Insightful Insights

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able.

• 144 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able

Yesterday we had the pleasure of meeting Ash in person. If you scroll through any of the threads on our blog, you will no doubt find some extraordinary insights from one of Value.able’s founding Graduates.

Indeed, Ash’s generosity and willingness to share his experience and insights with new investors has fostered a spirit of camaraderie that has become integral to the Value.able community.

What did we talk about? It’s been a hot question at the Facebook page!

…Matrix, the recovering Lockyer Valley, cotton, gas explorers, an exciting new float, Lloyd, rugby and the 2GB podcast about a small cap gold stock that resulted in 170 comments and the thought to shut this blog down!

Thanks again Ash. We look forward to catching up with you again when you are next in Sydney.

Now to the photo… can you spot some familiar faces?

The first four of six framed artworks are now featured at the entrance of our office.

It was a proud moment indeed. We will publish some more photographs of the artworks in coming days.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 7 July 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights, Value.able.

• 81 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Value.able

I am working tirelessly to generate superior returns for the Montgomery [Private] Fund. That is the number #1 goal. But stay tuned, because I am also writing a post for next week that will list some of the companies you should be seriously watching this reporting season (and there may be a few gems). Stay tuned and keep checking in.

Today’s earlier post (What if the sell off is just a Flash?) lists some out-of-favour A1 companies.

If you have a company that you believe investors should be watching this reporting season, please  start posting them here. Check in next week to see if  they’re on our list too.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 23 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able.

• 241 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able

Did you overhear a prominent investment commentator (not a Value.able Graduate, of course) recently express how upset/annoyed they were that the market for big companies’ shares was deteriorating?

In the short run prices move independently of the underlying business, so let’s encourage the market to decline further!

For those truly concerned about Australia’s prosperity, relax. Be comfortable in the knowledge that short-term share price moves are unlikely to impact the employment policies of Australia’s largest listed businesses.

Looking over the financials of fifty-six A1 companies, little has changed. While Telstra and Fosters share prices are beating to the drum of hoped-for franked dividends and a takeover, the fundamentals of many other companies, particularly A1s (and indeed A2 and B1), are resolute. Are these businesses worth 10% to 26% less than they were worth before? No chance. The Value.able intrinsic valuations of companies that were cheap before haven’t changed.

So what has changed?

Only investors’ perceptions. Perceptions about the global economic outlook; perceptions about a US slowdown becoming a recession; perception about a Chinese slowdown causing a global rout the world cannot afford; and hope that Australian house prices will fall to levels people can actually afford.

Think about that for a moment. Baby boomers own $1m + homes that they will be forced to liquidate to fund their retirements and health care. Meanwhile, Generation Y is struggling to afford a property. Something has to give. Economics 101 suggests price declines.

Investors have simply been reducing their appetite for risk.

Armageddonists are spouting scenarios similar to those that followed Britain’s exit from the gold standard in 1931.

But this fear may be unfounded. It’s most certainly not a cause for permanent worry. Even if a recession does transpire, it will not be permanent.

Our job as Value.able Graduates is not to guess the gyrations of the economy – while they are vital in determining the sustainability of a given return on equity, many of the world’s very best investors do not even employ economists (they employ former US Federal Chairmen).

Your mantra is to simply put together a list of ten extraordinary businesses that you believe will be much more valuable in five, ten or twenty years time.

Of course trying to fit all this into your daily life can be a challenge. Completely eliminating the drudgery, and making it simple and fun, is something my team and I have been working on for you. We created our A1 service because we wanted to make finding extraordinary companies offering large safety margins easy. And, of course we love investing. We have worked really hard to create our next-generation service because its what we all want to use. We are its first members! Soon, you will be able to make your investing life simpler too (remember, Value.able Graduates will be invited first – have you secured your copy?). It’s an A1 service that is like nothing you have ever seen before.

You may sense our excitement…

… back to the regular program.

So, here it is. Our list of out-of-favour-but-extraordinary businesses. WARNING: out-of-favour does not always mean ‘bargain’.

Steve Jobs once said; “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully.”

With that in mind, here are my thoughts on ten businesses we have discussed over the past few months with a back-of-the-business card reason for interest…

JB Hi-Fi (ASX: JBH, MQR: A1) – Bad news across the board in retail may get worse, but it will turn around and JB Hi-Fi is not Harvey Norman. The buyback has increased intrinsic value at the same time the price slides below.

Cochlear (ASX: COH, MQR: A1) – The shining star amongst A1s (COH is one of this country’s best export successes), yet the worst performer on the share market amongst its peers. Rational, anyone? Australian dollar fluctuations doesn’t change the quality of COH’s business, only the nature or shape of its earnings. Aussie dollar appreciation may last a while, but is not permanent.

CSL Limited (ASX:CSL, MQR: A1) – Another A1 amongst A1s. Like COH, earnings are affected by currency fluctuations.

Woolworths (ASX: WOW, MQR: B1) – Trading at a premium to current Value.able intrinsic value, but a small discount to 2012. Intrinsic value has taken five years to catch up to the price and the price has complied by waiting. In the absence of further downgrades, intrinsic value for future years now rises beyond the price at a good clip.

Reece (ASX: REH, MQR: A2) – Great quality business. Wait for weaker prices or intrinsic value to catch up.

Platinum Asset Management (ASX: PTM, MQR: A1) – Whilst few businesses can compete with Platinum on an ROE and low capital intensity basis, patience is required before acquiring.

Matrix C&E (ASX: MCE, MQR: A1) – Matrix is unique amongst its small capitalisation peers also servicing the resources sector. Watch the full year results closely.

ANZ (ASX: ANZ, MQR: A3) – Short of swimming off the island, we don’t have much choice when it comes to choosing a banking partner. Thanks to fears of an ineffectual Asia roll-out, ANZ is the cheapest of Australia’s big four at the present time.

Vocus Communications (ASX: VOC, MQR: A1) – Run by some of the best in the business, the intrinsic value of Vocus has the potential to be much, much higher in five years time.

Zicom Group (ASX: ZGL, MQR: B2) – Like Matrix, Zicom is exposed to both small-cap and resource sector engineering negativity. And like Vocus, the intrinsic value could rise much higher on the back of further rises in the price of oil and demand for gas.

What’s on your list?

This market, with an increasing number of companies hitting 52-week lows, is demanding your attention!

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 23 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights.

• 177 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights

“Yet you do not know about what may happen tomorrow. What is the nature of your life? You are but a wisp of vapor that is visible for a little while and then disappears“. James 4:14

“Suddenly a mist fell from my eyes and I knew the way I had to take.” Edvard Grieg

“Fog and smog should not be confused and are easily separated by color.” Chuck Jones

With apologies to 90’s rapper M.C Hammer, today I plan to lift the lid, ever so slightly, on a misconception about the value of tangible assets. I’ll throw in a few Value.able intrinsic valuations for you too.

Were you as fascinated recently, as I was, to read Harvey Norman suggesting that the price premium to book value of JB Hi-Fi compared to that of itself was unjustified? The company pointed out – and allow me to paraphrase – that the market capitalisation of JB Hi-Fi ($1.9 billion) against just $365 million of book value is high, when Harvey Norman’s market capitalisation is $2.7 billion and its book value is expected to be $2.2 billion at the end of this financial year.

The attachment to physical assets held by many is not unusual, nor is the belief that intangible assets are akin to a puff of smoke. Premiums to book value however are justified when that ‘book’ generates above average rates of return. And it is assets of the intangible variety – the economic goodwill (rather than the accounting variety) – that are more valuable anyway. Physical assets can be replaced, imitated and replicated. Any competitor (with deep enough pockets) can purchase almost all of them. Ultimately, any unusual returns these generate will be competed away as competitors secure the same machines, tools, equipment etc. Many in the printing game experience this phenomenon. A new machine gives them a marginal advantage only for as long as it takes their competitor to make the same investment.

Assets of an intangible nature are less easily copied and so high rates of return can be sustained longer, and are therefore worth more.

A company’s book value is the net worth of its assets. Book value is made up of both tangible assets and intangible assets. Tangible assets are physical and financial and include property, plant & equipment, inventory, cash, receivables and investments. Intangible assets aren’t physical or financial and may include trademarks, franchises and patents.

To demonstrate the difference in value between intangible and tangible, have a look at Google;  That company’s market capitalisation is US$165.5 billion and yet its book value is just US$48.6 billion. Its price to book value is 3.42 times. JB Hi-Fi’s price to book value is 5.2 times and Harvey Norman’s is 1.22 times. But Google’s ‘book’ generates returns of 19.16%, JB Hi-Fi; 41.5% and Harvey Norman; 11.6%. There is indeed a relationship between the price premium to ‘book’ and the profitability of that ‘book’ (‘ROE’). A business is worth much more than its net tangible assets when it produces profits well in excess of market-wide rates of return.

I wrote about the capital intensity of airlines in Value.able (re-read Pages  60-63, 122, 164, 172-3), so you should know my thoughts about this already (You can also read any of these articles and transcripts for a refresher: Taking-off or crash-landing?, Qantas cuts costs to stay in profit, Qantas cuts staff, flights to counter fuel price hit and Flights reduced, jobs cut at Qantas).

When it comes to physical assets, less is more. For a business to double sales and profits, there is frequently the requirement to increase the level of physical assets. The higher the proportion of physical assets compared to sales that are required, the less cash flow available to the owner. This is the antithesis of the intangible-heavy business that continually produces profits without the need to spend money on maintenance, upgrades or replacements.

Let me demonstrate with an admittedly rudimentary example. Take two companies Rich Pty Limited and Poor Pty Limited. Both companies earn a profit of $100,000. Rich Pty Limited has net assets of $1 million. Intangible assets, such as patents and a brand, represent six hundred thousand dollars while physical assets, including machinery running at full capacity and inventory, represent $400,000. Poor Pty Limited also has a net worth of $1 million, but this time the intangible/intangible mix is reversed and eight hundred thousand dollars represents tangible assets and $200,000 is intangible.

Rich P/L is earning $100,000 from tangible assets of $400,000 and Poor P/L is earning $100,000 from tangible assets of $800,000.

If both companies sought to double earnings, they may also have to double their investment in tangible assets. Rich P/L would have to invest another $400,000 to increase earnings by $100,000. Poor P/L would have to spend another $800,000.

For many investors a large proportion of physical assets – also reflected in a high NTA – is seen as a solid backstop in the event something catastrophic should befall a company. I would suggest that the opposite may just be true. A high level of physical assets may be a drag on your returns.

Physical assets are only worth more if they can generate a higher rate of earnings. Any hope that they are worth more than their book value is based on the ability to sell them for more, and that, in turn, is dependent on either finding a ‘sucker’ to buy them or a buyer who can generate a much higher return and therefore justify the higher price.

With these ideas in mind, its worth looking at a list of companies that further investigation may show have very high levels of tangible assets compared to their profits. Let’s also throw in those companies that have highly valued intangible assets too. If they are generating low returns on these, the auditors should arguably take a knife to their stated ‘book’ values.

Starting with those companies whose market captitalisation is more than $1 billion (156), I then ranked them by return on equity (return on book value) in ascending order. 49 (31 per cent) companies generate returns less than your bank term deposit. The 16 largest (based on market capitalisation) companies with low ROE, possibly indicating either high levels of tangible assets or possibly overstated intangible assets carried on the balance sheet, are:

I have excluded resource companies. For while there are plenty that qualify, their returns are dependent on commodity prices.

Something to remember about the Quality & Performance Rating…

Rated A1 to A5, B1 to B5 and C1 to C5, every listed company is rated based on a series of over 30 discrete metrics, measured at both a point in time and over time. Most importantly, the Quality and Performance Rating is applied without any subjectivity. All companies are judged according to the metrics they generate. A1s have the lowest probability of a liquidation event. “Lowest probability” however doesn’t mean a liquidity event won’t occur. It just means far fewer A1s will have a liquidity event imposed on them compared to C5s. A liquidity event includes a capital raising, debt default or renegotiation, administration, receivership etc. An A1 company could of course raise capital if it needs to fast track construction of a new factory. MCE is an example of a high quality company whose cash flow has needed supplementation for this reason. Sticking to A1s and avoiding C5s should, over time, produce better returns. I demonstrate in the following chart:

The above chart shows the performance of a portfolio of the 20 biggest companies listed on the ASX rated ‘A1’. The red line is the poor old ASX 200.

There is merit with sticking to A1s (just as those who like the taste of Coca-Cola don’t settle for Pepsi). My team and I are fine-tuning something that will make the identification of A1s extraordinarily simple. So ignore those ‘Beat-the-tax-man’ pre-June 30 ‘special’ offers from various investing experts and other ‘helpers’. Avoid the temptation of an extra one, two or three month ‘subscription’, a show bag full of tips, a free magazine, DVD, or even a set of free steak knives.Wait for an A1 opportunity instead. Your patience will be rewarded.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 13 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Airlines, Companies, Insightful Insights, Value.able.

• 80 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Airlines, Companies, Insightful Insights, Value.able

Jesse, Michael, Young Les, Justin, Matt, Rad, John, Ron, Young Max, Gary, Dan’s mum, Gary, George, Steven, JohnM, Paul, Steven and Sophie, Michael, Alya, Martin, Bernie, Amit, RBS Morgans Gosford, Jim Rogers, Daniel, Keith, Gavin, Graeme, Nick, Gelato Messina, Chris, Rodger, Phil, Vikki, Mark, Hien, Kenneth, Greg, Peter, Bernie, Paul, John, Bill, Bryan, Di and Lesley, Craig, Scotty, Chris, Main Amigo Stan, Charles, Fred, David, Mark, Collin, Nevada Cody and Winston, Peter, John, Nathan, Mal, John, Tony, Les, William Grant, Greg, Mike, Paul, Roger, Mike, David, Paul, Sinaway, Anders, Frank, Jake, Johan, Mark, Rob, Ian, Joan, Claude, Toni, Richard, Matt Jnr, Indrash, Sara, Garry, Jonathan, Ganesh, James, Kevin, Jim, Peter, Greg, Stuart, Craig, Eric, Robert, Ermin, Mike, Syed, Wilma, John, Alf, Tony, Phillip, Robyn, James, Carolyn, Roy, Peter, Jack, Kevin, Howard, Leo, Jonathan, Carole, Eileen, James, John, Martin, Ordan, Warren, Andrew, Liz, Jim, Anthony, Bob, Douglas, Christine, Frank, Martyn, Michael, John, Dave, Peter, Darrell, Jeffrey, David, Joof, Tom, Leigh, Mervin, Paul M, Paul K, Noel, Bob, George, Leigh, Bob, Steve, Monica, Richard, Frank, Brett, Steven, Colin, Wayne, Joanne, Dan, Garry, Lin, Judi, Allan, Stephen, Garth, John, Joab, Phillip, Kevin, John, Robert, Tweety and Bert, Peter, Mike, Patrick, Eugene, Brian, Harold, Russell, Brad, Rajest, Tim, Gemma, William, Bill, Robert, Geoff, Gary, Emily, Kent, Lucas, Neil, Peter, Rowley, Jason, Simon, Charles, Russell, Grahame, Lester, David, John, Richard, Mitra, John, Dave, Peter, Geoff, Paul, Derek and Rod have already submitted their photographs for inclusion in the Graduate album. My team – Russell, Vanessa, Rachel and Chris, will add theirs shortly.

Have you emailed yours?

We plan to frame the album and hang it at the entrance of our office, next to another invaluable piece – Stay Calm and Carry On.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and Value.able Graduates, 9 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able.

• 13 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able

Last night on Sky Business, I discussed a quick back-of-the-envelope way to get to the heart of a company’s true cash flow performance. This will be useful for you during the upcoming reporting season to help you determine whether to investigate further, or to move on.

It’s very simple. The exception being financial services and insurance companies, which can be problematic and require many more ‘edge-case’ explanations that are best kept close to my chest (with apologies).

So here’s what you do.

1. Find the Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement of a business you wish to examine (use the current year’s annual report) and lay it out on a table.

2. Pull out the headings you need and arrange them as illustrated below (Cash at Bank, Current Borrowings, Non Current Borrowings, Contributed Equity).

3. Put a negative sign in front of Cash at Bank.

4. Now sum the two columns.

5. Subtract the current year Total from the previous year. You can do this with half-year results too, for example, compare the 1HY11 with the final 2010 results.

6. Finally add back any Dividends actually paid in the 2011 Financial Year (get this from the Cash Flow Statement).

7. Done.

Now you have a number that better reflects the true change in the company’s cash position. The changes in every other item on the balance sheet will explain this number. But this number  – Company Cash Profit – is the number.

The company at left earned a positive cash profit. What about the one on the right? It lost cash during the year (or spent it on an acquisition(s)). Click the image to enlarge.

Why don’t you run the steps yourself on a few companies in your portfolio and see what you come up with. Where there is a big difference between your calculation of the company’s cash position and the reported profit, pop it up here at our Insights Blog.

This simple calculation is just one of over a dozen other simple strategies detailed in Value.able to help you improve your investing. They’re all there in one comprehensive guide.

If you haven’t yet ordered your copy, now isn’t the time to procrastinate. The last print run for a long while is walking out the door right now. Order your copy at my website, www.rogermontgomery.com.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 3 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

• 131 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Insightful Insights, Investing Education

As a young child growing up, the United States was the world’s policeman and Australia was a friend. Part of that picture will change in the lifetime of my children. The US no longer seems to command the authority it once did.

Its waning imperialism is at least partly reflected by last weeks visit to China by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Gilani. He described Beijing as Islamabad’s “best and most trusted friend”. Meanwhile, a petition in Pakistan’s High Court has called for the expulsion of the US ambassador.

Its waning imperialism is also reflected in recent news that major Australian miners are taking an interest in China’s promotion of its local currency, the Yuan, for trade settlement.

These are the first furtive steps towards a switch away from the US Dollar. Global reserve currency is moving towards the Chinese Yuan. Once hedging is made easier, the floodgates will be open and the Yuan’s appreciation will ensure the tide cannot be stopped.

China will continue to leverage its massive foreign reserves – reflecting fiscal power – and its military might, whenever old ties between the US and others flounder. As regime change in the Middle East continues, new leaders look to China rather than the superpower that funded and abetted their old foes.

India’s PM (and a US ally) recently visited Afghanistan, offering half a billion dollars for development while simultaneously saying “India is not like the United States”.

We are witnessing history. Sure there will be speed bumps and set backs, but the die has been cast.

In the absence of a World War, the US influence and more worryingly, its role as global cop and providore of reserve currency, appears now to have commenced a drawn-out death spiral.

As Jim Roger’s noted; “the 19th century was the era of the British Empire, the 20th belonged to the US Empire but the 21st will be the era of the Chinese Empire.”

The impact of this shift cannot be overstated.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

Last year Lakshman Achuthan explained his Economic Cycle Research Institute’s view that A) a US slowdown is already a done deal and B) the US faces the unfortunate prospect of more frequent recessions over the next decade.

Evidence of a slowdown is now emerging and Achutan was recently interviewed on the subject here and here.

Let me say at the outset, I am not an economist. And don’t worry, I’m not turning into one. Indeed, even if I was, it still may not help me invest any better than I can following the Value.able methodology.

I have, however, been trying to find a reason to expect to find value sometime soon.

And thanks to Lakshman Achuthan, I have found a reason to become a little optimistic, if not about the economy, then about the prospect of finding value, soon.

Longer-term, Achuthan thinks more frequent US recessions are a given.

In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction or a general slowdown in economic activity. During recessions, economic indicators such as production – as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – employment, investment spending, capacity utilisation, household incomes, business profits and inflation all tend to fall. Conversely, unemployment tends to rise, along with the number of employers no longer able to afford them.

In a 1975 New York Times article, economic statistician Julius Shiskin suggested a definition for a recession. In Australia we seem to have adopted it; two quarters of negative growth and a recession is in place.

Because of the stigma for a political party associated with a recession, not to mention the economic hardship associated with one, recessions are something best avoided.

The two ways to do it are to either to raise the trend rate of growth, such that the dips in the business cycle never fall into the area of growth below zero, or lessen the peaks and troughs of the business cycle itself.

Raising the trend rate of growth, however, does not appear to be an option (for the US at least) because the trend rate of growth in employment, GDP, personal income and industrial production has been down since the end of World War II.  As the trend rate of growth declines, and heads closer to zero, the dips in the business cycle need not be very severe to dip below zero.

Reducing the peaks and troughs of the business cycle such that the dips never result in an economic ‘backward step’ has been claimed as a new norm by economic managers who believe the use of monetary policy has been perfected, and also by those who have put their faith in economic globalisation. Monetary policy however is a rather blunt tool and its success in helping us avoid recessions may just be blind luck.

With trend growth declining for 50 years, each dip in the business cycle gets closer to regularly falling below zero. And with luck largely determining the success of policies attempting to smooth out the business cycle, its likely luck will run out, just as the globalisation of the supply chain causes the business cycle to whip even more violently than ever before.

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies. They can increase the money supply, increase government spending and decrease taxation. But with a flood of US dollars that only Noah could survive, and government deficits already at historic extremes, these measures would only make the situation worse.

If you are investing in equities, the message is simple. Only buy the best quality businesses. And only when large discounts to your estimate of their Value.able intrinsic value are present.

The Value.able recipe is simple and it works. And you don’t need to be an economist to make it work. Whether the idea of more frequent recessions is right or not, the dearth of value suggests one should applaud the fact that markets may react to the risk of more frequent recessions, offering the best stocks for prices less than they’re worth in the process.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 1 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Market Valuation.

• 79 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Market Valuation

You may have noticed my recent posts are not filled with stock ideas. Don’t worry. The drought will end, once the market resumes serving up mouthwatering opportunities

For many businesses, Australia may not seem like the ‘lucky country’ right now. A litany of evidence suggests the economy is cool. Recent bank results reveal credit growth is slowing, if not stalling. Significantly fewer homes are being put to auction and of those that are, clearance rates are not inspiring.

Australia’s savings rate has risen and thanks to rising fuel costs and utility bills, we haven’t got as much to spend as we used to. Then there’s the prospect of rising interest rates. I wonder, given all anecdotal evidence of weakness, whether an interest rate cut would be more justified?

Some of Australia’s ‘blue chips’ have reported weakness or downgrades. Seven West Media reported a softer advertising market, which has also affected Fairfax and APN. OneSteel cited a strong Aussie dollar, as did BlueScope. And you can almost guarantee food manufacturers are going to complain about higher commodity input prices.

Indeed higher input prices, combined with pressure on consumers to pay more for daily essentials – gas, electricity and petrol – means many companies have lost their ability to pass on rising costs. Naturally, this leads me to think that this is precisely the combination of influences that will reveal which companies have a true competitive advantage?

The Value.able community has spent a great of time exploring, discussing and naming competitive advantages – retailers, Apple, your insights. The current economic headwind will reveal who actually has one.

Take a look at the companies in your portfolio. Can they pass on rising costs in the form of higher prices, without a detrimental impact on unit sales? Can they grab market share from competitors whose margins are slimmer, by cutting prices? Is your portfolio overflowing with A1 businesses, or are there some C5s in there that may struggle through post-reporting season?

Now despite current pressures, which of course you must refrain from believing is permanent (and indeed cease focusing on), analysts haven’t brought down their earnings expectations.

Macquarie’s equity analysts are forecasting aggregate profit growth of 19 per cent and according to JP Morgan, non-resource companies are expected to grow profits by 13 per cent this year. These growth rates are a significant revision down from 6 months ago. Are more downgrades to come? Thirteen to nineteen per cent does seem more appropriate for a rosier economic environment…

Lower profits have a real impact on intrinsic values. For companies generating attractive rates of return on equity (at last count, 187 listed on the ASX generate a ROE greater than 20 per cent. Of those 103 are A1/A2), lower profits reduce the quantum of that return, as well as the amount of retained earnings and therefore the rate of growth in equity. All of those changes are negative. If Ben Graham was right and in the long run, price does follow value, that means either lower prices or prices that cannot justifiably rise much more.  And this is where Value.able Graduates’ attention should be focused, not on the bailout of Greece or Portugal.

What does this all mean?

I don’t have a crystal ball, so I simply don’t know where the market is headed. Thankfully it isn’t a brake on market-beating returns.

What I do know, is that of approximately 1849 listed entities, 1175 made no money last year. Of the remainder, 56 are A1s and of those, just 13 are trading at a discount to our estimate of intrinsic value. Six are trading at a discount of more than 20 per cent and of those six, The Montgomery [Private] Fund owns two. We have been decidedly slothful in buying and, as a result, while the market has been falling, the Fund’s value hasn’t.

Steven wrote on my Facebook page yesterday “Who cares? this market is… only ugly!” It’s only natural to want to throw up your hands in dismay, but this is where the rubber hist the road – Keep Calm and Carry On Value.able graduates. Look for extraordinary businesses at prices far less than they’re worth.

Just under 11 per cent of The Montgomery [Private] Fund is invested in extraordinary businesses. Even with 89 per cent of the Fund in cash, we are outperforming the S&P ASX/200 Industrials Accumulation Index by 5.29 per cent since inception.

My team and I continue to be inspired by the 1939 poster in which England advised its citizens to “Keep Calm and Carry On”.

Low prices should not bring consternation, but salivation. As sure as the sun rises, low prices for A1 companies will not be permanent.

Beating the market does not mean positive performance every week, every month or even every year. I have no doubt that some investments I will make for myself and the clients we work for will not perform as expected. Not every A1 at a discount will prove spectacular. We can however mitigate some of the risks of course. Sticking to a diversified basket of the highest quality companies (A1s perhaps?) purchased at big discounts to intrinsic value, won’t prevent the market value of the portfolio declining in the short term, but it can help to generate an early, eventual and more satisfying recovery.

With a falling market (and falling prices for A1 companies too) the daggers will come out, so also be prepared for those of weak resolve. They may try to discredit our Value.able way of investing.

A contest isn’t won by watching the score board, looking in the rear view mirror or mimicking those with a demonstrated track record of success. You have to play. And play your own game. Over long periods of time, sticking to good quality A1 companies works. Given that returns are dependent on the price you pay, lower prices (and greater value) works even better!

The issue of course is not the reliability of the Value.able approach, but the patience required to execute it. Remember the ‘fat pitch’?  Irrespective of the turmoil that impacts markets, we must Keep Calm and Carry On.

So what do you think? Where do you think the market is headed? What are the factors you are watching? Have you picked up something in your research that you’d like to share? Go for it!

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 18 May 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Market Valuation, Value.able.

• 370 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Market Valuation, Value.able

Back on March 10 here at my Insights blog I pieced together a little jigsaw puzzle that served as a warning to Value.able Graduates researching Carsales.com.au:

“…Relationships it seems, matter. And so they should.

“In the end, it is not cars, boats and planes that bring joy, but the quality of the relationships you develop.

“This week (commencing 7 March 2011) I read that Carsales.com.au had been sold out of Nine Entertainment Co, the rebadged PBL Media (which is owned by CVC Asia Pacific).

“Reading Terry [McCrann’s] article caused a rumour I heard last year to become louder in my mind.

“The rumour was that a group of customers of Carsales.com.au (ASX:CRZ, MQR:A1, Value.able Margin of Safety; -24%) were thinking of leaving to start a rival that would be funded by News. You could understand News’ interest, given it is losing the online automotive classifieds race to Drive (Fairfax) and Carsales.

“If this is true, and if Terry is also on the mark with the intimacy of the relationships amongst Australia’s media barons, both individual and corporate (excluding Fairfax), then it would be reasonable to assume that the status quo should be maintained until after Carsales had been spun out of the former PBL, finding itself completely owned by institutions and private investors.

“Now that hurdle is out of the way, let’s see if Carsales does lose any major customers.”

That was the crux of my 10 March blog post – that Carsales’ biggest customers were about to leave to start a rival with Newscorp.

Just 2 months have passed and if you didn’t already know, guess what? Splitsville.

The Carsguide brand, owned by News Limited and a consortium of foundation dealers that includes Automotive Holdings Group Limited, A.P Eagers Group and Trivett, plus a few other dealerships representing a quarter of Australia’s car dealers, will hop into bed together in a joint venture and share Carsguide’s revenue.

Chairman and chief executive of News Limited John Hartigan told one journo, “We will be investing in the new company, doubling the number of staff and throwing our combined resources and expertise behind the joint venture, with the intent of aggressively growing the business.”

Please refrain from posting any banter as comments, just your highest quality thoughts and experiences investing in online businesses. How have you faired investing in online businesses?

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 13 May 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Consumer discretionary, Insightful Insights, Takeovers, Value.able.

• 37 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Consumer discretionary, Insightful Insights, Takeovers, Value.able