Over Trading

I recently ran some tests on the portfolio to show the impact of turnover. This involved picking random start and end dates and then running two tests: how the portfolio itself (the 'active' portfolio) performed between those dates and how the portfolio would have performed if no changes were made to the initial portfolio at the start of the test period (i.e. just go to the beach - the 'do nothing' portfolio). 

You would hope the more actively traded portfolio would beat the do-nothing portfolio (otherwise what's the point in turning the portfolio over). I ran the test across four time periods across the last 17 months. Results were pre-tax, but post brokerage. Dividends are included, however franking credits are excluded (to make the calculation easier). I've assumed dividends aren't reinvested for the do-nothing portfolio (again, to make the calculations easier). 

The average value add of the more active portfolio was -0.7%. Yes, that' means trading has actually been a cost, not value-add. The active portfolio did perform better in three of the four periods, but one period (covering the last six months) was materially worse. Looking through the results, it is clear that some winners were sold too early and moving on to the next latest and greatest really is not always the best thing to do.

The results are even more pronounced if tax is factored in. Any capital gains from the very initial portfolio are unrealised.

These results are consistent with academic studies showing low turnover portfolios tend to beat higher turnover portfolios.

While it is not a long-time period and there could be some good/bad luck across the different portfolio, it's at least very difficult to argue that more frequent turnover is the way to go. Brokerage starts adding up. Companies need time to execute business plans. Yet, as a fairly active person myself, it is difficult at times to not take action. That's something to work on.

I should also note the individual stocks in the do-nothing portfolios at times have had a large degree of volatility. You do need a tough stomach to watch share prices bounce all over the place in the short term. 

Kristian 

AI and Stock Picking

There have been a few articles recently written about AI and the attack on hedge funds / funds management. Computers have been making in-roads for sometime, particularly in quantitative and algorithmic trading. My interest is in whether AI will start infiltrating classic, bottom-up fundamental analysis. 

One argument against the invasion of AI is the breadth of experience and information sources required: meeting company management, suppliers, competitors, ASX announcements, store visits - the list goes on. This argument seems reasonable. However, the opposite side of the coin is just how much any of this actually matters. It is an increasingly well-known fact that most fund managers fail to beat the index over time (particularly post fees). If you think about it, the index itself is a fairly basic algorithm (selects stocks based on metrics such as size and free float) that fends off most fund managers - most humans have already lost to machines. 

There are chunks of fundamental analysis that are manual and repetitive and therefore susceptible to AI performing the task. For example, a common hunting ground for the fundamental investor is to go through the ASX announcements, looking at company updates, insider buying/selling etc. I imagine a robot could trawl through these announcements and compile a shortlist and dossier of stocks meeting a checklist of investment criteria. A robot could identify a company buying back stock in decent volume, go back through years of announcements to compile annual and half-year data to identify the trend in financials. The robot could then probably search the web for products sales, compare with competitors and even check out the CEO's personal background. Google is the big obvious beneficiary of this. Just imagine the power of how much Google can understand about a company. Google can identify key word flow and website traffic and probably deduce the impact on companies. And all this can be delivered with zero emotion or bias. 

So not only do fund managers struggle at the best of times, it is hard to imagine how AI won't deliver a decent kick in the ribs in the coming years to mainstream managers. If there is an edge in fundamental analysis, AI could probably deliver it cheaper than humans. 

That being said, I think human managers will have roles in speciality areas. Start-up or young  turn-around companies are hard to quantitatively analyse (there isn't much data) and the quality of the management team are of higher importance - whether fund managers or a machine are best place to determine whether managers or winners or losers or not is another issue. Very illiquid, small companies may just be too small for AI to bother with. And there will be cases of joining the dots where AI may never catch up. 

If AI skims the cream from a lot of traditional finance professionals, they may be forced into the remaining niche areas such as venture capital and small-caps thereby overcrowding those trades and invalidating them anyway. 

Some individuals are particularly adept at buying in panic and selling in boom, however if AI increasingly displaces humans from markets, then irrational behaviour may also decrease reducing the ability to arbitrage fear and greed. 

It's really hard not to see how the landscape won't continue to change and get harder for humans. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: own Alphabet / Google (via 401k)

EGP Capital Launch Party

As part of the launch of 'EGP Capital', Tony Hansen is putting on some drinks and nibbles Friday 31 March at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Sydney. EGP is exceptionally managed and this provides you with an opportunity to meet the manager in person. And the best part is it's free - a probably once only event knowing the frugality at EGP. 

If you are interested in attending, please contact EGP Capital directly at www.egpcapital.com.au. 

Kristian 

PIE Conference

The PIE conference is being held Tuesday 21 March in Auckland. The company line-up looks to be high quality and will be worth seeing the CEO's present. 

I'm going to attend, and will be in Auckland Monday 20 - Wednesday 22 March. Please let me know (via the profile page) if you would like to catch up and talk stock ideas.  

Kristian 

Calling Out For Queensland Body Corporate Managers

I'm doing some research on a company that primarily distributes through QLD Body Corporate Managers. Given I, and some colleagues, are in the process of buying shares in this company, I can't disclose the name of this company at this stage. 

This company is very rapidly growing, offering customers big savings. I'd like to speak to some QLD Body Corporate Managers to get some industry feedback. Industry feedback is a great way of verifying management and stockbroker claims.

If you are or know a BCM then I'd be appreciative if you could get in contact or pass on someone's contact details. 

Thank you, 

Kristian Dibble

Kangaroo Island Property

After touring Kangaroo Island (KI) early December last year looking at Kangaroo Island Plantations (KPT) timber plantations and proposed wharf at Smith Bay, it also appeared there may be an opportunity in property investment on the island - there are several catalysts to improve the economy and therefore house prices. 

Firstly, KPT is planning on exporting timber off the island. If this goes ahead it will create jobs. Not everyone agrees on where the timber should get off the island, but everyone agrees it needs to happen. Secondly, the airport is getting upgraded and lengthened so commercial jets can land/takeoff. This means that jets could fly direct from Sydney and Melbourne. This doesn't just mean more tourism, but people could work in Sydney for example during the week and fly to KI on the weekends. The house price differential is enormous. And recently a new resort application has been approved.

There is minimal permanent rental property on the island. We visited the Century21 office at Kingscote and there were only four properties for rent! 

So the upside case here is a jab-in-the-arm for the economy from the infrastructure projects and a 10%+ escalation in population along with minimal rental property could lead to higher rents and higher prices. 

There are some potential downsides, of course. Projects may not go ahead. Commercial jets may not fly into KI. There appears to be quite a number of unused houses on the island - there are a lot of weekenders and short term holiday letting property on the island. How much of this would convert to full time rental property if the population increases is a question I don't know the answer to. And KI will always be more expensive and isolated than the mainland: it won't appeal to everyone. 

I didn't draw any specific conclusion as to how or if property prices will move, so if you're thinking of that strategy you would want to look into this in detail yourself. The agent I spoke to was extremely helpful - contact me if you would like his details. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: own KPT

The mavericks disrupting funds management titans

The AFR has run a good article on the disruption of the funds management industry which included two close colleagues and friends - Tony Hansen (EGP Capital) and Peter Phan (Castlereagh Equity). After having known them for some years now, I can say they are both exceptionally smart and ethical individuals.

Both gentleman typically invest in smaller Australian companies and given they have a lot of their own personal wealth invested in their respective funds they have a sharpened eye for risk that many other investors simply do not.

Investors could certainly do worse than investing with them - but this of course is not to be construed as financial advice(!) 

Click the link below to read the full article:

The mavericks disrupting funds management titans

Kristian 

Kangaroo Island Plantations (KPT)

KPT has been a phenomenal investment, a great investing lesson and if plans materialise will be a positive economic boost for Kangaroo Island and South Australia. 

Kangaroo Island (KI) is located in South Australia (130km south of Adelaide) and is famous for its ecotourism including Seal Bay, marine life and a quiet get-away retreat. The tourism hot spots are located on the far western, southern and eastern sides of the island with the central and northern side typically used for agriculture. KI is quite big: 155km wide and 55km long and at times it actually feels quite remote driving through the centre. The population of over 4,000 (2006) is located mostly on the eastern side around the towns of Penneshaw and Kingscote. Sealink provides the ferry from Penneshaw to the mainland at Fleurieu Peninsula.  

It also turns out that KI has exceptional growing conditions for timber. A high, consistent rainfall combined with mild summers and low salinity allow timber to grow quickly. The faster you can grow timber, the cheaper it is to produce and KI finds itself among the lower costs timber producers in the country.

During the timber Managed Investment Scheme (MIS) heyday, various timber companies bought lots of land on KI and around the country and planted timber. These were tax and commission motivated structures that ultimately failed and the likes of Great Southern Plantations and Gunns went bankrupt. 

The main problem unique to KI is that it's an island and there has been no economical way to get the timber off the island and as the ferry service is located on the eastern side at Penneshaw, it is right smack bang in the middle of the tourist area - not exactly ideal for a logging route. 

The combination of these factors caused the prices of timber plantation on KI to crater, which in turn have created serious opportunity.

Out of the rubble, KPT emerged with 30% of the planted timber on KI, along with New Forests with 60% and individuals collectively hold the remaining 10%. I had the good opportunity to uncover this opportunity back in June 2014 when I discussed the situation at length with the great Fred Woollard from Samuel Terry Asset Management, who is the major shareholder in KPT. KPT was then $3 (a fraction of land value alone) and given it is now $27.20, it's fair to say I owe him one (I thought MNY was a good return tip, but a double is not quite as good as an 8 bagger). 

KPT has now positioned itself as the leading timber producer on KI with the recent agreement to purchase New Forests’ KI assets. This deal is phenomenal for KPT shareholders as the purchase price for the land and timber is cheap and crucially ensures KPT owns both potential sites for a second wharf.  

Getting control of both potential wharf sites is key: the government, recognising the need for a solution to export the timber to reinvigorate the economy, indicated only one approval will be given for a second site. KPT owns both Smith Bay and now Ballast Head (owned by New Forest). Smith Bay even contains a house which you can rent on Stayz.com.au. A picture of the site is shown below (note the buoy which is being used to test currents to determine wharf requirements):

So, KPT has now lodged a DA for the second wharf and if the approvals are given, the potential value accretion is enormous - despite the stock having already moved up so much. Slide 24 of the recent presentation (26/10/16) gives you some idea of what the business might be worth once the second wharf is built. As the owner of 58,000 acres of land (which ought to increase in value), a sustainable timber business generating in the order of $20m EBIT p.a. and a wharf owner, the potential upside is multiples from here. 

However, there will be another time for discussing the upside - I wanted to write this post to commend the major shareholders and management. Up until now, the board has not received much  cash remuneration but has been paid mostly in  shares (which they stand to become rich from). We've seen too many companies run by the wrong people: it's easy to get seduced (I have) by cheap stocks, but you also need the right managers with the right incentives to unlock and create value. KPT has  been exemplary in working with all stakeholders: residents, environmentalists, government and shareholders and have set the benchmark to judge other companies. 

Kristian

Disclosure - own KPT and MNY

Underestimating or Overestimating Management

Morgans (Scone) held their first 'Value in the Vines' conference: a one day conference in the Hunter Valley Crowne Plaza where CEO's presented their companies. The format I most enjoyed was the 'fireside chat' with Grant Bourke (co-founder of Domino's Pizza (DMP)) and Richard Rijs (Patties Foods) hosted by Sam Paradice. This was held after dinner and a few red wines, so the atmosphere was quite relaxed. The focus wasn't valuations and going through slide decks or EBITDA margins, but personal stories about the highs and lows of building a business. 

Both Domino's and Patties sell fairly commoditised products, yet both have had outstanding success. They cited a common thread for their success: for slightly different reasons, they both heavily emphasised the importance of people at all levels in the company. Grant Bourke gave the example of how he and Don Meij went and door knocked around a suburb to drum up business for a struggling store. That's commitment. 

It helped cystallise some thoughts on management. I have at times both underestimated and overestimated management. Unlike balance sheet items, you can't just pigeonhole people so easily - everyone is different. And on top of that you can easily make the mistake of superimposing your own thoughts and biases and see people or situations for how you think they should be seen. 

Management can be male or female, drive an expensive car or a cheap car, swear or not swear, be an introvert or extrovert, be funny or boring, educated or a school drop-out - the list goes on. But do these factors indicate whether they will be successful? 

A good example of a bias is the car they drive. Value investors tend to tut-tut expensive cars, but to many there isn't anything wrong with driving a nice car - it's a symbol of wealth and success, after all. I've heard the same comment about the clothes a CEO wears - one particular CEO who we have done very well out of this year has been criticised for dressing like a slob. He does. But he's a great manager. In another example where we have more than doubled our money in the last 12 months the feedback about the Managing Director is that he is a poor presenter. That's true. But the guy is just itching to go and make money - and doesn't really care about how he presents. 

Another mistake is to think managers will act in the best interest of their shareholders. This style of thinking is a big trap in turnarounds or bombed out situations. It is so easy to see value and think managers will get in there and realise that value. But what happens if they aren't incentivised to do that? What happens if they are on a big fat salary and downsizing the business actually works against their personal interest? 

Underestimation can be particularly annoying. Some of the CEO's out there are really smart and can keep finding ways to squeeze value - even when you can't see it. Graham Turner at Flight Centre is a great case in point: he has kept driving profits from the bricks and mortar business even though many think online is the only way to go. I'd put Stuart Brown from Blackwall (BWR and BWF) in this category. 

So it's easy to make superficial judgment calls about someone. It's easy to buy a stock when it is cheap and wonder why management doesn't do the 'obvious'. It's easy to pass on a stock because it looks fully valued but watch the price just keep going up anyway as the manager finds a new market, a new product or more costs to squeeze out. I've made both kinds of mistakes plenty of times. 

Grant Bourke and Richard Rijs suggest placing a very large focus on people. Jim Collins in Good to Great found a similar trait among higher performing CEO's: look at the who before the what. One summary word that Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson has used is 'hustle'. You want someone with hustle - the person who is driven to make things happen. Similarly, Chris Sacca (also a VC) looks for someone with inevitability. He cites Travis Kalanick from uber as a prime example. The best example of inevitability I've seen this year is Emefcy (EMC): after meeting the management and board, it just seemed certain the company would be a success - even though at that time it had no revenue (it's since risen fourfold). A larger focus on people has helped me improve considerably. There are  of course always other factors to consider - that's part of the art of weighing things up. Ideally you find outstanding management and a company with outstanding fundamentals. Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen that often. One stock I will be writing about soon had both - and the results have been spectacular. 

Kristian 

Disclosure - own BWR

Future Blog Posts

Since beginning this blog in December 2012, I have written 86, 34, 25 and 8 blog posts in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. This is ironic given that during this time my skills have improved dramatically.  The improvement is a result of lots of hard work and research along with working closely with some really smart and experienced people.  One of the great things about investing is that if you have an open mind and desire to learn, you just get better and better, your networks get wider and you can deal with the highs and lows with calmness. 

2016 has been busy. On the personal side, we had our daughter and on the professional side, the primary focus has been to drive investment performance. That journey will always continue, and we are well on our way to meeting objectives.  To enhance this process, I would now like to get back to writing more frequently. There are lots of insights to discuss and I enjoy sharing my perspective.   As always, feedback is welcome and appreciated as we can always learn from one another. I will focus the dialogue on stocks where there was a good lesson or there is an interesting story - there are a lot of interesting companies and people out there having a positive impact on the community. More broadly, I will discuss tangential issues that I have found useful.  

Thank you, 

Kristian 

Capital Allocation

In October last year I wrote a post called Feedback Loop. As discussed in that post, I keep a detailed record of all decisions to look for areas of improvement. This research provided some key insights that have laid the foundations for me to become a significantly better investor.

Of the process review, I initially spent the majority of my time on individual stocks: looking at winners and losers and my rationale for taking or not taking trades. Over time another factor also became apparent: capital allocation. What I have caught myself doing, and seen others do, is make capital allocation decisions inconsistent with the investment idea.

The text book example is doing some good analysis, deciding a stock is going up, and then buy an insignificant amount. If the idea is good, the risk is low and there is plenty of upside, it makes no sense to get gun shy and just buy a little bit.

It's easier said than done. The preferred format that works for my psychology is to build into a position. I'll buy an initial amount and then just keep buying - either because it has got cheaper, or even buy more as it is going up and I have more evidence to support the investment case.

However there are times when you just need to pile in. A good company may be getting sold off for no particularly good reason, so you may not get the chance to buy more if you just dip your toes in the water. Or, if you know decent buying is about to arrive, then chances are it is best to get more aggressive. So there are times for building and times for piling in - it depends on how fast things are moving.

Since establishing Sapient Capital to run family money, I have been a lot more assertive with allocating more capital when the odds really stack up: with good results. A friend recently forwarded me an article from Stanley Druckenmiller outlining the importance of betting big when the right opportunity comes up. Druckenmiller notes that he and George Soros bet 21.4% of their fund on the British Pound short in 1992 and the great investors like Icahn and Buffett allocate aggressively when the time is right.

This all sounds good, but what happens if it all goes wrong. The key question I asked myself was "what do I need to do to get the confidence to allocate decent amounts of capital?" This is far more than assessing the upside and downside: I needed to have the confidence the assessment of upside and downside was pretty reliable. It's easy to get seduced by thinking the downside is X. The downside could be 2X if you are wrong. Malcolm Gladwell notes it takes 10,000 hours of deliberate practise to become world class. So my confidence came from researching and reviewing over five hundred previous decisions. It's not fun going back and looking at losers (I've had plenty), but it's a lot more fun than losing money now. This provided a much clearer insight into winning stocks and understanding where I could have an edge. Building different templates of winning situations and losing situations makes it much easier to make good quality and confident decisions when they come along.

Kristian 

Elders Hybrids (ELDPA)

The above photo from Reservoir Dogs was taken from the Elders Ltd (ELD) v Elders Hybrids (ELDPA) post, written back in 2013.  I was intrigued by the stand-off between ELD and ELDPA holders and why the ELDPA share price was being discounted so aggressively ($15 at the time of writing) while the ELD share price itself was performing 'okay' (around 8c or 80c following the 1-for-10 consolidation in 2014).

Since then, life has actually worked out well for both ELD and ELDPA. Really well. Thanks to a major improvement in the fundamentals of the business, ELD has marched up to $3.76; an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 70% p.a. Even more impressive is the performance of ELDPA. The company has recently offered to redeem ELDPA for $95 equating to an IRR of 88% p.a - truly outstanding. 

The initial logic of preferring ELDPA was correct. But far more importantly, it was the actual business performing well that has saved the day - NOT any decision between ELD and ELDPA -both ELD and ELDPA has been massive performers.  A very similar stand-off has been in play for years now at Paperlinx/Spicers. The big difference is the Spicers business is still struggling and both SRS and PXUPA flounder. You would be technically correct in thinking PXUPA sit higher up in the capital structure, but if the business never recovers then it doesn't matter. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: no position in the above names, except a nominal holding in SRS to gain attendance to the AGM. 

The Value Trap (Part 2) / Platinum Roadshow

As ever, Platinum make a great presentation and the recent Platinum Roadshow (2016) was no exception. 

CIO Andrew Clifford discusses the big macro issue of the day, namely extremely low interest rates and the pervasive impact this has had around the world through causing asset price bubbles. This relates directly to the previous article I blogged about in The Value Trap: value traps are created where excess investment has been made in a particular area. Connecting the dots: lower interest rates forces capital into more speculative assets, which cause asset price bubbles, which causes future oversupply which causes more value traps. 

This is also joined at the hip by vastly improved IT systems which have increased productivity, which in it's own way is contributing to oversupply (capacity is increased if everyone can do more each day).

If you buy this argument, then life is tough for the stoic value investor - you just can't buy 'cheap' stuff and hope for the best. However - blame for poor returns has typically been pointed at momentum traders ignoring the market and just focussing on the few in-vogue growth stocks and ignoring everything else. While it is true there has been a handful of stand-out performers, I believe blaming momentum traders for poor value returns is largely incorrect. It's poor analysis (which I have been guilty of too) through confusing value with value traps. As Platinum go on to explain, while returns from Japanese equities have been dreadful as a whole, stand-out returns have been made by investing in reasonably priced growth stocks with high dividend yields.

This does mean saying 'no' more a lot more often - there just aren't a huge number of unique opportunities out there (but happily still plenty to go around). It also means being far more patient - it can take a very long time for oversupply to be soaked up - if ever. A few examples: Australia will probably never again have a 'shortage' of grocery shelves, and last year I holidayed in Rhode Island (US) where you could see plenty of old textile mill buildings - I wonder how many investors got burnt waiting for the turnaround. Being aware of these pitfalls has made a huge difference to my investing. 

Kristian 

The Value Trap

A friend recently forwarded me an article written by Edward Chancellor called The Value Trap. 

It's an excellent article, and one that would have saved me plenty of money on previous occasions. In a nut-shell: value investing works, but money can be lost through being seduced into value traps. What's a value trap? A superficially cheap stock (such as a low price to book) but where the underlying assets have already experienced a high level of growth and are now in deep oversupply. 

The common value trap is buying a mining company when it looks cheap. BHP looked cheap on simplistic valuation ratios at $40. But there was a lot of money spent on expanding production during the boom creating future oversupply. The maxim of buying mining companies when they are expensive and sell them when they look cheap seems to hold fairly true. Dare I say it, avoiding BHP was fairly obvious as the mining boom faded, however, value traps are often far more subtle and and far more ubiquitous than thought.

Boom Logistics (BOL) has been a first-class value trap. Too many cranes. Not enough demand. BOL does have other issues, but perfectly fits the bill of a group of assets (crane) in oversupply.  BOL has been 'cheap' for a long time but still the share price just keeps going down as the glut continues. 

Conversely, my mentors have taught me to look through the cycle of a company - look beyond current valuation measures to future supply and demand. The real trick comes from finding undiscovered companies that are experiencing more demand than supply in whatever they do - not just now, but in the future. Often this means buying a company that actually looks expensive based on current year financials but is going through a sustainable uptick in demand, industry rationalisation - whatever. I noted in the Feedback Loop post that cheap stocks can be very dangerous and also it is a mistake to write off stocks because they look expensive. Of my three biggest winners over the last 12 months, one was a deep discount, another had an infinite PE (no E) and the other on a PE of 31 (small E). My three biggest losers have all been of the value-trap variety.

Asset growth is slightly harder to quantify in service businesses, and is probably easier to re-deploy should an oversupply develop. It takes a long time to soak up excess housing and mining infrastructure (you can't just make it go away) but a bank can quickly reduce headcount. However I think the concept still holds true - be careful where a lot of resource has been allocated to something, regardless of price. The first cafe in a suburb probably makes great money, but after the tenth the profitability has been whittled down. The guys first to market typically make great money and then more resources (competition) follows and the industry matures and delivers more pedestrian ROEs. 

Perhaps this is why software businesses can provide outsize returns (for reasons over and above the obvious scale effects they can achieve). Because they can roll-out so quickly, it is difficult for competition to catch-up and therefore they achieve monopoly status and enjoy the outsize ROE).  I look at Pro Medicus (PME) and shake my head in wonder at fast it is capturing market share and the profits it will earn. Google has left its competitors for dust and I'm not aware of significant investment outside of a few obvious names allocating cash to catch them. The mining boom was different - massive amounts of capital were spent trying to capture the returns from higher commodity prices.

Kristian  

Clime Investment Management Ltd (CIW, CAM, CAMPA)

Trawling back through previous posts is always interesting. One stock I discussed back in May 2013 was the Clime Capital preference share (CAMPA). These shares mature next year so it's worth a quick update. 

CAMPA are issued by the listed investment company, Clime Capital (CAM). CAM are managed by Clime Investment Management (CIW). 

CAMPA were issued in 2007 at a price of $2.40. At the time of the review in 2013 the price was $2.14, and given the maturity conversion formula, I couldn't understand for the life of me why the price was still so high. CAMPA are now $1.1950. At maturity in May 2017, CAMPA shares will convert to CAM shares at a ratio of 1.36206* for each 1 CAMPA share held. CAM shares currently trade at $.77, so the notional conversion value is $1.05. CAM shares aren't popular at the moment - they trade less than NTA. If you apply the conversion calculation to the NTA value (i.e. assume CIW will trade closer to NTA), then we have a conversion value of $1.18, which is pretty close to the current CAMPA price. 

CAMPA pay out a big fat dividend - 18c p.a., fully franked. Given the timing, it looks like there will be another 18c or 25.71c including franking credits of dividends to be paid before maturity. That equates to a yield of 21.6% including franking credits. 

The elephant in the room is the CAM share price - its performance has been sub par, thanks to an average performance of the underlying portfolio. If this trend continues, then the CAMPA value also diminishes. If the share price stays at $1.05 (e.g. the NTA stays flat and the discount to NTA persists), the net return drops to 11.7c or 9.8%. If the CAM share price trends down further then potentially all of the income is wiped out. 

Looks like money could be made from here - but not hugely interesting for me. 

Kristian 

No position in CAM, CAMP, own CIW

*not updated for any further share issues since 2013

Pay More Fees(?)

I find TED Talks a good way to pass the time, especially when sitting in traffic. I recently stumbled across a TED interview with Jim Simons - founder of Renaissance Technologies. Apart from being brilliant and incredibly successful, he also charges one of the highest (if not highest?) fees in the industry. Get this: Renaissance charge 5 & 44 (see around 15.40 in the talk). What the? That means they charge 5% of FUM plus an additional 44% in performance fees. That makes the standard 1-2 & 20 look like chicken feed.

I don't know the exact performance of Renaissance, however every number I've ever heard make you blush. Reportedly, their flagship fund has returned 35% for over 20 years - net of fees. You'd be happy to pay 5/44 for that sort of performance, and their pre-fee performance is off the charts. 

It reminds me of 2014 when a friend and I went and watched the Monaco GP. Right along the front of the harbour are the really big boats (as opposed to the guys worth just a few hundred $m around the sides of the harbour). One afternoon we Googled the owners of the monster boats and it turned out that Sea Owl (a 62m Super Yacht) was owned by Robert Mercer; one of the co-managers of Renaissance. No wonder he can afford that sort of boat with that sort of performance and fees.  

All of this makes the Australian union superannuation marketing around the benefits of lower fees just a little bit incomplete. Sure, a lot of hedge funds don't add value over the long term, but there are anomalies - there are some who charge exorbitant fees and deliver exceptional performance. 

Kristian 

The Big Short

The Big Short was a fantastic read and the movie truly does it full justice (I finally got around to watching it on the weekend). While The Wolf of Wall St was sensational for a laugh, it abysmally failed to acknowledge the damage done to clients and community and therefore probably inspired plenty of wannabe Jordan Belforts (I even know a few). The Big Short however manages to tell a complex and sombre story in a digestible and entertaining manner. You walk out both laughing at the one-liners yet also shaking your head at just how screwed up the financial system was (is?). 

Please go and see it if you haven't already done so. 

Kristian 

ThinkSmart (TSM)

Happy new year to everyone. 

TSM was a good investment last year, albeit I sold it a little while ago and therefore jumped off way too early. With the recent run-up in the share price, it reminded me of the Feedback Loop post I wrote last year where I analysed my decisions and identified key areas for improvement. TSM fits the 'getting bored with a situation' category to some extent however that is being a bit harsh given decent money was also made. 

A massive buy-back was undertaken toward the end of 2014 where shareholders could tender their shares in a price range of 31c to 42c. It reminded me at the time of Charlie Munger's tip to look for cannibal companies (companies that are buying back huge amounts of their stock). The founder had floated the stock back in June 2007 (just before the GFC hit) for $2.15 and was now offering to buy back a lot of stock for an absolute fraction of the price. There was some criticism about the move (and the threat to de-list the business), but I just figured the stock was incredibly cheap (PE of less than 4 from memory) and if a really smart guy is offering to buy other people's stock and not offering his own holding then the situation must be interesting. 

And boy has the business gone on a nice little tear since. Looking back over the announcements, it was only a matter of months before an upgrade was announced, an extension of the contract with Dixons Carphone and now another upgrade. Sure, some of the upgrades are FX related, but their business (now based entirely in the UK) has shot the lights out in GBP. I wouldn't be surprised to see another upgrade come and with the stock still cheap I wouldn't be surprised to see the share price march upward more. It just goes to show how buy-backs can be a great leading indicator, ignoring what the smart money is doing can be dangerous and yes - patience is a virtue.

Kristian 

Disclosure: no position in the above name.

PMP Ltd (PMP)

Charlie Sheen on answering a question as to why he used prostitutes - "I don't pay them for sex, I pay them to leave". And just like Charlie had a clearly defined exit strategy with women, we need a good exit strategy with stocks. 

PMP has been a wonderful investment over the last number of years, despite a business that is in long term decline. However, the business is in decline and unless something major happens like industry consolidation, it's hard to see the glory days returning. So this will probably remain a business that will not grow in value and therefore has a ceiling on its valuation. I modelled a basic scenario of declining revenues of 8% p.a. (it's average decline since 2012), maintaining EBITDA margins (which is probably generous - you can't cut costs forever!) and assuming the business has a terminal value in 5 years time of 4* PBT, and discounting back at 10% I get a valuation of 75c. This number of course is based on some pretty simplistic assumptions and could of course be wrong. 

But at 50c, and assuming my numbers are roughly right, the discount rate being factored in by the market is over 20%. Given PMP re-financed a bond at 6.43% p.a. plus generous terms in its favour, it looks like the equity market is treating PMP pretty harsh.  While this may be all true, what is also true is the market may never want to pay up for a declining business: it could easily be 'cheap' forever, and a stock trading at a discount to valuation alone without a catalyst is rarely a good enough reason to buy at least in my experience  - unless it is a huge discount. 

The other issue I consider far more these days is return on my time. I would prefer to spend my time on ideas that will yield a much bigger ROI such as companies that can grow and get re-rated by the market and value opportunities that represent massive value.  

Hence the reason for recently selling PMP. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: no position in the above name

Devine Ltd (DVN)

Follow up post to comments on the previous DVN post...

As noted by other people and my follow up comments, the situation with CIMIC smells. And the smell gets worse. A separate, non-binding offer has been made for DVN for 90c, which of course trumps CIMIC's 75c offer. As the takeover would be via Scheme of Arrangement and therefore requires 75% of votes, CIMIC can matter-of-factly block the deal as it owns 50.63%.

So this has truly forced CIMIC to show its hand. CIMIC has responded by saying they are proceeding with their offer, effectively confirming they want to buy DVN for a song. Typically with takeover trades you can justify buying a bit above the bid price in the hope another bidder comes along. That probably won't work in this case given CIMIC's stance. I suspect it would take a much higher bid to dislodge CIMIC and your guess is as good as mine as to whether that might happen.

At 80c it is a tough call. CIMIC can block any other deal and the share price could drop plenty when their offer expires. I've been selling recently, and I'm out completely.

Kristian

Disclosure: no position in the above.