Quick thought today.

I watched an old (2012) interview with David Einhorn on CNBC. The interview starts with poker and not-for-profits, but quickly delves into such topics as monetary policy, quantitative easing, and Apple’s valuation. I mean, if you’ve got Einhorn in the studio why wouldn’t you talk about the big stuff?

You can find the interview here.

In 13 minutes and change, Einhorn hits on complex topics, some of which I agree with entirely. Some of it I can’t dig, like buying Apple or gold.

At any rate, his comments on low or zero interest rate policy are of particular interest, especially since the markets are on a tear, the deficit is set to plummet, and corporate profits are still halfway decent despite the fact revenue growth is slowing.

Einhorn: low rates hurt economic growth

Einhorn’s comments revolved around the idea that low rates actually hurt the economy more than they help. He says that low rates make it impossible to forecast future income, ultimately delaying retirement and consumption. His fix? Send rates to at least 2-3%, instead of the 0-.25% the Fed is targeting today.

Such a policy would make financing far more expensive than it is right now. Home loans would jump by at least 200-300 basis points. Probably more, actually, since the implication would be that the Fed will only go higher, not lower. Dividend paying stocks would probably take a breather, since Coca-Cola’s terrible 2.8% yield would look much less attractive to so-called “dividend growth investors” if risk-free rates were >2-3%. (Fun fact: Philip Morris, now Altria, yielded more than 19% in 1988.) And companies probably wouldn’t be so hungry to buy up their own shares given the cost of capital would rise tremendously, even for AAA credits.

However, the alternative is that investors would actually get something worthwhile on their invested capital. CDs would start at 2-3%, and go as high as 4% or more for longer maturities. Savings accounts would lift off .0000005%. Money markets would do the same. People who are currently in their 60s – baby boomers – might actually think about retiring, freeing up a job for an unemployed 20-something, of which there are many.

Is it time to listen to Einhorn?

The video ends with discussion on how Bernanke won’t listen to Einhorn (why would he?) and it’s clear higher rates probably aren’t sitting right around the corner. But with equities up, employment up, housing up, food and fuel up, maybe it’s time for a little easing on quantitative easing.

It may not be the end-all solution, but we should always be willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, central planning creates much bigger unintended consequences.

{ 1 comment }

All that glitters is not gold.

Sometimes glitter takes me for money; sometimes it takes me for opportunity.

What’s up in my portfolio

Those of you who have followed this blog for any length of time know that I’m not too peculiar about where I invest. In 2011, I had virtually all of my portfolio in four micro and small cap companies no larger than $300 million. All but one ended in very favorable acquisitions. In 2012, I went larger cap, seeing opportunities in automakers, offshore rigs, dead animals, and Adams Golf, the only company to appear twice. That mix also proved to be very profitable. I crushed it in tiny names in 2010, raking in 70% total returns. Then 2012 was excellent, reaping the benefits of options on RIG, a buyout of Adams Golf, and a rising Darling International, which I cut earlier in that year at my $18 target.

In 2013, I went with a business development company, a nanocap cashbox, and a shipbuilder. Oh, and the S&P 500, because I lacked any other really good ideas.

So that’s the history. In general, about 90% of my portfolio is invested in my annual top picks each year. I do the Greenblatt thing, for those of you familiar with his “magic formula,” holding most for just over one year in an ideal world.

Some losers and dead money

Ford

Two years ago I said that I was going long Ford in a series that played out for far, far too long. I (foolishly, in retrospect) bought downside protection by going in long-dated calls (LEAPS) and getting eaten alive by decay.

After rolling that position over once, I made out with a profit that only barely exceeded the broad market during the same period while accepting FAR MORE risk because I bought options.

Looking back, I’m not quite sure what got into me. That position was dumped in the past week, and I’m not too happy with it. I dumped it in large part because I didn’t want exposure to large caps given the stock market’s recent rally, but the thesis I originally thought would and should play out has been (finally) adopted by institutional investors, who underowned the stock for much of the recent past. (One automotive analyst complained through the years that no one wanted to talk to him, an indication that institutional investors had no interest in buying autos.)

So, while Ford’s rallying, I have no exposure. Sweet! End result: slightly above-market return for substantially above-market risks.

Apache

I’m nearing a year of holding a small part of my portfolio in Apache, an “acquire and exploit” oil and gas company with assets all around the world. I was sucked in last summer, and the results have been less than impressive.

I’m breaking even on it while the market is up more than 20% in the same time.

I still think it’s a relative value in part because its risky assets overseas (Egypt) are underappreciated by Wall Street, and management has been slow to respond to shareholder concerns. Management outlined a plan that would have the company selling assets to repay debt (capex has exceeded cash flow in a rare event for the company) and repurchase as much as 7.6% of outstanding shares. I like the idea of selling assets to repurchase shares, since the company can essentially sell X barrels of oil and oil equivalents and repurchase X*2 or 3 barrels of oil equivalent thanks to the fact Apache stock is cheaper than the sum of its parts.

I’m still holding on. I like to have some exposure to energy as a general rule (though I don’t always follow through with that), and this is my pick. It also, somewhat, counterbalances the risk to Conrad Industries in that it would benefit from new oil pipelines whereas Conrad would lose some new ship construction business. Apache previously served as a hedge for Darling International, which uses natural gas as a key input.

Learning lessons

Looking back through all my positions, I realize something that is very clear: large caps aren’t my thing. I’ve known that for awhile.

I can get very impatient. I’m especially impatient when things aren’t going my way. For example, all the while Ford’s business was improving, general periods of weakness in the broad market lead to crushed stock prices. No matter how cheap it became, no big investors seemed interested in owning it. Now they want it – and I don’t own it. Woe is me!

Also, options. I just shouldn’t. I accept my hypocrite crown for believing that in the short-term the stock market “behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine” yet purchasing time-limited options, in effect saying that I don’t care to wait.

I tend not to get so impatient with smaller companies. It is possible to know tiny companies much better than the market. Whether or not I do is up for debate, but of course, when I can buy a company for less than its net working capital, I’m confident I’m doing the right thing. Same thing goes for single digit EV/EBITDA industrial names, or companies trading with earnings and free cash flow yields well above 10%. I (generally) only find such opportunities in very small companies.

My goal is to stay in a fully-invested, concentrated portfolio of companies that, I believe, trade at a substantial discount to the market. The ideal company also has a potential suitor interested in an acquisition. Over time, that has been a winning strategy. I see no reason why that should change.

Luckily, my biggest losers and dead money have been only small parts of my portfolio since I don’t really like large caps, but they occasionally lure me in with the promise of opportunity. That’s the upside.

You can’t win all the time, though I wish I could. What I can do, though, is learn from the investments that slap me across the face every once in awhile. As Buffett says, “If every shot you hit in golf was a hole-in-one, you’d lose interest. You gotta hit a few in the woods.”

{ 1 comment }

I’m taking a short break. Yeah, I know – a brief hiatus for a blog generally means the writer disappears for months.

I won’t be doing that.

Last December I made a few promises to myself, the most important of which was that I’d be a college graduate in 2013. I’m no genius; school hasn’t exactly been a cakewalk. It is getting easier, though, as I find my list of finance classes much more interesting than general education credits. Rocked my second-ever-in-college 4.0 this semester without buying a book. Feels good.

I’m making a couple sacrifices to get out of school earlier than anticipated. For one, my summer has been sold to the system; I’ll be a full time student this summer, and finishing out 18 hours of 400-level finance and accounting hours this fall. Slap full time work on top of that and…well, it won’t be fun, but at least I’ll be done. Things are looking really good on the job front after graduation, so that’s something to look forward to.

For the next 7 months, I’ve two whole weeks without school. I’m making the most of those, one of which is the next 7 days starting right now. My last final was yesterday and my first summer class is…next Wednesday. Bummer.

In the meantime, kick it in the archives with some retro posts:

I’m fairly sure each of these are at least 2 years old now. Time flies!

{ 1 comment }

Picking stocks isn’t as easy as it’s made out to be.

Unlike the private markets, there’s a daily mark of just how good you are. If you buy a McDonald’s franchise, you can’t go online and look up its value every 10 minutes like you could with McDonald’s stock.

Mr. Market is a finicky guy. Sometimes he offers you to buy companies for less than the cash they have on hand – Pawn Star stocks. Sometimes, Mr. Market laughs at you, like when Warren Buffett missed out on the dot com boom, or when he bought a railroad at the depth of the recession. (See my article on Why Warren Buffett Lied to you about Railroads – I think it’s my favorite of all time.)

The point is, making a case for a particular value for a company is hard, in part because the market can disagree with you for a very long time. For equity analysts, people who get paid to value businesses, the disconnect between your valuation and the market’s valuation can make you look like a fool!

Stock Analysts tell All

An article in the Wall Street Journal shows just how backwards the business of analyzing companies really is. Researchers asked sell-side stock analysts about their daily business to publish the compiled results.

Here’s what they found:

  • Private phone calls win – Private phone calls with management were listed as the most useful source of generating useful earnings information. Private phone calls. Not public conference calls. Note the difference.
  • Bullishness prevails – Nearly 40% of analysts said that issuing lower earnings forecasts would result in losing access to management or getting ignored on conference calls.

Is this true? Of course!

Ask John DiFucci, who works for a prominent Wall Street bank (JP Morgan) but is rarely allowed to participate in conference calls for Salesforce (CRM). His criticism of the company’s business model and slowing growth earned him silence. Only the people who are most bullish on the stock get the chance to speak. Mmmm groupthink!

Less analysis, more insider information

I find it interesting how the data from the research shows analysts are most interested in talking to management. For one, management doesn’t have to tell the truth. Second, many of the most successful investors in history never really talked to management. Neither Ben Graham nor Walter Schloss did. Schloss compounded his investors’ wealth at a 15% annual pace for decades, too, mind you.

Relying on management for information gives a false sense of security. On one hand, managers know what the next quarter will look like. On another, they’re only going to tell you what makes them look good. So analysts open themselves up to highly accurate short-term information (necessary for accurately calling a quarterly earnings number) that lacks any context on in long-term difficulty.

Furthermore, investors should be troubled by the accuracy of sell-side price targets. If maintaining a high price target is the only way to keep managers happy – and keep information flowing – why wouldn’t sell-side targets always be higher than they might otherwise be?

This is why I try to stay away from analysts’ price targets and earnings guidance, besides the obvious fact that I don’t care nearly as much about one quarter as I do the next 10 years. Analysts on the sell-side have to keep far too many people happy to worry about analyzing the value of any given business.

{ 0 comments }