Customer Reviews

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits and Other Writings (Wiley Investment Classics)

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Having been associated with Wall Street for 35 years, I was lucky enough to have been in the same room with Philip Fisher on more than one occasion. He was a completely self-contained man, extremely comfortable in his own skin. He knew who he was, what he was, and what he could be. He possessed zero airs about him. These traits seem to run freely in many MASTER investors, including Warren Buffett.

Many have mentioned that Buffett considers himself to be 85% Benjamin Graham, and 15% Philip Fisher. This needs to be updated. If you spoke with Buffett today, he would tell you that those ratios are distorted, and the reason is Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's investing partner at Berkshire Hathaway.

Charlie Munger is cut from the same cloth as Philip Fisher. They are growth players, and willing to pay up for a stock. For decades Buffett could NEVER PAY UP for a stock. He wanted them dirt cheap, so cheap in fact that some big plays got away from him forever. I don't know how many years ago, Buffett mentioned in a meeting I attended that he once owned a considerable amount of Disney. It would be a controlling amount in today's market; it got away from him, and tens of billions of dollars in that play alone.

In the old days when Buffett was strictly Graham and Dodd, he could not buy a GROWTH stock. He still cringes at the thought. Munger however taught Buffett to pay up. An example was Flight Safety International for which Buffett paid a previously unheard price-earning ratio. There are people around Buffett who know him well who will tell you that Munger is the superior investor. What you need to know is that sometimes stocks are DIRT CHEAP because they are DIRT, to use a Munger line.

Philip Fisher like Munger is a MASTER INVESTOR worthy of spending whatever time you can spare studying. If you want to walk in the footsteps of a MASTER, you must study the MASTER, and Fisher has a tremendous amount to offer.

I have managed billions of dollars in my lifetime. I am telling you this because you need to know that the SKUTTLEBUTT method that Fisher is famous for is something that anyone can used, starting today. Most of Wall Street research or any research that I have seen over the decades is not worth the paper it is printed on. On more than one occasion I have asked if the paper is soft enough to use for toilet paper.

With the scuttlebutt method, you talk to everyone but the company you are studying. Please allow me to illustrate. If you are thinking of investing in a car company, you start visiting car dealers. You learn the lingo, you read trade periodicals, maybe even a few car magazines, but be careful. Magazines and newspapers are completely jaded in their reporting by how much advertising dollars they receive from certain companies. You didn't know that because no one will ever dare print it.

If a newspaper wants to bury an important story on a company that gives them tremendous advertising dollars, they will run the unfavorable story, but it will be in the Saturday morning edition, which is the least read edition of the week. You need to know these things. I used Scuttlebutt back in the 80's, to accumulate a massive position in Chrysler when it was near bankruptcy. The stock went from $6 to $200 after splits. It isn't hard. You don't need to be a big market player, anybody really can do it.

You do need an inquisitive mind, and I believe an innovative one as well. Fisher was a guy who thought outside the box, and that's why he was immensely rich, as is his son Ken. Philip Fisher is a guy that made a fortune in FMC Corporation, owned it for 30 or more years. He was a ground floor player in Texas Instruments, owned it and made thousands of percent on the stock. He was every bit Buffett's equal, and to Fisher's credit, he gave us the greatest gift of all. He wrote a book, and was open with his readers about how to attain great wealth in the market.

He takes the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" (EMT), and blows it out of the water. His returns and Buffett's are so many standard deviations away from the mean, that EMT can't survive an investigation based on their results.

He gives you a 15-point criteria list to identify the types of companies that meet his screening. He also gives you five don'ts, and then five more to protect you as an investor. What Fisher is really doing is giving you a TEMPLATE to used as an investor. This is what you need. This is no different than going into the Marine Corps, and spending 12 weeks in basic training. Once you're done, you have certain smart behaviors drilled into your psyche so deep that in combat, and investing is combat, you can fall back on these techniques to survive. They become automatic. No matter what investment turns up, you can put it through the filters that have stood the test of time.

In closing, I would like to say one more thing about the Scuttlebutt technique. Recently, I had to make a decision to invest a considerable amount of money in the auto sector. One of the people I consulted with, is a legend in his 90's, who is the greatest mutual fund investor of the 20th century, probably worth over a billion dollars. He says to me in passing, do you know whom Toyota, the greatest car company in the world fears? The answer is the South Korean car companies. That my friends is worth a fortune, and is a 20 year stock play that Philip Fisher would have envied.

Richard Stoyeck

When you have read Benjamin Graham analysing current ratios and balance sheets until you have decided that stock picking can be done by computer then (and only then) is it time to read Phillip Fisher. Phillip Fisher searches for "growth stocks", companies with superlative management (superior sales force, superior research and development, clear focus on the business) and he holds their stocks FOREVER. You can read this book and find not a single substantive mention of balance sheets, solvency, current ratios or any of the other things that most seasoned stock pickers rely on. Instead you find tips for analysing the scuttlebutt that you hear about a company and for testing whether management cuts the mustard. Thirteen or so of the "Fifteen Points" in the second chapter are worth the purchase price of the book and more. These points summarise as: * The management are technical geniuses. * The management know how to milk the existing business, and * The management resist the institutional imperative. Unlike Phillip Fisher however, I am not sure the management need to be technical geniuses. Indeed Phillip Fisher's notion of what constitutes a growth stock is quite narrow. He is almost obsessive about research and development. New products are to him the major determinant of growth. He would never have picked Coca-Cola or McDonalds as growth stocks because their product is not technically innovative. Yet a reader of Phillip Fisher may have picked these stocks. They pass the bulk of Fisher's fifteen points with flying colours. Just making hamburgers is not making Silicon chips. If you could combine Fisher's analysis with Graham and purchase these stocks at reasonable prices you might have even done well. (Incidently I am a Dow disbeliever from Australia and I still think McDonalds is reasonably priced.) Certainly Fisher would not allow you to hold McDonalds and Coke above a well run techno company. Fisher regards techno stocks with a sort of awe. And regards anybody that holds more than twenty stocks as financially incompetent. [I agree with him on the latter point, and hence hold a small number of non-techno companies, which kind of suits a technophope like me.] Fisher would have you purchasing Intel at $150, something which I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify (though I have been wrong on that stock before). Intel passes ALL of Fisher's fifteen points. Value does not play a part in Fisher's Analysis. He pays lip service once or twice, but there is precious little discussion on how to pick value. And that is where I think the book falls down. This is actually quite a limited failing. There are two ways to proceed with Fisher. One: Look for businesses that pass Phillip Fisher's tests. perhaps thirteen of the fifteen points is adequate. Then put through the second filter of "are they crazy on a Benjamin Graham analysis". This will make sure that you do not pay too much for a good business. Alternatively Benjamin Graham filter stocks. Get the listing down to say 200 or so that are not too expensive (particularly vis earnings rather than assets). Then put them through the Phillip Fisher filter. Buy the ones that pass best. This way you will not be tempted to buy a bad business just because its cheap. I tend to operate using the latter method. However I would never have found McDonalds that way. So maybe I should do a bit of both. Cheers and good hunting.

This book is a classic in the investment field. Fisher is acknowledged as one of Warren Buffet's intellectual fathers and it shows. However - like many books on Buffett - Fisher's approach relies on the ability of the individual to spend large amounts of time researching companies and stocks. While this minimizes the risk of investing badly, it also assumes that picking stocks is your life. I recommend that anyone interested in investing read this text as an example of how to think about companies in which to invest. However, be prepared that it won't be as directly usuable as, say, the writings of Peter Lynch.

Fisher's book should be 1/2 your investment library; the otherhalf should be Ben Graham's ``The Intelligent Investor''. WarrenBuffet, the world's most successful investor, describes himself as ``85% Graham, 15% Fisher.''

Fisher explains the qualitative side to value investing, just as Graham explains the quantitative side. You really need both. If you follow Graham's advice insensitively, then you will find stocks which are selling cheap--because the company is truly in trouble. That's where Fisher comes in: you should examine low-priced companies from Fisher's perspective to find the ones which truly are bargains.

... Online discussions are no substitute for firsthand discussion with employees, competitors, etc. You simply can't meet enough people online; some companies' employees aren't even on the Internet. ... you will end up investing only in tech stocks--which I would consider extremely short-sighted.

On the other hand, online discussion is considerably better than nothing. Don't neglect the information you can find online! This source of information will become increasingly important over time.

I've not heard of the name "Philip Fisher" in my entire school years (4 yrs Undergrad. b-school & 2 yrs MBA) even I've been majoring in Finance. The "fundamental" approach in investing, as opposed to looking at a "beta", has been so ignored by the academica as it's "not objective enough" or that it has no math involved. Indeed, the book is 95% art & 5% science, and there're no certain ways to pick up the technique. However, the book makes so much sense to me that I had to read it twice. The principles are sound and stand through the test of time. Most investing books disappear after a few years, and this one is still as good. Some of the techniques are hard to put into practice such as "getting to know the management" and "investigate the competitors", but this book lets you know that selecting an outstanding long term investment involves more homeworks than most people are willing to do nowaday. The tradeoff btw. "easy money" and risk always exists even in today's stockmarket most people don't know what kind of risk they're undertaking.

There are only two books you will ever need to read to become a good investor. One of them is Graham's "The Intelligent Investor" (or better, Graham and Dodd's "Security Analysis"). The other is Philip Fisher's "Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits".

It is telling that the man who combines the investment philosophies of both Graham and Fisher is widely acclaimed as the most brilliant investor alive today, Warren Buffet.

This is a book that you shouldn't just read once. It's a book you should read again and again. This is a book that you should read in cycles. Once you finish, you should read it again. It's short enough that you can read a chapter each night. This is a book that you should read until you can recite it word for word.

If you understand the principles in this book, and adhere stringently to Fisher's 15-point checklist for buying stocks, avoid his 10 don'ts, and purchase stocks at the right time, as he suggested how to do, you will almost certainly be investing in good companies.

If you then apply Graham's tests of value, you can avoid paying too much for those good companies. It is possible to have a good company but a bad stock (IBM is a great company today, and passes all of Fisher's criteria, but could you really justify buying it say $1,000 per share?).

When you do find companies that are good companies, but have bad stocks, keep an eye on them. What I mean by "bad stock" is that the stock -- in your opinion -- is priced too highly, even considering the company's excellent growth prospects (in other words, there is euphoria about it on Wallstreet that goes beyond reason). Eventually, the market will realize that, even for that great company, it was paying too much. The stock price will drop, and then, whenever everyone else is running from the company in fear of doom, you can scoop it up (assuming that it i still a good company).

Just as it is possible to have a good company but a bad stock, it is also possible to have a bad company but a good stock. You should not buy a stock just because it is cheap in PE, PEG, PS, or Price:book ratio. It is possible that the management may be so terrible that the company, in a few years time, may very well justify such current undervaluation. Even if the management is competent, it is still possible that the company' performance may justify that low price in a few year's time. When a stock is greatly undervalued by these measures, and has passed most of Fisher's criteria, then it is a great buy, because the market will eventually realize that management is brilliant and the stock should be priced higher.

Now, many have objected that Fisher's methods take a lot of time. Clearly, they do. So do Graham's. Certainly, using both methods in combination with one another will take a lot of time (you can use Graham's criteria first, or Fisher's, then apply the other set of criteria). If you don't have the interest or time to pursue this, then you should not be investing in invidiaul stocks yourself. Rather, you should find an advisor who does utilize these rules, or a mutual fund manager who does, and have him manage your money, if you want those kind of exceptional returns. In this case, you will still have to investigate the person managing your money, to make sure they're up to you're criteria, and stay on top of it, to make sure they continue to be. If you don't want to do that -- if you don't want to put in that effort -- then you should settle for ordinary returns, as Graham says. Invest in an index fund.

However, you should consider that there are not many stocks that will meet both Graham's stringent criteria, and Fisher's extremely stringent criteria. Of the tens of thousands of stocks, maybe 1,000 of them meet Graham's criteria. Of Those 1,000, maybe 50-100 meet Fisher's criteria. But, consider that you should only have to do this once, and thereafter only have to keep tabs on the companies (because you should have done it right the first time). Isn't several hours worth of work each night -- even for months -- worth finding a stock that will experience many hundreds of percent increase over 10 years?

To save yourself time, apply Graham's criteria first to eliminate fad stocks (dot-com), and other stocks that are priced too high. This will greatly cut down on your candidates. Then look at what's left and categorize it. Discard stocks from industries which you -- based on sound analysis -- believe aren't promising. Also discard those from industries which you don't understand. Of the remaining stocks, apply Fisher's criteria. To operate efficiently, apply his 15th criteria first: If there is any serious questions as to the management's trustworthiness to investors, don't even consider buying stock of the company, and don't waste any more time on it.

After reading these two books, you should know what criteria a company is to meet if it is a good investment, both Fisher's qualitative, and Graham's quantitative, criteria. You should apply the criteria that are easiest and quickest to filter through first. Then go through the criteria, progressively from more to less stringent. There's no point in wasting your time finding out about how great a company fairs on Fisher's first 14 criteria, only to find that it flatlines on the criteria of absolute importance (the integrity of management).

I have scanned the reviews listed here, and I am well aware that Warren Buffet is 85% Ben Graham and 15% Philip Fisher. Nonetheless, I must say that Fisher's book, while valuable insofar as it has some positive applications, has a few drawbacks, particularly as concerns the individual investor.

First and foremost, Fisher emphasizes prospective growth in earnings. As Ben Graham (and any number of other authors) has noted, "earnings" is strictly an accounting term that must be adjusted to accord to the investor's needs and market reality, as compared to GAAP requirements (Marty Whitman's book entitled "The Aggressive Conservative Investor" does an excellent job discussing the shortcomings of GAAP with respect to the individual investor).

Secondly, Fisher emphasizes quality in management (example: he advises "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?"). Again, this is something that institutional investors might be able to focus upon, but for an individual investor to come to a conclusion based upon publicly-available information might be somewhat difficult (as an aside, Porter's book on Competitive Advantage might be more useful for readers trying to determine a company's competitive environment).

I could lob comparable criticisms at a few of the other points (another example: "How effective are the company's research and development efforts relative to its size?"). From personal experience, any biotech company will likely trumpet the skills of its staff in uncovering new drugs, but the drugs must still be safe and effective per the FDA in order to be sold in the US. How can most individual investors reach any reasonable conclusion with respect to that point?

The fundamental shortcoming in this book is that most people seeking to apply his principles will be guided by word of mouth or the "irrational exhuberance" of the market. There is little analytical guidence to ensure that the investor's conclusions are grounded.

This leads me to my ultimate conclusion: although I've spent a fair amount of time lobbing rocks at this book, the book itself may be useful, but only if combined with the sort of in-depth financial statement analysis that Ben Graham proposes in "Security Analysis," which contains a detailed discussion of analytical means to review management performance, or perhaps an analysis of competive position as propounded in "Expecations Investing" by Rappaport and Mouboussin. To say things slightly differently, the book provides a good overview of a type of investment philosophy, but unlike the others referenced before, it does not provide tools to analyze a particular company.

Warren Buffett is in a different position than the average investor. To fail to realize that is folly. As a whole, the book reads easily, and Warren Buffett has said he likes Fisher - maybe that's why so many people like it - but without grounding on how to value a particular stock at a point in time, I cannot say that this book should a primary source of information for someone without grounding in finance and securities analysis.

Fisher is a growth stock adherent, and some have said that he is the Father of Growth Investing. Many contrast him to Benjamin Graham, whom more than a few have dubbed the Father of Value Investing. Fisher's book, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, provides an uneasy cornerstone for growth stock and technology stock investing. However, at some point, growth stock investing became synonymous with technology stock investing. As such, on one extreme, we have Fisher and growth (tech) stocks, and on the other we have Graham(and Dodd) and boring but predictable concerns with a margin of safety, and adherents to either extreme bicker back and forth as to which method for selecting common stocks for investment is better.

'Growth', I believe, is all fine and good, so long as you can find outfits that can hold their value, and continue to build value. Moreover, like its sister 'Growth', 'Opportunity' too is a wonderful thing, so long as 'Growth' and 'Opportunity' can be turned into profits and (dividend) checks in the mail.

Unlike Graham's sage advice, with which I agree 100 percent, I don't necessarily agree with Fisher's stance on many investment issues, but I do concede that the reasoning behind them does have merit. Take his position on dividends, for example. A company with excess cash and no reasonable opportunities for investment well within its circle of competence should send that cash to its shareholders, so long as it maintains a satisfactory reserve fund, can meet its financing needs, and has all of its investment needs met. Long experience has shown that companies that sit on top of a large (and growing) cash pile inevitably succumb to the temptation to squander it somehow or another (usually on vanity purchases), always to the detriment of its core business. Thus, companies that are generating cash in excess of their immediate and foreseeable needs (beyond a built-in cushion) should pay a dividend, and increase that dividend as earnings increase. Firms that don't do this, I believe, simply do not make for wise investments.

Furthermore, many have legitimately questioned the applicability of one technique underlying Fisher's investment method- the use of scuttlebutt. Most concerns have centered around how to go about doing it, which to me raises certain warning flags, and not on more important facets such as its usefulness (with regard to the kind of information gleaned) in practice and its potential (negative) consequences. One must exercise extreme caution when using scuttlebutt, for the following reasons. First, people, from individual investors to managers at publicly listed companies, especially the smaller tech outfits, know about this book, and so they also know how to use the book's information in order to present themselves so as to attract your investment dollars. Second, reliance on scuttlebutt depends to a great extent on how it comes your way (and Fisher partially acknowledges this, but limits his discussion to 'disgruntled' former employees of a company under consideration), and you have to exercise caution here, for you may find yourself in big trouble with the Federal Boys, or worse- with legal vultures circling over your head, should you act on it. Third, companies have a distinct disliking to scuttlebutt, as it may serve as one source of leaks of trade secrets or other sensitive information. Fourth, related to the third point, companies may intentionally use 'scuttlebutt' to 'plant' dis-information or even mis-information before small-time investors, specifically, and institutional investors, always. Finally, for those intrepid souls wondering how to put scuttlebutt to work, as an aside, for anyone who has attended college or some trade school, getting the inside story may be as easy as contacting the alumni office of your alma mater, or even as simple as hitting up a former frat, sorority or other college club member. More simply, one can directly contact folks involved in industry trade organizations as well.

In my mind, Mr. Fisher's method works best when one applies it to large and established concerns. When I ponder the investment problem, I come to the conclusion that your most reasonable assessment of a company must rest on an analysis of the company's past behavior, coupled with a current snapshot of the company in the context of its industry, and not on scuttlebutt. But then, Ben Graham said pretty much the same thing over and over again in his book Security Analysis.

Overall, I liked Fisher's Fifteen Points, but I liked the little mini-book, "Conservative Investors Sleep Well", which forms Part Two of the book, even better. You could obtain the same information by reading a denser book like Competitive Strategy, by Michael Porter, but getting the same information, in condensed form, from a seasoned and successful practitioner like Mr. Fisher imparts a level credibility, reliability and trust that all other sources lack. I also like Fisher's emphasis on understanding the business (and visiting the company if necessary to get detailed information, wherever possible, necessary and appropriate), a point that Graham, although he did not overlook it, did not specifically emphasize.

One must understand Fisher in order to know what to expect if all goes well with investment operations. In contrast, one must understand Graham in order to know what to expect if everything goes to hell in a handbasket. One can not successfully invest with only one or the other, as doing so will lead to mediocre results at best, and poor results more typically. One needs to know both.

Although I will not put the concept of scuttlebutt to practice, as it strikes me as being both dangerous and speculative, I will put the rest of the information to work. In sum, I will definitely keep the book, and it will sit next to my copies of Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis, where it will remain as one of my must-have and must-consult investment references.

Philip Fisher's thoughts and experience are invaluable and timeless. Not as boring (to read) as the intelligent investors (though both are equally important reading). I particularly like the chapters about "Fifteen points to look in a common stocks","when to buy", "when to sell", "Five don't", and "Developing your investment philosophies". One particular topic that I like best is about "Don't follow the crowd". Also on "How I go about finding a growth stock"

Some of the area that the a company/stock (to buy) should have a lot of these criteria:
1. Product and service with potential increase in sales for seveal years
2. Management who commited to develop products to continue growth
3. Size of company's research versus its size (enough research needed)
4. Good sales organization
5. Worthwhile profit margin
6. Activity to improve profit margin
7. Good labor and personal relation
8. Outstanding executove relations
9. Depth in management
10. Good accounting controls and cost analysis
11. favorable (degree of skills) compare to the competition
12. Long range outlook on profit
13. Equity financing in the next couple years should ot cancel the existing shareholder benefit from the anticipated growth
14. Management talk freely to investor about tings that goes well and also when things doesn't go well
15. Management needs to have unquestionable integrity

Five don'ts for investor:
1. Don't buy into promotional companies (development companies)
2. Don't ignore stocks just becuase it is traded over the counter
3. Don't buy stocks because you like the tone of annual report
4. Don't assume the high price is an indication of future growth
5. Dont quibble over small fraction (when you buy a stock)

Five additional don'ts for Investor
1. Don't overstress diversification
2. Don't be afraid buying in a war scare
3. Don't forget your Gilbert and Sullivan
4. Don't fail to consider time as well as price in buying a true growth stock
5. Don't follow the crowd

This book also covers what a good business should have (it recaps of what they teach you in business school). I have 10 years of investing experience before I read this book (I know I should have read this book earlier), and in my opinion this book should work as a guideline to develop our own investing philosophies (and not our philosophy itself). There are no one size fits all strategy in the investing world. This book will also help to open your eyes (especially for beginner) that investing (the right way) is not easy and is a complex process, however the result from a patient and diligent investor could be great.

There are 3 important aspects of a business (apart from the stock price) which this book will cover most of them:
1. The Business (and the Industry)
2. The Financials
3. The People (Management, Personnel)

I also recommend you all to read Ben Graham's "The Intelligent Investors" (with commentary by Jason Zweig who will give more recent and relevant example), and Peter Lynch's "One up on Wall Street". Once you read them all (coupled with some real experience), then you are ready to be an investing pro...

Happy Investing!

Sidarta Tanu

Phillip Fisher is the father of qualitative analysis. This book changed my life like no other. It has made me settle down as an investor and think as a businessman, and put all notions of trading aside. From reading Fisher, I now understand that one should only invest in a small number of stocks, but these stocks must be perfect in all aspects. He shows one what signs to look for in a company and how to analyze it . From reading Mr. Fishers book I have put all my money in Coca Cola, and have been well rewarded. Mr Warren Buffett who read this book in the 1960's found it to be one of the best investment books ever written. I myself consider it my family bible. Life as an investor was pure hell until I read this book, and after reading it I feel that nothing can stop me from becoming very wealthy. All I have to do is follow the steps that are in this book. Thank You Mr. Fisher.

MYCROFT