Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 118

Even Buffett has evolved from Ben Graham

Ben Graham is regarded as the intellectual Dean of Wall Street. He literally invented equity security analysis at a time where bonds were all the rage, and a couple of his mantras have stood the test of time. His ‘Mr Market’ allegory is of course a brilliant retort to the efficient market theories on which an entire generation has based their trust through index funds. And it’s his idea that the three most important words for an investor are ‘Margin of Safety’.

Interestingly, however, if Ben Graham had access to a computer back in the 1930s and 1940s, I suspect he might not have reached some of his other conclusions.

Whilst many investors use Ben Graham’s models for intrinsic value to evaluate the attractiveness of companies, we don’t. Let me explain why.

Moving on from Ben Graham

First, though, I am a little nervous about publishing an article advocating against a strict Graham-approach, as it may put a few noses out of joint. So I have referenced what I believe to be the pertinent quotes that have reinforced my conclusion that value investors should move on from many parts of Graham’s framework.

In the 1940s, Ben Graham (who passed away in 1976) “was one of the most successful and best known money managers in the country.” (quoted in the book, Damn Right, by Janet Low, page 75). In 1949, an eager Warren Buffett read Graham’s book The Intelligent Investor and the rest, as they say, is history.

Warren Buffett regards Graham’s book Security Analysis as the best text on investing, regularly referring investors to it and his other seminal work, The Intelligent Investor. One of my favourite Graham publications is The Interpretation of Financial Statements.

It might surprise many value investing students to know that, thanks to his long time partner at Berkshire Hathaway, Charlie Munger, Buffett has moved far from the original techniques taught by Graham. Ben Graham advocated a mostly, if not purely, quantitative approach to finding bargains. He sought to buy businesses trading at a discount to net current asset values – what has been subsequently referred to as ‘net-nets’. That is, he sought companies whose shares could be purchased for less than the current assets – the cash, inventory and receivables – of the company, minus all the liabilities.

Graham felt that talking to management was sort of cheating because smaller investors didn’t have the same opportunity. Whilst the method had been very successful for Graham and the students who continued in his tradition, people like Warren Buffet, Walter Schloss, and Tom Knapp, Graham’s ignorance of the quality of the business and its future prospects did not impress Charlie Munger. Munger thought a lot of Graham’s precepts “were just madness”, as “they ignored relevant facts” (also quoted in Damn Right, page 77)

So while Munger agreed with Graham’s basic premise – that when buying and selling one should be motivated by reference to intrinsic value rather than price momentum - he also noted “Ben Graham had blind spots; he had too low of an appreciation of the fact that some businesses were worth paying big premiums for” and “the trick is to get more quality than you pay for in price.” (Damn Right, page 78)

When Munger referred to quality, he was likely referring to the now common belief held by many sophisticated investors that an assessment of the strategic position of a company is essential to a proper estimation of its value.

In 1972, with Munger’s help, Buffett left behind the strict adherence to buying businesses at prices below net current assets, when, through a company called Blue Chip Stamps, they paid three times book value for See’s Candies. Buffett noted; “Charlie shoved me in the direction of not just buying bargains, as Ben Graham had taught me. This was the real impact he had on me. It took a powerful force to move me on from Graham’s limiting view. It was the power of Charlie’s mind. He expanded my horizons”. Furthermore, “… My guess is the last big time to do it Ben’s way was in ’73 or ’74, when you could have done it quite easily.” (Robert Lezner, ‘Warren Buffett’s Idea of Heaven’, Forbes 400, 18 October 1993, page 40).

So Buffett eventually came around, and the final confirmation that a superior method of value investing exists was this from Buffett: “Boy, if I had listened only to Ben, would I ever be a lot poorer.” (Carol J. Loomis, ‘The Inside Story of Warren Buffett’, Fortune, 11 April 1988, page 26).

Investing techniques evolve

Times in the United States were of course changing as well, and it is vital for investors to realise that the world’s best, those who have been in the business of investing for many decades, do indeed need to evolve. In the first part of the twentieth century, industrial manufacturing companies, for example, in steel and textiles, dominated the United States. These businesses were loaded with property, plant and equipment – hard assets. An investor could value these businesses based on what a trade buyer might pay for the entire business or just the assets, and from there, determine if the stock market was doing anything foolish.

But somewhere between the 1960s and the 1980s, many retail and service businesses emerged that had fewer hard or tangible assets. Their value was in their brands and mastheads, their reach, distribution networks or systems. They leased property rather than bought it. And so it became much more difficult to find businesses whose market capitalisation was lower than the book value of the business, let alone the liquidating value or net current assets. The profits of these companies were being generated by intangible assets and the hard assets were less relevant.

To stay world-beating, the investor had to evolve. Buffet again: “I evolved … I didn’t go from ape to human or human to ape in a nice, even manner.” (L.J. Davis, ‘Buffett Takes Stock’, New York Times Magazine, 1 April 1990, page 61).

Many investors cling to the Graham approach to investing even though some, if not many of his brightest and most successful students, moved on decades ago.

If you want to adopt a value-investing approach, there is no doubt in my mind that your search for solutions will take you into an examination of the traditional Graham application of value investing. It is my hope, however, that these words will serve as a guide towards something more relevant, and whilst unable to be guaranteed, more profitable.

If you have tried to adopt the Graham approach and had some success, well done. Now move on.

 

Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer at The Montgomery Fund, and author of the bestseller ‘Value.able’. This article is for general educational purposes and does not consider the specific needs of any investor.

 

  •   16 July 2015
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Top 5 investment reads

Have value investors been hindered by this quirk of accounting?

Are term deposits attractive right now?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.