Intelligent Investor

Inflation, and the fight against it, has been very much in the
public’s mind in recent years. The shrinkage in the purchasing
power of the dollar in the past, and particularly the fear (or hope
by speculators) of a serious further decline in the future, has
greatly influenced the thinking of Wall Street. It is clear that those
with a fixed dollar income will suffer when the cost of living
advances, and the same applies to a fixed amount of dollar principal.
Holders of stocks, on the other hand, have the possibility that a
loss of the dollar’s purchasing power may be offset by advances in
their dividends and the prices of their shares.

On the basis of these undeniable facts many financial authorities
have concluded that (1) bonds are an inherently undesirable form
of investment, and (2) consequently, common stocks are by their
very nature more desirable investments than bonds. We have
heard of charitable institutions being advised that their portfolios
should consist 100% of stocks and zero percent of bonds.* This is
quite a reversal from the earlier days when trust investments were
restricted by law to high-grade bonds (and a few choice preferred
stocks).

Our readers must have enough intelligence to recognize that
even high-quality stocks cannot be a better purchase than bonds
under all conditions—i.e., regardless of how high the stock market
may be and how low the current dividend return compared with
the rates available on bonds. A statement of this kind would be as
absurd as was the contrary one—too often heard years ago—that
any bond is safer than any stock. In this chapter we shall try to
apply various measurements to the inflation factor, in order to
reach some conclusions as to the extent to which the investor may
wisely be influenced by expectations regarding future rises in the
price level.

In this matter, as in so many others in finance, we must base our
views of future policy on a knowledge of past experience. Is inflation
something new for this country, at least in the serious form it
has taken since 1965? If we have seen comparable (or worse) inflations
in living experience, what lessons can be learned from them
in confronting the inflation of today? Let us start with Table 2-1, a
condensed historical tabulation that contains much information
about changes in the general price level and concomitant changes
in the earnings and market value of common stocks. Our figures
will begin with 1915, and thus cover 55 years, presented at fiveyear
intervals. (We use 1946 instead of 1945 to avoid the last year of
wartime price controls.)

The first thing we notice is that we have had inflation in the
past—lots of it. The largest five-year dose was between 1915 and
1920, when the cost of living nearly doubled. This compares with
the advance of 15% between 1965 and 1970. In between, we have
had three periods of declining prices and then six of advances at
varying rates, some rather small. On this showing, the investor
should clearly allow for the probability of continuing or recurrent
inflation to come.

Can we tell what the rate of inflation is likely to be? No clear
answer is suggested by our table; it shows variations of all sorts. It
would seem sensible, however, to take our cue from the rather consistent
record of the past 20 years. The average annual rise in the
consumer price level for this period has been 2.5%; that for
1965–1970 was 4.5%; that for 1970 alone was 5.4%. Official govern-
ment policy has been strongly against large-scale inflation, and
there are some reasons to believe that Federal policies will be more
effective in the future than in recent years.* We think it would be
reasonable for an investor at this point to base his thinking and
decisions on a probable (far from certain) rate of future inflation of,
say, 3% per annum. (This would compare with an annual rate of
about 21⁄2% for the entire period 1915–1970.)1
What would be the implications of such an advance? It would
eat up, in higher living costs, about one-half the income now
obtainable on good medium-term tax-free bonds (or our assumed
after-tax equivalent from high-grade corporate bonds). This would
be a serious shrinkage, but it should not be exaggerated. It would
not mean that the true value, or the purchasing power, of the
investor’s fortune need be reduced over the years. If he spent half
his interest income after taxes he would maintain this buying
power intact, even against a 3% annual inflation.
But the next question, naturally, is, “Can the investor be reasonably
sure of doing better by buying and holding other things than
high-grade bonds, even at the unprecedented rate of return offered
in 1970–1971?” Would not, for example, an all-stock program be
preferable to a part-bond, part-stock program? Do not common
stocks have a built-in protection against inflation, and are they not
almost certain to give a better return over the years than will
bonds? Have not in fact stocks treated the investor far better than
have bonds over the 55-year period of our study?
The answer to these questions is somewhat complicated. Common
stocks have indeed done better than bonds over a long period
of time in the past. The rise of the DJIA from an average of 77 in
1915 to an average of 753 in 1970 works out at an annual compounded
rate of just about 4%, to which we may add another 4%
for average dividend return. (The corresponding figures for the
S & P composite are about the same.) These combined figures of 8%
per year are of course much better than the return enjoyed from
bonds over the same 55-year period. But they do not exceed that
now offered by high-grade bonds. This brings us to the next logical
question: Is there a persuasive reason to believe that common
stocks are likely to do much better in future years than they have in
the last five and one-half decades?
Our answer to this crucial question must be a flat no. Common
stocks may do better in the future than in the past, but they are far
from certain to do so. We must deal here with two different time
elements in investment results. The first covers what is likely to
occur over the long-term future—say, the next 25 years. The second
applies to what is likely to happen to the investor—both financially
and psychologically—over short or intermediate periods, say five
years or less. His frame of mind, his hopes and apprehensions, his
satisfaction or discontent with what he has done, above all his decisions
what to do next, are all determined not in the retrospect of
a lifetime of investment but rather by his experience from year
to year.

On this point we can be categorical. There is no close time connection
between inflationary (or deflationary) conditions and the
movement of common-stock earnings and prices. The obvious
example is the recent period, 1966–1970. The rise in the cost of living
was 22%, the largest in a five-year period since 1946–1950. But
both stock earnings and stock prices as a whole have declined since
1965. There are similar contradictions in both directions in the
record of previous five-year periods.

Inflation and Corporate Earnings
Another and highly important approach to the subject is by a
study of the earnings rate on capital shown by American business.
This has fluctuated, of course, with the general rate of economic
activity, but it has shown no general tendency to advance with
wholesale prices or the cost of living. Actually this rate has fallen
rather markedly in the past twenty years in spite of the inflation of
the period. (To some degree the decline was due to the charging of
more liberal depreciation rates. See Table 2-2.) Our extended studies
have led to the conclusion that the investor cannot count on
much above the recent five-year rate earned on the DJIA group—
The Investor and Inflation 51
about 10% on net tangible assets (book value) behind the shares.2
Since the market value of these issues is well above their book
value—say, 900 market vs. 560 book in mid-1971—the earnings on
current market price work out only at some 61⁄4%. (This relationship
is generally expressed in the reverse, or “times earnings,”
manner—e.g., that the DJIA price of 900 equals 18 times the actual
earnings for the 12 months ended June 1971.)

Our figures gear in directly with the suggestion in the previous
chapter* that the investor may assume an average dividend return
of about 3.5% on the market value of his stocks, plus an appreciation
of, say, 4% annually resulting from reinvested profits. (Note
that each dollar added to book value is here assumed to increase
the market price by about $1.60.)
The reader will object that in the end our calculations make no
allowance for an increase in common-stock earnings and values to
result from our projected 3% annual inflation. Our justification is
the absence of any sign that the inflation of a comparable amount
in the past has had any direct effect on reported per-share earnings.
The cold figures demonstrate that all the large gain in the earnings
of the DJIA unit in the past 20 years was due to a proportionately
large growth of invested capital coming from reinvested profits. If
inflation had operated as a separate favorable factor, its effect
would have been to increase the “value” of previously existing
capital; this in turn should increase the rate of earnings on such old
capital and therefore on the old and new capital combined. But
nothing of the kind actually happened in the past 20 years, during
which the wholesale price level has advanced nearly 40%. (Business
earnings should be influenced more by wholesale prices than
by “consumer prices.”) The only way that inflation can add to
common stock values is by raising the rate of earnings on capital
investment. On the basis of the past record this has not been
the case.

In the economic cycles of the past, good business was accompanied
by a rising price level and poor business by falling prices. It
was generally felt that “a little inflation” was helpful to business
profits. This view is not contradicted by the history of 1950–1970,
52 The Intelligent Investor
* See p. 25.
which reveals a combination of generally continued prosperity and
generally rising prices. But the figures indicate that the effect of all
this on the earning power of common-stock capital (“equity capital”)
has been quite limited; in fact it has not even served to maintain the
rate of earnings on the investment. Clearly there have been important
offsetting influences which have prevented any increase in the
real profitability of American corporations as a whole. Perhaps the
most important of these have been (1) a rise in wage rates exceeding
the gains in productivity, and (2) the need for huge amounts
of new capital, thus holding down the ratio of sales to capital
employed.

Our figures in Table 2-2 indicate that so far from inflation having
benefited our corporations and their shareholders, its effect has
been quite the opposite. The most striking figures in our table are
those for the growth of corporate debt between 1950 and 1969. It is
surprising how little attention has been paid by economists and by
Wall Street to this development. The debt of corporations has
expanded nearly fivefold while their profits before taxes a little
more than doubled. With the great rise in interest rates during this
period, it is evident that the aggregate corporate debt is now an
The Investor and Inflation
adverse economic factor of some magnitude and a real problem for
many individual enterprises. (Note that in 1950 net earnings after
interest but before income tax were about 30% of corporate debt,
while in 1969 they were only 13.2% of debt. The 1970 ratio must
have been even less satisfactory.) In sum it appears that a significant
part of the 11% being earned on corporate equities as a whole
is accomplished by the use of a large amount of new debt costing
4% or less after tax credit. If our corporations had maintained the
debt ratio of 1950, their earnings rate on stock capital would have
fallen still lower, in spite of the inflation.

The stock market has considered that the public-utility enterprises
have been a chief victim of inflation, being caught between a
great advance in the cost of borrowed money and the difficulty of
raising the rates charged under the regulatory process. But this
may be the place to remark that the very fact that the unit costs of
electricity, gas, and telephone services have advanced so much less
than the general price index puts these companies in a strong
strategic position for the future.3 They are entitled by law to charge
rates sufficient for an adequate return on their invested capital, and
this will probably protect their shareholders in the future as it has
in the inflations of the past.

All of the above brings us back to our conclusion that the
investor has no sound basis for expecting more than an average
overall return of, say, 8% on a portfolio of DJIA-type common
stocks purchased at the late 1971 price level. But even if these
expectations should prove to be understated by a substantial
amount, the case would not be made for an all-stock investment
program. If there is one thing guaranteed for the future, it is that
the earnings and average annual market value of a stock portfolio
will not grow at the uniform rate of 4%, or any other figure. In the
memorable words of the elder J. P. Morgan, “They will fluctuate.”*
This means, first, that the common-stock buyer at today’s prices—
54 The Intelligent Investor
* John Pierpont Morgan was the most powerful financier of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. Because of his vast influence, he was
constantly asked what the stock market would do next. Morgan developed a
mercifully short and unfailingly accurate answer: “It will fluctuate.” See Jean
Strouse, Morgan: American Financier (Random House, 1999), p. 11.
or tomorrow’s—will be running a real risk of having unsatisfactory
results therefrom over a period of years. It took 25 years for General
Electric (and the DJIA itself) to recover the ground lost in the
1929–1932 debacle. Besides that, if the investor concentrates his
portfolio on common stocks he is very likely to be led astray either
by exhilarating advances or by distressing declines. This is particularly
true if his reasoning is geared closely to expectations of further
inflation. For then, if another bull market comes along, he will
take the big rise not as a danger signal of an inevitable fall, not as a
chance to cash in on his handsome profits, but rather as a vindication
of the inflation hypothesis and as a reason to keep on buying
common stocks no matter how high the market level nor how low
the dividend return. That way lies sorrow.

Alternatives to Common Stocks as Inflation Hedges
The standard policy of people all over the world who mistrust
their currency has been to buy and hold gold. This has been against
the law for American citizens since 1935—luckily for them. In the
past 35 years the price of gold in the open market has advanced
from $35 per ounce to $48 in early 1972—a rise of only 35%. But
during all this time the holder of gold has received no income
return on his capital, and instead has incurred some annual
expense for storage. Obviously, he would have done much better
with his money at interest in a savings bank, in spite of the rise in
the general price level.
The near-complete failure of gold to protect against a loss in the
purchasing power of the dollar must cast grave doubt on the ability
of the ordinary investor to protect himself against inflation by
putting his money in “things.”* Quite a few categories of valuable
The Investor and Inflation 55
* The investment philosopher Peter L. Bernstein feels that Graham was
“dead wrong” about precious metals, particularly gold, which (at least in the
years after Graham wrote this chapter) has shown a robust ability to outpace
inflation. Financial adviser William Bernstein agrees, pointing out that a
tiny allocation to a precious-metals fund (say, 2% of your total assets) is too
small to hurt your overall returns when gold does poorly. But, when gold
does well, its returns are often so spectacular—sometimes exceeding 100%
objects have had striking advances in market value over the
years—such as diamonds, paintings by masters, first editions of
books, rare stamps and coins, etc. But in many, perhaps most, of
these cases there seems to be an element of the artificial or the precarious
or even the unreal about the quoted prices. Somehow it is
hard to think of paying $67,500 for a U.S. silver dollar dated 1804
(but not even minted that year) as an “investment operation.”4 We
acknowledge we are out of our depth in this area. Very few of our
readers will find the swimming safe and easy there.
The outright ownership of real estate has long been considered
as a sound long-term investment, carrying with it a goodly amount
of protection against inflation. Unfortunately, real-estate values are
also subject to wide fluctuations; serious errors can be made in
location, price paid, etc.; there are pitfalls in salesmen’s wiles.
Finally, diversification is not practical for the investor of moderate
means, except by various types of participations with others and
with the special hazards that attach to new flotations—not too different
from common-stock ownership. This too is not our field. All
we should say to the investor is, “Be sure it’s yours before you go
into it.”
Conclusion
Naturally, we return to the policy recommended in our previous
chapter. Just because of the uncertainties of the future the investor
cannot afford to put all his funds into one basket—neither in the
bond basket, despite the unprecedentedly high returns that bonds
have recently offered; nor in the stock basket, despite the prospect
of continuing inflation.
The more the investor depends on his portfolio and the income
therefrom, the more necessary it is for him to guard against the
56 The Intelligent Investor
in a year—that it can, all by itself, set an otherwise lackluster portfolio glittering.
However, the intelligent investor avoids investing in gold directly, with its
high storage and insurance costs; instead, seek out a well-diversified mutual
fund specializing in the stocks of precious-metal companies and charging
below 1% in annual expenses. Limit your stake to 2% of your total financial
assets (or perhaps 5% if you are over the age of 65).
unexpected and the disconcerting in this part of his life. It is
axiomatic that the conservative investor should seek to minimize
his risks. We think strongly that the risks involved in buying, say, a
telephone-company bond at yields of nearly 71⁄2% are much less
than those involved in buying the DJIA at 900 (or any stock list
equivalent thereto). But the possibility of large-scale inflation
remains, and the investor must carry some insurance against it.
There is no certainty that a stock component will insure adequately
against such inflation, but it should carry more protection than the
bond component.

This is what we said on the subject in our 1965 edition (p. 97),
and we would write the same today:
It must be evident to the reader that we have no enthusiasm for
common stocks at these levels (892 for the DJIA). For reasons
already given we feel that the defensive investor cannot afford to
be without an appreciable proportion of common stocks in his
portfolio, even if we regard them as the lesser of two evils—the
greater being the risks in an all-bond holding.