Over 4.2k subscribers
This post is ultimately going to be about real estate, but bear with me for a minute. In Warren Buffet's 1989 letter to shareholders, he describes something that he refers to as the "cigar butt" approach to investing. This has been talked about a lot since this letter, but the general idea is that if you buy a company cheap enough, it doesn't matter that there may only be "one puff left." Your low cost basis will make that puff all profit.
This has a logic to it, but Buffet goes on, in this same letter, to call this a "bargain-purchase folly." You may think you're getting a good deal and an enviable discount to market, but if the company sucks, you're likely in for a rough ride at some point. This lesson learned is what resulted in his famous adage that it's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.
Now, let's consider something that Howard Marks wrote in the memo that I cited yesterday. He calls it one of his guiding investment principles and goes like this:
"There's no asset so good that it can't be overpriced and thus dangerous, and there are few assets so bad that they can't get cheap enough to be a bargain."
Interesting. I agree with the first piece. It doesn't matter how good an asset may be -- and we can now start to turn our minds to real estate -- there's of course a way to pay too much. But is this second part entirely or at least mostly true? I'm not so sure. It might be a cigar butt.
One of my own rules for real estate is that just because an asset is cheaper than it was before, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're getting a good price. And that's because I have seen "bargain prices" drop even further. In fact, when it comes to real estate, including development land, sometimes the value that you should be willing to pay might even be negative or less than zero.
What this means is that someone would need to pay a rational market participant in order to take on the asset or development project (usually this comes in the form of a subsidy and it means the market isn't functioning on its own).
"Buying below market" and "buying below replacement cost" are commonly sought after features in the real estate industry. And indeed, buying well is critically important. But I do think that it's important to be just as worried about overpaying as you are about buying a shitty asset. Buying too cheap can also be a problem, assuming the market is pricing the asset accurately. It means you probably don't want to own it.
Cover photo by Simone Hutsch on Unsplash
Yes, I've been wondering about how low a lot value can go. We have a tower in NYC that's been leaning 3" for about a decade, and is stuck half-complete while everyone is blaming each other via lawsuits. It's even got its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/161_Maiden_Lane#:~:text=161%20Maiden%20Lane%20%28also%20known%20as%20One%20Seaport%2C,District%20of%20Manhattan%2C%20New%20York%20City%2C%20United%20States. Is the lot value negative now? Should it be sold for $1 plus the promise by a new developer to tear down the rusting half-finished building before building anything new there?