• What does June 30 mean for you? This article explains how managed fund distributions work. Read here.

Financial Services

  • Where are my valuations Roger?

    Roger Montgomery
    July 22, 2010

    Bipolar markets appear to be the anticipated outcome for the next few years. Investors seem to be in the middle of a tug-o-war between inflation and deflation, recovery or double dip recession.

    Pimco’s Bill Gross says we have entered the era of the “new normal’ – expect low aggregate returns. Jeremy Grantham at GMO says that attributing the chance of recovery at 25% is “generous” and the US will be lucky to achieve 2% economic growth over the next seven years. And David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff says deflation is more likely than inflation, describing the stock market as meat grinder – “No return for a decade and yet plenty of sleepless nights on this roller-coaster ride.” Keep in mind David is a perennial bear. I remember during my days as trader being told; listen to the bears but don’t sell until they turn bullish!

    Over at the bullish camp PuruSaxena says “the ongoing range trading should conclude with a bullish resolution” and cites Intel’s best quarter ever and JP Morgan’s analyst estimates-beating performance as justification.

    At Montgomery Inc. ‘we’ don’t claim to know how the world’s debt issues will be resolved. What we do know is that you cannot solve them with more borrowing.

    In Australia many ‘analysts’ are pointing to the fact that the recent rally has not been accompanied by much volume. Indeed, one of my friends who is a broker said they can “hear pins drop” in their office. But before you rush out and sell in anticipation of some imminent correction (I am not forecasting anything), have a look at the volume that accompanied the beginning of the bounce from the March 2009 lows. They were relatively light too. Perhaps that means the whole thing will indeed end in a massive correction that will see even lower lows! (I am not forecasting anything).

    Stock market investing however need not be so mysterious and confusing. Instead of focusing on stocks, focus on businesses. Instead of focusing on prices, focus on values. When bargains are available it is obvious. When the banks were at their lows, there was no justification and large discounts to intrinsic value were evident for three of the big four. Their prices were following the pattern of their global peers that were each losing billions and being bailed out or nationalised. While their prices were on their knees, their values were being driven by the fact they were reporting multibillion-dollar profits. Focus on the business – don’t take your cues from share prices.

    More importantly, when bargains are available you are writing to me with requests to value high quality companies. “What is the value of CBA Roger?” “What do you think of CSL and Cochlear at these prices?” “They’re pricing QBE like it is going out of business, that’s just crazy.”

    Today, value is not so obvious and once again that is reflected in the general quality of the companies that you are asking me to value for you. While you have requested a few decent businesses, there have been a few raised eyebrows at Montgomery Global.

    With those thoughts in mind, I offer another Value.able update from Montgomery Inc, along with the relevant MQRs – “Montgomery Quality Ratings”. At some point I will publish, somehow, the entire universe with the A1, A2, A3, to C3 C4 and C5 MQRs.

    Don’t forget that the valuations you are seeing here are based on inputs that include analyst estimates. As some of you have indicated, analysts are notoriously bullish and particularly at the beginning of a reporting period tend to have estimates for earnings that need subsequent downward revision. I will discuss this and my observations and insights in a future post.

    For now, know that the studies conducted by McKinsey, for example, into the persistent excess bullishness among analysts, aggregate and average the data which can produce a result that does not reflect any particular year. Stick your head in an oven and your feet in the freezer and your ‘average’ temperature will be about right, but of course you won’t be feeling so good!

    The point I should make however is that my valuations for CBA, WBC, NAB, ANZ, QTM, CAB, HZL, FLT, SOL, MMS, CPU, AXA, BLD, CFU, DYE, DMX, ISF, VLA, QHL and CLQ (especially the 2011 estimates) will be revised over time. They will change. And having just been calculated they may also have changed from any previously published valuation and supersede them.

    WARNING: Not recommendations or advice. Didactic exercise only. Seek personal professional advice before doing anything!

    * Quality Score shown for last full year results. May change dramatically. May have been one good year – a flash in the pan. There is more to know. If for example, a company makes a debt-funded acquisition, its quality score could change.

    ++ 2009 Valuation. No forecast information available
    +++ No forecast information available
    ^ US Company listed in the US

    Your copy of Value.able will be delivered soon. I’m looking forward to comparing you’re valuations here on my blog.

    Posted by Roger Montgomery, 22 July 2010.

    by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Financial Services, Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

  • 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.