Investing Education

Roger Montgomery is not surprised by the slump in Mining Services share prices – here he discusses with Ticky Fullerton on ABC’s The Business how the growth in supply and the limits to Chinese demand have allowed value investors to anticipate the current share price levels. Watch the video.

This interview was broadcast on ABC1’s The Business on 15 May 2012.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Energy / Resources, Investing Education, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Energy / Resources, Investing Education, TV Appearances

Roger Montgomery discusses in The Australian why his Value.able approach to investing requires investors to look past accounting depreciation to understand the true cash profitability of companies. Read here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in In the Press, Intrinsic Value, Investing Education.

• save this article
• POSTED IN In the Press, Intrinsic Value, Investing Education

Do Indochine Mining (IDC), Silverlake Resources (SLR), Iluka Resources (ILU), Horizon Oil (HZN), Boart Longyear (BLY), Newcrest Mining (NCM), BHP Billiton (BHP), Rio Tinto (RIO), Think Smart (TSM), New Hope Coal (NHC), Ludowici (LDW), Alumina (AMC), Flight Centre (FLT), Hawkley Oil & Gas (HAG), M2 Communications (MTU), Northern Star (NST), Codan (CDA) or Onesteel (OST) make Roger’s coveted A1 grade? Watch this edition of Sky Business’ Your Money Your Call broadcast 9 May 2012 to find out.  Watch here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Investing Education, Skaffold, TV Appearances, Value.able.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Investing Education, Skaffold, TV Appearances, Value.able

In this BRW article Tony Featherstone discusses the nature of sustainable competitive advantage and how Roger Montgomery swears by it in his Value.able investing strategy. Read here.

This article was published on 3 May 2012.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, In the Press, Investing Education.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, In the Press, Investing Education

In this 2 May 2012 ASX Investor Hour presentation, Roger explains that while many investors focus solely on price, he (like Warren Buffett) selects his stocks, to buy or to sell, by comparing their current price to the value he ascribes to them. Roger discusses about his value principles and the technology he uses to filter stocks (www.skaffold.com).  Watch video here and view slides here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Skaffold, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Skaffold, TV Appearances

Learn Roger Montgomery’s Value.able insights into the latest 50 basis point cut in the the base rate and how it may impact housing prices in this interview with ABC The Business’ Ticky Fullerton broadcast 2 May 2012. Watch here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Energy / Resources, Financial Services, Investing Education, TV Appearances.

• 1 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Energy / Resources, Financial Services, Investing Education, TV Appearances

Roger Montgomery discuss how Sustainable Competitive Advantage is the platform for exceptional company performance in this Money Magazine article published in May 2012.  Read here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education, On the Internet, Value.able.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Insightful Insights, Investing Education, On the Internet, Value.able

In the May 2012 edition of the ASX Investor Update Email Newsletter, Roger Montgomery outlines his Value.able framework for successfully investing in the share market. Read here.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Intrinsic Value, Investing Education, On the Internet, Value.able.

• 2 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Intrinsic Value, Investing Education, On the Internet, Value.able

For new readers to the blog, welcome. Here at Roger’s blog we are conducting an ongoing study comparing the performance of investment portfolios recommended by major broking houses verses a loose selection of A1 and A2 stocks bought as a big a discount to IV as possible.

(Its Roger here:  Its important to understand this is a hypothetical investment portfolio based on one of the Twin’s consistent approaches to stock selection.  In that regard it is not a collection of small high risk bets whose returns could be easily ramped.  I will be very surprised if you see high double digit returns from such an approach for that reason.  At Montgomery, managing +$200 million simply precludes us from investing in the small companies that would produce higher returns on relatively insignificant $5000 sums – irrespective of whether or not the returns can be boosted by disingenuous marketing by social media marketing experts or worse, even ramping.  Its easy to make 50% per annum on $100,000.  Much harder on $1billion.  Even personally our individual speculative selections may have a couple of hundred thousand dollars allocated to them and so we are also precluded from employing capital where liquidity may be boosted only by the participation of a small group of invisible Facebook friends.  Worse, our experience tells us that such anonymous groups can be a manic depressive bunch and when they’re told that a holding has been sold, the illiquid volumes of the companies they are toying with will produce the very opposite result of that which they aspired to achieved.)

We have been following twin brothers and their investment decisions and performances since December 2010.

The twins each inherited $100,000 and sought differing advice how to invest it, the quarterly reports of their investments can be found here:

http://rogermontgomery.com/will-david-beat-goliath/
http://rogermontgomery.com/how-are-the-a1-twins-performing/
http://rogermontgomery.com/which-a1-twin-is-outperforming/

By the end of 2011 our first twin, the regional Queensland accountant was still head down, trying to help hundreds of clients recover from all the natural disasters of the previous 12 months, government help was available but so was the paperwork. As these tasks drew to a close, Queensland entered a bitter and hard fought state election, so comprehensive was the coverage, it was hard to watch anything else. There had been a lot on, and checking on the performance of his portfolio had really been at the bottom of the list.

Our NSW based public servant had pretty much had the same six months, but for very different reasons. Being in the Foreign Affairs office of the federal public service, he was now getting used to the third minister in 2 years, much changed, often needlessly and nobody had any time for anything other than redeploying resources and priorities.

As March ended and the weather cooled, both brothers had a chance for a bit of R&R and to catch up on personal business. Neither were particularly thrilled with the performance of their portfolio; Our public servant , who had always invested through Goldman Sachs had performed exactly in line with the broader market, his portfolio was down 8.6% over the 15 months, and had lost nearly $9 000. He felt he could do better, and had been thinking about getting other advice for quiet a while now, and decided to act. He now only had $91 000 left and decided to switch brokers and became a client of the giant international broking firm UBS, who provided him with their Australian Equity Core Portfolio. Here is an image of the advice from UBS and how his $91 000 was divided amongst the 10 stocks listed.

Source:  March 2012 ASX Investor Hour.  www.asx.com.au

Our Queensland accountant had faired significantly better, by investing in A1 and A2 stocks he had outperformed the market by 13.2% over the 15 months. However, he acknowledged that a couple of his investment decisions had performed poorly and wanted to rebalance his portfolio, he too decided to act. With over $104 000 available to invest he decided to round down his investable sum back to $100 000 and spend the surplus on a short Gold Coast holiday with his family and the balance on a membership to Skaffold. Skaffold is the research tool that would help him scour the every listed company to find quality stocks that may be selling at a price that offered a discount to estimated intrinsic value. Skaffold would also save him the time of sorting through ten years of annual reports for every listed company. Armed with ability to narrow down the choice of stocks, he would able to focus on the few that met his criteria and do further research on them before investing.

Here are the twin’s portfolios side-by-side:

The varying quality ratings of the 2 portfolios makes for interesting reading. On the basis of quality, the UBS portfolio doesn’t look very disciplined yet the portfolio chosen with the help of Skaffold looks pretty consistent. Except for 1 stock that is an A4. Our Skaffold user feels this cash flow positive producer may be about to be rerated by the market and A4 is as speculative as he could bring himself to be.

We will revisit our investing twins just after June 30 to see which portfolio is performing better, many thanks to Roger for putting the stocks to the test and actively encouraging this ongoing project.

All the Best
Scott T

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical and educational exercise only and not a recommendation of any kind.

Authored by Scott and posted by Roger Montgomery, Value.able author, SkaffoldChairman and Fund Manager, 19 April 2012.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Investing Education, Skaffold.

• 37 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Investing Education, Skaffold

Republished: PORTFOLIO POINT: Leighton’s recent performance issues have been exacerbated by a poor relationship between management and staff.

The 15th of April will mark the 100-year anniversary of the tragic sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage from Southampton England to New York. Owned by The Oceanic Steam Navigation Company or White Star Line of Boston Packets, the tragedy was not that her advanced safety features, which included watertight compartments and remotely activated watertight doors malfunctioned. The tragedy was the operational failure and that the Titanic lacked enough lifeboats to accommodate any more than a third of her total passenger and crew capacity.

It occurred to me on this anniversary that there are many lumbering, giant business boats listed on the Australian stock exchange today, whose journeys have been equally eventful, if not fatal, and whose management is no less responsible for operational failures and for providing lifeboats only for themselves.

Take the situation over at Leighton (ASX: LEI) – a company I wrote about here some time ago, saying: “There is a significant risk of downward revisions to current forecasts for the 2012 profit.” On March 30, the company wrote a further $254 million off its two biggest projects – Airport Link and the Victorian desalination plant. More broadly, Leighton downgraded its FY12 profit guidance to $400 million-$450 million from $600 million-$650 million, taking the company’s writedown tally to almost $2 billion in the past two years. This will reduce the return on equity from 22% to 15% for 2012, and significantly reduce the 2012 intrinsic value, which now sits below $14.00 (see graph below).

Source: Skaffold.com

Back when I wrote my prediction, I also noted that workers at the desalination plant had cited ‘safety concerns’ causing them to work more cautiously (read slowly) to ensure their physical safety and the safety of their $200,000 per year wage, which of course would not continue beyond the project’s completion.

This week, it was revealed that similar problems have emerged at Brisbane’s Airport Link project. According to one report, “an increasing level of aggressive behaviour” from unionised workers who wanted to “get paid for longer” was an attempt to “leverage this finishing phase” of the project.

Leighton must construct to a deadline, and liquidated damages clauses cost the company about $1.1 million per day for every day that the Airport Link project is delayed. My guess is that as a result of the workforce’s alleged ‘go slow’, Leighton is forced to bring in hundreds of sub-contractors such as sparkies (with “specialist commissioning skills and experience”, according to John Holland) to complete the work. Either way, it costs Leighton more. A 25% blow-out on a multi-billion dollar project can amount to $1 billion.

On top of these problems, Leighton has a $200 million deferred equity commitment to make two years after Airport Link opens. And if my speculation that the operator may be broke before Christmas comes to fruition, Leighton will be forced to write off another $63 million – the amount remaining to be written down.

But before you jump to attack the unions reported to be responsible for Leighton’s woes – something I believe is often justified, not because of what the unions represent, which is honourable, but because of the tactics they sometimes use to seek redress – you should remember that there are many companies whose more humble management works in harmony with its workforces, unionised or otherwise.

Management is an important part of the investment analysis mix and while I firmly believe, as Buffett does, that the business boat you get into is far more important than the man doing the rowing, I do also believe that management will make the bed that ultimately every stakeholder must lie in.

Any company whose management drives flash cars to the office, pays herculean salaries to themselves and/or takes advantage of company relationships for self-gain is always going to be the target of unrest and distrust from its staff. This is driven often by envy, a sense of unfairness or lack of equity, and while I am not saying this is the case at Leighton, clearly there’s something amiss that is the root cause of this much trouble.

Over the last decade, Leighton has generated cash flow from operations of $8.3 billion, but its capital expenditure has now exceeded $7.5 billion. This would leave $800 million for dividends, but the company has paid dividends of over $2 billion (perhaps to appease non-unionised, income-seeking shareholders who support the share price upon which management’s lucrative remuneration is based). Given the cash to fund this dividend largesse was not generated by business operations, $850 million of ownership-diluting equity has been raised and $1.3 billion of debt borrowed. And for this less-than-spectacular performance, the top 10 current executives were paid almost $20 million last year. Eight of those were paid more than $1.2 million in 2011, four were paid more than $2.3 million, and the year before, three of the 10 were paid more than $4.5 million each.

Forecast profits for 2012 will not be any higher than five years ago, and the company workforce has doubled to 51,281 employees at June 30, 2011. But $190 million in salaries for 15 senior executives (excluding van der Laan’s $47,000) between 2007 and 2011 (see table), while overseeing such performance does not sit well with staff (or vocal but ineffectual minority shareholders) and it’s the relationship between management and staff that is more than partly to blame for the company’s ills.

Whether or not the CFMEU’s Dave Noonan’s claim in The Australian Financial Review this week is correct – specifically that “the markets were the last to know [about Airport Link], everybody else in the industry knew that the company were going to drop hundreds of millions of dollars and obviously they chose to tell the stock market very late in the piece” – is less significant than whether a carcinogenic tumour has grown between management and staff. The former can be resolved but the latter is potentially more permanent, and therefore damaging to shareholder returns.

Leighton is a fixture in the portfolios of thousands of superannuants nearing retirement and their disappointment with their investment returns can be at least partly attributed to the poor wealth-creating contribution of this company and its management. In turn, this can be attributed to the motivation and satisfaction of staff.

Shareholders are also the owners and have a right to know how management is performing, but now the majority shareholder’s demands will hold sway and the majority shareholder is Spain’s Grupo ACS, not the many Australian super funds who thought the company’s management was working for them. Oh, and I am guessing there is the risk of further writedowns on projects that haven’t yet hit the headlines.

Like the Titanic, where only the executives at White Star Line were truly safe, minority shareholders may find there aren’t enough lifeboats for them either.

First Published at Eureka Report April 11.  Republished and Posted by Roger Montgomery, Value.able author, Skaffold Chairman and Fund Manager, 19 April 2012.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Energy / Resources, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Manufacturing, Skaffold.

• 3 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Energy / Resources, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Manufacturing, Skaffold