Saturday, 12 May 2012

ATP Oil and Gas - First Quarter 2012 Update


On Thursday, not for the first time, ATP Oil and Gas reported a disappointing quarter.  The stock closed down by nearly 10%, and lost slightly more Friday.  On the conference call, one analyst lambasted the executives for underperformance and demanded meaningful management change.  There's little doubt that he spoke on behalf of many unimpressed shareholders.
Though production for the quarter was within management's prior guidance, it was lower than in the year-ago period, and the second quarter figures to be lower still.  The stock's swan dive, however, probably resulted from reported troubles with the Telemark workovers.  Specifically, a piece of tubing is stuck in the A2 well, and they're having difficulty dislodging it.  Though management reaffirmed their expectation for a boost to production of 4-7 mboe/day by the end of the second quarter, it was a stomach-churning reminder to shareholders that the debt-addled company has little room for error.  Either the Telemark field is not the gem it was made out to be, or the steaming analyst was correct in his judgment of the ATP operations team.
Still, if the workovers are successful, production is expected to reach 29-32 boe/day.  When the Clipper wells come on line early in the fourth quarter - everything remains on schedule - production should reach 45-48 boe/day, and the company will be generating cash flow well above capex requirements.  With two wells at Gomez, one small-fry at Tors, and possibly more at Entrada in 2013, the company stands to increase production substantially in the not-too-distant future.
While operations caused more headaches, there was continued progress on the financing side.  Al Reese, the miracle-working CFO, secured added liquidity - the cash balance reached $225 million - and made further progress on financing and monetizing the Octabuoy platform.  At minimum, it seems likely that ATP will strike a deal to offload the last few hundred million dollars of capital spending onto a partner.
In an earlier post, I mapped out ATP's road to 2015.  Though littered with obstacles, if the company is able to bring the next few wells online and close one or more significant financial deals, shareholders will be handsomely rewarded.  However, a crushing debt load means the company has little room for error, in a challenging, unpredictable business.  It's no wonder the company’s shares are almost evenly split between longs and shorts.
Sources: 2012 Q1 conference call, press release, available at http://www.atpog.com/

Disclosure: The author was long ATP options at the time this article was posted.
Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog

Thursday, 10 May 2012

Is There a Housing Bubble in Canada?

When people ask, "Is there a housing bubble?" they are often also asking a slightly different question: "Will there be a crash in the housing market that will affect the economy in general?"  In many cases, the answers to these two questions are one and the same.  In Canada's case, there may be a difference.
The US economy continues to putter along at a steady, but sluggish, pace, several years after the Great Recession.  People no longer even bother to wish out loud for a "V-shaped recovery."  There's an obvious reason for this: the housing market, which has been flat on its back since 2008, remains a major drag on the economy (for a discussion see my earlier article on housing and the economy).  North of the 49th, many Canucks worry that a similar bubble will cause an unwelcome crash. 
The US housing bubble had two dimensions: sky-high house prices, and tremendous oversupply of housing units.  When working properly, the forces of supply-and-demand ensure that excess supply is brought into balance with demand via lower prices, and vice versa.  It's a testament to just how out-of-whack things got that prices doubled in many markets, despite massive overbuilding that would normally force prices down.  When the double-bubble burst, of course, the crash was disastrous. 
Is there too much supply?
There is little evidence of oversupply in Canada's housing market.  Though there was a period from 2002 to 2007 when new builds exceeded household formation, perhaps half of that excess has been sopped up since (1).  Moreover, this followed a decade-long period of underconstruction (2).  If there was a large inventory of vacant homes it would be apparent in at least two statistics: price and vacancy rate.  Certainly, as noted, in extreme manias price and supply can move upward in tandem, but prices have not fallen.  In addition, the vacancy rate is low.  Last year it was just 2.2%, and is expected to remain stable in the near-term (3). 
What about Toronto's white-hot condo market?  Despite a well-publicized boom - 18,000 new units will be completed this year - the city's vacancy rate is expected to remain low in 2012, at just 1.3% (3).  Besides, oversupply in a certain segment of a certain city, even in Canada's largest metropolis, would not necessarily indicate a broader nation-wide problem.
Even if there was a modest oversupply of housing units, significant net migration is expected in the medium-term, enough to fill any vacancies.  Total net migration was 234 000 in 2011, and is expected to reach    254,000 in 2012 and 259,000 in 2013 (3).  Of note, though, in April, 2012, there were a seasonally adjusted 245,000 housing starts, a 27% year-over-year gain.  While one month doesn't make a trend, sustained building in excess of household formation would naturally lead to a surplus of supply. 
Are prices too high?  If so, why?
There is compelling evidence that Canada's housing market is overvalued.  Historically, the ratio of price-to-income has averaged 3.5, but currently stands at 4.75, leaving the market 35% overvalued (4).  As the basic truism goes, real estate is mostly a local market, and some of Canada's important local markets are grossly overvalued.  Vancouver, for one, sports a 10-to-1 price-to-income ratio, and Toronto is far above the average, at 6.7-to-1 (2).  In addition, the ratio of household debt to disposable income has ballooned to over 150%, just shy of the 160% or so level that US and UK homeowners reached before their housing markets crashed (4).
Several causes have contributed to high prices.  First, very low interest rates.  One study found that of the 45% increase in real prices between 2001 and 2010, 6 percentage points were due to declining mortgage rates (5).  Second, over time many renters have become buyers, pushing up prices.  Part of this has been driven by a shift in mindset, with people considering homeownership not merely a lifestyle choice but as an investment opportunity.  However, very low interest rates will eventually increase, and will likely restrain, or reduce, prices.  And with a high rate of homeownership - 70% - there's little additional capacity for renters to become homeowners (2).  Finally, high prices will themselves cool demand.
Will there be a soft landing or a hard one?
Currently, very few mortgage holders are behind on their payments.  While there's no hard-and-fast limit, borrowers that must devote 40% or more of their income to service debt are at risk of insolvency.  According to some research, only 6.5% of Canadians are at or above that threshold (6).  But how abruptly will this change when interest rates rise?  At first, perhaps, not very.  After all, 68% of outstanding Canadian mortgages are fixed rate (2), as are most refinancings (7).  And the remaining 32% of variable-rate borrowers will have an opportunity to lock-in rates as they begin to climb.  Importantly, Canadians hold 67% equity in their homes, compared to just 39% in the US (2).  Still, with housing prices overvalued by 35%, they would fall by 26% to revert to the average.  Any major shock - the European debt crisis, a sharp slowdown in China - could cause a sharp fall in prices.
Conclusion
There is little evidence of oversupply in Canada's housing market, but ample evidence that it's overpriced.  Prices will eventually fall to meet the long-term average.  This could happen slowly: say, a 3% drop per year, combined with 2% inflation, for a 5% annual real correction for several years.  However, given how frothy prices are, a more severe correction is a real possibility.
But there is little reason to fear the disaster that the US housing market inflicted on the broader economy.  To be sure, a fall in home prices would soften consumer spending due to the "wealth effect," the tendency for people to spend more as their assets appreciate, and less as they lose value.  However, there should not be any significant falloff in new home construction, the related spending that accompanies it - new furniture, yard equipment etc. - or the jobs tied to building.
Sources:


Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Warren Buffett's Letters to Partners - A Summary

Warren Buffett's annual letter to shareholders is the most widely read and admired letter of its kind in the corporate world.  Written in clear, accessible prose, using well-known sayings and metaphors - he's quoted from the Bible, Ben Franklin and country music - the letters serve not only to keep Berkshire Hathaway shareholders informed, but as a source of wisdom for all investors.  His intellectual framework offers something to a broader audience as well, including government officials, corporate leaders, financial professionals, businesspeople and entrepreneurs. 
Most investors are not as familiar, however, with his earlier letters to partners, written from the late 1950s to the late 1960s.  Never purposely published, they can nonetheless be found on the internet, although reading them one wonders whether they were written with at least one eye cocked to posterity.  The letters, though shorter and written for a more limited audience, share many of the same qualities that his later ones do.  The tone, style, and familiar references are the same, and the ultra-steady, original logic and clarity of thought already existed.  Indeed, his basic outlook was already firmly established.  
His depth of knowledge and understanding are especially impressive, given that he was in his late twenties when he wrote the earliest letters.  His firm grasp of business and investing prompted him to set an ambitious goal: to outperform the Dow by 10 percentage points per year over time.  And his results were even more striking than his aspirations: he returned over 30% annually for twelve years, without a single down year, compared to under 10% for the Dow. 
While Buffett believed then much of what he believes now, careful readers will detect a subtle evolution in his thinking, though no earth-shattering "Eureka" moments.  As he matured, he moved from Ben Graham's "Cigar Butt" investments, to buying excellent businesses with durable competitive advantages that produced predictable, and usually growing, earnings.  Ironically, it was Berkshire Hathaway itself, a failing textile mill when Buffett assumed control, that inspired this philosophical change.  Just a few years after he first happily mentions the company, he expresses dismay at how difficult the business is, and how unfavorable its prospects.  Once he realizes that a superior business is, well, superior, his thinking shifts quickly and seamlessly.  After all, he already had insights into the psychology of managers, the market position of companies, the history of commerce, and much else besides.
Below are some of the topics he emphasizes, organized according to theme.  The comments consider the entire set of letters as a whole.
On Market Volatility and the Short-Term Mindset
Early on, Buffett studies market psychology and the effects of herd behavior on stocks.  However, he remains focused on a business's intrinsic value, which, unlike the stock, remains fairly constant.  He is entirely agnostic about the short-term direction of the market and determines what is likely to happen in a business, not when it'll be reflected in the market.  He notes, after receiving a few calls from panicked investors, that people only seem to fear uncertainty in falling markets, as if the future is crystal-clear after a buoyant period in the stock market. 
Toward the end, investing has become a widespread, "chain letter" pursuit, and the frequent attention that the average Joe focuses pays to the market has further compressed timeframes.  Indeed, he reprints a commentary from an investment advisory firm claiming that investing has become so complex and fast changing it must be "studied in a minute-by-minute program."  Accordingly, the funds that perform the best in the short-term receive large boosts in investment dollars, which always chase yesterday's returns.
On Diversification versus Concentration
Even in the early years, Buffett didn't shy away from concentrating large proportions of his funds in a single position, even though it may result in short-term underperformance.  Indeed, he warns partners that under highly favorable conditions he would commit up to 40% to a single idea, and ends up doing just that.  He's thought very carefully about the ideal conditions, though, including the probability of permanent loss, the attractiveness of competing ideas, the variance of likely outcomes etc.  As his assets grow and the market continues to rise, this willingness to concentrate becomes not only logical, but necessary.  On the flipside, he blames the mediocre performance of large investment funds in part on over-diversification. 
On Relative versus Absolute Results
Counterintuitive to some, Buffett puts a heavy emphasis on relative results.  He states clearly that he would judge his performance to be better if his funds fell by 15% and the market fell by 30%, than if both rose by 20%.  After all, shooting 3 on a par 4 is better than par on a 5, and over time you'll have plenty of par threes and fives, he reasons.  Some partners must have been puzzled by this philosophy, since he returns to it repeatedly, and attempts to explain it in a number of different ways.  It's not as if he didn't appreciate the desire for absolute results, though.  He reasoned that the market would trend upward over time, and that relative outperformance on a year-to-year basis would eventually add up to satisfying absolute returns.
On Management Aligning Their Incentives with Shareholders
In the case of Sanborn Map, a company that produced ultra-precise maps for insurers, Buffett witnessed an entrenched board acting in their own interest, not in the interest of shareholders.  Part of the reason for the apathy toward shareholders, he argues, is explained by the board's limited holdings in the company.
Given his "eat-your-own-cooking" philosophy, it's not surprising that the vast majority of his family's net worth is tied up in the partnerships, as well as large amounts from extended family, friends and other people well-known to the Buffetts.  To this day, he has never sold a share of Berkshire stock, nor did his late wife.
On the Use of Leverage
Buffett has long warned businesses, governments and investors to restrain their use of debt, since it makes them vulnerable to extreme pain, or worse, during difficult markets.  Surprisingly, he uses leverage in the partnership, though he doesn’t borrow more than 25% of equity.  However, he makes it clear that debt is used only to offset "workouts," situations where there is a high degree of predictability of long-term success and short-term market stability, such as merger arbitrage or liquidations.
On Thinking Logically and Independently
Buffett notes that the test of accuracy is not whether others - however numerous, important or vocal - agree with you, it's whether your hypothesis, facts and reasoning are correct.  He acknowledges the influence of emotions on investment decisions, and advocates for a clear-eyed understanding of the thought process that guides investments. 
A long bull run in the later years gives him the chance to show the courage of his conviction.  He maintains his fact-driven independence, even in an ever-expanding bubble where everyone is convinced that "trees grow to the sky."  Buffett wisely refuses to abandon a proven system for a new, unproven one that ignores any standards of value.  He was right, just as he was in a similar tech-driven mania in the late 1990s.
On Keeping Costs Low
Buffett praises managers that keep costs low and profits high.  At Dempster Mill he parachuted in an outsider, who successfully made cuts undreamed of by the previous management, earning Buffett's jubilant praise.
Buffett also practices what he preaches.  Only in 1962, when he had 90 partners and was managing over $7 million (much more, obviously, in today's dollars) did Buffett move into a proper office.  At first, he employed just a couple of staff, with administrative expenses costing partners just half of 1% of partnership equity.  Until then, he operated out of his home and did the administrative work himself.  Today, despite  250 000 employees, Berkshire's headquarters, still located in the same building, employs only two dozen or so.
On Large Institutional Funds
He repeatedly points out how mediocre most large investments funds are, few of which match, let alone exceed, the market return.  Furthermore, they do not compensate for substandard performance by achieving better-than-average results in down markets.  Adding hypocrisy to mediocrity, the funds refuse to compare their own performance to any benchmark, despite measuring all elements of potential investments.  However, he concedes that fund managers can't be expected to fare much better, given institutional constraints, and still fare better than most do-it-yourself investors would on their own.
From the beginning, Buffett compares his annual performance to four of the day's leading funds.  He trounces all four.
On Compound Interest
Buffett repeatedly illustrates the astonishing power of compound interest.  For numbers lovers, he produces compound interest tables with a range of percentage returns, compounded over a range of timeframes.  He highlights, in particular, how small per-annum differences - say, between 10% and 12% - can produce surprisingly large differences between final amounts over the long-term.  For readers more swayed by stories than numbers, he estimates the present-value of various historical financial transactions, including the decision to backstop Columbus’s voyage to America.

Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog.

Monday, 7 May 2012

Investing in Le Chateau - Earnings Power or Book Value

A few years ago, I invested in Le Chateau, a well-known Canadian apparel retailer, for about $9.75/share.  Seven or eight months later, after pocketing three dividend payments totaling about $0.50, I sold the shares for better than $14.00, and gave himself a hearty, self-satisfied pat on the back.  After all, 50% or so gain in eight months is an annualized gain of about 75%.  Not bad.  Not bad at all. 
But the investment was a mistake, since it was made on the assumption that the business would grow slowly, but steadily, for at least several years in the future.  At worst, I believed, the company would be able to maintain the level of profitability that it had established, then north of $1.00 EPS.  Return on equity was over 20% and a large portion of earnings were consistently being paid out as a dividend, so the downside seemed limited.
Founded in 1959, Le Chateau has grown carefully and at a manageable pace.  While the barriers to entry in apparel retailing are low, the company operates over 200 stores and has a reliable presence in all of Canada's significant cities, usually in malls.  With sales in excess of $300 million, Le Chateau enjoys the scale to advertize in a major way, keeping the company's brand in customers' minds.  Unlike most of its clothes-peddling competitors, the company designs, develops and manufactures (some of) its merchandise, giving it flexibility and shorter lead times, a valuable asset in the fast-changing world of fashion. 
Profits peaked, however, in fiscal 2009.  EPS was $1.55, which slipped to $1.22 in 2010 and $0.79 in 2011.  Unfortunately, in 2012, the company lost $0.10 per share.  Most companies stumble at some point, though, and one bad year should not be fatal.  However, the balance sheet is more concerning than the income statement: indeed, liquidity has become a major threat to the company.  A year ago, the company had $48 million in cash and investments, compared to $36 million in debt.  At present, cash and investments have fallen to just over $7 million, while debt has grown to $46 million.  The kamikaze-like stock has plummeted, recently trading at 1.53.  In market parlance, the stock is "discounting" bankruptcy. 
In fiscal 2011, the company increased access to liquidity in moderate amounts.  Fortunately, the company was recently thrown a lifeline.  In late April, it signed a credit agreement with GE Capital Canada on a 3-year, $70 million revolving credit facility.  This gives Le Chateau time and capital to attempt a turnaround.  As the stock flirts with penny territory, is it time to buy? 
Warren Buffett would likely say no.  In the past, he's remained faithful to companies and their managers through periods of sub-par performance, but he would likely conclude that Le Chateau doesn't enjoy the unbridgeable "moat" that he requires.  With few barriers to entry, apparel retailing is intensely competitive.  While clothiers have the ability to create a unique product and brand to differentiate their threads from all the rest, it's difficult to do so.  One indicator of future performance is past performance.  The company has grown steadily over decades, but the trend over the past few years has been downward.  For an investor that prefers the unchanging businesses of Coke, railroads and wallboard, the dynamic world of fashion is too unpredictable.
Ben Graham, on the other hand, might have been intrigued.  Graham looked for companies trading at a discount to tangible book value, and was particularly fond of the "net-net," or a company trading for less than working capital minus debt.  Le Chateau doesn't quite meet the second, more elevated, criteria, but it trades for a mere fraction of book value.  Indeed, tangible shareholders equity currently stands at $138 million, or $5.59/share, nearly four times the share price.  The $234 million of assets are almost entirely inventory ($119 million) and property and equipment ($96 million). 
Some balance-sheet oriented investors consider book value as more of a theoretical yardstick for measuring a company's worth, while others take it more literally.  This latter group of fundamentalists appraise what a company is worth "dead, not alive," knowing that it may indeed be liquidated at some point.  For investors worried about the company's future as a going concern, what's a reasonable estimate of the present breakup value?
The liabilities, alas, are rock-solid.  What of the assets?  While inventory is accounted for at the lower of cost or net realizable value, the second benchmark is only an estimate: the company was forced to write down the value of inventory in each of the past two years, and may yet have to write down more to sell it.  Only time will tell what it's actually worth.
The property and equipment consists mostly of leasehold improvements, furniture and fixtures.  It's impossible to tell what they would fetch in a fire sale, but it would be wise to assume a number far smaller than what they're being carried for.  This is not to suggest in any way that assets are being accounted for aggressively, but it's difficult to tear fixtures out of a store built specifically for a particular company and receive full value for them.
Some investors are attracted to a discount-to-book-value style of investing because they view it as easy.  After all, one only has to compare book value to market value, which allows for hassle-free, computer-based screening.  Certainly, there are cases where a company is sitting on valuable real estate that's not needed for its operations, or has set up shop in a ritzy building that could be monetized in a sale-leaseback.
But this method of investing is not always so straightforward in practice.  With few exceptions - Peter Cundill and the late Walter Schloss, to name two - today's value investors use Buffett's more expansive, earnings-based definition of "intrinsic value," rather than Graham's asset-based conception of value.  The "margin of safety," buying at a discount from value, is timeless, but in most cases "value" lies in the earnings power of a business, not the assets.
Conclusion
The future of Le Chateau is unclear.  If it returns to even half its former level of profitability, the stock will appreciate handsomely.  Indeed, at EPS of 0.60-0.75, the company currently trades at a mere 2x future earnings.  If it fully reclaimed its former glory, just the dividend would pay out that amount every year. 
2012 will be about reducing inventory, cutting costs and correcting fashion mistakes.  Year end inventory was 39% of sales in 2012, compared to 29% in 2011 and 18% in 2010.  The company intends to bring this proportion down to more normal historical levels, which will require margin-squeezing markdowns.  On the plus side, the rise in inventory explains most of the company's rising debt, but as inventory falls, debt is expected to decrease, too.  Le Chateau's capital expenditures will fall to $6.5-8.0 in 2012, far less than the $20-25 million of recent years, and depreciation and amortization will likely be around $20 million in 2012.  If the company posts modest losses on a net income basis in 2012, it should at least be cash flow positive.
Le Chateau's long-term performance has been impressive, the short-term has not.  It's unsettling how quickly the company's recent short stumble left them desperate for liquidity.  Would-be investors in Le Chateau must invest in the company with the expectation that it can turn things around, and cannot depend on liquidation value as a backup.  First, it's not easy to arrive at.  Second, whatever it's worth today, it would surely diminish if the company continues to struggle.  The best approach for investors is to find businesses with durable competitive advantages whose future earnings can be roughly predicted.
Disclosure: The author did not have any position in Le Chateau at the time the article was published.
Sources: The company's most recent MD&A, Financial Statements and Annual Information Form, which can be found at sedar.com

Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog.


Friday, 4 May 2012

The US Housing Market - Recession and Recovery

Building a new house generates a lot of economic activity.  Before a shovel breaks ground, architects, developers and banks get some business.  A realtor may take a commission.  The physical substances of the house are cut down in forests, quarried in gypsum mines etc.  From there, they're hauled to mills and factories, where workers transform them from raw materials into finished goods.  Once manufactured, transportation firms again act as a middleman, delivering them to the construction site.  When the building phase begins, well-paid laborers and skilled tradesmen pour the foundation, erect the frame, run wire, fit pipe, top it off with a roof, and so on.  Clearly, it's a major undertaking, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
A major reason for the US economy's lackluster recovery is the stubborn lack of a rebound in housing.  While the economy went through a Great Recession, the housing market has suffered a Great Depression.  After a crazed period of overbuilding, the housing bubble popped; housing starts have plummeted, as empty homes are slowly filled.  A look at historical housing starts is striking.  From 1959-2007, housing starts averaged around 1.5 million per year, albeit on a cyclical basis.  Until 2008, the number never fell below 1 million.  However, from 2008-2011, household starts averaged just 664 000 (starts) (1).  Early indications suggest the number may be around 750 000 or so for 2012, about half the historical rate.
Household formation is mostly composed of two groups of people: immigrants and young people leaving home.  To a lesser extent, it also includes people living with roommates, siblings and extended family that decide to settle on their own, as well as divorcees, and a few other small cohorts.  Many immigrants continue to dream about moving to the US, but few young people fantasize about living with their parents forever (Warren Buffett has joked that "hormones" will heal the housing bust).  As the economy picks up, and the jobs market recovers, pent-up demand - of both kinds - will be released and homes will be built to accommodate it. 
Once the excess supply of homes is filled and the market is back in balance, housing starts will match household formation over time.  A report from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies projects that 2010-2020 household formation will likely average 1.18-1.38 million per year (2).  Whether it happens in a few weeks, months or years, housing starts will nearly double from recent levels, and create tremendous amounts of economic activity in the process.  Though lower than past levels of household formation, projections for the next decade remain 600 000-800 000 higher than starts in recent years. 
How much economic activity will result as this gap closes?  Here's a crude, back-of-the-envelope estimate, designed not to be precise, but to make a broad point.  Assuming housing starts that are 700 000 higher than in recent years, and assuming a cost of $200 000 per house, $140 billion of additional economic activity would be created per year, which would add nearly a full percentage point to GDP.  Keep in mind, this assumes no multiplier effect at all, and ignores add-on purchases, such as new furniture and yard equipment, that often coincide with new construction. 
More aid will come to the economy when real estate prices resume their rise (over the very long-term, the price of real estate tends to rise at, or slightly ahead of, the rate of inflation).  Homeowners tend to consume more as property values appreciate, a confidence-related phenomenon known as the "wealth effect."  One estimate holds that for every dollar in increased wealth, consumers spend 6 extra cents (3).  Given that consumer spending accounts for 70% of US GDP, wealth’s effect on the economy is considerable.  And banks, which in recent years have suffered heavy mortagage-related losses, will become more profitable, prompting them to lend to consumers and businesses, and bolstering the economy in the process.  Banks, after all, lend in proportion to their assets.
There's no water-tight way to predict when the housing recovery will arrive, but eventually it will, likely on a city-by-city basis.  Though the housing bubble was national in scope, real estate remains mostly a local market.  When housing comes back in most major markets, the US economy is likely to enter a strong, self-sustaining recovery.  A word of warning, though: shy investors that take a wait-and-see approach may find that stocks have made most of their gains by the time the long-awaited recovery appears.

Sources:

Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog.

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Book Review - There's Always Something to Do: The Peter Cundill Investment Approach, by Christopher Risso-Gill

In 2011, Christopher Risso-Gill published There's Always Something to Do: The Peter Cundill Investment Approach, the first and only book about one of finest Canadian investors in history.  Risso-Gill observed Cundill from a front-row seat, serving for a decade as a director of the Cundill Value Fund, which returned a hair above 15% annually for 33 years.  The author's personal and professional proximity to his subject allows for a detailed look at an excellent career.  Risso-Gill draws on the vast paper trail that Cundill left behind, giving readers a first-hand look at Cundill's thinking. 
In crystal-clear, economic prose, Risso-Gill brings Cundill to life, with the help of many long, direct quotes from Cundill's journal, excerpts from letters and speeches, and scraps from notes and memos.  Risso-Gill outlines the trajectory of his career, from his early days managing a tiny fund, to his time as renowned all-star; discusses the people Cundill forged business, political and social connections with; and includes interesting anecdotes along the way.  Cundill had a razor-sharp mind and a wide-ranging curiosity.  Indeed, he gleaned wisdom from a range of sources including Inuit folk sayings, Korean potters, and the hard-to-fathom facts of astrophysics.  An avid runner and athlete, he also augmented mental fitness with physical health.
Most importantly, the author illuminates Cundill's investing tenets and philosophy, and gives examples to show the interaction between theory and practice.  His revelation came when he learned of Ben Graham, Warren Buffett and the concept of the "margin of safety."  The margin of safety is a simple idea: buy a business for less than its true value.  It reduces risk, Graham noted, by allowing for miscalculation or bad luck.  After all, the cheaper a stock is the less room it has to fall.  Cundill liked businesses that had "escape hatches": inventory that could be monetized, spare real estate, rainy-day investments etc.  Buying cheap not only reduces downside, it increases upside: eventually a stock will reach its true value, and the steeper the climb, the higher the profit. 
The book features many examples of Cundill's investments: Grahamian net-nets, including an operating copper mine, debt-free and trading at a discount to working capital; stocks selling at a discount to the sum-of-the-parts; shares oversold on short-term negative news, such as luxury-seller Tiffany's in the depressed 1970s; companies with hidden or misunderstood assets; multi-layered holding companies, with assets hidden within assets; distressed debt, especially during the Savings and Loan crisis; companies reorganizing through the bankruptcy process; sovereign debt, including that of several struggling Latin American countries in the early 1990s, and so on. 
Most of these investments had one thing in common: a healthy balance sheet.  However, Cundill was not a passive investor familiar only with the ink-on-paper details of the balance sheet: he also became intimately familiar with factories, real estate and other hard assets represented by the official filings.  In addition, he considered a company's profitability, its price-to-earnings ratio, and whether it paid a dividend.  To a lesser extent, he studied management and tried to get a feel for a business's culture.  But he never lost sight of assets and financial position of a company.
Investors learn from failure just as they do from success.  Fortunately, Risso-Gill discusses Cundill's mistakes, such as when he underestimated the time and trouble it would take to move LTV Corporation, a large steelmaker, through bankruptcy.  As all investors do, Cundill suffered through a soft patch in the early 1990s, which affected his mood, confidence, even his decision making.  In a testament to just how rattled he'd become, Cundill meditated upon one of Nietzsche’s darkest warnings, "Gaze not too long into the abyss, lest the abyss gaze back at you."  He wisely remained faithful to his proven approach, and in 1993 his fund jumped 43%.
Investors must decide not only what a company's worth today, but what it'll be worth tomorrow.  Cundill watched for companies that "burned" cash, since money wasted reduces intrinsic value.  Liquidation value is an appraisal of what a company's worth dead, not alive, but companies in mortal danger will rage against the dying of the light, rather than quickly and quietly going under.  Straightforward analysis, then, must be complemented by meta-analysis: how safe is the margin of safety?  Cundill's biggest failure involved a cable company that looked sound upon investment, but later destroyed value by making foolish acquisitions.  The mistake was largely responsible for the fund's 11% loss in 2002.  In response, Cundill encouraged more dissenting voices when debating the merits of an investment.
Understanding that value investing applies across geographies, Cundill became a globe-trotting international investor.  In addition to investing in North America and the UK, he was particularly active in Japan, where he first invested in 1985, later shorted the Nikkei when it became wildly overvalued, and finally reversed himself again and went long after it crashed; in Sweden, he toured Volvo's factory and test-drove one of its cars before buying the company's shares; he invested in Latin America in the early 1990s; he put capital in riot-stricken France in the mid-1990s; he even put some money into the oilfields of sub-Saharan Africa.  In short, Cundill found value in far-off lands, where most investors fear to tread.
Warren Buffett, Ben Graham's only A-plus student, far surpassed his teacher, partly by expanding the definition of "intrinsic value" from a narrow focus on the balance sheet, to the earnings power of business.  But two of Warren Buffett's investment requirements - a return on equity of 15% or more, and the presence of a durable competitive advantage - are scarcely even mentioned by Cundill.  That a modern investor could ignore them and succeed affirms the timeless power of the margin of safety, the idea that made Cundill's career.
Book reviewers are supposed to find something, anything, to quibble about.  But this book is a triumph.  Risso-Gill breathes life into Cundill the man, covers his entire career, places it in its social, political and business context, and outlines his philosophy.  The book is more than a biography of ideas, though: it's also of practical value to investors.  Risso-Gill manages a delicate balance: he discusses Cundill's investments in enough detail to be useful to investors, but avoids offering a dry, lifeless series of case studies.  As well, following the main body of the text are a grab-bag of terms, a glossary, and appendices that include a net-net work sheet to assist investors.  Most impressive is that Risso-Gill is a first time author.  Often, first books are as much about the author's potential as the work itself.  However, this fine book is not about promise, but fulfillment.

Source: Risso-Gill, Christopher.  There's Always Something to Do: The Peter Cundill Investment Approach.  McGill-Queens University Press, 2011.



Disclaimer: The host of this blog shall not be held responsible or liable for, and indeed expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any losses, financial or otherwise, or damages of any nature whatsoever, that may result from or relate to the use of this blog. This disclaimer applies to all material that is posted or published anywhere on this blog.