Sunday, August 24, 2008

Brief Contrarian Portfolio review and a Shopping LIst



Just a few comments and observations regarding the businesses and their associated stocks. The majority have been reviewed in detail earlier in this blog. I have a penchant for wide moat stocks in unloved sectors so you will see an over-representation of insurance companies, holding companies, asset managers, consumer discretionary niche businesses and wide moat financials. I am a physician so pharmaceutical and medical device companies are somewhat in my "circle of competence", so you'll see some of them listed here as well.

If you're interested, use the search function in the upper left corner of the screen to find these posts.



Equities currently held:

MCO Moody's: much hated and blamed for the credit crisis (with some merit). Lawsuits and red tape type legislation are inevitable but Moody's has been through this before and will likely thrive when the debt markets recover. Extra-US revenue is increasing and likely to accelerate with financial markets eventual recovery. I'm holding on this one long term (3 years +) unless it drops into the 20's/share without a material change in the business plan and I'll buy more. I'm a bit more cautious with this investment as I find this business to be very complex and the reports tough to follow which raises red flags for me. Buffett is holding on to his stake which offers some reassurance. Hold for now. Target price $70/share.

COLM Columbia Sportswear: good valuation, high insider ownership (66% of outstanding float), no debt whatsoever (!) and a global footprint have me holding on to my stake for another 18-24 months. Shaky inventory management, lack of any moat whatsoever and lack of a tangible business plan to take market share from the prodigious competition (i.e. North Face, Underarmour) may undermine margins and downstream profits. If emerging markets (i.e. NOT Europe) take to the brand, it may do better than I expect. I believe that there is an excellent margin of safety on the downside; however, my expectation is a maximum 50% upside over the next 1-2 years. Hold for now. Target price $60

SPLS Staples : superior management demonstrated by increasing ROE and a competition-crushing increase in market share wrested from OfficeMax and Office Depot. SPLS has double the net margins of its weakened competitors. The company's delivery business is thriving, particularly outside North America. International exposure improved by the well timed and executed Corporate Express acquisition. Minimal debt, modest dividend (1.8% yield), a newly developing moat, and moderate growth make this holding an intermediate to long term one: 3-10 years. Target price $40+

CMH.TO Carmanah Technologies: A locally based, globally represented solar LED manufacturer/distributor. I bought this early in my investing career--- when it was the bright and rising star of the TSX Venture exchange and trading between $3.60 and $4.20/share. However, with time the inexperienced management fumbled, CMH's earnings vaporized and predictably, the balance sheet bled red ink. Carmanah rapidly became a penny stock. A new CEO, CFO and then a new board was brought in last fall to turn things around. CEO Ted Lattimore, a Vodafone turn-around specialist veteran, has sold off all the low margin product lines and concentrated on the LED biz. They've pared back the head count, out sourced the manufacturing component and cleaned up the balance sheet: no bank debt and a current ratio > 3.1. Last 2 quarters EBIDTA has turned positive and would have been (the dreaded "pro-forma" statement) profitable discounting the restructuring charges. Management expects to turn a profit by early 2009 and 10% top line growth thereafter. I think this is a reasonable entry point for a speculative investment, keeping in mind that there is absolutely no moat protection whatsoever and it may never become profitable. It is not a value stock now and may never be.

CKI.TO Clarke Inc. this activist catalyst holding company is trading at approximately 30% discount to its NAV. Recent aggressive investments in various income trusts including Granby IT, Art In Motion (which CKI plans to take private this fall), Avenir Diversified IT, Supremex IT and others along with recent NCI bids for share/debenture buy-backs have depleted cash from 44 M to 1.5 M and reduced the current ratio from 5.5 to 4.4. Although the balance sheet remains strong, I'm closely monitoring Clarke's liquidity risk. It's still paying a very modest dividend (1.1% yield). Mr. Armoyan's investments are holding up better than I expected considering the current economic environment: only 1 M writedown and 17 M non-realized loss in a 266 M portfolio. I intend to hold as long as the balance sheet remains reassuring. I think that the downside (further national/global economic weakness, strong loonie etc) is priced into the shares currently and that the upside will be rewarding. I find that Clarke's financial reports extremely easy to understand, even the notes section which is usually designed to confuse you. If I get a report that I can't understand down the line, I'll follow my usual sell displine and dump the stock.

COP Conocophillips: I sold 66% of my stake for a nice profit a few months ago despite very compelling valuations. Political risks (even in the USA!) along with an expected multi-segment margin squeeze make me leary. I'm finding this area too difficult to gauge as it is exposed to too many external forces to get an "edge". I prefer lower profile, boring businesses.

AEO American Eagle Outfitters: update recently posted on this well managed, no-moat company in a rapidly changing business with very fickle (read: not loyal) customer base. Great balance sheet, no debt and will likely appreciate rapidly with the turnaround in the retail sector, whenever that happens. I would buy more at $13/share and sell in the high $20's with a horizon of 1-2 years.

CX Cemex ADR: another extremely well managed narrow moat company in a hated industry, as it is tied in with housing/construction markets. It is also a major player in the infrastructure refurbishment worldwide which most analysts feel will be a multi-trillion dollar industry over the next few decades. Extremely compelling fundamentals==> trading at book value and P/E (both trailing and projected) about 7, PEG 0.85. Although the 20 Billion long term debt obligation is concerning post the Rinker acquisition, management is committed to debt reduction, aided by a 20% operating cash flow yield. Buying below $20 and intend to hold for 5 years+. Short term target is $30/share. This is one of my favourite investment ideas currently.

LYG Lloyds TSB Bank ADR: UK financial institutions are amongst the most despised in the world these days. This is the most conservatively managed and boring bank in the UK (and perhaps the world) with the stated goal of paying out 75% of earnings to shareholders in the form of dividends. The company's staunch conservatism is serving it well, propping up its reputation for safety. LYG has recently sold off its foreign operations and due to its strong brand in the UK it has a wide moat. Dividend yield of about 9% and ROE historically in the mid 20's. P/B 1.6 P/E 5.6 PEG

SEB Seaboard: shipping/food processing company with high insider ownership (70%) and great valuations. Margins being nailed by commodity prices, particularly grain for the hogs in their pork segment. A recent pull back in share price to a 52 week low presents a good entry opportunity for the long term. This was prompted by a 50% reduction in EPS yoy despite higher revenue (higher costs). Management communication with shareholders is opaque (no conference calls and minimal/no guidance) and analyst/Wall St. coverage is nominal---this can be both an advantage and disadvantage to the long term investor. P/E 9 P/S .43 trading around book value. It grows revenues 15%/yr over the past 5 years and increased it's tangible book value 23%/yr each year over the same period. Great balance sheet and liquidity with current ratio 2.7. Dividend negligible at 0.2% yield. Buy at <$1200/share and hold for the very long term or >$3000/share.

COV Covidien: "crown jewel" medical device manufacturer spin off from the old Tyco monster conglomerate. Although I think that it has excellent long term potential, the share price has appreciated 50% over the last year, within shooting distance of its Morningstar FMV of $65/share. Insider buying is impressive (one officer bought $1 M worth of stock at $51/share so he obviously still thinks it's undervalued) as is the product pipeline. I'd be interested in buying more shares in the low 40's and holding for the long term (3 years +) or until the shares hit the mid 80's. Hold for now.

NYX Euronext-NYSE: despite the inevitable emergence of competition on the horizon (narrowing the competitive moat), this global leader stock exchange is trading at 9% cash flow yield. Sellers have overlooked the fact that only 10% of revenue comes from domestically traded equity fees. I will buy below $40/share with an intermediate holding horizon of 18 months to 3 years and/or a target price of $90-100/share.

HOG Harley Davidson: undeniably wide moat niche manufacturer/retailer overly punished of late for its troubled loans division. Current ratio > 2.5 and strong overseas growth. 15% cash flow yield, 33% ROE, 3.2% dividend yield. Well managed and very strong brand with excellent overseas growth in revenues . Inventory management widely praised. Recent bump up in debt from virtually nil to $3 Billion for the Italian motorcycle maker MV Augusta acquisition has raised eyebrows. Margin compression (increased costs, decreased US revenues) recently and concern re: demographic shift in customer base continues to hammer at the share price. I intend to buy at prices in the low 30's and sell in the 70's as a long term hold (3+ years).

BMY Bristol-Myers Squibb: has been a disappointing long term holding for me, despite the generous dividend. The intermediate term drug pipeline thins out markedly between 2011 and 2014 although looks promising beyond. The reasonably leveraged balance sheet is be endangered by overpaying for the in-progress Imclone acquisition. The company is also joing its peers by being bogged down with lawsuits including the Apotex suit. Some of my favourite gurus have sold their stake in BMY in June as well including Bruce Berkowitz. Some large scale insider buys in May have followed by serial dispositions. I think that Bristol will turn itself around over the next 3-5 years for brighter days and that the pessimism I express is priced into the stock price. It may not be a bad entry for a very long term investor-- after all, BMY has been around almost 1.5 centuries and the nearly 6% dividend more than offsets inflation. I suspect there are better opportunies in this sector (like SNY). I am considering selling on any short term strength for a capital loss but I'm not in any rush.

BBSI Barrett Business Services: I've written frequently about this favourite small cap of mine. Short term uncertainty in the sector coupled with a superb balance sheet, superb management and high insider ownership and insider buying if late, plus a dividend (2-3%) makes this a long term hold. I would add to my position (and have several times over the past 6 months) as the share price moves towards $12 and below. I would pare down my stake in the mid $20's unless the great valuations are also maintained. The share price ramped up 40% after the last conference call. I will hold my shares for now and intend to do so for 3+ years.

BPOP Banco Popular: the last 12 months have been tough for Popular-- the share price dropped to $5 from $16 after 3 consecutive quarters of writedowns for bad loans. Management has responded appropriately by selling off their US mainland operations and focusing on their virtual stranglehold monopoly in Puerto Rico. They managed to pull in half a billion dollars of operating free cash flow despite reporting negative income for that period which bodes well for 2009 or 2010. Dividend is about 4% yield. Shares have rebounded to about $9 on a recent sale to Goldman-Sachs of more dodgy domestic mainland mortgages. It is over capitalized at 10.5%, providing a margin of safety in such tough times. I plan to hold with my stake for up to 3 years or a target price of about $20/share. I don't intend to acquire more shares because I have a large stake and find wider moat financials such as AXP more attractive as well has less risky.

PHG Royal Phillips Electronics: I was originally attracted to PHG because of its global footprint and very strong balance sheet (primarily due to the big cash reward from the Taiwan Semicondunctor divesture). I liked the way management was selling off the low margin, cyclical businesses (like flat screen TVs) and instead concentrating on the more profitable health care/medical device, "green" LED and personal care products. It has become a simpler company and easier to understand how they make money. Great fundamentals with P/E of 8 EV/EBIDTA of 9, PEG 1.06 P/S 0.79. ROE double digits. The downside I've come to appreciate is the expensive acquisition driven strategy (i.e. Respironics) focus instead of emphasizing organic growth. The share prices is slowly dwindling away from $41 down to $31/share. Certain gurus with large positions are selling as of June 08. I intend to hold for another 18 months as I'm not convinced that this is a great company worth sticking with through thick and thin. I would sell in the mid 50's.
Over time I've become more of a fan of the spin-off spawn (i.e. COV) of these big, bloated conglomerates rather than their parents. Recent legislation mandating LED use may be the near term catalyst to push up the share price.

MKL Markel Corp: an extremely well managed specialty insurance company that I've admired for a long time and has only recently become cheap enough to interest me. Pricing pressure on underwriting profits has squeezed the share price to 2005 levels. One of the most respected gurus, Tom Gayner (a potential replacement for Warren Buffet, according to rumour) is the chief investment officer. Short term outlook is weak, long term is excellent as its competition is crushed in the current adverse environment and its long term investments pay off. This is a long term RRSP type hold for me (3 years +++) that I intend to add to if the shares drop in the low 300's and consider selling some if they hit double that (and maybe not even then). The nice thing about insurance companies is that: 1. they are in a slowly changing industry with predictable cash flows (mostly) 2. product obsolescence doesn't affect them much 3. inventory management is moot. When they are cheap and well run, they are amongst the safest long term investments. This is why there are so many insurance companies that hang around for > 100 years.

Y Alleghany Corp: Another favourite of mine- an investment holding company with insurance subsidiaries and a very long term focus, currently trading at levels just above 2006 prices. High (35%) insider ownership but not so high that shareholders can be ignored. Debt = 0 and good fundamentals. This is a safe investment for very long term investors as most of the investments the company makes is in distressed companies---- an endeavour for the most patient. They bought Burlington North before Buffett did. I hold in my RRSP and will add at $300 and below, hold for 3 years++ and consider selling some at $550 and up.

Dell Computer DELL: over the last 5 months, Michael Dell has personally bought 200 Million dollars worth of common stock on the open market, half purchased last week after the stock plunged 18% due to a disappointing quarter. HP has been eclipsing Dell on the international stage, narrowing Dell's moat markedly. Dell hasn't brought its expenses into line fast enough to impress investors. This includes many long term value guru investors like Dodge and Cox, Bill Miller and Bill Nygren. It's true that top line growth was impressive in this hostile economic environment but this has been achieved at the expense of slimmer margins. The thrust of its business plan is to focus on the higher margin server, storage and peripherals segment of their revenue mix and they have executed in that regard. There is concern about conflicting efforts from their direct and indirect sales forces. One also wonders why they are delving so aggressively in the poorly rewarding area of low end notebooks. Despite all these worries, as the revenue mix improves and cost cutting measures finally show up in the bottom line, there is good potential for margins to turn around over the next 3 or so years. The other facts that should not be easily discounted is that Dell is a cash generating monster: virtually no debt, 10 billion dollars of cash in the bank and it generates $3 billion dollars of annual free cash flow (!). I would be happier if a dividend was being paid by this more slowly growing company during the protracted turn around and I think Dell should pay one. I have arbitrarily decided to wait another 4-6 quarters or until the share price hits the high 30's-- whichever comes first.

LM Legg Mason: a best of breed asset manager having hit hard times. SIV vehicles held in their income funds had to be supported by cash from the company's balance sheet in order to prevent LM from having to sell them under duress at pennies on the dollar. Certain managers have badly underperformed the market, particularly value guru Bill Miller and this has lead to prodigious outlows of the giant pile of AUM (assets under management). Few doubt that LM will survive though, with more than sufficient liquidity (current ratio > 2) 3.5 Billion dollars of unrestricted cash in the bank and considerable FCF generation and 3.4 B in long term debt. Management is seasoned and there is considerable insider buying. It is the most widely held security of the value gurus who have been aggressively adding to their stake of late. (One exception is Richard Perry who sold his stake in June). The stock has appreciated from about $28/share to about $44/share and I'm currently holding for the long term (3+ years). A 2% dividend helps offset the inflationary bite of the wait. I would add more shares to my portfolio if it dropped into the low 30's again. I would be tempted to sell some > $100/share.

AXP American Express: another badly wounded "Best of Breed", wide moat, minimal Capex, slowly changing and highly profitable (historical average ROE > 30%) business. Wall St. sold it off because of concerns regarding increasing default rates, even among prime cardholders. With 20 Billion in cash and a current ratio of 3.5, liquidity isn't an issue-- yet. 6.1 Billion dollars of annual free cash flow doesn't hurt either. AXP has not traded at such favourable valuations since that dark day on September 11, 2001. Berkshire is the largest shareholder. 15 value oriented gurus hold this stock in their portfolio, most of whom have added to their stake in the past 6 months. Some largeish insider purchases in February but not much since. The securitization used to fund the credit card business is a source of worry as well to analysts: dislocation in similar markets may impact earnings. Decreased prime and super-prime consumer spending will cause the discount rate charged to merchants to be squeezed and adversely affect margins. I think that these are short term concerns and I would happily buy more AXP in the mid 30's and hold for the very long term (3++ years) as it is a great company. Depending on the fundamentals at the time, I might be tempted to sell some at >$85/share. A modest dividend yield of 1.8% helps offset the effect of inflation.

UNH United Health: hated HMO (with good reason) with recent change in governance (a good one). Black clouds hanging over the whole managed care sector due to political risk (new president coming.... will there finally be reform down South--- doubt it), deteriorating medical cost ratios and the stink of the backdated options scandal lead by the former CEO. Wide moat with economy of scale. Knocked down by the market to unrealistically low valuations (<50% style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">BAM.A Brookfield Asset Management (TSX version): a great company that I have blogged abundantly about; however, it hasn't been cheap lately. Worth holding for the long term or indefinitely. I would buy in the mid-20's and sell portions (possibly) in the 40's.


AIG American International Group: another famed Warren Buffet quote:



"I have three boxes on my desk: In, Out, and Too Hard."

this is an example of an investment assessment that has become "too hard". AIG had potential to become a great company but it has become too big and too complex. The corporate governance has reflected this fact and it seems clear to me that they are just as baffled as I am about the liquidity status of the whole as well as the risk assessment of the credit default swap portfolio and subprime mortgages they hold, particularly in Europe. I can't make heads or tails of their reports-- this should have been a red flag for me. I was (and still am) to their excellent reputation and footprint in emerging markets; however, it appears the horse is out of the barn in Europe and North America. Morningstar has laid out 5 different recovery scenarios and 4/5 aren't great for shareholders. The market is anticipating that AIG will need to do a secondary dilutive offering of stock to shore up their balance sheet and that's why the share price is in free fall recently. My plan is to wait until the Lehman panic boils off and then sell half of my stake on any strength and hold the other half for the intermediate term or until the share price (or if it does) increases into the 30's and beyond.

KMX Carmax: best of breed used auto retailer with an excellent business plan (described in a previous post) and superb management. Will likely take even more market share during the sector recovery. Good liquidity current ratio 2.8-- it's not going anywhere, unlike a lot of competition. Downside is slim net margins and competition may replicate their business plan (although they've failed so far). Lots of short interest (23% of outstanding shares are short!)-- subject to "short squeeze" when the shorts rush to cover during a turn around. I plan to hold my stake unless tempted to buy more at $12/share or less and sell if it hits the 30's+. Intermediate term hold due to narrow moat and tight margins-- 18 months-3 years.

NVS Novartis SGP Schering-Plough SNY Sanofi-Aventis: these are my "best of breed" favourite big pharma basket of companies. NVS is a leader in the vaccine market and has no debt. SNY is a Buffet stock with a great pipeline. SGP is well managed and overly punished for the Vytorin surrogate outcome studies and a data dredging phenomenon that suggests an increased cancer risk-- the significance of the findings that has been exaggerated by some silly academic doctors who still don't realize that a LOT of people will never tolerate statins and still need to be on a cholesterol drug for their entire lives. All are wide moat companies with excellent long term potential suitable for an RRSP.






Shopping List with entry target prices.

Note: I don't intend to buy all of these or even most of them-- being on this list means that I'm actively researching the companies and closely monitoring the share prices for a possible entry position

POW.TO Power Corp: < $30/share. One of the best of breed holding companies with high insider ownership, astutely managed by the Desmarais family.

IVSBF.PK Investor AB: <$19/share. One of the best of breed holding companies with high insider ownership, astutely managed by the Wallenberg family.

TYIDF.PK Toyota Industries Corp.: <$25/share-- a Marty Whitman favourite holding company to buy Toyota Motors on the cheap.

PKX Posco: arguably the best managed steel company in the world and may well have the best balance sheet. Buffet stock. I couldn't resist if it fell below $75/share.

DEO Diageo: This article summarizes the bull case better than I could. This is also one of my favourite investment ideas currently. Another excellent analysis here. Wide moat stock with growth and a dividend to boot. Definite RRSP material. Buy at <$70/share

ZMH Zimmer Corp: wide moat orthopedic device company. Great balance sheet and free cash flow. An excellent long term holding if you can get it cheap enough-- <$65/share

ATD.B.TO Alimentation-Couchetard: undervalued and a buy at <$11/share

HHULF.PK HAMBURGER HAFEN UND LOGISTIK: This virtual monopoly was reviewed earlier this year under post "Hamburger, anyone?", the first 1/2 2008 results are summarized in this investor presentation here. Strong results across the board with increasing ROE, gross margins, net profit (up 43%) and decreasing capex. The slowdown in emerging market's trade with the European hinterlands due to moderating global economic conditions is partially offset by anticipated further cost controls and the anticipated corporate tax cut for German corps. The stock took a huge hit this week-- dropping from about 55 Euros a month ago to hovering around it's all time low of 40 euros today. I assume that global recession concerns are the main driver of the sell off but I'll keep hunting. My entry point will be in the mid to high 30's. This is also one of my favourite investment ideas currently.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Insight on AEO by Ponzio

Seekingalpha.com article here.

Previous articles and comments on AEO here.

I'm anticipating more fall out from the US consumer this fall and will likely buy more AEO at hopefully less than $10/share. My target price is $25/share ((assuming operating margins of 20% and 10% top line sales growth over the next 5 years) with a 18 month investment horizon. I'm not interested in a long term hold for this company because:

  • it has no economic moat (durable competitive advantage)
  • it is a fairly rapidly changing biz (fashion) known for fickle consumer behaviour
  • only a modest dividend to keep me entertained while I wait

Thursday, August 21, 2008

SOX and Executives busting rocks : an Editorial




‘Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant’
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (SOX) was signed by George Bush July 30, 2002 in response to an increasingly skeptical public's view of corporate governance. Enron's fall in 2001 was followed by wave after wave of exposed executive kleptocracy. The point of the law was to dramatically increase corporate financial internal monitoring, auditing and reporting to achieve better transparency for current and potential investors.

Since then a backlash from Main Street (the HQ for many large cap companies in NYC) gathered momentum, suggesting that the reporting requirements were too expensive (particularly for small companies), resource intensive and was driving away foreign investment and domestic IPO listing on American exchanges. There's little debate that SOX is expensive to comply with; however, more recent papers describe lower borrowing costs and relatively increased share prices over time with compliant companies who show no material weakness in their financial reports.

The hue and cry over the "draconian" regulation has subsided since the credit crisis has exposed the results of extremely poor stewardship in the financial sector-- particularly amongst the investment banks (Bear Stearns, Merrill-Lynch etc) who had opaque balance sheets stacked with complex derivatives. Few can argue that less regulation would have prevented this disaster although one can surmise that badly designed legislation could easily do more harm than good. I agree that more is not always better and I do believe in the general principle of free markets--- within reason.

Quarterly and annual financial reports are signed by the CEO and the CFO. If a material misrepresentation is eventually found in that report, these executives can and will go to prison for up to 20 years. Despite what SOX critics say, they actually do go to prison for ---- ask Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz of Tyco infamy, Kirk Shelton of Cendant, and of course Lord Black of Hollinger International. These white collar thieves were caught and put in jail for sentences that exceed that given to serial rapists here in Canada.

Whether you agree with that or not, it cannot be argued that this is a VERY strong disincentive to commit fraud.

When is the last time you can remember a Canadian executive going to jail for approving or actively participating in such obvious fleecing of the common shareholders? Remember Bre-X? No one spent a single day in jail for that one. It should be interesting to see if anyone actually gets materially punished for the Livent debacle. There are many more examples.

The reason I worry about investing in specific companies based in emerging markets (particularly Russia and China) is that standards of corporate governance simply do not exist by the oligopolistic nature of their governments. Security laws are antiquated and rarely invoked-- that is, unless you are an enemy of the current Czar (read the story of Mr. Khodorkovsky).

Most humans behave in a largely predictable manner due to internal and external incentives and disincentives. It shouldn't be surprising that the Chinese and Russian populaces have embraced their recently unencumbered markets. Whether we recognize it or not, we are all wired to be capitalists. We can choose to be a socially responsible capitalist like Warren Buffett or a ruthless backstabbing superficial ass like Mr. Trump. Without sensible regulation, history suggests that more Trumps and Lord Blacks emerge.

I maintain that despite several ugly blemishes that are in plain view (unlike many other countries in the world where the dirty laundry never sees the light of day), the large cap, wide moat, multi-national businesses based in the United States and subject to SEC scrutiny and US law are the easiest to analyze from the available information to the average investor. Their internal workings are the most transparent and their executives and corporate boards are the most accountable. I would suggest that the best way to invest in India and China is to buy companies like Caterpillar (CAT), 3M (MMM), Kimberly-Clark (KMB) or Harley-Davidson (HOG).

l

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

BAM revisited


This article presents a rare (for seekingalpha.com, anyway) balanced view of the current investment status of Brookfield Asset Management.

I agree with the poster that the long term view for BAM is excellent. I'm hoping for the share price to drop back to 52 week lows (around $25/share) and then I intend to double my position.

Read the article here.

l

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Mandatory Reading: Brandes on Value v.s. Glamour investing in Emerging markets

A quantitative argument for using fundamental analysis for these companies.

My comment:

Can you trust the numbers derived from the financial reports of these largely corrupt nations? I think not. Consider an ETF if you want to dip your toe in these dangerous waters.

l

WEB makes moves

see gurufocus summary here



l

4 oil service stocks

I'm most interested in RIG of the four (due to valuation and the strength of management). I plan to wait until the late fall or until oil drops into double digit territory (if it does), whichever comes first.

4 oil service stocks

History Lesson about Value Investing from Ponzio

For more than 50 years, great "value" investors — Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Charlie Munger, Seth Klarman, to name a few — have been touting the benefits of investing when there is blood in the streets, buying businesses when they are on sale. At each turn, somebody would ask them: Aren't you concerned that, by constantly talking about how you became so successful, you'll create a following that will, in turn, increase competition and reduce your potential investment returns?

It is said that value investing is more popular today than ever before. I tend to disagree.

Investing ... 50 Years Ago

I am going to journey back to a time before I was born: 1958. The Dow Jones Industrial Average [DJIA] averaged about 10% a year from 1948 through 1957 (when looking at the average closing prices during that time). Stock prices were quoted in eighths and quarters, but most regular people only saw those quotes once a day — in the morning paper.

This was a time when you had to call a broker for a stock quote, who would in turn call a floor broker, who would then get the quote and update your broker. Assuming you didn't wait on the phone, your broker would call you back with a quote — sometimes several minutes later. Real time quotes and information? Not even a pipe dream yet.

It is said that Buffett never even had a tickertape machine in his office. And even if he did, how quickly could he really get price quotes? I mean — look at these things (right).

What chance did you have as a trader? Were you hand-plotting charts as they came across the tape? Then what? John Bollinger wouldn't be around to draw Bollinger Bands for another twenty-some years, Gerald Appel's MACD was still ten years away, and by the time you figured out your moving averages...they moved.

For the most part, regular people had absolutely no chance at being successful traders, speculators, or "growth" investors. To invest in stocks, you had one choice — buy stock in businesses that you would be comfortable holding for (i) at least an entire day, and (ii) regardless of the short-term swings.

There was no access to quick information; so, regular people had to buy knowing, and comfortable with the fact, that the price might be a few eighths or a few quarters higher or lower the next day. And when it was, you couldn't get too excited or too panicky because it took time for your broker to get an updated price — a price that could change rapidly in the few minutes it took for your broker to get the price, phone you back, take your order, and place and fill the order.

Investing Versus Speculating ... 50 Years Ago

Unless you were down on the floor of the exchanges every day, you had one of two choices: Buy great businesses when they were on sale (or down) or Buy random stocks, close your eyes, and hope for the best. In my dealings with people who had been saving and investing in the 1950s, I have found that most people opted for the first strategy. Even the most unsophisticated of investors invested soundly — buy great businesses, particularly when their prices were falling, and stay away from everything else.

What differentiated Warren Buffett from Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl? One simple, yet often overlooked, thing: the breadth and scope of their respective Spheres of Confidence and Competence. Buffett was comfortable investing in a Sanborn Map — buying the business for less than the value of its stock and bond portfolio. Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl didn't look for Sanborn Map; and, had they seen it, they didn't have the business and financial sophistication to buy and profit from it. Sanborn Map was outside their Sphere.

You know what else Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl didn't do? They didn't see Buffett buying Sanborn Map and think, "Hey, we can do that too. Let's break up some businesses." Instead, they plodded along, buying stock in AT&T (T), Texaco, and other companies that seemed to have a big, sustainable presence in their area.

To Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl, Sanborn Map was pure speculation. You know what? They were right! If they invested in Sanborn Map — without having Buffett's eye or ability — they would have been speculating. To them, speculating was uncomfortable and was to be avoided at all costs. After all, their goal was to invest so that they could one day be comfortable, and being uncomfortable throughout the process didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Along Came Wall Street

The 1950s began the Golden Age for Wall Street. Prior to that, brokers traveled the country, knocking on doors and selling stock. They would get checks from customers, finish their sales route, and then place the orders together — sometimes weeks after the customer first wrote the check. Remember: This was long before ACH, cell phones, and laptops. For crying out loud, Elvis Presley was just getting into the Army and it would be another year before Alaska would even become a state.

Technology. Advertising. Profits. By 1958, 83% of US homes had televisions — up from less than 1% in 1948, half of which were in or around New York City. And with television came...Wall Street commercials. It didn't happen overnight; but, eventually, the stock market became an exciting place where fortunes could be made...quickly.

The Schism on the Street

Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl were not profit centers for Wall Street. They were boring, buy-and-hold investors — the type of clients a broker could go broke with. So, Wall Street had to "educate" them — teach them the difference between growth and value investing.

Sure, value investing is safe...but it's slow. Who wants 10% or 12% a year? These other stocks are ready to explode. They're gonna grow. They're...they're...they're growth stocks. Investing in growth stocks can get you to your goals two, no three, no...ten times faster.

Perhaps Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl don't buy it. But their kids do. Born in the 1950s and 1960s, they started working and thinking about saving in the late 1970s and 1980s. Throughout the 1980s, young investors were growing more confused than their parents had ever been. On the one hand, the stock market was soaring and hostile takeovers, leveraged buyouts, and mega-mergers spawned a new class of billionaires. On the other hand, inflation and interest rates were out of control, banks were failing left and right, and the stock market was growing ever more volatile.

Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl knew virtually nothing about the activities on Wall Street. All they knew was that Coca-Cola tasted great and everyone was talking about it.

The explosion in news, information, and selling the dream/showcasing the nightmare were the perfect recipe to create a new breed of investor: the short-term, growth-oriented trader.

"Old School" Investing Gets Murky

As "growth" and "value" became investment strategies, Wall Street built mutual funds and portfolio allocations around them. In time, "value investing" began to drift from its original meaning of "buying a sustainable business when it is on sale" to today's Wall Street definition of "investing in stocks that have low price to earnings ratios."

The Value Pretender

That fundamental shift in the definition of "value investing" leads us to Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety:

Value investing" is one of the most overused and inconsistently applied terms in the investment business. A broad range of strategies make use of value investing as a pseudonym. Many have little or nothing to do with the philosophy of investing originally espoused by Graham. The misuse of the value label accelerated in the mid-1980s in the wake of increasing publicity given to the long-term successes of true value investors such as Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. (BRK.A, BRK.B), Michael Price and the late Max L. Heine at Mutual Series Fund, Inc., among others. Their results attracted a great many "value pretenders," investment chameleons who frequently change strategies in order to attract funds to manage.

These value pretenders are not true value investors, disciplined craftspeople who understand and accept the wisdom of the value approach. Rather they are charlatans who violate the conservative dictates of value investing, using inflated business valuations, overpaying for securities, and failing to achieve a margin of safety for their clients.

In short, Klarman is making the point that today's so-called value investments and value investors are, by and large, not true value investors in the old-fashioned sense of the word. To paraphrase Klarman: Value pretenders tend to buy what is down, without looking at whether or not it is cheap. They look at the PE ratio versus past PE ratios; they buy if the stock is trading near its 52-week low or wait until it pulls back from its 52-week high.

Investing...Today

Last month I wrote this post about business investing, and how it differs from "value investing" in the now traditional sense of the word. I guess I'm trying to start a revolution — a change in terms to help separate true value investors from value pretenders.

Answering the Question

Aren't you concerned that, by constantly talking about how [the gurus] became so successful, you'll create a following that will, in turn, increase competition and reduce your potential investment returns?

One thing that history has shown us is that most people are never really introduced to business investing, just growth and value investing/investments. And that makes a heck of a lot of sense. If you look at the expense ratio of the F Wall Street portfolio, you'll see that we effected just nine (now ten with the purchase of LNY) transactions in fourteen months. Any broker handling that account would starve to death having us as clients. Last year, four of the largest publicly held Wall Street firms generated more than $425 billion in revenue. To maintain that level of revenue on the backs of business investors, they would need more than 4.5 billion clients — roughly 70% of all individuals in the world.

But, if they can get you to double the number of transactions, they would need half as many clients to achieve the same level of revenue. If, on your own or (more likely) through their mutual funds, they could get you to do 100 transactions a year, they would need just 45 million clients — 99% fewer clients for the same revenue.

Thus, where is Wall Street's incentive to promote business investing?

The unintended result of these discussions about investing — growth investing, value investing/pretending, business investing — is that more people become interested, engaged, and intrigued. Sadly, many of these people don't have Aunt Bea and Grandpa Earl's patience and understanding (or the ability to recognize their lack of understanding) of investing, or the desire to learn how they should invest; so, they will jump from ship to ship in search of fast profits.

(Many people are so disgusted or disheartened with Wall Street and investing that they simply put it on the back burner, choosing to do nothing rather than risk making a mistake.)

This continued and growing trend will add more and more volatility which, in turn, can actually increase the potential for profits for true value investors but reduce the overall expected return for most "traditional" investors as they continue to trade and invest on emotion and lack of coherent, intelligent strategy.

Is value investing/pretending dead? It will have its moments in the sun. But mark my words: Business investing (Old-Fashioned Value Investing) will only get better.

(By the way: I don't have an Aunt Bea or Grandpa Earl. With a name like Ponzio? Think about it.)

Sunday, August 10, 2008

For those of you who like to piggy-back: from Gurufocus.com

Disclaimer: my family owns USB and GSK.

High Dividend Yield Stocks in Warren Buffett Portfolio: Gannet Co. Inc., Bank of America Corp., SunTrust Banks, GlaxoSmithKline, and U.S. Bancorp

August-10-2008

At this time of uncertainty, above average stock dividends may give investors some comfort. However, the risk of owning high dividend yield stocks is that the dividends may be cut. Buying the high dividend stocks Warren Buffett owns may be a safer way to go.

Here are some high yield stocks that have been recently owned by Warren Buffett and other gurus.

Gannet Co. Inc. (GCI)

Gannet Co. Inc. (“GCI”) operates as a news and information company in the United States and the United Kingdom . It operates in two segments, newspaper publishing and broadcasting and has a newly developed digital strategy segment that was started after several business acquisitions. GCI has a market cap of $4.12 billion; its shares were traded at around $18.02 with a P/E ratio of 4.60 and P/S ratio of 0.58. The dividend yield of Gannett Co. Inc. stocks sits at 9.18 percent.

In recent headlines, Gannet Co. Inc. has experienced a 36 percent net loss of income for the second quarter. A subsidiary of Gannet, The Cincinnati Enquirer, has also begun offering optional severance packages to its employees in light of declining economic conditions that have sapped its ad revenues. Total revenue for Gannet Co. Inc. has dropped 10 percent, with publishing advertising suffering the most.

Warren Buffet has owned over 3 million shares of GCI since before the second quarter of 2000 at a share price of $59.81 and witnessed its decline after a peak at $89.16 in 2003 to its recent all-time low of $29.05. This recent decline reflects the sentiment held by Warren Buffet that the era of newspapers has passed and that traditional news mediums are being interrupted by the internet.

Other gurus also have shares in GCI. As of the first quarter of 2008, John Rogers increased his shares in CGI 62 percent from the previous quarter while David Dreman decreased his shares 51.37 percent over the same period. Charles Brandes, Brian Rogers, NWQ Managers, Arnold Van Berg and Warren Buffet maintained their shares in the company despite the drop in share price. Guru Jean-Marie Eveillard, however, sold out his shares in the first quarter of 2008.

Director of GCI, Arthur H Harper, bought shares of stock recently, near the end of the second quarter of 2008 and Senior Vice President and Chief Digital Officer Christopher D Saridakis also bought shares at the end of April 2008. The price per share has fallen an average 24.69 percent since April.

Bank of America Corp. (BAC)

Bank of America (“BAC”) is one of the world’s leading financial services and banking companies. It serves individual small businesses, commercial, corporate and institutional clients across the U.S. and around the world. Bank of America Corp. has a market cap of $148.42 billion; its shares were traded at around $33.33 with a P/E ratio of 18.35 and P/S ratio of 3.01. The dividend yield of Bank of America Corp. stocks is at 8.65 percent.

After picking up Countrywide, and enduring several volatile quarters, Bank of America has become the nation’s largest home lender. However, Bank of America has yet to record a quarterly loss through the current credit crunch. The secret to success? Bank of America has diverse business segments, including a sizeable credit card division and a flourishing wealth management division.

Warren Buffet has owned BAC stock since before the second quarter of 2007 and has witnessed the stock decline in value from $48.89 per share to $37.91 per share by the end of the first quarter of 2008. Along with Richard Pzena, David Dreman, Chris Davis, Kenneth Fisher, Dodge & Cox, NWQ Manager, Ruane Cunniff, and Tweedy Browne, Warren Buffet has maintained his shares in the company. His holdings currently stand at 9,100,000 shares.

On the other hand, Brian Rogers, Hotchkis & Wiley, and Richard Snow increased positions in the first quarter of 2008 in BAC by 200 percent, 27.82 percent and 19.18 percent respectively from the previous quarter while Irving Kahn reduced his position 30.66 percent from the last quarter in 2007.

Several Directors in the company bought shares recently as well, Jackie M Ward, Thomas M Ryan, and William Iii Barnet each bought shares in the last several months.

SunTrust Banks (STI)

SunTrust Banks (“STI”) is a commercial banking institution that provides a wide range of services to accommodate the financial needs of its clients. Its primary businesses include deposit and credit services as well as trust and investment services. STI has a market cap of $14.85 billion; its shares were traded at around $42.01 with a P/E ratio of 11.87 and P/S ratio of 2.13. The dividend yield of SunTrust Banks Inc. stocks is high at 8.04 percent.

As reported by Triangle Business Journal, SunTrust Banks recently acquired First Priority Bank for $214 million and the assets for $42 million. SunTrust is the third largest bank in the Bradenton , Florida area where Priority was based.

Warren Buffet has owned shares of STI since before the second quarter of 2000 and seen the price per share fluctuate from $45.69 to a peak of $85.74 back down to the first quarter price of $55.14, reporting an overall price increase of 18.49 percent. Although Warren Buffet began with 6.6 million shares of STI, he now owns 3.2 million shares after making sales after the second quarter of 2001 and again after the second quarter of 2004.

All the gurus who own the stock have maintained their number of shares, including David Dreman, Brian Rogers, Chris Davis, Kenneth Fisher, Dodge & Cox and Ruane Cuniff. However, recently, in April, STI’s CFO, Mark A Chancy bought 3,000 shares of stock in his company at $52.56 a share and the price has decreased 20.07 percent since. Directors David H Hughes, G Gilmer Iii Minor, and Alston D Correll all also recently bought 10,000, 4,000 and 75,000 shares of stock, respectively, in July.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) is one of the world's leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies and is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to lead a fulfilled and active life. They also have leadership in four major therapeutic areas: anti-infectives, central nervous system (“CNS”), respiratory, and gastro-intestinal/metabolic therapy. GSK has a market cap of $119.49 billion; its shares were traded at around $46.34 with a P/E ratio of 12.80 and P/S ratio of 2.64. The dividend yield of GSK stocks is higher than average at 4.62 percent.

Boston Business Journal recently reported a $15 million milestone payment from GlaxoSmithKline to Tolerex Inc. in order to support a clinical trial for diabetes treatment. However, GSK also recently declined a lung cancer developmental treatment with collaborative partner Exelixis. Currently, GSK stocks have experienced rising fluctuating prices.

Warren Buffet has owned 1.5 million shares of GSK since about the fourth quarter of 2007 and seen a price decline of 15.79 percent from $50.39 to $42.43 in the first quarter of 2008. Two other gurus also initiated positions in GSK, Bill Nyguen and Bruce Berkowitz bought 2 million and 2.3 million shares respectively during the first quarter of 2008. Other gurus maintained their shares in GSK, such as Dodge & Cox, Richard Snow, Sarah Ketterer, Edward Owens, NWQ Managers, Kenneth Fisher, John Keeley, Charles Brandes, and Tweedy Browne.

U.S. Bancorp (USB)

U.S. Bancorp (“USB”) is a financial services holding company. They operate full-service branch offices and ATMs and provide a comprehensive line of banking, insurance, and investment services to consumers, businesses, and institutions. USB is also the parent company of Firstar Bank and U.S. Bank. U.S. Bancorp has a market cap of $53.05 billion and its shares were traded at around $30.47 with a P/E ratio of 13.28 and P/S ratio of 4.06. The dividend yield of USB stocks is higher than average at 5.52 percent.

Recently U.S. Bancorp has had many insider buys which indicates a healthier, rebounding market. It has held up in light of the credit crises however, according to Morningstar, it was changing hands at single-digit multiples of below-trend earnings as investors fled the sector, before the big bounce in financials a few weeks ago.

Warren Buffet has owned shares of USB since before the second quarter of 2001 and seen the price per share rise from $22.79 to its current end of first quarter price of $32.26. He has also increased his holdings from 6.2 million to 68.6 million in that time. Dodge & Cox just initiated shares in USB in the first quarter, while George Soros increased his shares 30.29 percent and Ruane Cunniff increased his shares 17.42 percent, both from the last quarter of 2007.

On the other hand, Bill Nygren and Ronald Muhlenkamp both decreased their shares by 23.19 percent and 53.93 respectively while David Dreman, Wallace Weitz, Tweedy Browne, Kenneth Fisher, Brian Rogers, and Jean-Marie Eveillard all maintained their shares in the company.

Chairman, President, and CEO Richard K Davis just sold 173,673 shares of USB stock in July, and the price has increased 6.13 percent since. Vice Chairman, Andrew Cecere sold 50,000 shares of stock in mid April at the price of $33.10 and the price has declined 7.95 percent since then. Finally, Directors Jerry W Levin , David B Omaley , Arthur D Jr Collins , Joel W Johnson , Craig D Schnuck , and Douglas M Jr Baker all recently bought shares of USB, while Directors Terrance R Dolan , Joseph C Hoesley , P.w. Parker , and Diane L Thormodsgard all recently sold their shares.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

American Eagle Outfitters: fabulous fundamentals but no moat

This article (from seekingalpha.com) describes the current favourable value assessment along with the downside risk extremely well:

Most Americans are familiar with American Eagle Outfitters (AEO). The company runs over 950 American Eagle mall-based clothing stores, primarily aiming for the teen and young adult market. More recently, the company has also started 3 new concepts: aerie (50 stores), which sells (as management says) "bras and undies", Martin + Osa, which focuses on sportswear for the 25-40 age range, and 77steps, a new concept aiming for the baby and youth market. AE only sells it's own proprietary brands instead of sourcing outside labels. Their niche is "affordable fashion". In shopping terms, this would be a step above Target (TGT) and a step below Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF).

First, the positives. American Eagle is an extremely well run company. MFI return on capital levels have averaged about 69% since 2004, which is superb efficiency. Cash flow generation is similarly impressive, with free cash flow margin showing a 5-year 16% average. The company has compounded earnings per share at a 32% clip over that period. The balance sheet sparkles, with 370 million in cash versus no debt. Finally, management has been quite shareholder friendly, especially when compared to peers. American Eagle boasts a 3% dividend at today's prices, and payout ratio of free cash flow is only about 22%. The current dividend is quite safe and there is plenty of room for more dividend hikes. Any way you slice it, this is an effective company.

Even more exciting, American Eagle stock today boasts statistics that would make any value investor raise an eyebrow. Earnings yield is nearly 22%, or for old fashioned types, a 7.1 enterprise value (EV) to price ratio - insanely cheap. EV to sales is under 1. Free cash yield, my favorite valuation statistic, is huge at 15% (EV/free cash flow is 6.7). These are fire sale prices based on past levels of earnings and cash flow.

There is certainly a large amount of pessimism built into this stock - way too much, in the opinion of MagicDiligence. American Eagle's flagship stores are nearing saturation, but the aerie concept could have the potential to grow into a several hundred store chain. Also, slower expansion improves free cash flow generation, allowing more stock buybacks and dividend increases. A quick look at the Magic Formula screen shows a whole slew of clothing retailers being cheap... a clear sign that it's the industry, and not the company, being discounted. And when something is cheap solely because of short term macro-economic factors, it could be a good time to buy. American Eagle is a pretty good bet to bounce back strongly, and that's why MagicDiligence has a buy opinion.

Still, AE is not Top Buy material. Clothing retail, especially to teenagers, is a classic no moat business. There is a TON of competition in this space. Aeropostale (ARO), Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), Gap (GPS), and PacSun (PSUN) are just a few of the competitors, to say nothing of the specialty stores as well as larger retailers such as Kohl's (KSS). Most all of these are well run companies with strong financial health and cash flow. The teen and young adult set are notoriously fickle on fashion. Ask Gap or PacSun shareholders about the pain when a teen clothier messes up it's product offering, even for just a few months. Compare this to a wide moat firm like Microsoft (MSFT), who has blown billions of dollars on sinkholes like MSN and the Zune, only to remain ludicrously profitable. All AE has is it's management, and there is little room for error.

In a nutshell, MagicDiligence loves American Eagle the company, but really and truly hates the business it', s in. It's a good buy for the do-it-yourself Magic Formula investor. But there are too many other Magic Formula entries with strong, built-in competitive advantages to recommend AEO as a Top Buy.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

A "Sin" Stock with growth and value characteristics


Diageo DEO: is a 122 year old UK based liquor, beer and wine producer and distributor to 180 countries across the globe. It is the largest company in the world of its kind and has the majority market share, particularly in Asia. Its products are skewed toward premium brands. 8 of the top 20 brands in the world are owned by DEO including Guiness and Cuervo. Diageo has even put a foothold in "Second Life", the famous online multiplayer game (see picture above).

Bull Case for DEO:

  1. secular product supposedly "recession-proof"
  2. product obsolescence not an issue in an industry with a very slow rate of change
  3. some inventory (i.e. Scotch which is the fastest growing product segment) actually increases in value over time!
  4. double digit growth in Asia
  5. predictable cash flows (almost $3 Billion/year!) and fat net margins exceeding 20%
  6. distribution scale and efficiency (along with valuable brands) gives DEO a wide economic moat
  7. being based in the UK, revenues (and the stock price) are measured in the British pound: historically one of the most stable world currencies
  8. eye popping ROE > 35%
  9. dividend 3.4%
  10. Morningstar's fair market value = $112/share v.s. recently trading around $70/share--> a 38% discount
  11. 75% of executive compensation is performance based, helping to align their interests with shareholders
  12. Enterprise value/EBIDTA = 12: cheap historically for a stable, highly profitable company that deserves a multiple premium


Bear Case:

  1. subject to adverse legal/social exposure ("sin" product)
  2. ethical funds and investors will generally avoid alcohol purveyors, narrowing the market exposure ever so slightly
  3. subject to heavy tax burden that may increase in the future
  4. European market has a been an exceptionally slow grower for the company. Europe has also seen more intense competition and subsequent margin compression
  5. foreign exchange risk of British Pound v.s. loonie/USD
  6. Not cheap by conventional valuations: P/E (trailing) 17 P/B 6 PEG 1.44


The recent run up in the market has spoiled my opportunity to enter a position in DEO. I'd be interested at any share price < $70/share and hold for the very long term. I think that this is an excellent investment with a considerable margin of safety.

l

Friday, August 1, 2008

The Value Gurus View of today's market


OWCH!

Read Bill Miller's shareholder letter here.


With the longest unbroken record of beating the S&P 500 index ever recorded Mr. Miller has gone from a widely admired to highly reviled status: he has badly underperformed over the last 2 years. Investors are so fickle, eh?

Regardless whether you agree with his last 2 years' investment decisions or not, you have to appreciate the tremendous resolve and discipline it takes to invest in the contrarian/value grain-- particularly if you're using other people's money who are not necessarily as patient as you would like. It's pretty easy to be an "armchair asset manager".


I am researching the following opportunities with summaries to follow:

  • Legg Mason LM update
  • Terex TEX (both TEX and MTW are infrastructure plays with dirt cheap valuations)
  • Manitowoc MTW
  • Power Corporation of Canada POW.TO
  • Indigo Books etc. IDG.TO
  • Alimentation Couche-tard update ATD.B.TO
  • Diageo DEO


l