Free-Reprint Article Written by: Geoff Gannon 
See Terms of Reprint Below.

* This email is being delivered directly to members of the group:

We have moved our TERMS OF REPRINT to the end of the article.
Be certain to read our TERMS OF REPRINT and honor our TERMS 
OF REPRINT when you use this article. Thank you.

This article has been distributed by:

Helpful Link: 
  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Overview


Article Title:
On Formulaic Investing

Article Description:
A value investor looks at investing formulas proposed by three 
men: Benjamin Graham, David Dreman, and Joel Greenblatt. He 
then asks whether any of these formulas will lead to above 
market returns.

Additional Article Information:
1842 Words; formatted to 65 Characters per Line
Distribution Date and Time: Thu Jan 26 18:20:04 EST 2006

Written By:     Geoff Gannon
Copyright:      2006
Contact Email:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Article URL: 

For more free-reprint articles by this Author, please visit:


On Formulaic Investing
Copyright © 2006 Geoff Gannon
Gannon On Investing

One question almost every investor asks at some point is whether 
it is possible to achieve above market returns by selecting a 
diversified group of stocks according to some formula, rather 
than having to evaluate each stock from every angle. There 
are obvious advantages to such a formulaic approach. For the 
individual, the amount of time and effort spent caring for his 
investments would be reduced, leaving more time for him to spend 
on more enjoyable and fulfilling tasks. For the institution, 
large sums of money could be deployed without having to rely 
upon the investing acumen of a single talented stock picker. 

Many of the proposed systems also offer the advantage of matching 
the inflow of investable funds with investment opportunities. An 
investor who follows no formula, and evaluates each stock from 
every angle, may often find himself holding cash. Historically, 
this has been a problem for some excellent stock pickers. So, 
there are real advantages to favoring a formulaic approach to 
investing if such an approach would yield returns similar to 
the returns a complete stock by stock analysis would yield.

Many investment writers have proposed at least one such formulaic 
approach during their lifetime. The most promising formulaic 
approaches have been articulated by three men: Benjamin Graham, 
David Dreman, and Joel Greenblatt. As each of these approaches 
appeals to logic and common sense, they are not unique to these 
three men. But, these are the three names with which these 
approaches are usually most closely associated; so, there is 
little need to draw upon sources beyond theirs.

Benjamin Graham wrote three books of consequence: "Security 
Analysis", "The Intelligent Investor", and "The Interpretation 
of Financial Statements". Within each book, he hints at various 
workable approaches both in stocks and bonds; however, he is most 
explicit in his best known work, "The Intelligent Investor". 
There, Graham discusses the purchase of shares for less than two 
- thirds of their net current asset value. The belief that this 
method would yield above market returns is supported on both 
empirical and logical grounds. 

In fact, it currently enjoys far too much support to be 
practicable. Public companies rarely trade below their net 
current asset values. This is unlikely to change in the future. 
Buyout firms, unconventional money managers, and vulture 
investors now check such excessive bouts of public pessimism by 
taking large or controlling stakes in troubled companies. As a 
result, the investing public is less likely to indulge its 
pessimism as feverishly as it once did; for, many cheap stocks 
now have the silver lining of being takeover targets. As Graham's 
net current asset value method is neither workable at present, 
nor is likely to prove workable in the future, we must set it 

David Dreman is known as a contrarian investor. In his case, 
it is an appropriate label, because of his keen interest in 
behavioral finance. However, in most cases the line separating 
the value investor from the contrarian investor is fuzzy at best. 
Dreman's contrarian investing strategies are derived from three 
measures: price to earnings, price to cash flow, and price to 
book value. 

Of these measures, the price to earnings ratio is by far the most 
conspicuous. It is quoted nearly everywhere the share price is 
quoted. When inverted, the price to earnings ratio becomes the 
earnings yield. To put this another way, a stock's earnings yield 
is "e" over "p". Dreman describes the strategy of buying stocks 
trading at low prices relative to their earnings as the low P/E 
approach; but, he could have just as easily called it the high 
earnings yield approach. Whatever you call it, this approach has 
proved effective in the past. A diversified group of low P/E 
stocks has usually outperformed both a diversified group of high 
P/E stocks and the market as a whole. 

This fact suggests that investors have a very hard time 
quantifying the future prospects of most public companies. While 
they may be able to make correct qualitative comparisons between 
businesses, they have trouble assigning a price to these 
qualitative differences. This does not come as a surprise to 
anyone with much knowledge of human judgment (and misjudgment). I 
am sure there is some technical term for this deficiency, but I 
know it only as "checklist syndrome". Within any mental model, 
one must both describe the variables and assign weights to these 
variables. Humans tend to have little difficulty describing the 
variables - that is, creating the checklist. However, they rarely 
have any clue as to the weight that ought to be given to each 

This is why you will sometimes hear analysts say something like: 
the factor that tipped the balance in favor of online sales this 
holiday season was high gas prices (yes, this is an actual 
paraphrase; but, I won't attribute it, because publicly attaching 
such an inane argument to anyone's name is just cruel). It is 
true that avoiding paying high prices at the pump is a possible 
motivating factor in a shopper's decision to make online 
Christmas purchases. However, it is an immaterial factor. It is a 
mere pebble on the scales. This is the same kind of thinking that 
places far too much value on a stock's future earnings growth and 
far too little value on a stock's current earnings. 

The other two contrarian methods: the low price to cash flow 
approach and the low price to book value approach work for the 
same reasons. They exploit the natural human tendency to see a 
false equality in the factors, and to run down a checklist. For 
instance, a stock that has a triple digit price to cash flow 
ratio, but is in all other respects an extraordinary business, 
will be judged favorably by a checklist approach. However, if 
great weight is assigned to present cash flows relative to the 
stock price, the stock will be judged unfavorably. 

This illustrates the second strength of the three contrarian 
methods. They heavily weight the known factors. Of course, they 
do not heavily weight all known factors. They only consider three 
easily quantifiable known factors. An excellent brand, a growing 
industry, a superb management team, etc. may also be known 
factors. However, they are not precisely quantifiable. I would 
argue that while these factors may not be quantifiable they are 
calculable; that is to say, while no exact value may be assigned 
to them, they are useful data that ought to be considered when 
evaluating an investment. 

There is the possibility of a middle ground here. These three 
contrarian methods may be used as a screen. Then, the investor 
may apply his own active judgment to winnow the qualifying stocks 
down to a final portfolio. Personally, I do not believe this is 
an acceptable compromise. These three methods do not adequately 
model the diversity of great investments. Therefore, they must 
either exclude some of the best stocks or include too many of the 
worst stocks. It is wise to place great weight upon each of these 
measures; however, it is foolish to disqualify any stock because 
of a single criterion (which is exactly what such a screen does). 

Finally, there is Joel Greenblatt's "magic formula". This is the 
most interesting formulaic approach to investing, both because it 
does not subject stocks to any true/false tests and because it 
is a composite of the two most important readily quantifiable 
measures a stock has: earnings yield and return on capital. As 
you will recall, earnings yield is simply the inverse of the P/E 
ratio; so, a stock with a high earnings yield is a low P/E stock. 
Return on capital may be thought of as the number of pennies 
earned for each dollar invested in the business. 

The exact formula that Greenblatt uses is described in "The 
Little Book That Beats the Market". However, the formula used is 
rather unimportant. Over large groups of stocks (which is what 
Greenblatt suggests the magic formula be used on) any differences 
between the various return on capital formulae will not have much 
affect on the performance of the portfolios constructed. 

Greenblatt claims his magic formula may be used in two different 
ways: as an automated portfolio generation tool or as a screen. 
For an investor like you the latter use is the more appropriate 
one. The magic formula will serve you well as a screen. I would 
argue, however, that you needn't limit yourself to stocks 
screened by the magic formula, if you have full confidence in 
your judgment regarding some other stock.

These four formulaic approaches (the three from Dreman and the 
one from Greenblatt) will likely yield returns greater than 
or equal to the returns you would obtain from an index fund. 
Therefore, you would do better to invest in your own basket of 
qualifying stocks than in the prefabricated market basket. If you 
want to be a passive investor, or believe yourself incapable of 
being an active investor, these formulaic approaches are your 
best bet. 

In fact, if I were approached by an institution making long -
term investments and using only a very small percentage of the 
fund for operating expenses, I would recommend an automated 
process derived from these four approaches. I would also 
recommend that 100% of the fund's investable assets be put into 
equities, but that is a discussion for another day. If, however, 
you believe you have what it takes to be an active investor, and 
that is truly what you wish to be, then, I would suggest you do 
not use these approaches for anything more than helping you 
generate some useful ideas.

If you choose this path, you need to be clear about what being an 
active investor entails. Read this next part very carefully (it 
is correct even though it may not appear to be): I have never 
found a screen that generates more than one buy order per hundred 
stocks returned. Even after I have narrowed the list of possible 
stocks down by a cursory review of the industry and the business 
itself, I have never found a method that can consistently 
generate more than one buy order per twenty - five annual reports 
read. Here, I am citing my best past experiences. In my 
experience, most screens result in less than one buy order per 
three hundred stocks returned, and I usually read more like fifty 
to a hundred annual reports per buy order at a minimum. 

You may choose to invest in far more stocks than I do. Perhaps 
instead of limiting yourself to your five to twelve best ideas as 
I do, you might want to put money into your best twenty - five to 
thirty ideas. Do the math, and you'll see that is still quite a 
bit of homework. That's why remaining a passive investor is the 
best bet for most people. The time and effort demanded of the 
active investor is simply too taxing. They have more important, 
more enjoyable things to do. If that's true for you, the four 
formulaic approaches outlined above should guide you to above 
market returns. 

Geoff Gannon is a full time investment writer. He writes 
a (print) quarterly investment newsletter and a daily value 
investing blog. He also produces a twice weekly (half hour) 
value investing podcast at:



TERMS OF REPRINT - Publication Rules 
(Last Updated:  April 7, 2005)

Our TERMS OF REPRINT are fully enforcable under the terms of:

  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act


*** Digital Reprint Rights ***

* If you publish this article in a website/forum/blog, 
  You Must Set All URL's or Mailto Addresses in the body 
  of the article AND in the Author's Resource Box as
  Hyperlinks (clickable links).

* Links must remain in the form that we published them.
  Clean links should point to the Author's links without
  redirects having been inserted into the copy.

* You are not allowed to Change or Delete any Words or 
  Links in the Article or Resource Box. Paragraph breaks 
  must be retained with articles. You can change where
  the paragraph breaks fall, but you cannot eliminate all
  paragraph breaks as some have chosen to do.

* Email Distribution of this article Must be done through
  Opt-in Email Only. No Unsolicited Commercial Email.

* You Are Allowed to format the layout of the article for 
  proper display of the article in your website or in your 
  ezine, so long as you can maintain the author's interests 
  within the article.

*** Author Notification ***

  We ask that you notify the author of publication of his
  or her work. Geoff Gannon can be reached at:

*** Print Publication Reprint Rights ***

  If you desire to publish this article in a PRINT 
  publication, you must contact the author directly 
  for Print Permission at:  


If you need help converting this text article for proper 
hyperlinked placement in your webpage, please use this 
free tool:


ABOUT THIS ARTICLE SUBMISSION is a paid article distribution 
service. and 
are owned and operated by Bill Platt of Enid, Oklahoma USA.

The content of this article is solely the property 
and opinion of its author, Geoff Gannon



1. Print the article in its entirety. Don't make any changes in the article . 
2. Print the resource box with all articles in their entirety.
3. Send the Author a copy of the reprinted article or the URL 
  where the articles was posted.

Anything short of following these three rules is a violation 
of the Authors Copyright. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to