try to bend your rules, like 5% is not enough! Or you cannot see it that way, bcos this 20% will go to your savings blah blah. They should follow your rules, not the other way.

Don't buy investment linked products, usually you overpay for commission and stuff. If you want to do investment, do it separately.

Agents like to blackmail emotionally. Like if you die, your family how? Your kids so young how? And they will say, "I know one friend, cancer, no insurance, pay $200,000 etc". Stop them. I KNOW it's a disaster to die without insurance. But tell me the facts. The premium, the coverage etc. And Get me the cheap value-for-money policy, damn it!

So the ideal scenario, if your annual household income is say $60,000, spend $3,000 on insurance, buy minimal life (you need life policy to get term), say $20,000 and get lots of term, say $250,000. So you spend $3,000 to get insured for $270,000. That's probably an ok deal.

Not sure if most rational people are doing this. Pls comment ok!

Asking a Best Denki salesman whether you need a LCD TV

If you walk into Best Denki or Harvey Norman and ask the salesman whether you need a $3,000 LCD TV, what do you think he will say? He will immediately recommend you the $8,000 50 inch Samsung High Definition LCD TV, and give you 1,001 reasons why you NEED that TV. Right?

I guess the message here is that the salesman cannot tell you whether you NEED a LCD TV. His job is to sell you the TV NOT to determine if you need one.

But our world is a strange place. In so many areas of our lives, esp those related to finance, we ask the salesman whether we NEED something and we expect them to have our interest at heart and tell us the answers. Think about the following questions.

Is it logical to ask the insurance agent what kind of insurance is suitable for you?
Is it logical to ask your broker or his analysts which stock to buy?
Is it logical to ask your private banker how you should manage your wealth?
Is it logical to ask an investment banker whether your co. should do M&A?

In most to these cases, the salesperson, middleman thrives on activity. This is bcos he takes a cut or commission on the transactions that take place. So it is NOT in his interest that he recommend you the best thing. Bcos it will not generate future activity. He needs activity to earn his keep.

The insurance agent wants to revisit you every yr so that he can sell you another policy even though he sold you one last year that would have taken care of your lifetime need. And he will only sell you a life policy or an investment link one even though a term policy makes more sense for you. Bcos the commission on those pdts are much higher.

The analysts change their ratings every 3 mths bcos that's their job. Their job is not to identify the long term winner. Their job is to churn and create lots of buy and sell orders. So it is not in their interest to help investors identify the real 10 baggers (stocks that will rise 10 folds). Even if there are genuine analysts out there who believe they should help investors, the system is in place to discourage them. That's life dear.

Similarly the private bankers cannot help you grow your wealth. Their job is to sell you investment products and earn their keeps. They need to sell new products every yr to hit their annual targets. So naturally they will recommend you to buy this, sell that and buy back what you sold etc year in year out. Even though investments can only generate good return by investing for the LONG TERM.

As for companies, when they reach a stage where organic growth becomes difficult, they seek to do M&As. But the investment bankers they consult to do M&A are at best, well, not much better than the Best Denki salesman. They cannot help to identify which good co.s to buy. Their job is to make deal, not to help the CEOs find bargain M&A. That's why most M&A fails (though they look good on paper).

So how? I am still searching for an answer, but by talking to people who have gone down the same path sometimes help, esp those that have more experience in life and have succeeded (ie. not a bloke lah, but getting advice fr a bloke may still be better than getting advice fr private bankers). People who have bought so many insurance policies and finally know what is really good. People who have talked to so many private bankers and finally know not talking may be the best. And of course, when you have the answers, contributing your answers to this blog will help too!

More Margin of Safety

A frequently asked question on value investing and how to calculate intrinsic value is this: how can you be so sure that the co's intrinsic value is this and at this price it is a good investment?

For those not so sure what the hell is going on, read these first
Value Investing
Intrinsic Value
Good Investment

Well, the truth is, you are never sure, you can spend 20 days calculating the intrinsic value of the company and become so sure that the stock is undervalued. So you buy and the stock tank 20%. Shiok huh?

Intrinsic value goes hand in hand with margin of safety. Bcos you can never be sure whether you really got the intrinsic value right, you need to have a margin of safety. ie you will only buy the stock if the current price is way, way, WAY below your calculated intrinsic value. As a rule of thumb, I recommend 40-50% below your calculated intrinsic value.

Buffett used the example of building a bridge. If you know that the maximum weight of vehicles that will cross the bridge is 10 tons (based on historical statistics), will you build a bridge that will support 10 tons or a bridge that will support 30 tons?

That is margin of safety.

Ben Graham, the grandfather of value investing once said this: if you need to surmise value investing into only 3 words, it would be "margin of safety". It is THAT important.

Unfortunately, most investors don't really have this concept in mind. Even those who are very experienced. I guess it's not easy partly bcos have a strict margin of safety rule forces you to pass on many investment ideas even if they are quite good. And when you see them rally 100% after you decided NOT to buy them, wah shiok right? Now every wall you see has a purpose. For you to bang your head hard on it! Haha!

But having a margin of safety will make very sure that you will not lose your shirt. Even if you are damn wrong on your intrinsic value, you may lose a bit of money, the stock may tank 20%, but it won't tank like 80% and chances are after it tank 20% it will creep back up again, it will not bankrupt you. That's the strength if you have a huge margin of safety.

Why Quant may work?

In the previous post, we discussed how to construct a quant portfolio. Now let's try to understand why some thinks that it can work (ie it can outperform the market).

Well first, we must get the right factors though. If you screen for something like stocks that has hit 52 weeks high, or stocks with highest volume, or other funny factors, good luck. You have got the GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) model. The model is only as good as the inputs.

What people usually believes as good inputs are like Low PER, Low PBR, High ROE, High cashflow, High OP margin, High EPS growth etc.

So there are roughly 400 stocks traded in Singapore and you only buy the top 50 with the lowest PER and highest ROE. What this means is that you are buying stocks that are cheap relative to all others and have the highest return potential relative to all others. And you do this every 6 mths, weeding out those that falls off the top 50 and adding new winners in. Theoretically, you SHOULD outperform the market.

But you don't. Murphy Law's works huh.

Well a few reasons. First of all, the data used are either historical or poor estimates. For PER, usually we get the 1-yr forward PER, which is basically the sum of estimates of all the analysts out there. And we know analysts are, well, like private bankers, GFN right? (GFN: Good-for-nothing). As for ROE, usually that's a historical no. so ROE may have changed, or dropped to below those of other stocks.

Second, to beat the market is a zero-sum game. You need to beat most of the other participants in the markets. This means you need to move faster than most other participants. Now when do you think these quant models were first used? Do you think you are one of the early birds using these models? The answer is NO btw. So investors have used this model since the last Ice Age, and here we are re-inventing the wheel and expecting to beat the market. That's not quite possible right?

But there is still hope.

The markets today, as with our world, has gotten very short-sighted. Thanks to MTV and instant noodles. Most people seek instant gratification. They are not interested in growing apple trees and waiting to eat apples years later. They are not interested in stocks that will only payback after 10 yrs.

So as we all know, the markets are unpredictable in the short term but follows earnings growth in the long run. The quant models, if used over long periods of time, should beat the market (esp if the rebalancing period is also stretched, so you don't get killed by transaction costs) bcos most other participants won't wait that long.

Quant Portfolio Construction

One of the more scientific ways to invest is to actually create a quant portfolio and simply rebalance it periodically. Sounds very chim huh? But it's actually quite straightforward. But unfortunately, it is not exactly suitable for retail investors unless

1. You have tons of money
2. You have tons and tons of money

Well, but it's still quite useful to know how quant works, so don't yawn. And don't click the "x" at the top right corner.

Quant is simply the short-form for Quantitative and it is named as such because it uses mathematical models to drive investment decisions. Quant can be very successful because it reduces emotional influences (screw Mr Market man!) and can generate as well if not better an investment performance as fundamental analysis or other types of investment analysis. (Woah that's a statement huh?)

As a very simplistic introduction, we introduce a 2-step quant portfolio construction process here.

1. Use criteria or factors like PER, PBR, ROE, EV/EBITDA to screen out a list of stocks and buy the top 30-50 stocks.

2. Rebalance the portfolio after the pre-determined period like 6 mths or 1 year etc. (ie repeat Step 1 after 6 mths or 1 year.)

Ok, analogy time, say we want to create a 50 stock portfolio and rebalance it every 6mths and we want to use 2 factors, Low PER and High ROE.

For retail, Poems have quite a good screen in its system so can just utilize that. If not, can ask those good-for-nothing Citibank/UOB privilege sweet-young-bankers to generate these screens. Of course, that's like trying to strike Toto, bcos chances are, they ARE good-for-nothing.

Anyways, so you get this list of stocks, and just simply buy the top 30-50 names on it depending on how many stocks you want to hold. But it has to be at least 30 names in order to smooth out the idiosycracies of individual stocks. So now we know why you need lots of money, to buy that 30-50 stocks.

So that's Step 1. And after 6 mths, simply do the screen again, and buy the top 30-50 names. Of course, if the same stock appeared on the first list. You don't sell off what you hold and buy back the same stock lah. Unless you are trying to please your good-for-nothing Citibank/UOB privilege sweet-young-bankers or something.

So simple as that, if you can do this based on some winning factors (that's the catch huh!). Chances are you can make some money. May or may not beat the market average (to do that, the odds are slightly better than finding a good-for-something sweet-young-banker), but you should not have negative return if you invest over the long run (ie 20 yrs or more).

See also Investment Horizon

The Razor-and-Blade Model

In this post, I would like to introduce a familiar business model (for most value investors) that can help most investors in their analysis of companies. It is also a model that entrepreneurs should seriously adopt when they want to start their own businesses. It is a very basic model that can help generate good recurring income and is probably a sign that the company will be in the business for a long, long time and not those fly-by-night bubble tea shops where you see them today but not tomorrow.

This business model is known as the razor-and-blade model. Well for the uninitiated, this is the model where you sell the low profit margin razor at a cheap price and then earn back the money by selling the blades at a high margin.

Though mundane as it may sound, this model has proven itself time and again that it can generate stable cashflow and earn a good margin. Unfortunately, as the guru used to say, it’s hard to teach a new dog old tricks. So a lot of businesses don’t employ this model.

This model plays on the human mindset by enticing people to buy something, usually having the impression that it should be expensive at a low price. Then after “locking-in” the customer, the co. sells him consumable products at a higher margin. However, our ape-evolved minds cannot relate that instantly and we still think we are getting a good deal.

For example, we buy a mobile phone at S$199 thinking that it’s quite value-for-money given a lot of sophisticated stuff goes inside this cool piece of plastic and electronics (So the phone is the razor here). However, we then need to buy the blades (talk-time) that cost us $30-50 a month! And worse still, we are lock-in for 2 years! So is it really value-for-money if you think of the whole package? Hmmm…

Sounds like it’s a bit unscrupulous? Feel like you are being treated unfairly? But hey, that’s life, folks. Become a shareholder of the company then and screw the management during AGM! That’s why I own Singtel! Haha!

Anyways, besides the telcos, today we see various businesses employing this simple model, including our favourite Ipod (selling you the Ipod/razor, then the songs/blades), Canon printers, Playstation and Nintendo games, anti-virus softwares etc. But at the macro level, not a hell lot of businesses are doing this. Well of course, sometimes the nature of the business does not allow the adoption of the model, like the retail business. Which also implies that maybe that’s why retail businesses cannot earn a hell lot of money. Sadly when Singaporeans say they want to be entrepreneurs, most people think of retail businesses like restaurants, bubble tea (*gosh*) and clothings etc. My guess is only 1 in 20 retail shops will actually "succeed" ie earn as much as a full-time job after adjusting for time and effort put in.

The razor-and-blade model also manifests itself in different versions but the crux remains at its ability to generate recurring income stream. This is best exemplify by Dell, which recently announced that it wants to provide IT services to its clients instead of simply selling them the box (ie the PC lah). So in this case, the PC is the razor and the servicing contract is the blade. So Michael Dell really got some Liao one ok? Don’t pray pray!

Maintenance contract is actually a very good razor because it usually last for 2-3 yrs and hence securing the stable cashflow from the client for that time period, like the telcos (btw telcos is short-form for telecommunications companies like Singtel, Starhub hor). And with minimum extra capex or cash outflow, you actually get this money rolling in.

So next time when you see a business with a razor-and-blade model, remember to give it some credit bcos chances are it will still be earning money even when the crunch comes, unlike a lot of other businesses which will probably go into red. Especially those hot sectors nowadays, like RE related construction where majority of co.s involved don’t really have a business moat and are rising simply bcos it’s high tide now.

Investment, Golf and Hardwork!

Let's try to relate investment with a sports like say Golf. To put some things in comparison, we have

Golf Set = Bloomberg, Excel Spreadsheet, Brokers' charting tools
Golf Swing Techniques = Fundamentals, Valuation, Technical analysis
To win the game of Golf = a lot of hardwork and luck
To beat the Market = a lot of hardwork and luck

When you first start at golf, you will suck big time. You probably bought a golf set that cost S$299 and try out on the driving ranges. In investment, this is like engaging your local broker and their cock-up systems with their technical charts and then dabbling into your first purchase.

Then you realize that you need to put in more time and effort to actually play golf meaningfully and this is when you start to engage instructors to improve your swing, you read up golf books and practice a lot. In investment, this is where you also try to learn from other investors, attend sessions, read books, buy some software and really get your hands dirty with all the financial statements and valuation analysis. Or charts and RSI and MACD for the technicians.

So after a few years of practice, you are ready to compete with other golfers. Say there is a competition for all the world's golfers from beginners like yourself to pros like Tiger, where do you think you will stand? Will you beat say 50% of all the golfers? Or 80%? Or 99%? Similarly in investment, after a few years of doing some real company analysis and trading, can you earn average market return of 8-10%pa? Or the best returns of around 25-40%pa (over the long run ie. 10yrs or more)?

The success rate of being able to beating the average will correlate with the amount of hardwork you put in to either golf or investment.

What determines why Tiger beats the average? Most golfers know the swings and techniques like Tiger does. (Most investors know all about fundamental and technical analysis). Most golfers use the same tools (golf sets) like Callaway/Mizuno/TaylorMade golf sets. (Most investors use the same Excel/Bloomberg/Brokers' charting tools.)

Tiger beats the average golfer through a lot of hardwork and beats the best of the best golfers through luck. Some might argue talent is impt but studies have shown that talent may help but ultimately it's hardwork.

I think a lot of pple know Tiger started golf at the age of 3, and trained hard everyday to win his first championship at 18. That's 15yrs of hardwork btw. But he did not stop there, he continued to work hard to perfect his swing so that he can better himself. So if you are not training that hard, is it a wonder why you cannot beat him?

Don't believe? Read this article.

But at the pros level, Tiger, Vijay, Phil etc, everybody is training as hard as everyone else. So in the end, whoever wins the championship is probably a matter of luck.

So in investment, if you are spending 1-2hrs a day reading some annual reports, doing simple brainstorming about how the world will change tomorrow and how your investment will do, can you beat the market average of 8-10%pa? Of course the market is made up of some aunties and uncles, some novices, some semi-pros, and also pple like Buffett, Lynch, Soros, Jim Rogers, Peter Lim who spent their lives thinking about how the world will change and are very good at it. If you work hard enough, probably there is a chance to beat the average even though you cannot beat the best of the best.

As a side note, passively investing in indices will give you 8-10%pa which is quite good and this is actually one of those rare free lunches in life. Minimal effort for earning an average return!

If you do put in a lot of hardwork, so much so that you think you are in the league of the best investors globally including Buffett, Lynch, Soros, Jim Rogers, Peter Lim etc, then you can only beat these pple if you have luck. Studies have shown that only 10% of all investors can actually beat the average return of 8-10%. So it's a lot of hardwork to be in this top 10%. And to stay there, give a big smile to Lady Luck and hopefully she smiles back!