Why You Shouldn’t Invest in a Business That Even a Fool Can Run

A post in a Facebook group called Charlie Munger Fan Club prompted me to write this note on that group. I thought of reproducing it here (with minor changes).

“You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.” Warren Buffett’s famous quote, is often misunderstood. When he spoke those words, I don’t think he meant them strictly. Some investors I know, however, disagree with me. They cite other quotes which reinforces the viewpoint.

Here is the first one, from his 2007 letter:

“A truly great business must have an enduring “moat” that protects excellent returns on invested capital. The dynamics of capitalism guarantee that competitors will repeatedly assault any business “castle” that is earning high returns. Therefore a formidable barrier such as a company’s being the low- cost producer (GEICO, Costco) or possessing a powerful world-wide brand (Coca-Cola, Gillette, American Express) is essential for sustained success. Business history is filled with “Roman Candles,” companies whose moats proved illusory and were soon crossed.

Our criterion of “enduring” causes us to rule out companies in industries prone to rapid and continuous change. Though capitalism’s “creative destruction” is highly beneficial for society, it precludes investment certainty. A moat that must be continuously rebuilt will eventually be no moat at all.

Additionally, this criterion eliminates the business whose success depends on having a great manager. Of course, a terrific CEO is a huge asset for any enterprise, and at Berkshire we have an abundance of these managers. Their abilities have created billions of dollars of value that would never have materialized if typical CEOs had been running their businesses.

But if a business requires a superstar to produce great results, the business itself cannot be deemed great. A medical partnership led by your area’s premier brain surgeon may enjoy outsized and growing earnings, but that tells little about its future. The partnership’s moat will go when the surgeon goes. You can count, though, on the moat of the Mayo Clinic to endure, even though you can’t name its CEO.”

Here is the second one from his 1991 letter:

“An economic franchise arises from a product or service that:(1) is needed or desired; (2) is thought by its customers to have no close substitute and; (3) is not subject to price regulation. The existence of all three conditions will be demonstrated by a company’s ability to regularly price its product or service aggressively and thereby to earn high rates of return on capital. Moreover, franchises can tolerate mis-management. Inept managers may diminish a franchise’s profitability, but they cannot inflict mortal damage.

And here is the third one from his 1980 letter:

“We have written in past reports about the disappointmentsthat usually result from purchase and operation of “turnaround” businesses. Literally hundreds of turnaround possibilities indozens of industries have been described to us over the yearsand, either as participants or as observers, we have trackedperformance against expectations. Our conclusion is that, with few exceptions, when a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”

All of the above thoughts expressed by Mr. Buffett make many of his followers believe that superior management is irrelevant for investment evaluation purposes. And it’s easy to come to that conclusion if you go by what Mr. Buffett has said in the above quotes.

But if you go deeper, you find something else. I did, and here’s what I found.

In his 1990 letter, Mr. Buffett articulated his rationale for investing in Wells Fargo. He wrote:

“The banking business is no favorite of ours. When assets are twenty times equity – a common ratio in this industry – mistakes that involve only a small portion of assets can destroy a major portion of equity. And mistakes have been the rule rather than the exception at many major banks. Most have resulted from a managerial failing that we described last year when discussingthe “institutional imperative:” the tendency of executives to mindlessly imitate the behavior of their peers, no matter how foolish it may be to do so. In their lending, many bankers played follow-the-leader with lemming-like zeal; now they are experiencing a lemming-like fate.

Because leverage of 20:1 magnifies the effects of managerial strengths and weaknesses, we have no interest in purchasing shares of a poorly-managed bank at a “cheap” price. Instead, our only interest is in buying into well-managed banks at fair prices.”

His words “leverage magnifies the effects of managerial strengths and weaknesses” imply that whenever leverage is high, management factor is important.

Take HDFC Bank. Would you like to remain invested in HDFC Bank if it was run by a fool who doesn’t know anything about risk management and would love to learn on the job?

Which other highly leveraged industry has attracted Mr. Buffett’s interest? Well, the answer of course is the insurance industry.

Insurance uses float (other peoples’ money) which is another form of leverage. The role of management becomes terribly important in this business. That’s because its easy for a fool to under-price insurance contracts, the consequences of which will not show up in the P&L for many years.

This even more true in the Super Cat insurance business. That’s because there is little baseline information to be relied on to adequately price insurance contracts.

The same logic applies to derivatives, where leverage magnifies the effects of smart, as well as, dumb behaviour.

Imagine if one day someone like Kenneth Lay replaced Ajit jain to run Berkshire Hathaway’s Reinsurance business and its derivatives book!

Which other business models require you to focus a lot on managerial skills? Well, one that comes to mind would be a good business which operates on wafer-thin margins but still delivers an acceptable return on equity because of high capital turns and/or presence of float.

Take, for example, the case of Mclane, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary which is a distributor of groceries, confections and non-food items to thousands of retail outlets, the largest of them being Wal-Mart.

In his 2003 letter, Mr. Buffett wrote: “McLane has sales of about $23 billion, but operates on paper-thin margins — about 1% pre-tax.” In 2014, McLane earned $435 million on revenues of $47 billion.

In his 2009 letter Mr. Buffett acknowledged the importance of the management factor in Mclane. He wrote:

“Grady Rosier led McLane to record pre-tax earnings of $344 million, which even so amounted to only slightly more than one cent per dollar on its huge sales of $31.2 billion. McLane employs a vast array of physical assets – practically all of which it owns – including 3,242 trailers, 2,309 tractors and 55 distribution centers with 15.2 million square feet of space. McLane’s prime asset, however, is Grady.“

Running a business like McLane profitably is not easy. The wafer thin margin of just about 1% means that a small slippage in costs can quickly turn the business from being profitable to become a loss making one. And when you combine very high capital turns with operating losses, you sprint towards bankruptcy. So you have to be very very efficient to run a business like McLane. A fool cannot run a business like that successfully.

Based on what I wrote above and other stuff I have read on this subject, I do not think Mr. Buffett meant it literally when he said “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.”

If you read between the lines you find that there have been several occasions — and I just cited three)— where without a highly competent manager in place, Mr. Buffett would never have invested in the business.

We should look at the whole picture and carefully observe what Mr. Buffett does, not just what he says. And, to my mind, he has never invested in a business where he felt the incumbent management was foolish. Nor, in my view, would he like any of his businesses to be eventually run by a fool.


Subsequent Developments

While reading through Buffett letters and other material on Charlie Munger, I came across some important passages which deal with the management factor. Indeed, they re-inforce what I wore above. I am reproducing them here.

Source: Warren Buffett’s Letter to BRK Shareholders in 1990 Annual Report

Non-Insurance Operations

Take another look at the figures on page 51, which aggregate the earnings and balance sheets of our non-insurance operations. After-tax earnings on average equity in 1990 were 51%, a result that would have placed the group about 20th on the 1989 Fortune 500.

Two factors make this return even more remarkable. First, leverage did not produce it: Almost all our major facilities are owned, not leased, and such small debt as these operations have is basically offset by cash they hold. In fact, if the measurement was return on assets – a calculation that eliminates the effect of debt upon returns – our group would rank in Fortune’s top ten.

Equally important, our return was not earned from industries, such as cigarettes or network television stations, possessing spectacular economics for all participating in them. Instead it came from a group of businesses operating in such prosaic fields as furniture retailing, candy, vacuum cleaners, and even steel warehousing. The explanation is clear: Our extraordinary returns flow from outstanding operating managers, not fortuitous industry economics.

Source: Warren Buffett’s Letter to BRK Shareholders in 1988 Annual Report

At Fechheimer, the Heldmans – Bob, George, Gary, Roger and Fred – are the Cincinnati counterparts of the Blumkins. Neither furniture retailing nor uniform manufacturing has inherently attractive economics. In these businesses, only exceptional managements can deliver high returns on invested capital. And that’s exactly what the five Heldmans do.

Source: Charlie Munger on Elementary Worldly Wisdom talk given at The University of Southern California in April 1994.

I do not think it takes a genius to understand that Jack Welch was a more insightful person and a better manager than his peers in other companies. Nor do I think it took tremendous genius to understand that Disney had basic momentums in place that are very powerful and that Eisner and Wells were very unusual managers.

So you do get an occasional opportunity to get into a wonderful business that’s being run by a wonderful manager. And, of course, hat’s hog heaven day. If you don’t load up when you get those opportunities, it’s a big mistake.

Occasionally, you’ll find a human being who’s so talented that he can do things that ordinary skilled mortals can’t. I would argue that Simon Marks – who was second generation in Marks & Spencer of England – was such a man. Patterson was such a man at National Cash Register. And Sam Walton was such a man.

These people do come along – and, in many cases, they’re not all that hard to identify. If they’ve got a reasonable hand – with the fanaticism and intelligence and so on that these people generally bring to the party – then management can matter much.

However, averaged out, betting on the quality of a business is better than betting on the quality of management. In other words, if you have to choose one, bet on the business momentum, not the brilliance of the manager.

But, very rarely, you find a manager who’s so good that you’re wise to follow him into what looks like a mediocre business.

16 thoughts on “Why You Shouldn’t Invest in a Business That Even a Fool Can Run

  1. Mohit Sharma says:

    “Watch what Buffet does, not what he says”:.. well said prof. Though I don’t think Buffett meant that you should invest in a business if it’s excellent even if it is run by a fool. He just wants to think hard about the economic characteristics of the business itself. Then he would move on to evaluating management. The simple reason is that in the real world, sometimes, inept management rises to the top and if that happens they can really destroy value. That has happened with Coke a few times and Buffett himself stepped in to make the bad management leave.

    I think a lot of shareholder activism today is focused on finding moaty, durable businesses, which are poorly managed. Activists seek to unlock value by replacing the board and management so that the real economics of the business shine through.

  2. Saurav Jalan says:

    Thank you Sir for sharing your wonderful thoughts on this subject.

    Sir, what are your views on businesses where the management is extremely talented and efficient in running a commodity business which is cyclical in nature by making prudent use of leverage but is perceived not so shareholder friendly in terms of consistency in its policies and sharing of cash in the form of dividends. Such type of businesses will rarely command a high valuation in the market even though there may be a strong moat in those type of businesses. Is it an illusion to see a moat in a cyclical business managed efficiently by being the lowest cost operator ? In my view, even though you are prone to changes by being in a cyclical business, but the positive is that in a downturn you would be the last man standing and can take advantage of buying out distressed assets at a fraction of the cost to expand.

    In the Indian Market one such business which comes to my mind is Sesa Sterlite.

    How do we take a call between talent and the standard of ethics which Mr.Buffett looks into his investee companies ? Is it wise to expect the same standard of corporate governance in India which is prevalent in most of the companies in the US as I remember Mr. Mohnish Pabrai telling in an interview that in US you don’t have to worry about the authenticity of the numbers in majority of the companies which is not the case in India ?

    Thanks and Regards,
    Saurav Jalan

  3. Akshay Jain says:

    A few cases I can think of when the management might be more important than the business
    a) Investing in micro caps – In a small business, the entrepreneur should be more important than the business to take it through the twists and turns which are inevitable, before it reaches a certain scale
    b) Leveraged industries – Banks & NBFC’s
    c) When looking to buy efficient capital in sectors with traditionally tough economics / under the table transaction possibilities – Real estate, infrastructure
    d) As mentioned – Businesses that generate high volumes at wafer thin margins
    e) Investing in turnarounds

    Sir, would you agree with this? And in what other situations should we give more importance to the management?


  4. You gave me the book and then this post.
    It’s like you exposed me to the view and then gave me the vision.

    Great post sir, it will help a lot.

  5. Dear Sir,

    Good insights again….
    reminds me of your post on “Paying up for quality” which many took wrongly as paying anything for quality🙂

  6. Vinod M S says:

    Hi Sir,

    Thank you for the post…it was very timely for me. I had re-read “One up on wall street” last week in which Peter Lynch mentions that businesses should be very simple and he also quotes the “any fool can run…” line. This had raised some confusion in my mind as most of the companies I am invested or interested in are doing “difficult” things (as per me) which competitors cannot emulate easily. I have always considered this as a major strength.

    The way I re-defined “simplicity” that time was – these companies have come-up the learning curve and have now reached a stage were doing this business is easier for them, unlike a company new to this business. They have built expertise, systems and processes strong enough to sustain their growth and profitability. A competitor will take years of hard-work aided by some luck too to get to this level of “simplicity”.

    Warm Regards

    Vinod MS

  7. Hi Sanjay,

    If I had to venture the meaning of what Buffett said and you’ve elaborated on then it seems like – broadly speaking – the first type of companies which have the “moat” are where Buffett (and maybe those of us who can only invest in public markets) is content to take a minority stake. Think Coca Cola, IBM, American Express, GE, Moodys etc. Logically, they operate in either duopolies, or small oligopolies and have pretty high entry barriers. Today I’d venture more people know the companies rather than their CEO’s.

    The second – where Buffett has invested in companies that are cyclical or commodity businesses, or operate in a somewhat competitive landscape with wafer-thin margins – the example you quoted above, or I’m thinking his furniture companies, jewellery companies, NetJets, or Burlington Northern he’s taken a 100% or majority stake. And he’s relied in most cases, more on management quality. In a sense he’d be like a “PE” investor, but he owns the business, gives it mentorship, looks to fine tune and grow it.

    I also have a point re: management. Coca cola made its share of mistakes – New Coke is the best example, and so did IBM. But the point is, they operated in much more stable businesses. Lehman bros had a good pedigree too, but it was operating in a business environment that allowed it no room for error. So, Buffett certainly wants more control, or trust in management, in the latter type of business.

    Funny thing is – in the Indian context, I couldn’t name a single company that falls into category #1. The closest would be TCS, but that is not a clean fit.

  8. jaithecloner says:

    ” Mr. Buffett does, not just what he says” – This is the key one. In the montessori where my son went they had a session on discipline – “Kids follow what you do not what you say”.. .This is applicable for every aspect of life including investment. Other examples on mis understood quotes – Quote from Charlie Munger – Cigar Butts vs Buying wonderful business. Mohnish asked Munger what would you do if your portfolio is not this big… Munger said buy cigar butts now i cannot afford to do that”… This is a classic case where Mohnish went further to clarify… Another example from Buffett is – People say Cash is King i dont agree… When there are no opportunities to buy keeping cash gives the much needed power when the Mkt falls…. People who have temperment would also like buffett quotes as is that indexing is best… I love the Chapter 16 of Dandho investor “To Index or Not to Index”… By the way so far the best advice for me is the “new year resolution published by you in 2009 – Keeping you out of trouble”

  9. Investing returns require a lot of things to go in your favor and a good management will definitely help this a lot. So I think it’s obvious that you do want good management.

    I believe Buffett meant that even the best management will make a few foolish decisions because decisions are foolish only in the hindsight. So if the business fundamentals are strong then the business can survive some such foolish decisions (made with the right intention).

  10. I think he probably means more of the inverse ‘Do NOT invest in a business which cannot survive/thrive if a fool were to run it’.

  11. Dhruv Sharma says:

    Hi Sir,

    Thank you for sharing such a wonderful insight. Foolish or Smart behavior is a subjective judgement depending on individual perceptions/biases. I would like to highlight the following experiences that Buffett shares on managements :-

    1) His letters of the past decade tell a story about how the management of RC Wiley didn’t operated the stores on Sunday, which, according to Buffett was not a very smart behavior based on his experience( Anchoring bias). However, the stores were a success and Buffett acknowledged the fact later.

    2) On the other hand, His experience with Salmon Brothers case in early 90s was a case of Bad Management behavior which had put Berkshire’s reputation at stake. Hence, came another of his famous quotes :-

    “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”

    3) “Business That Even a Fool Can Run “, I suppose here he also wants to emphasize the importance of analyzing the business franchise value( a.k.a moat) first and then a call on how much management decisions can impact it. Buffett often highlights the management mistakes made by Coke & Gillette to put across this point.

    After reading Buffett’s views and your posts, I believe one should avoid the To-a-man-with-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail approach. The level of management acumen and expertise required to run a company will depend a lot on the company/business in question.

    Please share your thoughts on the same.

    • I don’t think there is any business which cannot be ruined by a sufficiently foolish manager. Business economics should come first, but the management factor is not irrelevant. What Mr. Buffett was implying, in my view, was one should buy easy to understand, predictable businesses with moats. And moats, by definition, can take a lot of pain. This “capacity to bear pain” is often misunderstood as something even a fool can run. The ability to survive bad business judgement is not unlimited, even for a Coca-Cola.

  12. Very elaborate & detailed explanation Sir.
    In my humble opinion & little experience, High quality management is a must in businesses where Base Rate of failure is high, where making high returns is the exception & not the norm. For ex- Retail is a tough to do business. You need to manage suppliers, inventory, customers, supply chain, competitors etc etc & you still can’t charge high margins. Still, Walmart has been a huge success; however Walmart is an exception and not the norm.
    A few other ‘Low Base Rate’ industries are – Banking, Airlines, Commodities.

    Off-course, a great business with a great management (at good price) is a no-brainer. However, when we have to choose between a great business or a great management, normally we should pick the great business; I think that is Buffett meant by his remarks.
    Am I right in this conclusion, Sir?

    • Yes, you are right. The list of businesses where management quality is very important, I had listed those with a lot of leverage and/or those with very low margins. I think your idea of adding high-mortality rate businesses to that list makes sense. Thanks for that.

  13. sarvdeep123 says:

    Thanks for the wonderful explanation. Referring 2010 letter, Mr Warren says “Student should learn how to value a business”. which first few books do you recommend for a lay investor?



  14. Warren Buffet this quote explains everything ““We get excited enough to commit a big percentage of insurance company net worth to equities only when we find (1) businesses we can understand, (2) with favorable long-term prospects, (3) operated by honest and competent people, and (4) priced very attractively “

Comments are closed.