2 Responses to “The Ability to Reinvest Capital: The Mark of Investments that Generate Wealth”

Comments

Read below or add a comment...

  1. TMurphy

    Great post. I came across a useful indicator that looks at management’s ability to reinvest capital, I found it in the book “It’s Earnings That Count” by Hewitt Heiserman. Heiseman has a metric he calls ‘Return On Greenest Dollar’, the more money a firm earns on its latest investment in enterprising capital (that is debt, stockholder’s equity, capital equivalents) the better. The ‘green’ in greenest dollar refers to last years investment in the business, rather than total capital.

    To quote Heiserman, “Many erstwhile blue chips get into trouble by investing in low yielding projects in order to maintain the illusion of earnings growth. It’s much harder to fool the return on greenest dollar equation, however. Successive disappointing returns on greenest dollar will eventually pull down a firms total return on capital, which in turn will hurt enterprising profits.”

  2. I like your post, but I feel as though you missed one way in which businesses can make money on their “invested capital”. Typically, when someone with an accounting background hears a “return on invested capital”, they would normally think immediately about investing in fixed assets. This could come from the idea of “investing cash flow” from the cash flow statement, or just the idea that as you invest money in fixed assets, those fixed assets will generate a return. I am assuming those are the types of businesses you are speaking about- those with high returns on their most recent investments in fixed assets (or perhaps their most recent purchase of another business).

    There is another way a business can make money on “invested capital”. Buffett calls it “return on invested capital”, and for the first year or so, I figured he meant “return on most recent investment in fixed assets/their most recent buyout of another company”, but that is not what he means. When he talks about it (i’ve only seen him make this distinction once, in relation to See’s Candy), he means the return on working capital. Working capital is the money required to operate a business, and the more money you need to run a business, the less you have left over for yourself.

    You spoke of companies that “throw off” a lot of cash- those are good examples of companies with high returns on “deployed capital” (what I call it, instead of invested capital). Buffett talked about See’s Candy, and that when he purchased it, it made him $5 MM in operating profits each year off of $8 MM in working capital. He said that as See’s grew, it ended up needing $40 MM in working capital to operate today. He said that See’s only needed to retain $32 MM as the business grew, and they sent the rest of something like $1.3 B in excess cash to Berkshire over the last 40 years.

    For See’s, this $5 MM in op. profits from $8 MM in working capital leads to a 63% “return on deployed capital” (5/8). Li Lu spoke to Columbia students saying that above a 50% return on deployed capital is one thing that can be considered in a great business. It allows for a business to send profits toward paying off debt or using it to reinvest elsewhere. He is the man replacing Buffett if you haven’t heard of him yet.

    This above 50% distinction is the ability for a business to turn a dollar of working capital into 50 cents each year. With enough time to allow that to compound in your favor, you will do quite well. Some businesses generate much higher returns than this (Home Depot is around 300%, Wal-Mart has negative working capital- it requires NO money to operate).

    I just wanted to throw that out there- I hope I am not making myself look like a fool if this is the type of “return on invested capital” that you were talking about.

    I just found your website- I look forward to checking out everything you have on here. I fixed my name- sorry about the confusion.

Leave A Comment...