Thursday, 15 May 2014

AIMS Property Securities Fund (APW)

Apologies: I have been madly setting up a private business of late and have not been blogging much. 

I'm wrapped with the progress at APW, despite admittedly being a big critic over the last year.

The share price has been given a decent boost thanks to the court victory, which on paper is worth ~3c per share, lifting the NTA to over 15c (compared to the current price of 10c). I had no idea who would win the case: I bought APW at a massive discount to NTA when everyone hated it and assuming there was no value in the case, meaning the legal action was a free option. Free is my favourite word. The main trick has been to hold, let the story unfold and wait for the market to get more comfortable with it. Even if the court case falls over, it is still trading at a discount to NTA. 

Now just need to find some more stocks like this... 

Kristian

Disclosure: own APW

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

David Jones Ltd (DJS)

As you may know, DJS is currently $3.92 and there is a fairly solid bid on the table for $4. Existing shareholders at 10 April will also receive a 10c fully franked dividend. The takeover arbitrageurs recommend buying the stock for a 2.0% return (excluding the dividend) plus potentially more upside should a higher bid develop. 

So is it a buy? For me personally, I am increasingly wary of quick small profit opportunities. They usually don't work out as well as expected, are very time consuming, hugely stressful, and the opportunity cost is huge. So increasingly I'm restricting myself to deep value ideas that have substantial upside that I don't have to watch the screen daily and stress about. So with all this in mind, my benchmark is that I only buy DJS if I am not concerned  to see the deal fall over and continue to hold it as an investment with the potential for lots of upside.

Will the deal succeed? Woolworths (South Africa) wants to buy DJS through a scheme-of-arrangement meaning at least 75% of all DJS shareholders will need to vote in favour. This shouldn't be a major problem. The bigger problem will be that Woolworths shareholders are also required to separately vote on the takeover and also agree to a very big capital raising. It would be silly to think this is a certainty. So while I have no view on whether the deal will complete, it is certainly not a lay-down. And the most likely Australian buyer, Myer, has declared it won't be bidding for DJS which massively reduces the odds of a bidding war.

The extreme pessimism has dissipated from the stock reminding me of the Howard Marks quote "If I were asked to name just one way to figure out whether something is a bargain or not, it would be through assessing how much optimism is incorporate in its price".

DJS has a market capitalisation of $2.11bn and owns an unbelievably well located property portfolio with brokers valuing it anywhere from $500m to $1bn (the big variable being the development potential in the Sydney Market St property). Zero net debt. Let's keep things simple and take an average estimated value of the property at $750m. That leaves the rest of the business valued by the market at $1.36bn. Very crudely, adding some additional rent back in to the P&L produces a full year estimated NPAT of ~$100m. This gives a PE of 14. Going forward profits may move higher or lower depending on management and just how much impact the internet will have etc - I will smarter people than me decide that. The valuation isn't actually so high, but not exactly deep value.  There are other ways to look at valuation and I may be wrong of course, but for me I want simple cigar butt stories.

In short, I can't see large gains to be made from here and potentially lots of headaches so it's not the stock for me. 

Regards, 

Kristian 

Disclosure: no position in DJS

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

AIMS Property Securities Fund (APW)

APW would be happy with some decent coverage in yesterdays The Australian quoting an analyst at Clime Investment Management (CIW) who cited the big discount to NTA, recommencement of distributions and stock buy-back among other things. This is all true, although readers of this blog will know I (and others) have been slightly less gushing in praise. 

Deciding to withdraw the DRP was also sensible and pragmatic. 

The price has marched a bit higher, although is still well south of the NTA. So the investment idea remains intact: gains can be made from distributions and price advances due to growth in the NTA and a gradual lessening of the gap to NTA. Oh, and sprinkle in some patience. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: own APW and CIW

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Boom Logistics (BOL)

Bombed Out Big Time

This post is written by Nigel Littlewood. We have looked at BOL extensively and we both own BOL

Boom was a classic industry consolidation play. The stock market gets taken for rides pretty regularly by wily entrepreneurs who promise riches of gold simply by buying a number of small industry participants and rolling them together (seemingly effortlessly) to create a much larger corporation with the corresponding cost savings and pricing power. Boom was to become the market leader in the crane industry by consolidating a number of acquisitions.

It’s my experience that this strategy rarely delivers on the initial promises provided while the strategy may make sense, it often fails in execution and it is one of my rules to avoid investing in such plays.  As Warren Buffett says,  “I don’t like to swing at a pitch until it’s left the pitchers hand”

Boom was one such venture that was put together and listed in Oct 2003 and continued to keep buying crane providers right into the stock market boom of 2006-2007 where its shares reached circa $5 a share before beginning a very long fall to lows of 7c last year a mighty fall of around 99%. AND that folks is why we are looking at it.

While there have been mistakes made within the business since listing, I’m not going to spend time on the history as it’s the future that will matter to us as shareholders. In 2008 the company got a new CFO, a woman called Iona Macpherson …who is probably 20% better than the average male CFO and had to be, to get the job. She is energetic, intelligent and full of enthusiasm for the progress made and the challenges ahead. We have been impressed during our limited contact with her so far. One year after Iona was appointed, a new CEO also joined her. Brenden Mitchell has had a tough job in bringing the business back from the brink. We have been impressed with both Iona and Brenden although we look forward to meeting with them regularly going forward.
Brenden has invested significant amounts of his own money in the shares at higher prices.

The shares are trading at 16c having fallen a long way from their highs. The stock is well out of favour although investors are starting to look at the stock again, management confirmed they are getting calls from professional investors both here and in the US.

Despite a dramatic slow down in the economy and a collapse in mining CAPEX spend, BOL continues to report a profit at the EBITDA line despite lower than targeted capacity utilisation rates. Since 2009 the company has maintained its margins while revenue has contracted, excess cash has been used to reduce debt from $245m to circa $105m while rev has fallen from $400m to under $280m.  EBITDA margin has actually been maintained during this time at around 17%-18%.  

So far management has given us confidence that they are honest and competent…let’s hope nothing happens to change this view.

Secondly, we are seeing a pick up in construction and housing, and expect increased spending on infrastructure in Australia in the years ahead, it was even discussed at the recent G20 summit held in Sydney. The very soft conditions in mining maintenance should pick up albeit we expect margins will be under pressure but BOL management seems intent on maintaining a disciplined approach to pricing with a long-term goal of tripling return on invested capital.

So to summarise, things are very tough in this industry but hey that’s why we are looking at it, if things were going well the shares wouldn’t be at 16c.

So how do the financials look right now?
Share price             16c
Shares                     $469m
Mkt Cap                 $75m
Current Net Debt    $105m
EV                            $180m

                                    2014(f)
EBITDA                       $50m
NPAT:                           $9m
Free Cash flow           $30m (this will probably fall to $20m in 2015 due a lack of asset sales)
Net tangible assets    $250m

So this year we have:
free cashflow multiple:         under 3x.
EBITDA multiple:                  under 4x
EBIT multiple:                       8.4x
p/e                                          8.2x
Int cover                                 6x       
div yield                                 0

On the face of it, current earnings look pretty attractive but not super exciting. However, it is trading at around a third of NTA so while I concede we don’t want to be a seller of a large fleet of cranes in a fire sale, its an indication of just how bombed out the stock is. The potential upside in this stock isn’t created by the current earning’s environment. Indeed it’s created by an (even slight) improvement in revenue and a corresponding holding or improvement of margin.

In the event that revenues go half way back to where they were in 2009, we would see the company generating EBITDA of around $60m (assuming margin stability) providing an ebitda multiple of 3x. With any sign of improvement in the macro environment, this stock has significant upside potential. The market has a bearish bias on BOL right now (with fair reason) but with a shift in that attitude towards a more neutral view, an EBITDA multiple of 6x would not be unreasonable, combined with an improved bottom line and the stock could go much higher.

When we bought PMP at 15c, the stock was being priced for going broke…imminently and that investment has delivered returns of 200% so far so you don’t need much of a market shift to see strong upside…but you do need patience.

Management has suggested it would like to buy back stock when debt is under $100m which should be post the end of the current fiscal year, assuming revenues are stable, its hard to see why the company wouldn’t buy stock back at a third of NTA.

So we have a pretty well-run business in a tough industry at a challenging point in the cycle trading at reasonable multiples if things are stable to better going forward. For patient investors this stock has the capacity to deliver significant upside while downside is somewhat underpinned by a big discount to NTA, and management’s intention to cut fixed costs further. This isn’t a stock for those with a negative view on Australia but with a modest improvement in mining maintenance spend, a pick up in infrastructure activity and continued pick up in building, this stock will make more money and its low multiples will increase. At some point in the next decade (or so) this stock will probably be the darling of the cycle again and the market will like it and that will be the time to sell.

As the old saying goes: Buy in gloom, sell in boom.


Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Clime Investment Management (CIW)

In the previous post I referred to a company run by management with a sensible approach to capital management. CIW is like The Magic Pudding - it just keeps giving thanks to its strong cash-flow being deployed on shareholder favourable terms: ordinary and special dividends, buy-backs and conservative investments. This is not a cigar-butt story. This is a fair price for a good company story that should - touch wood - continue to reward shareholders through growing dividends and share price. 

CIW is mostly a financial services business comprising cash, a funds management business, investment in its own managed funds, a stock-market research business and also owns a business supplying stationery and office supplies. Half year results have just been posted  - here is a summary of the balance sheet: 


CIW has provided the value of Cash, Managed Fund Investments and Jasco. It is up to us to value the stock-market research and funds management businesses to get an overall valuation of the company. Here is a breakdown of the revenue/profitability for the last

StocksInValue is a subscription service to help value investors find cheap stocks. It was folded into a JV with the popular Eureka Report (owned by Newscorp), which in my opinion was an excellent move to increase brand awareness for the Clime funds business. The JV is losing a bit of money at the moment, and I'm not sure if you can get too excited about a valuation for that type of business. For the purposes of this analysis and to keep things simple, I am valuing it as zero as a stand-alone business.

This leaves the funds management business. CIW has have just launched an international fund to leverage off the success of its successful Australian stock focused business. FUM growth for its local funds continues to impress: up from $448m 30 June to $527m by the end of December. Given the leverage to FUM growth (costs don't increase anywhere near as fast as revenue when FUM grows), the value of a funds business can increase exponentially. Let's assume ongoing MER and performance fees are 1% p.a. (which will mean CIW isn't making much performance fee revenue). At $527m revenue is $5.27m p.a. At $1bn, revenue is $10m p.a. I doubt if expenses will increase by more than $1m at the same time - probably a lot less. Conservatively the funds business could be valued at $30m based on current FUM and easily double if it reaches $1bn. Let's stick with $30m Stripping out intangibles and adding in $30m gives a loose value of $46.9m or 94c: a little bit above the current price of 86c. Please note these are my valuations only and should not be relied upon.

Kristian 

Disclosure: own CIW

Please get in touch! I am always on the lookout for interesting stock ideas, with a particular emphasis on deep-value, growth companies run by outstanding management and arbitrage opportunities.

Sunday, 9 February 2014

Capital Management

Nigel Littlewood and I have been reading The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success. It’s a great book that analyses some true superstar CEOs that have delivered exceptional performance for shareholders. During their tenure - with the shortest being 19 years and the longest 46 years (Warren Buffett), the companies they managed delivered an average annual return of 21.6% v the S&P500 10.2%. That’s double the return of the stock market and the long term compounding effects truly eye-popping: for every 10 years on a pre-tax basis, the additional performance is a factor of 2.7 times. 

The CEOs had a number of things in common. Most notably is their unequivocally disciplined approach to capital management. They aren’t necessarily great at product, process or people management. But they are outstanding at capital management. Deploying capital to the project with the best (risk adjusted) ROE is the common mantra and don’t let money burn a hole in their pocket. If they can’t find a good investment when they have spare cash, they either let it sit in the bank or return it to shareholders. Consider that Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) sits on tens of billions of dollars of cash and Henry Singleton (Teledyne) ultimately bought back ~90% of Teledyne stock when the price occasionally traded at cheap levels.

Investing Nirvana occurs when you find such a CEO and you can buy the stock at a reasonable valuation. My colleagues and I often wonder about our tendency to buy cheap stocks run by crappy management. Even if the outcome is profitable, the experience is unpleasant. It would be far more profitable and pleasant to find outstanding management and back them with your cash.

In particular, it is our experience that companies undertaking buy-backs in decent volume when prices appear to cheap is often a beacon pointing toward management who aren’t trying to take over the world, but deploying shareholder capital judiciously. Famed short-seller Jim Chanos apparently somewhat disagrees with this view. Mr Chanos takes the view management is signalling they think they can more money in the stock market than by investing in real assets. We don’t really understand this view: if a company is trading below intrinsic value or NTA, then (all-things-being-equal) stock buy-backs make sense.

In the next blog we will discuss a company that is buying-back stock in reasonable volume that we believe is run by first-class management with a sensible and conservative approach to capital management.

Kristian

Friday, 17 January 2014

AIMS Property Securities Fund (APW)

Most recent post here

Management have still not answered my question as to why a DRP has been introduced. This is poor form. It shouldn't be difficult to quickly articulate a reason (it should have been done anyway when it was announced). If I am missing something, I will happily concede the point. 

Kristian 

Disclosure: own APW