• Could global equities be close to the peak? Tune into Ausbiz to learn more here.

Financial Services

  • Which Bank do you own?

    rogermontgomeryinsights
    December 24, 2009

    Half of all shareholders in Australia own at least one major bank in their share portfolios. The economics for banks in the last two years have changed dramatically and on several fronts.

    First, they are believed to have largely dodged the impact of the GFC. This was predictable, as was the second change – the substantial gain in market share the banks enjoyed as their mortgage origination peers fell like dominoes relying, as they were, on short term wholesale funding and with no deposit base.

    For both reasons I mentioned at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 on CNBC that bank prices represented a rare opportunity to own the best businesses you can on an island – a legislated oligopoly that charges people to get their own money in and out.  You can see the video from December 16 here.

    There was also another major change that kept analysts on our toes. Dilutionary capital raisings wreaked havoc on the returns on equity and the equity per share for all four majors. Then Westpac, previously the bank with the best business performance, bought St George, and CBA bought ING. NAB has since bid for Axa (at arguably a price that is double the intrinsic value of the Axa) and ANZ…well who knows (read more here)

    The effect of all this activity has not changed the fundamental attraction of owning a big four bank on an island of 22 million people who don’t care what you charge them because they cannot be bothered moving to another bank; “they’re all the same”. What has changed however is the future returns on equity for each of the banks and therefore, their intrinsic values.

    Here’s my take on each banks’ forecast return on equity range for the next few years and valuation. I have ordered them by profitability in ascending order (ROE range, Intrinsic value):

    NAB (11%-15%, $22.08)

    ANZ (12.6%-16%, $18.10)

    WBC (14.5%-18%, $19.19)

    CBA (17.5% – 20.7%, $53.53)

    In every case, current prices are well ahead of the current valuation however, I should add that the valuations are based on 2010 estimates and for all four banks, the valuations rise significantly in future years as ROE heads towards the top of each of the ranges given. Given the time frames that I can see, you will be waiting for values to catch up to current prices. NAB and ANZ are the cheapest, but you are buying the new 2nd tier banks. WBC is a better performing bank than ANZ and NAB but its price reflects it and you will be waiting twice as long as the others to catch up.

    Many of you have told me you want to keep this blog a little bit of a secret, but let me tell you we will all benefit if we receive contributions and insights from those closer to the coal face of various industries.  So let me encourage you to post your own thoughts and insights and invite anyone else you know (that owns bank shares for example or works in a company that is a competitor to any of those I mention) to do likewise. Do you think you know anyone that owns bank shares and would benefit from this insight? Spread the link.

    http://rogermontgomeryinsights.wordpress.com/

    Posted by Roger Montgomery, 23 December 2009

    by rogermontgomeryinsights Posted in Companies, Financial Services, Insightful Insights.

  • Is AMP getting good value for Axa and could ANZ really pay that much for AMP?

    rogermontgomeryinsights
    November 23, 2009

    Corporate Australia has a rich history of overpaying for the right to be big, bigger, the biggest. While size may help fatten the wallet of the steward steering the ship, it is often the case that investors, particularly those late to the party, see their wallets lose weight.

    When ABC Learning bought all those centres and Wesfarmers bought Coles, it was obvious that the prices being paid were much higher than a rational and patient value investor would pay. Justified with promised synergies however, many acquisitions can be made to look good, disguising the real he’s-got-one-so-I-want-one-too motivation.

    Turning to the AMP/Axa deal I should first point out that I am not suggesting either company is in the same boat as ABC Learning. What I will say though is that ultimately a business is worth some multiple of its equity and that multiple must be related to its profitability. Talk surrounds the possibility that Axa could be the recipient of another bid – although none has been forthcoming and with wealth management being a key growth strategy for the banks, there is also talk that ANZ might bid for AMP. The hunter becomes the hunted. Ignoring the cliches, the rumours and share price gyrations, we can value Axa and decide whether we like AMP management’s capital allocation strategy. We can also value AMP and decide, if ANZ make a bid, what we think of them.

    Turning first to Axa; AMP has, with cash and shares, bid about $5.40 per share. Unsurprisingly Axa shareholders want a higher bid. Well of course they do. I would rather receive a few million more for my house too. But Axa’s performance doesn’t justify a higher bid and AMP needs to be prudent.  According to analyst estimates of EPS, Axa will generate a return on equity of about 13 percent over the next two years. With the exception of the 2008 loss, the return on equity for the last ten years has ranged between 6.8% in 1999 and 27% in 2003. Based on the forecast ROE and a payout ratio of between 61% and 67%, Axa’s 2010 equity of $2.58 per share is worth a little more than $3.00 per share. The market believes AMP will bid more and so the shares are trading at $5.84.

    With AMP at $6.35 – up from its lows earlier this year of $3.52 – the price does not reflect the actual value of the business which is between $4.53 and $5.24. Should ANZ bid even more than the already optimistic price, it would reflect a genuine me-too strategy over at ANZ.

    Nothing gets the blood racing more than a takeover and when blood leaves the head for other regions, common sense usually follows.

    By Roger Montgomery, 23 November 2009

    by rogermontgomeryinsights Posted in Financial Services, Insurance.

  • A clear leader emerges among Aussie banks

    rogermontgomeryinsights
    September 9, 2009

    Nothing beats living on an island and nothing beats living on an island and owning the only bank. The cozy banking oligopoly that exists on the island of Australia as well as high switching costs for customers has produced all the benefits associated with a wide competitive advantage.

    Are you going to bother moving if your bank charges you a few cents more for each ATM withdrawal, EFTPOS transaction or EFTPOS cash-out? With 70 million ATM transactions per month, 150 million EFTPOS and EFTPOS cash out transactions per month and 30 million debit card accounts, a few extra cents charged per transaction and account is a valuable revenue generator for banks with very little additional work or cost and virtually no risk of customer loss.

    In the past the banks were all the same from an investors perspective too, but there’s a change in the air. The recent capital raisings have done significant damage to the value of three of the major four banks in Australia.

    When ANZ, NAB and WBC were raising capital to shore up their balance sheets, CBA was raising capital to take advantage of opportunities in a distressed market, and acquired BankWest. It shored up its profitability in the process and now has the highest ROE of all the banks at 19% and based on consensus estimates will return 21% on its equity for the next 2 years. This compares favourably with the ANZ (11%), NAB (12%) and WBC (13%).

    After two decades, a clear leader for investors has emerged in Australian banking.

    By Roger Montgomery, 9 September 2009

    by rogermontgomeryinsights Posted in Financial Services.