The best investors sit on plenty of cash

Shion

Senior Mentor
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
360,049
Reaction score
110,149
The best investors sit on plenty of cash

It may just sit pretty, but that can be mighty useful when the right opportunities arise

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/invest/the-best-investors-sit-on-plenty-of-cash

Most people would agree that it is important to keep some cash on hand for an emergency or unexpected situation.

But one thorny question is just how much cash to keep available, given that depositing it in the bank gives us next to zero returns with interest rates still extremely low.

If you ask a financial adviser, the chances are that he would advise you to keep at least six months' worth of expenses on hand in case you lose your job or need the money for an unexpected purpose.

He is also likely to suggest that you should work the rest of your money as hard as possible and throw it into blue-chip stocks, stock index funds, insurance investment-linked products, other securities or anything offering a better return, since cash earns you nothing.

It seems like a reasonable argument, but this is not the trait I have observed among the shrewd investors I have met in the course of my career.

Instead, they share a trait often seen in my parents' generation: They hoard large amounts of cash, often because they know from first-hand experience that terrible things can happen from time to time - often without warning.

One elderly businessman I know keeps an eye-popping $20 million in the bank. He very rarely touches this money. Even when he needs money to tide over a temporary cash-flow problem in his business, he would take out a loan whose interest cost is much higher than what the bank pays him for his deposit. He also makes sure that he settles the loan as quickly as possible.

More interestingly, while he is extremely careful with this pot of cash which he calls his "coffin money", he sometimes takes enormous risks in his investments and business ventures with his other sources of money.

To the rest of us, this strategy might seem a little strange - to be extremely cautious with his nest egg while taking big risks with his business, but I find there is a certain logic to recommend this approach.

Even if you have to tie up much of your money in a risky business venture or investment, you must ensure part of your retirement nest egg is invested in a cautious manner to ring-fence it against risks linked to your business or investments.

If you think that only rich Asians adopt this strategy, you may be surprised that plenty of wealthy people in the United States take to the same path as well.

The most famous, of course, is the legendary financial guru Warren Buffett, whose company, Berkshire Hathaway, sits pretty on a war chest of US$70 billion (S$94 billion) as at the end of last year.

His partner, fellow billionaire Charlie Munger, reputedly advised investors: "There are worse situations than drowning in cash and sitting, sitting, sitting. I remember when I wasn't awash in cash - and I don't want to go back.

And they are hardly outliers in that sense. A study of nearly two million households with investment portfolios of US$3 million or more in 2015 by United States Trust Company, one of oldest trustee companies in the US, showed that eight of every 100 respondents held at least 50 per cent of their portfolios in cash. A further 14 in 100 had at least 25 per cent in cash, while another 40 out of 100 held between 10 and 24 per cent of their portfolios in cash.

Why is holding so much cash useful to them? One good reason I can think of is the precipitous drop in stock prices worldwide in the wake of the failure of US investment bank Lehman Brothers in late 2008.

In Singapore, the resulting fallout caused share prices of blue-chips such as DBS Group Holdings, OCBC Bank and United Overseas Bank to fall to their lowest levels since the Sars crisis six years earlier.

This should have provided investors with a wonderful buying opportunity, but many of them were unable to capitalise on it because they didn't have much cash on hand and borrowing from a bank was nigh on impossible because of their other loan commitments.

The biggest beneficiaries included billionaires such as Mr Buffett, who snapped up big stakes in blue-blooded US firms such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric, making billions as their share prices subsequently recovered.

Mr Buffett was a high profile investor to win big during that dire period, but I have a doctor friend who also did well back then. He took the opportunity to snap up a terrace house as the private residential market was rocked by the global financial crisis.

As he had hardly invested in anything and had a frugal lifestyle, he was sitting on a tidy pile of cash. This enabled him to close the purchase quickly. Thus, even though his cash didn't seem to be doing anything for him over a long stretch of time, it came in handy just when he needed it.

Mr Buffett used to say that having ready cash is like oxygen; everyone needs it and takes it for granted when it is abundant, but in an emergency, it is the only thing that matters.

I took his advice to heart when I finally got around to taking a hard look at the adjustments I had to make to my nest egg last year when I hit 55 - the age many would consider to be the threshold of the autumn of their lives.

Apart from topping up my newly-created Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Account by $80,500 to make it up to the enhanced retirement sum of $241,500, I had planned to set aside sufficient cash to ensure that I would have enough to cover my bills without having to tap my other sources of funds or sell my equity investments under duress when I wouldn't be able to get a good price for them.

But holding cash can be very painful financially since it earns me virtually nothing.

That was when I discovered that I could put money into my CPF Ordinary Account by making a partial or full refund of the CPF savings which I had withdrawn to buy my home, as well as the accrued interest on the withdrawn sum, even though I haven't sold the property.

True, monies placed in the CPF Ordinary Account enjoy only 2.5 per cent interest, but that is still double the rate I get on my six-month fixed deposit. What is more, since I am past 55, I enjoy the flexibility of being able to withdraw it at short notice if I ever find a need to.

While many people may not find a 2.5 per cent return attractive, I believe this is good enough for the funds I am keeping for a rainy day where earning a return is secondary.

Better still, the cash kept in the CPF Ordinary Account is risk-free and I can sleep easy knowing that both my principal and interest payments are safe.

This is unlike some of the riskier investments I have encountered such as perpetuals - a bond-like instrument. No doubt, some of them offer yields as high as 5 or 6 per cent, but the catch is that their issuers reserve the discretion of withdrawing interest payments - and there have been instances of that happening.

For most people, the absolute minimum level of cash they should aim to hold is that emergency fund mentioned earlier, covering at least six months of expenses to get through unexpected disasters without having to sell off their assets or incur credit card debts. Beyond that, I find that most prudent investors aim to keep at least 10 to 20 per cent of their net worth in cash.

I know that it feels wrong to be sitting in cash and earning nothing. But even a slightly negative return after inflation beats the hell out of losing 10 to 20 per cent of your capital on an investment gone sour.

As Mr Munger once said: "It takes character to sit there with all that cash and do nothing. But I didn't get to where I am by going after mediocre opportunities."
 

w1rbelw1nd

Master Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
6
Typical rubbish article from him.

Might as well change article to " The best Toto punters knows when to buy Toto". "The best investors know when to time the market" etc etc.

Not as if he is sharing on how to time the market. Waste of time.
 

Dividends Warrior

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
23,739
Reaction score
1,705
This article shows that age does affect a person's investment style/strategy.

This writer is in his mid-50s? I am pretty sure he wasn't thinking about 'sitting on a hoard of cash' when he was in his 20s or 30s! :s13: When one is young, it is usually guts over fear.

Old people really are more risk-adverse.
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,548
Reaction score
759
So I had an elaborate reply about this that I was writing up, then one of Hardwarezone's shïtty ads hijacked my browser and redirected me to a spam "your computer has been h4xxored, please call tech support" site. Hardwarezone's ad sales department needs to be fired.

Anyway, this is a totally legitimate strategy—if you're already loaded, which most of us are not.

It's called a "barbell", for obvious reasons; the idea is that if you have a lump of extremely risky, illiquid assets that make up a huge chunk of your net worth, then it makes sense to hold a huge lump of cash as well, to offset the risk of those illiquid assets.

Our anonymous "elderly businessman", who has most of his net worth tied up in his company, would be totally sensible to hold most of his liquid assets in cash. The bank traders I used to work with, who had a huge percentage of their net worth tied up in locked-up bank stock, would hold large piles of cash or muni bonds as well. Big venture capital investors will do the same: a pile of cash or short-term bonds to offset their VC investments. The idea is that because you've got so much in such risky investments, the low-risk side of the barbell provides you with stable-value investments that you can get to easily if you ever need the cash. Think of it like an extremely large emergency fund.

The thing is, though: for most of us, that much cash is totally unnecessary. If your investments are in something that's moderate-risk and reasonably liquid—like, say, a diversified portfolio of stock-and-bond ETFs—you don't need to hold a barbell of cash against that. The reason you don't need the barbell is that it's easy to liquidate your portfolio if you ever need to; it's not like you own a huge chunk of a business that you can't easily sell.

So while the article isn't the craziest thing I've ever seen written in the ST, it's not really a good idea for regular investors to follow. Huge cash allocations only make sense when you have hugely risky, illiquid positions on the other side of the barbell—otherwise, that cash is just going to be a drag on your returns.
 

Purplestars

Master Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,912
Reaction score
479
So be like Buffett, sit on a huge pile of cash, wait for the stock market to crash and then buy BIG?
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,548
Reaction score
759
So be like Buffett, sit on a huge pile of cash, wait for the stock market to crash and then buy BIG?

I mean, Buffett doesn't "sit on a huge pile of cash". He spent an absolute truckload of money to buy Kraft and Heinz in 2013 and 2015, and offered $140 billion for Unilever in early 2017; that's not "sitting on cash".

Buffet's modus operandi is to buy companies that throw off tons of cash, and then reinvest that cash into buying more companies. If he doesn't see anything he immediately wants to buy, he'll let the cash pile up, but it's not like Berkshire is just sitting there waiting for a crash. It's pretty much fully invested.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
22,980
Reaction score
4,518
I mean, Buffett doesn't "sit on a huge pile of cash".
Except that he actually is. He's sitting on a huge pile of cash right now: US$99.7 in BRK's latest earnings report.

Buffett's cash is 15% of total assets. You know the last time his cash hoard was higher? The end of 2007, when it was 16.2%.

Buffett certainly does sit on huge piles of cash...and then deploys that cash when there's something like a global financial crisis with (perhaps) once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunities. :D
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,194
Reaction score
2,635
Except that he actually is. He's sitting on a huge pile of cash right now: US$99.7 in BRK's latest earnings report.

Buffett's cash is 15% of total assets. You know the last time his cash hoard was higher? The end of 2007, when it was 16.2%.

Buffett certainly does sit on huge piles of cash...and then deploys that cash when there's something like a global financial crisis with (perhaps) once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunities. :D
As a percentage 16.2% is definitely not high or may be you can call it high by his standards. But average Joe households out there who invest into markets, I would be surprised if they were invested 85% of their networth. So the statement that buffet doesn't sit in a huge pile of cash, is true

Sent from Xiaomi REDMI NOTE 4 using GAGT
 

Dyhalt

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
2
The best investors sit on plenty of cash...

But they also sit on truckloads of equity, real estate, antiques, jewels, bonds, gold..... to be honest I've never seen any UHNWI holding only a single asset class, and I'm pretty sure I've met a couple of them.
 

unhinged_loon

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
813
Reaction score
2
Except that he actually is. He's sitting on a huge pile of cash right now: US$99.7 in BRK's latest earnings report.

Buffett's cash is 15% of total assets. You know the last time his cash hoard was higher? The end of 2007, when it was 16.2%.

Buffett certainly does sit on huge piles of cash...and then deploys that cash when there's something like a global financial crisis with (perhaps) once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunities. :D

To reiterate: 15% cash is not high. The reverse side is that he is 85% vested. That's... highly vested?
 

zuoom

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Messages
36,795
Reaction score
979
Normal for about 15% cash. Makes a lot of sense.
 

Purplestars

Master Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,912
Reaction score
479
I mean, Buffett doesn't "sit on a huge pile of cash". He spent an absolute truckload of money to buy Kraft and Heinz in 2013 and 2015, and offered $140 billion for Unilever in early 2017; that's not "sitting on cash".

Buffet's modus operandi is to buy companies that throw off tons of cash, and then reinvest that cash into buying more companies. If he doesn't see anything he immediately wants to buy, he'll let the cash pile up, but it's not like Berkshire is just sitting there waiting for a crash. It's pretty much fully invested.

So is he sitting on a huge pile of cash or is the 100 billion invested?

Very unclear. Offering 140 billion but not paying up market value just shows the market is too overpriced right now that even Buffett is unwilling to pay up.
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,194
Reaction score
2,635
Buffet is a big fish. He doesn't buy like we buy. He has access to the management and board of the companies and he strikes deal with them directly and doesn't buy in the open market. Then mere mortals like us buy after he has already bought and send the stock 10-20% higher.

Sent from Xiaomi REDMI NOTE 4 using GAGT
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,548
Reaction score
759
Except that he actually is. He's sitting on a huge pile of cash right now: US$99.7 in BRK's latest earnings report.

Buffett's cash is 15% of total assets. You know the last time his cash hoard was higher? The end of 2007, when it was 16.2%.

Buffett certainly does sit on huge piles of cash...and then deploys that cash when there's something like a global financial crisis with (perhaps) once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunities. :D

Fair point - you got me there. Should we say “by Uncle Wozza’s standards he’s sitting on a big pile of cash”?
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,548
Reaction score
759
Very unclear. Offering 140 billion but not paying up market value just shows the market is too overpriced right now that even Buffett is unwilling to pay up.

Oh, he was willing to pay up - at the time he made the bid, it was nearly a 20% premium to where Unilever was trading. The reason it didn't go through was that Unilever didn't want to sell, and hostile takeovers aren't usually the way Berkshire plays ball.
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,194
Reaction score
2,635
Again on such a big day(FOMC) hardly any movement in stocks. But look at FX! Such a huge move. How can investors be caught so much on the wrong foot when FED has been spoon feeding people about what it is doing. Yet equity markets show that investors have everything covered. Markets are seriously broken

Sent from Xiaomi REDMI NOTE 4 using GAGT
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top