Intelligent Investor

The basic characteristics of an investment portfolio are usually
determined by the position and characteristics of the owner or
owners. At one extreme we have had savings banks, life-insurance
companies, and so-called legal trust funds. A generation ago their
investments were limited by law in many states to high-grade
bonds and, in some cases, high-grade preferred stocks. At the other
extreme we have the well-to-do and experienced businessman,
who will include any kind of bond or stock in his security list provided
he considers it an attractive purchase.

It has been an old and sound principle that those who cannot
afford to take risks should be content with a relatively low return
on their invested funds. From this there has developed the general
notion that the rate of return which the investor should aim for is
more or less proportionate to the degree of risk he is ready to run.
Our view is different. The rate of return sought should be dependent,
rather, on the amount of intelligent effort the investor is willing
and able to bring to bear on his task. The minimum return goes
to our passive investor, who wants both safety and freedom from
concern. The maximum return would be realized by the alert and
enterprising investor who exercises maximum intelligence and
skill. In 1965 we added: “In many cases there may be less real risk
associated with buying a ‘bargain issue’ offering the chance of a
large profit than with a conventional bond purchase yielding about
41⁄2%.” This statement had more truth in it than we ourselves suspected,
since in subsequent years even the best long-term bonds
lost a substantial part of their market value because of the rise in
interest rates.

The Basic Problem of Bond-Stock Allocation
We have already outlined in briefest form the portfolio policy of
the defensive investor.* He should divide his funds between highgrade
bonds and high-grade common stocks.

We have suggested as a fundamental guiding rule that the
investor should never have less than 25% or more than 75% of his
funds in common stocks, with a consequent inverse range of
between 75% and 25% in bonds. There is an implication here that
the standard division should be an equal one, or 50–50, between
the two major investment mediums. According to tradition the
sound reason for increasing the percentage in common stocks
would be the appearance of the “bargain price” levels created in a
protracted bear market. Conversely, sound procedure would call
for reducing the common-stock component below 50% when in
the judgment of the investor the market level has become dangerously
high.

These copybook maxims have always been easy to enunciate
and always difficult to follow—because they go against that very
human nature which produces that excesses of bull and bear markets.
It is almost a contradiction in terms to suggest as a feasible
policy for the average stockowner that he lighten his holdings when
the market advances beyond a certain point and add to them after
a corresponding decline. It is because the average man operates,
and apparently must operate, in opposite fashion that we have had
the great advances and collapses of the past; and—this writer
believes—we are likely to have them in the future.

If the division between investment and speculative operations
were as clear now as once it was, we might be able to envisage
investors as a shrewd, experienced group who sell out to the heedless,
hapless speculators at high prices and buy back from them at
depressed levels. This picture may have had some verisimilitude in
bygone days, but it is hard to identify it with financial developments
since 1949. There is no indication that such professional
operations as those of the mutual funds have been conducted in
this fashion. The percentage of the portfolio held in equities by the
General Portfolio Policy 89

two major types of funds—“balanced” and “common-stock”—has
changed very little from year to year. Their selling activities have
been largely related to endeavors to switch from less to more
promising holdings.

If, as we have long believed, the stock market has lost contact
with its old bounds, and if new ones have not yet been established,
then we can give the investor no reliable rules by which to reduce
his common-stock holdings toward the 25% minimum and rebuild
them later to the 75% maximum. We can urge that in general the
investor should not have more than one-half in equities unless he
has strong confidence in the soundness of his stock position and is
sure that he could view a market decline of the 1969–70 type with
equanimity. It is hard for us to see how such strong confidence can
be justified at the levels existing in early 1972. Thus we would
counsel against a greater than 50% apportionment to common
stocks at this time. But, for complementary reasons, it is almost
equally difficult to advise a reduction of the figure well below 50%,
unless the investor is disquieted in his own mind about the current
market level, and will be satisfied also to limit his participation in
any further rise to, say, 25% of his total funds.

We are thus led to put forward for most of our readers what may
appear to be an oversimplified 50–50 formula. Under this plan the
guiding rule is to maintain as nearly as practicable an equal division
between bond and stock holdings. When changes in the market
level have raised the common-stock component to, say, 55%,
the balance would be restored by a sale of one-eleventh of the stock
portfolio and the transfer of the proceeds to bonds. Conversely, a
fall in the common-stock proportion to 45% would call for the use
of one-eleventh of the bond fund to buy additional equities.
Yale University followed a somewhat similar plan for a number
of years after 1937, but it was geared around a 35% “normal holding”
in common stocks. In the early 1950s, however, Yale seems to
have given up its once famous formula, and in 1969 held 61% of its
portfolio in equities (including some convertibles). (At that time
the endowment funds of 71 such institutions, totaling $7.6 billion,
held 60.3% in common stocks.) The Yale example illustrates the
almost lethal effect of the great market advance upon the once popular
formula approach to investment. Nonetheless we are convinced
that our 50–50 version of this approach makes good sense for the
90 The Intelligent Investor
defensive investor. It is extremely simple; it aims unquestionably in
the right direction; it gives the follower the feeling that he is at least
making some moves in response to market developments; most
important of all, it will restrain him from being drawn more and
more heavily into common stocks as the market rises to more and
more dangerous heights.

Furthermore, a truly conservative investor will be satisfied with
the gains shown on half his portfolio in a rising market, while in a
severe decline he may derive much solace from reflecting how
much better off he is than many of his more venturesome friends.
While our proposed 50–50 division is undoubtedly the simplest
“all-purpose program” devisable, it may not turn out to be the best
in terms of results achieved. (Of course, no approach, mechanical
or otherwise, can be advanced with any assurance that it will work
out better than another.) The much larger income return now
offered by good bonds than by representative stocks is a potent
argument for favoring the bond component. The investor’s choice
between 50% or a lower figure in stocks may well rest mainly on
his own temperament and attitude. If he can act as a cold-blooded
weigher of the odds, he would be likely to favor the low 25% stock
component at this time, with the idea of waiting until the DJIA dividend
yield was, say, two-thirds of the bond yield before he would
establish his median 50–50 division between bonds and stocks.
Starting from 900 for the DJIA and dividends of $36 on the unit,
this would require either a fall in taxable bond yields from 71⁄2% to
about 5.5% without any change in the present return on leading
stocks, or a fall in the DJIA to as low as 660 if there is no reduction
in bond yields and no increase in dividends. A combination of
intermediate changes could produce the same “buying point.” A
program of that kind is not especially complicated; the hard part is
to adopt it and to stick to it not to mention the possibility that it
may turn out to have been much too conservative.

The Bond Component
The choice of issues in the bond component of the investor’s
portfolio will turn about two main questions: Should he buy taxable
or tax-free bonds, and should he buy shorter- or longer-term
maturities? The tax decision should be mainly a matter of arith-
General Portfolio Policy 91
metic, turning on the difference in yields as compared with the
investor’s tax bracket. In January 1972 the choice in 20-year maturities
was between obtaining, say, 71⁄2% on “grade Aa” corporate
bonds and 5.3% on prime tax-free issues. (The term “municipals” is
generally applied to all species of tax-exempt bonds, including
state obligations.) There was thus for this maturity a loss in income
of some 30% in passing from the corporate to the municipal field.
Hence if the investor was in a maximum tax bracket higher than
30% he would have a net saving after taxes by choosing the municipal
bonds; the opposite, if his maximum tax was less than 30%. A
single person starts paying a 30% rate when his income after
deductions passes $10,000; for a married couple the rate applies
when combined taxable income passes $20,000. It is evident that a
large proportion of individual investors would obtain a higher
return after taxes from good municipals than from good corporate
bonds.

The choice of longer versus shorter maturities involves quite a
different question, viz.: Does the investor want to assure himself
against a decline in the price of his bonds, but at the cost of (1) a
lower annual yield and (2) loss of the possibility of an appreciable
gain in principal value? We think it best to discuss this question in
Chapter 8, The Investor and Market Fluctuations.
For a period of many years in the past the only sensible bond
purchases for individuals were the U.S. savings issues. Their safety
was—and is—unquestioned; they gave a higher return than other
bond investments of first quality; they had a money-back option
and other privileges which added greatly to their attractiveness. In
our earlier editions we had an entire chapter entitled “U.S. Savings
Bonds: A Boon to Investors.”
As we shall point out, U.S. savings bonds still possess certain
unique merits that make them a suitable purchase by any individual
investor. For the man of modest capital—with, say, not more
than $10,000 to put into bonds—we think they are still the easiest
and the best choice. But those with larger funds may find other
mediums more desirable.
Let us list a few major types of bonds that deserve investor consideration,
and discuss them briefly with respect to general
description, safety, yield, market price, risk, income-tax status, and
other features.
92 The Intelligent Investor
1. u.s. savings bonds, series e and series h. We shall first summarize
their important provisions, and then discuss briefly the
numerous advantages of these unique, attractive, and exceedingly
convenient investments. The Series H bonds pay interest semiannually,
as do other bonds. The rate is 4.29% for the first year, and
then a flat 5.10% for the next nine years to maturity. Interest on the
Series E bonds is not paid out, but accrues to the holder through
increase in redemption value. The bonds are sold at 75% of their
face value, and mature at 100% in 5 years 10 months after purchase.
If held to maturity the yield works out at 5%, compounded semiannually.
If redeemed earlier, the yield moves up from a minimum
of 4.01% in the first year to an average of 5.20% in the next 45⁄6 years.
Interest on the bonds is subject to Federal income tax, but is
exempt from state income tax. However, Federal income tax on the
Series E bonds may be paid at the holder’s option either annually
as the interest accrues (through higher redemption value), or not
until the bond is actually disposed of.
Owners of Series E bonds may cash them in at any time (shortly
after purchase) at their current redemption value. Holders of Series
H bonds have similar rights to cash them in at par value (cost).
Series E bonds are exchangeable for Series H bonds, with certain
tax advantages. Bonds lost, destroyed, or stolen may be replaced
without cost. There are limitations on annual purchases, but liberal
provisions for co-ownership by family members make it possible
for most investors to buy as many as they can afford. Comment:
There is no other investment that combines (1) absolute assurance
of principal and interest payments, (2) the right to demand full
“money back” at any time, and (3) guarantee of at least a 5% interest
rate for at least ten years. Holders of the earlier issues of Series
E bonds have had the right to extend their bonds at maturity, and
thus to continue to accumulate annual values at successively
higher rates. The deferral of income-tax payments over these long
periods has been of great dollar advantage; we calculate it has
increased the effective net-after-tax rate received by as much as a
third in typical cases. Conversely, the right to cash in the bonds at
cost price or better has given the purchasers in former years of low
interest rates complete protection against the shrinkage in principal
value that befell many bond investors; otherwise stated, it gave
them the possibility of benefiting from the rise in interest rates by
General Portfolio Policy 93
switching their low-interest holdings into very-high-coupon issues
on an even-money basis.
In our view the special advantages enjoyed by owners of savings
bonds now will more than compensate for their lower current
return as compared with other direct government obligations.
2. other united states bonds.Aprofusion of these issues exists,
covering a wide variety of coupon rates and maturity dates. All of
them are completely safe with respect to payment of interest and
principal. They are subject to Federal income taxes but free from
state income tax. In late 1971 the long-term issues—over ten years—
showed an average yield of 6.09%, intermediate issues (three to five
years) returned 6.35%, and short issues returned 6.03%.
In 1970 it was possible to buy a number of old issues at large discounts.
Some of these are accepted at par in settlement of estate
taxes. Example: The U.S. Treasury 31⁄2s due 1990 are in this category;
they sold at 60 in 1970, but closed 1970 above 77.
It is interesting to note also that in many cases the indirect obligations
of the U.S. government yield appreciably more than its
direct obligations of the same maturity. As we write, an offering
appears of 7.05% of “Certificates Fully Guaranteed by the Secretary
of Transportation of the Department of Transportation of the
United States.” The yield was fully 1% more than that on direct
obligations of the U.S., maturing the same year (1986). The certificates
were actually issued in the name of the Trustees of the Penn
Central Transportation Co., but they were sold on the basis of a
statement by the U.S. Attorney General that the guarantee “brings
into being a general obligation of the United States, backed by its
full faith and credit.” Quite a number of indirect obligations of this
sort have been assumed by the U.S. government in the past, and all
of them have been scrupulously honored.
The reader may wonder why all this hocus-pocus, involving an
apparently “personal guarantee” by our Secretary of Transportation,
and a higher cost to the taxpayer in the end. The chief reason
for the indirection has been the debt limit imposed on government
borrowing by the Congress. Apparently guarantees by the
government are not regarded as debts—a semantic windfall for
shrewder investors. Perhaps the chief impact of this situation has
been the creation of tax-free Housing Authority bonds, enjoying
94 The Intelligent Investor
the equivalent of a U.S. guarantee, and virtually the only taxexempt
issues that are equivalent to government bonds. Another
type of government-backed issues is the recently created New
Community Debentures, offered to yield 7.60% in September 1971.
3. state and municipal bonds. These enjoy exemption from
Federal income tax. They are also ordinarily free of income tax in
the state of issue but not elsewhere. They are either direct obligations
of a state or subdivision, or “revenue bonds” dependent for
interest payments on receipts from a toll road, bridge, building
lease, etc. Not all tax-free bonds are strongly enough protected to
justify their purchase by a defensive investor. He may be guided in
his selection by the rating given to each issue by Moody’s or Standard
& Poor’s. One of three highest ratings by both services—Aaa
(AAA), Aa (AA), or A—should constitute a sufficient indication of
adequate safety. The yield on these bonds will vary both with the
quality and the maturity, with the shorter maturities giving the
lower return. In late 1971 the issues represented in Standard &
Poor’s municipal bond index averaged AA in quality rating, 20
years in maturity, and 5.78% in yield. A typical offering of
Vineland, N.J., bonds, rated AA for A and gave a yield of only 3%
on the one-year maturity, rising to 5.8% to the 1995 and 1996 maturities.

4. corporation bonds. These bonds are subject to both Federal
and state tax. In early 1972 those of highest quality yielded 7.19%
for a 25-year maturity, as reflected in the published yield of
Moody’s Aaa corporate bond index. The so-called lower-mediumgrade
issues—rated Baa—returned 8.23% for long maturities. In
each class shorter-term issues would yield somewhat less than
longer-term obligations.

Comment. The above summaries indicate that the average
investor has several choices among high-grade bonds. Those in
high income-tax brackets can undoubtedly obtain a better net yield
from good tax-free issues than from taxable ones. For others the
early 1972 range of taxable yield would seem to be from 5.00% on
U.S. savings bonds, with their special options, to about 71⁄2% on
high-grade corporate issues.
General Portfolio Policy 95
Higher-Yielding Bond Investments
By sacrificing quality an investor can obtain a higher income
return from his bonds. Long experience has demonstrated that the
ordinary investor is wiser to keep away from such high-yield
bonds. While, taken as a whole, they may work out somewhat better
in terms of overall return than the first-quality issues, they
expose the owner to too many individual risks of untoward developments,
ranging from disquieting price declines to actual default.
(It is true that bargain opportunities occur fairly often in lowergrade
bonds, but these require special study and skill to exploit
successfully.)*

Perhaps we should add here that the limits imposed by Congress
on direct bond issues of the United States have produced at
least two sorts of “bargain opportunities” for investors in the purchase
of government-backed obligations. One is provided by the
tax-exempt “New Housing” issues, and the other by the recently
created (taxable) “New Community debentures.” An offering of
New Housing issues in July 1971 yielded as high as 5.8%, free from
both Federal and state taxes, while an issue of (taxable) New Community
debentures sold in September 1971 yielded 7.60%. Both
obligations have the “full faith and credit” of the United States
government behind them and hence are safe without question.
And—on a net basis—they yield considerably more than ordinary
United States bonds।

96 The Intelligent Investor
* Graham’s objection to high-yield bonds is mitigated today by the widespread
availability of mutual funds that spread the risk and do the research
of owning “junk bonds.” See the commentary on Chapter 6 for more detail.
† The “New Housing” bonds and “New Community debentures” are no
more. New Housing Authority bonds were backed by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and were exempt from income
tax, but they have not been issued since 1974. New Community debentures,
also backed by HUD, were authorized by a Federal law passed in 1968.
About $350 million of these debentures were issued through 1975, but the
program was terminated in 1983.

Savings Deposits in Lieu of Bonds
An investor may now obtain as high an interest rate from a
savings deposit in a commercial or savings bank (or from a bank
certificate of deposit) as he can from a first-grade bond of short
maturity. The interest rate on bank savings accounts may be lowered
in the future, but under present conditions they are a suitable
substitute for short-term bond investment by the individual.
Convertible Issues
These are discussed in Chapter 16. The price variability of bonds
in general is treated in Chapter 8, The Investor and Market Fluctuations.
Call Provisions
In previous editions we had a fairly long discussion of this
aspect of bond financing, because it involved a serious but little
noticed injustice to the investor. In the typical case bonds were
callable fairly soon after issuance, and at modest premiums—say
5%—above the issue price. This meant that during a period of wide
fluctuations in the underlying interest rates the investor had to
bear the full brunt of unfavorable changes and was deprived of all
but a meager participation in favorable ones.
Example: Our standard example has been the issue of American
Gas & Electric 100-year 5% debentures, sold to the public at 101 in
1928. Four years later, under near-panic conditions, the price of
these good bonds fell to 621⁄2, yielding 8%. By 1946, in a great reversal,
bonds of this type could be sold to yield only 3%, and the 5%
issue should have been quoted at close to 160. But at that point the
company took advantage of the call provision and redeemed the
issue at a mere 106.

The call feature in these bond contracts was a thinly disguised
instance of “heads I win, tails you lose.” At long last, the bondbuying
institutions refused to accept this unfair arrangement; in
recent years most long-term high-coupon issues have been protected
against redemption for ten years or more after issuance. This
still limits their possible price rise, but not inequitably.
General Portfolio Policy 97

In practical terms, we advise the investor in long-term issues to
sacrifice a small amount of yield to obtain the assurance of noncallability—
say for 20 or 25 years. Similarly, there is an advantage
in buying a low-coupon bond* at a discount rather than a highcoupon
bond selling at about par and callable in a few years. For
the discount—e.g., of a 31⁄2% bond at 631⁄2%, yielding 7.85%—carries
full protection against adverse call action.

Straight—i.e., Nonconvertible—Preferred Stocks
Certain general observations should be made here on the subject
of preferred stocks. Really good preferred stocks can and do exist,
but they are good in spite of their investment form, which is an
inherently bad one. The typical preferred shareholder is dependent
for his safety on the ability and desire of the company to pay dividends
on its common stock. Once the common dividends are omitted,
or even in danger, his own position becomes precarious, for
the directors are under no obligation to continue paying him unless
they also pay on the common. On the other hand, the typical preferred
stock carries no share in the company’s profits beyond the
fixed dividend rate. Thus the preferred holder lacks both the legal
claim of the bondholder (or creditor) and the profit possibilities of
a common shareholder (or partner).

These weaknesses in the legal position of preferred stocks tend
to come to the fore recurrently in periods of depression. Only a
small percentage of all preferred issues are so strongly entrenched
as to maintain an unquestioned investment status through all vicissitudes.
Experience teaches that the time to buy preferred stocks is
when their price is unduly depressed by temporary adversity. (At
such times they may be well suited to the aggressive investor but
too unconventional for the defensive investor.)

In other words, they should be bought on a bargain basis or not
at all. We shall refer later to convertible and similarly privileged
issues, which carry some special possibilities of profits. These are
not ordinarily selected for a conservative portfolio.
Another peculiarity in the general position of preferred stocks
98 The Intelligent Investor
* A bond’s “coupon” is its interest rate; a “low-coupon” bond pays a rate of
interest income below the market average.
deserves mention. They have a much better tax status for corporation
buyers than for individual investors. Corporations pay income
tax on only 15% of the income they receive in dividends, but on the
full amount of their ordinary interest income. Since the 1972 corporate
rate is 48%, this means that $100 received as preferred-stock
dividends is taxed only $7.20, whereas $100 received as bond interest
is taxed $48. On the other hand, individual investors pay
exactly the same tax on preferred-stock investments as on bond
interest, except for a recent minor exemption. Thus, in strict logic,
all investment-grade preferred stocks should be bought by corporations,
just as all tax-exempt bonds should be bought by investors
who pay income tax.*

Security Forms
The bond form and the preferred-stock form, as hitherto discussed,
are well-understood and relatively simple matters. Abondholder
is entitled to receive fixed interest and payment of principal
on a definite date. The owner of a preferred stock is entitled to a
fixed dividend, and no more, which must be paid before any common
dividend. His principal value does not come due on any specified
date. (The dividend may be cumulative or noncumulative. He
may or may not have a vote.)

The above describes the standard provisions and, no doubt, the
majority of bond and preferred issues, but there are innumerable
departures from these forms. The best-known types are convertible
and similar issues, and income bonds. In the latter type, interest
does not have to be paid unless it is earned by the company.
(Unpaid interest may accumulate as a charge against future earnings,
but the period is often limited to three years.)
Income bonds should be used by corporations much more
General Portfolio Policy ९९

* While Graham’s logic remains valid, the numbers have changed. Corporations
can currently deduct 70% of the income they receive from dividends,
and the standard corporate tax rate is 35%. Thus, a corporation would pay
roughly $24.50 in tax on $100 in dividends from preferred stock versus
$35 in tax on $100 in interest income. Individuals pay the same rate of
income tax on dividend income that they do on interest income, so preferred
stock offers them no tax advantage.

extensively than they are. Their avoidance apparently arises from a
mere accident of economic history—namely, that they were first
employed in quantity in connection with railroad reorganizations,
and hence they have been associated from the start with financial
weakness and poor investment status. But the form itself has several
practical advantages, especially in comparison with and in
substitution for the numerous (convertible) preferred-stock issues
of recent years. Chief of these is the deductibility of the interest
paid from the company’s taxable income, which in effect cuts the
cost of that form of capital in half. From the investor’s standpoint it
is probably best for him in most cases that he should have (1) an
unconditional right to receive interest payments when they are
earned by the company, and (2) a right to other forms of protection
than bankruptcy proceedings if interest is not earned and paid. The
terms of income bonds can be tailored to the advantage of both
the borrower and the lender in the manner best suited to both.
(Conversion privileges can, of course, be included.) The acceptance
by everybody of the inherently weak preferred-stock form and
the rejection of the stronger income-bond form is a fascinating
illustration of the way in which traditional institutions and habits
often tend to persist on Wall Street despite new conditions calling
for a fresh point of view. With every new wave of optimism or
pessimism, we are ready to abandon history and time-tested principles,
but we cling tenaciously and unquestioningly to our prejudices.