The Intelligent Investor: Northern Pacific Railway example
Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company.  Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market. "The company was paying ""only"" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be ""too high,"" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out ""most"" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being ""stingy,"" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10." Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock.  In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company.  The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead.  This still rewards the investors, but  share prices stay low.
"&gt;Then you are using the word ""passive income"" wrong  My point is that the problem goes beyond ""passive income"".  Sure, utilising unethical tax and debt avoidance strategies isn't a passive method that requires no effort, but it's obviously not a good thing either.  &gt;50%+ of the population isn't intelligent enough to even do this.   Stock market speculation is just one example. There are a lot of wealthy people who are much less intelligent and work much less than people who have only a fraction of their wealth.  I certainly hope you're not suggesting that wealth is necessarily, or even usually an indicator of intelligence or work ethic.  &gt;I still don't know where you even got this idea. I've read the book and he doesn't even really talk about this.  Are you joking? ""Poor Dad"" is portrayed as a pitiable piece of shit because he has integrity and works an honest job. ""Rich Dad"" is some kind of fucking superhero because instead of contributing to society in some way, his priority is to constantly generate wealth and continue to grow like cancer. ""Rich Dad"" detracts from society, and in a remotely fair system his wealth would reflect his contributions, not his willingness to manipulate others.  &gt;You're right, it isn't, which is why most people don't do it for a living.   Oh, so becoming obscenely wealthy at the expense of others would be acceptable in your idea of a perfect society? Hell, If we're going to take such a Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' approach to society, why not just remove all welfare programs and let the wealthy among us continue to buy politicians until they pay no taxes and everyone else subsidises their lifestyle? Oh wait, we're already doing exactly that.   I would rather things get worse than stay the same. It is clear that people need to hurt more before they wake up to see who is responsible for their rapidly declining quality of life." The Bible of fundamental analysis was written by Graham and Dodd, and is titled Security Analysis. If you don't know the name Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet was his student and attribute his own success to Graham.  If Security Analysis is a bit too intense for you, Graham also wrote The Intelligent Investor which is probably a better starting point. Something that introduces the vocabulary and treats the reader like an intelligent individual? It's a bit overkill for 'retirement', but Yale has a free online course in Financial Markets. It's very light on math, but does a good job establishing jargon and its history. It covers most of the things you'd buy or sell in financial markets, and is presented by Nobel Prize winner Robert Schiller. This particular series was filmed in 2007, so it also offers a good historical perspective of the start of the subprime collapse. There's a number of high profile guest speakers as well. I would encourage you to think critically about their speeches though. If you research what's happened to them after that lecture, it's quite entertaining: one IPO'd a 'private equity' firm that underperformed the market as a whole, another hedge fund manager bought an airline with a partner firm that was arrested for running a ponzi scheme six months later.  The reading list in the syllabus make a pretty good introduction to the field, but keep in mind they're for institutional investors not your 401(k). Be glad you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. We're still recovering from a refinery shut down that sent our gas prices to $4.30/gallon while the rest of the nation was at $3.50/gallon. Our gas prices are still higher than US average at $3.70/gallon. Some gas stations are still charging $3.90+ here. Eighteen years into his research, Lo had a major insight. One day in 1999 his 4-year-old son took off running toward a gorilla cage at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. “The mother gorilla jumped right in and growled,” he says. “And as soon as she did that, I did the same thing. I ran to my child and brought him back.” The similarity of their reactions startled Lo and caused him to wonder: Could there be other similarities in the way people and animals react to danger and risk?  The insight eventually led to the adaptive-markets hypothesis. “Right now, we tend to collect prices and assume that those are the only things that matter” to predict investor behavior, Lo says, whereas an ecologist would try to understand investors as a population—which means accounting for their animal instincts. Lo’s hypothesis says people act in their own self-interest but frequently make mistakes, figure out where they’ve erred, and change their behaviors. The broader system also adapts. These complex interactions contribute to our booms and busts.  Lo’s book-length exploration of the idea, Adaptive Markets, came out in February. Says Ben Golub, a founding partner at BlackRock Inc. and now co-head of the company’s risk and quantitative analysis group: “It makes you realize that at any time in the market, the people who are there are not there by accident.” Some people survived the last financial crisis and might be more risk-averse, and some people who’ve joined since might be more risk-tolerant. “The cautious guys survive for a while and then get pushed out by the more aggressive risk takers, who then get thrown out when the thing blows up in their faces,” Golub says. He’s made the book required reading for many BlackRock employees. Are you claiming the powerful can predict the ups and downs of the economy well enough to consistently profit from it? Please show me these great investors that don't fail much; there must be quite a few, right? True on the second point. It is information based. My bad.  With regard to the first point, I don't think he's Jesus returned. He makes plenty of mistakes but he does provide the return record of a very disparate group of investors following the same method. That method may not work anymore (hard to say) but I think it does. I'm obviously a true believer.   With respect to third point, I don't think you were being a dick. Enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the perspective Good question. There are plenty of investors who think they can simply rely on intuition, and although luck is always present it is not enough to construct a proper portfolio. First of all there are two basic types of portfolio management: Passive and Active. The majority of abnormal gains are made with active portfolio management although passive managers are less likely to suffer loses.  Both types must be created with some kind of qualitative and quantitative research, but an active portfolio requires constant adjustments (Market Timing) to preserve the desired levels of risk and return.  The topic is extremely broad and every manager has his own preferred methods of quantitative analysis. I will try to list here some most common, in my opinion, ways of stock-picking and portfolio management. Roy's Criterion: The best portfolio is that with the lowest probability that the return will be below a specified level.  This is achieved by maximising the number of standard deviations between the return on the portfolio and minimum specified level: Max k = (Rp-Rl)/Sp Where (Rp) - return on portfolio, (Rl) - specified minimum return, (Sp) - standard deviation of portfolio return. Kataoka's Criterion: Maximise the minimum return (Rl) subject to constraint that the chance of a return below (Rl) is less than or equal to a specified value (a). Maximise (Rl) Subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a For example, assume that the specified value is 20% - this will be met provided (Rl) is at least 0.84 standard deviations below (Rp). Therefore the best portfolio is the one that maximises (Rl) where: Rl = Rp-0.84*Sp Telser's Criterion: Maximise expected return subject to the constraint that the chance of a return below the specified minimum is less than or equal to some specified minimum (a) Maximise (Rp) subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a Assuming same data as previously:  Rl =< Rp-0.84*Sp and select the portfolio with highest expected return. Security Selection Now let's look at some methods of security selection. This is important when a manager believes some shares are mispriced. The required return on security 'i' is given by: Ri = Rf+(Rm-Rf)Bi Where (Rf) - is a risk-free rate, (Rm) - return on the market, (Bi) - security's beta. The difference between the required return and the actual return expected is known as the security's alpha (Ai). Ai = Rai - Ri, where (Rai) is actual return on security 'i'. Stock Picking One way of stock-picking is to select portfolios of securities with positive alphas. Alpha of a portfolio is simply the weighted average of the alphas of the securities in the portfolio. Ap = {(n*Ai) Where ({) is sigma (sorry for such weird typing, haven't figured out yet how to type proper-looking formulas), (n) - share of 'i'th security in portfolio. So another way of stock-picking is ranking securities by their excess return to beta (ERB): ERB = (Ri - Rf)/Bi The greater the ERB the more desirable the security and the greater the proportion it will make up of the portfolio. Thus portfolios produced by this technique will have greater proportion of some securities than the market portfolio and lower proportions of other securities.  The number of securities depends on a cut-off rate (C*) for the ERB, defined so that all securities with ERB>C* are included in portfolio while if ERB  The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below):  Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio:  Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are:  Market Timing Hedging Stocks vs Bonds  Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market.  The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below):  Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio:  Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market.