How Buffett, Lynch, and Whitman Shaped My Approach to Small-Cap Investing

Weekly Issue

When investors think of Warren Buffett today, they picture the grandfatherly Oracle of Omaha buying Coca-Cola $KO ( ▲ 0.04% ) and holding it forever. Peter Lynch conjures images of wandering shopping malls, spotting trends before Wall Street catches on. Marty Whitman remains the province of specialists, a bankruptcy expert turned deep-value hunter whom most investors have never heard of.

Yet the young Warren Buffett of the 1950s and 1960s looked nothing like the modern version. He was hunting cigar butts in obscure manufacturing companies, taking control positions, and liquidating assets. Lynch built his fortune finding regional restaurant chains and retailers before they became household names. Whitman made his first killing buying the bonds of bankrupt Penn Central Railroad, then evolved that credit expertise into an equity strategy that generated 15.7% annual returns for nearly two decades.

Each of these legendary investors achieved their highest returns in small-cap securities during different eras, using distinctly different methodologies. What fascinates me is not how they differed, but how their approaches complement each other when synthesized into a systematic framework for finding exceptional opportunities in overlooked corners of the market.

After 40years analyzing markets and learning from some of the best minds in the business, I have built my investment process around elements drawn from all three masters. The result is a framework that combines Buffett's quantitative rigor and willingness to act, Lynch's categorical classification and growth orientation, and Whitman's obsessive focus on balance sheet quality and credit analysis. This is not theoretical. This is how I actually construct the premium portfolios in here in the Flagship Report.

The Buffett most investors should study is not the one buying See's Candies or American Express. The relevant Buffett for individual investors managing smaller sums is the partnership-era Buffett of 1957 to 1969, when he compounded capital at 29.5% annually.

Buffett's partnership letters reveal a systematic, categorized approach to finding opportunities. He divided investments into three buckets: Generals (50% of capital), Workouts (23%), and Controls. The Generals were generally undervalued stocks determined primarily by quantitative standards, lacking glamour or market sponsorship. Their main qualification was a bargain price, an overall valuation substantially below what careful analysis indicated the value to a private owner would be.

Consider Sanborn Map Company. In 1958, the stock traded at $45 per share while its investment portfolio alone was worth $65 per share. The mapping business came free. Sanborn had been a successful mapping monopoly selling building maps to insurance companies, but technological disruption rendered traditional maps less relevant. The small market capitalization near $4.5 million excluded large institutional investors, creating the inefficiency. Buffett acquired control of the board through proxy leverage and ultimately exchanged the 24,000 shares he controlled for part of the investment portfolio, earning approximately 50% on the position.

Dempster Mill Manufacturing provides an even more instructive example. Buffett purchased shares at $18 with book value of $72 per share. Dempster manufactured farm equipment and windmills with sales around $9 million. The business produced low returns on capital and struggled to break even, making it a classic cigar butt. Buffett's strategy with many net-nets was to buy below book value and sell when it rose above, but if it remained cheap, keep buying until you owned enough to control it and liquidate at a profit. He eventually owned 70% and brought in Harry Bottle, who cut costs, liquidated excess inventory, laid off workers, and closed unprofitable branches. Buffett sold Dempster for a $2.3 million gain, three times the invested amount.

Pre-computer revolution, Buffett depended on directories like Moody's Manual to research companies and generate ideas. From his February 1959 letter: "I make no attempt to forecast the general market, my efforts are devoted to finding undervalued securities." His systematic approach emphasized margin of safety. From February 1960: "I would rather sustain the penalties resulting from over-conservatism than face the consequences of error, perhaps with permanent capital loss."

Buffett has said multiple times that if he were managing smaller sums today, he would go right back to investing the way he did in the partnership days. In 2014, he explained that the net-nets he bought in the 1960s helped him achieve the highest returns of his career.

What I take from Buffett: The discipline to buy securities trading at substantial discounts to readily ascertainable value. The willingness to concentrate positions when the opportunity is compelling. The readiness to take action when owning enough of a company to influence outcomes makes sense. The systematic approach to categorizing opportunities and understanding which bucket each investment fits into.

Lynch's approach differed fundamentally from Buffett's early framework. While Buffett hunted for quantitative deep value with activist potential, Lynch built a growth-oriented system around consumer observation and categorical classification.

Lynch invested in Dunkin' Donuts not after reading about the company in The Wall Street Journal, but after being impressed by their coffee as a customer, noting the Boston locations were always busy. He invested in companies whose business was clear to him, never chased trends, but looked for undervalued companies that large investors had not yet paid attention to.

Lynch believed smaller investors have an advantage over Wall Street professionals because they can find real-world investment opportunities before they appear on Wall Street's radar. This gave individual investors "street lag" advantages in spotting customer trends before professionals.

His categorical system divided stocks into six types: slow growers, stalwarts, fast growers, cyclicals, turnarounds, and asset plays. Each category had distinct risk-reward profiles and required different investment criteria.

Fast growers were his favorite: small, aggressive new enterprises that grow at 20% to 25% a year. This is the land of the 10- to 40-baggers, even 200-baggers, and one fast grower can make a career. A fast-growing company does not have to belong to a fast-growing industry.

Consider his specific small-cap investments. Lynch invested in Toys "R" Us when the market capitalization was around $50 million, a company not widely followed by Wall Street analysts. He recognized its growth potential and strong market position. When Lynch invested in The Gap, its market cap was just $75 million. At its peak, The Gap accounted for more than 5% of the fund's total assets, and Lynch estimated that his initial investment had increased in value by more than 30 times.

Dunkin' Donuts was still a regional chain when Lynch first invested. The franchise model meant low capital requirements, simple operations, solid margins, high returns on equity, strong unit economics, and trading at a low valuation. Dunkin' Donuts was eventually acquired by private equity, giving Lynch and the Magellan fund a 5 to 7 times return.

Lynch popularized Growth at a Reasonable Price and used the PEG ratio (PE ratio divided by per share growth rate) as a metric, regarding a PEG ratio of 1.0 or lower as an indicator of inherent value. A stock with a 15 P/E and 20% earnings growth equals a PEG of 0.75, which is very attractive. Lynch would happily pay a P/E of 20 for a company growing 25 to 30%, but only if he believed that growth was real and sustainable.

From 1977 to 1990, Lynch averaged a 29.2% annual return, consistently outperforming the S&P 500 at 15.8%, growing assets from $18 million to $14 billion. If you invested $1,000 in Magellan on May 31, 1977, and held on until May 31, 1990, that small investment would have ballooned to around $28,000.

What I take from Lynch: The categorical framework for classifying opportunities and understanding what to expect from each type. The emphasis on sustainable growth at reasonable valuations. The PEG ratio as a quick screening tool. The willingness to pay reasonable multiples for genuine growth. The understanding that fast growers in slow industries often represent the best opportunities.

Whitman's approach represented a distinctive fusion of distressed debt analysis and equity investing, prioritizing balance sheet strength and asset values over earnings power. His methodology, refined through decades of bankruptcy work, diverged sharply from both Buffett's early quantitative approach and Lynch's growth-at-reasonable-price framework.

Whitman coined the acronym GADCP, Growth at Dirt Cheap Prices, generally looking to buy companies trading at a 30% discount from readily ascertainable net asset value that could grow at an annual compounded growth rate of 10%.

His mantra was "safe and cheap, in that order," emphasizing that cheap is not a sufficient condition to buy a security; margin of safety comes from the characteristics of the business, not the price of the stock. For common stock ownership, the business had to have a super strong financial position, with readily ascertainable meaning income-producing real estate or investment companies.

Whitman identified four elements to getting growth at dirt cheap prices: (1) super strong financial position easily ascertainable from documents, (2) very substantial discounts typically 20% to 30% from readily ascertainable net asset value, (3) competent, shareholder-oriented management, and (4) growth potential at least 10% per year compounded.

Third Avenue looked for companies that were overly capitalized with surplus capital, trading off an element of return on equity for a higher degree of safety in the business.

Having spent much of his career as a renowned restructuring and bankruptcy expert, Whitman developed an acute appreciation for the importance of balance sheet analysis as it relates to both corporate creditworthiness and corporate asset value.

Whitman looked for debt on the balance sheet and in the footnotes of the company's financial statements, having seen companies downplay hefty liabilities by burying items in notes. Because he often invested in troubled companies, Whitman did not like firms overburdened by debt, as debt can make a company's troubles even worse.

He had specific rules of thumb: broker/dealers and asset managers at tangible book value plus 2% of AUM; operating companies at 10 times peak earnings or below net asset value; tech companies at 2 times book value, less than 10 times peak earnings, 2 times revenue with cash larger than book value of all liabilities.

As a frequent control investor, Whitman held a deep appreciation for the ways that corporate owners or managers create shareholder value separate from recurring business operations, events he termed resource conversions. Wealth creation methods included: cash flow from operations available to security holders, earnings defined as creating wealth while consuming cash, resource conversions including mergers, acquisitions, changes in control, massive recapitalizations, and spinoffs, and extremely attractive access to capital markets.

Whitman's first big successful investment was his purchase of $100,000 in mortgage bonds issued by the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad in the early 1970s. He went on to quintuple his money within a year as the bonds recovered in value. Whitman invested in the "Fulcrum Security," the most senior security that was going to participate in the reorganization. If a company has an extremely strong financial position, the most senior security to participate in the reorganization is the common stock, which is how the safe and cheap approach naturally evolved from distress investing.

From 1990 to 2012, Whitman managed the Third Avenue Value Fund, achieving an average annual total return of 11.1%, compared to 9% for the S&P 500 Index. From 1991 to 2007, prior to the 2008 crisis, the fund earned a 15.7% annual return versus 11.4% for the S&P.

What I take from Whitman: The absolute obsession with balance sheet quality. The understanding that financial strength is the first criterion, not the last. The focus on tangible asset values and readily ascertainable net asset value. The appreciation for resource conversions as a wealth creation mechanism. The credit analysis framework that asks whether a company can meet its obligations regardless of what happens to earnings.

The premium portfolios here in Tim Melvin's Flagship Report represent a direct application of these three approaches, adapted for different investor goals and market conditions. Each portfolio draws on specific elements from these masters while serving distinct purposes in an overall wealth-building strategy.

This is where I cut my teeth back in the 1980s, doing Ben Graham style deep value investing. But as Graham himself said in his last interview published in Financial Analyst Journal, the deep-dive approach worked well in the 1940s and 1950s when he was the only one doing it. Once everybody started doing it, the edge diminished. What Graham tested was that simple strategies built on valuation, buying 25 to 30 deeply undervalued companies based on different criteria, can outperform the market.

I start from there and add a healthy dose of Marty Whitman style credit analysis. Deeply undervalued companies with good credit, or that have leverage and are paying back their debt, outperform the market over time.

This strategy does a little better than the market in normal times. But when you are coming off a bad market, when the market has cracked—think 2020 and other periods where we have had big drawdowns—you are talking about massive returns to small cap deep value.

The Buffett influence appears in the quantitative discipline. I screen for securities trading at substantial discounts to book value, to earnings, to cash flow. The willingness to concentrate positions when the opportunity is compelling comes straight from the partnership letters. The systematic approach to understanding which bucket each investment fits into drives the portfolio construction.

The Whitman influence dominates the analytical process. Every analysis begins with the balance sheet, not the income statement. Can this company survive a severe recession? Are the liabilities fully stated or are there hidden bombs in the footnotes? Does the company have the financial strength to weather adversity?

I look for companies that are, in Whitman's terms, "overly capitalized with surplus capital." A company with excess cash and minimal debt can withstand stress that would destroy a competitor operating with leverage and deteriorating fundamentals. I am happy to sacrifice a few percentage points of return on equity in exchange for the certainty that this company will survive regardless of economic conditions.

This portfolio delivers high returns with high volatility and significant monthly turnover. It is fundamental momentum driving price momentum. We love the stocks in it. Some have already become big winners with potential to become even bigger, and each month those that are not working or have run up too far too fast are gone. We are not married to anything in the small cap momentum portfolio. If it stops performing, we are out. If it keeps performing, we will own it as long as that is true.

But unlike Lynch's long holding periods, this portfolio incorporates momentum discipline. When fundamental momentum (accelerating earnings, improving margins, expanding market share) stops translating into price momentum, we exit. This is not buy and hold. This is systematic opportunism in high-growth small caps.

The magic happens when you mix 50% small cap momentum and 50% small cap deep value into a single portfolio. The volatility of the momentum portfolio is offset by the stability of the deep value holdings. The explosive upside of momentum winners combines with the downside protection of deep value to create exceptional risk-adjusted returns.

The young Buffett hunting net-nets in Moody's Manuals, Lynch wandering shopping malls spotting trends, and Whitman analyzing bankruptcy reorganizations appear to have little in common. Yet all three were doing the same fundamental thing: finding securities where the market price diverged materially from intrinsic value, where they possessed an analytical edge, and where the margin of safety protected against permanent loss while asymmetric upside provided exceptional returns.

That is timeless. That is what works. That is what I do every day in the premium portfolios here in the Flagship Report.

There is a lot of money to be made over all the volatility that is going to come our way over the next decade. The broader markets are not going to do well over the next decade based on what the macro data is telling us. We have an opportunity to be in those asset classes that have historically just blown away the broad market when things get a little rocky.

The framework is built. The portfolios are running. The only question is whether you want to be part of it.