Investing Education

The time has arrived.

My team and I are delighted to invite Value.able Graduates to pre-register for Skaffold®, our next-generation A1 service.

Skaffold is the stock market like you’ve never seen it before – the world’s best visuals combined with its most reputable information and ideas.

Amazing, incredible, simple. That’s Skaffold.

Those who have already seen Skaffold called it “the missing piece”.

Value.able Graduates will receive a personal invitation today. Keep an eye out for an email from me with the subject line “Your next-generation A1 invitation. Here it is”.

IMPORTANT: It has come to our attention that some @optusnet.com.au email addresses did not receive my invitation. Rest assured, if you have contacted us, posted a comment here at the blog or on my Facebook page, or simply not received your invitation, my team will be in touch.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, Skaffold® member #1.

Skaffold® is a registered trademark of Skaffold Pty Limited.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Investing Education.

• 87 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Investing Education

With reporting season in full swing, I would like to share my insights into whose Quality Score has improved, and whose has deteriorated. Remember, none of this represents recommendations. It is intended to be educational only. You must seek and take personal professional advice before acting or transacting in any security.

To date, 232 companies have reported their annual results. I am sure you can understand why we feel snowed under. With almost 2,000 companies listed on the ASX, the avalanche still has a way to roll.

We have updated all of our models for each of the 164 companies that we are interested in. As you know, we rank all listed companies from A1 down to C5. The inputs for those rankings always come from the company themselves. I would hate to think how bipolar they would be if we allowed our emotions and personal preferences to infect those ratings (or be swayed by analyst forecasts)!

Rather than arbitrary and subjective assessments, we download some 50-70 Profit and Loss, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow data fields from each annual report to populate five templates. All of these templates employ industry specific metrics to calculate the Quality Scores. This allows us to rank every ASX-listed business from A1 – C5. Its our objective way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

For Value.able Graduates not familiar with our scoring system, company’s that achieve an A1 Score are those we believe to be the best businesses, and the safest. C5s are the poorest performers and carry the highest risk of a possible catastrophic event.

A1 does not mean nothing bad will ever befall a company. A1 simply means to us that it has the lowest probability of something permanently catastrophic. Further, ‘lowest probability’ doesn’t mean ‘never’. A hundred-to-one horse can still win races, even though the probability is low. Similarly, an A1 business can experience a permanently fatal event. In aggregate however, we expect a portfolio of A1 businesses to outperform, over a long period of time, a portfolio of companies with lesser scores.

With that in mind, we are of course most interested in the A1s and – on a declining scale – A2, B1 and B2 businesses.

So, who has managed to retain their A1 status this reporting season? And which businesses have achieved the coveted A1 status? If you hold shares in any of the companies whose scores have declined (based of course on their reported results), please read on.

Of the companies that have reported so far, last year 20 of them were A1s, 28 were A2s, one was a B1 and 13 scored B2. That’s an encouraging proportion, although we tend to discover each reporting season that the better quality businesses and the better performing businesses are generally keen to get their results out into the public domain early.

Its towards the end of every reporting season where the quality of the businesses really drops off. This is always something to watch out for – companies trying to hide amongst the many hundreds reporting at the end of the season. It’s always a good idea to turn up to a big fancy dress party late, if you aren’t in fancy dress.

This year we have seen the number of existing A1s fall to nine from 20, A2s from 28 to 24, B1s rise from one to two and B2s fall from 13 to six.

The first table shows all twenty 2009/2010 A1 companies that have reported to date. You’ll see a number of very familiar names in here, including ARB Corp (ARP), Blackmores (BKL), Cochlear (COH), Carsales.com (CRZ), Fleetwood (FWD), Mineral Resources (MIN), Platinum Asset Management (PTM), REA Group (REA), DWS (DWS), Forge (FGE), K2 Asset Management (KAM), Macquarie Radio Network (MRN), Nick Scali (NCK), 1300 Smiles Limited (ONT), SMS Management & Technology (SMX), Webjet (WEB), JB Hi-Fi (JBH), Navitas Limited (NVT), Saunders International (SND) and GUD Limited (GUD). Nine have maintained their A1 rating this year.

Now, before you go jumping up and down, a drop from A1 to A2 is like downgrading from Rolls Royce to Bently. When we talk about A2s, its not a drop from RR Phantom to a Ford Cortina, not that there’s anything wrong with the old Cortina (if you are too young to know what I am talking about Google it!).

The only big rating decline is GUD Holdings, which made a large acquisition (Dexion) during the year. Indeed, a common theme amongst the higher quality and cashed up businesses this reporting season has been the deployment of that cash towards, for example, acquisition or buybacks (think JB Hi-Fi).

Moving onto the 2009/2010 A2 honour roll: Codan Limited (CDN), Advanced Share Registry Limited (ASW), Commonwealth Bank (CBA), Credit Corp (CCP), CSL Limited (CSL), Decmil (DCG), Domino’s Pizza (DMP), NIB Holdings (NHF), OZ Minerals (OZL), Plan B Group (PLB), RCG Corporation (RCG), Sedgman Limited (SDM), Slater & Gordon (SGH), Super Retail Group (SUL), Wellcom Group (WLL), Argo Investments (ARG), AV Jennings (AVJ), Carindale Property Trust (CDP), Computershare (CPU), Euroz Limited (EZL), Oakton (OKN), Tamawood (TWD), Austal Limited (ASB), LBT Innovations (LBT), Academis Australasia Group (AKG), Chandler Mcleod Group (CMG), The Reject Shop (TRS) and Primary Health Care (PRY).

The businesses that make up this list showed slightly more stability. The biggest fall in quality this year was Primary Healthcare (PRY),which is still struggling to digest the large purchases it made a few years ago. The Reject Shop (TRS) also declined, to B3. TRS is still investment grade and we would lean towards believing this is a short-term decline, given the floods in QLD that caused the complete shutdown of their new distribution center and the massive disruptions subsequently caused. As the company said, you can’t sell what you haven’t got!

Finally, B1 and B2 companies: Leighton Holdings (LEI), Alesco Corp (ALS), Mount Gibson Iron (MGX), Amcom Telecommunications (AMM), Data#3 (DTL), Ansell Limited (ANN), Fortescue (FMG), Little World Beverages (LWB), Stockland (SGP), iiNet (IIN), MaxiTRANS Industries (MXI), Newcrest Mining (NCM), SAI Global (SAI), Gazal Corporation (GZL) and Salmat (SLM).

About half the companies in the B1/B2 list retained or improved their ratings from last year. Mind you, half also saw their rating decline!

The clear fall from grace is Leighton Holdings, whose problems have been well documented in the media and via company presentations.But once again, like The Reject Shop, this could be a temporary situation. If the forecast $650m profit comes through, I expect LEI’s quality score will improve. What the dip will do, however, is remain a permanent reminder that Leighton is a cyclical business. Getting the quote right on a job is important, even more a massive enterprise like Leightons.

Are you surprised by any of the changes? We certainly were!

Sticking to quality is vitally important. That’s what my team and I do here at Montgomery Inc, and its what our amazing next-generation A1 service is all about. Value.able Graduates – your invitation is pending.

If you are yet to join the Graduate Class, click here to order your copy of Value.able immediately. Once you have 1. read Value.able and 2. changed some part of the way you think about the stock market, my team and I will be delighted to officially welcome you as a Graduate of the Class of 2011 (and invite you to become a founding member of our soon-to-be-released next-generation A1 service).

Remember, you must do your own research and remember to seek and take personal professional advice.

We look forward to reading your insights and will provide another reporting season update soon.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 24 August 2011.

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

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

iiNet’s full-year results have been released. I have taken particular interest because communications and data is one sector of the marketplace I believe is relatively less affected, in terms of share-of-wallet, by the ructions in the US Europe.

The results released today (15 August 2011) were marginally below the expectations of several analysts we correspond daily with. Underlying EBITDA was up just shy of 30 per cent to $104.8 million (some analysts were expecting $106 million and a little more).

With DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) – the technology that significantly increases the digital capacity of ordinary telephone lines, and excluding HFC (Hybrid Fiber-Coax network – CABLE) – iiNet is now the number two competitor and the leading “challenger “in the Australian residential telecommunications market. As an investor, I am always interested in the number 1 or 2 player in town. However the gap between number 1 (Telstra) and iiNet (#2) is enormous. iiNet have 641,000 paid DSL subscribers (up 19 per cent). Telstra has 2.4 million.

The company reported its underlying Net Profit After Tax was $39.0m, up 12.4 per cent on FY10, while reported NAPT fell 3.7 per cent to $33.4m (FY10 $34.7m). On a quick glance, I reckon underlying profit was $37 million (you have to add back $3.9 million in deal costs, redundancy costs of $1.2 million and legal costs of $1.4 million but tax effect it). Stripping out the impact of the acquisition, I also estimate cash flow was close to $40 million.

The reason for the less than stellar growth in reported net profit was because iiNet’s tax bill was much higher than last year. The increase in tax wiped out all of the increase in the net profit before tax.

Whilst many analysts will look at the growth in operating profit (EBITDA), I’d look at the net profit before tax. If I add the legal costs in 2010 back to that year’s profit-before-tax and then add the one-offs for 2011, I get a jump in net profit before tax from $43.85 to $53.4 million and a reduction in margins from 9.25 per cent to 7.6 per cent. Hopefully the company’s expected ‘synergies’ (an extra $10 million from porting AAPT customers across to the iiNet billing system?) raise this to 8.5 per cent.

Net debt increased to $96.4m from $56.3m as a result of the AAPT Consumer division. This has had an impact on our Quality Score (the A1-C5 system), which was B2 previously. Gearing will be 40 per cent. And the the balance sheet? It now contains $302 million of goodwill compared to $242 million of equity.

Revenue and operating cash flow was up significantly with the full year’s benefit of the Netspace acquisition and a nine month benefit of the AAPT consumer division. What really would be interesting however is an estimate of what like-for-like revenue and operating cash flow is. Sure iiNet has no ‘stores’, but acquisitions and synergy extraction doesn’t have the same whiff of sustainability as a business that can grow organically. I would like to see how the old business (excluding the acquisitions) is travelling. Value.able Graduates – would you?

And when I hear company say that it is “Ideally positioned for the future“, I want answers as to whether they were previously ideally positioned for ‘now’.

The 19 per cent growth in DSL subscribers includes AAPT’s consumer division, so it doesn’t give us much insight into the organic growth of the company. With ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) largely unchanged, yet network and carrier costs up 56 per cent – above the 47 per cent increase in revenue – some insights into organic growth would be helpful. I suspect subscriber growth will reflect slow organic growth in FY12, and any margin/profit improvement will come from ‘synergies’. While these may be significant ($9 – $12 million from migrating AAPT customers onto iinet billing system), they are not a long-term delivery platform for profit growth.

It is clear that management’s confidence is high. They have significantly increased the dividend from $12.1 million last year to $16.7 million this year and have announced separately a share buy-back of up to 7.6 million shares, or about 5 per cent of the issued capital (about $17 million at current prices), despite the fact that debt has risen substantially by a net $52 million. Perhaps when you have $766 million coming through the door you can afford to be a bit fancy-free with your capital allocation? Thoughts anyone?

I hear whispers in the background… Roger, how do you know all this? Yes, I do listen to company presentations and we do read investor briefings. But nothing compares to the clarity that comes from using our A1 service. It is, quite literally, extaordinary. And we can’t wait to share it with you. Value.able Graduates – expect to receive your invitation very soon. Now, back to the program…

If organic growth is slow and acquisitions begin to thin out, one would expect debt repayment followed by an increase in the payout ratio. Or perhaps the other way around, if share price support is contemplated?

The prices paid for acquisitions does not immediately cause concern for me, because the returns on equity being reported aren’t poor. But they aren’t A1 either.

Investors have tipped in $223 million and left in $15 million. On those amounts, iiNet’s Return on Equity is about 16 per cent.That’s not bad, but are there better opportunities out there. Before you suggest Telstra, keep in mind it is 140 per cent geared and profits are boosted by the failure of the company to recognise software development expenses in the year they are incurred.

The old fashioned Value.able investor in me doesn’t like looking at a balance sheet that reveals the debt-funded acquisition of goodwill. I have witnessed far too many examples of this turning out poorly. Sure, some of you may say that MMS did the same thing? But while debt rose significantly there, the corresponding asset was PP&E, not goodwill. You may instead point out that interest cover is still high at 9 times (20 times last year). That, I accept.

Finally, the NBN. What does it mean for iiNet?

First, some background. An ‘Off-net’ customer is provided a DSL service through another network – usually Telstra wholesale. An ‘On-net’ customer is one that is provided a DSL service through the iiNetwork (iiNet’s own broadband network). The NBN is expected to reduce the average monthly cost of broadband + Voice bundling to $33, which compares favourably to the current off-net cost of $57. This is a potentially major saving, but the reason I am not as excited about this as the company is because as the transition is made, there will be some leakage. It will occur over an unexciting period of time and any number of offsetting factors could adversely impact revenues, costs and profits during that time.

I am more excited about other companies at the moment. A growth by acquisition strategy may offer wonderful potential in the short-term, but it can also be used to mask slow organic growth. The buy-back can be a sign that cashflow will be strong, but it can also be used to merely ‘display’ confidence and support the share price. At Montgomery HQ, we reckon the shares are very close to their Value.able intrinsic value, but iiNet’s fall in quality, from A3 to B2, suggests shifting your attention to other opportunities.

You should be practising your own Value.able valuations. So what do you get for iiNet for 2011, 2012 and 2013?

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 15 August 2011.

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

• 37 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Technology & Telecommunications, Value.able

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

With markets falling on fears that political brinkmanship in the US may result in an embarrassing default on the country’s extraordinary debt obligations (not to mention a reputationally damaging event), I wondered whether we could dig anything up with a more-than-slightly different approach to finding value.

As you would know from reading Value.able, I am not a fan of the Price to Earnings Ratio. Nothing has changed on that front. Nevertheless, value may just be in the eye of the beholder and not only is the P/E Ratio common in literature about investing and in market commentary, it is, whether rightly or wrongly, in wide use.

Indeed, if you are like many Baby Boomers now on the cusp of selling your business, you will be spending a great deal of time in negotiations and assisting in due diligence to arrive at a simple multiple of earnings.

The humble P/E Ratio may be misused, misunderstood and relied on far too heavily, but popular it remains.

One version of the earnings multiple that is adopted for comparison purposes by private equity buyers is the enterprise model. The enterprise model takes the market value of the equity (market cap) and debt, less cash, and divides the whole lot by the EBITDA (earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortisation). Of course, if you have a company with high operating margins but lots of property, plant and equipment (PP&E) to maintain, you may find the results a little optimistic.

Simply take a standard price to earnings approach, but subtract the cash the company has in the bank.

If you were to buy a business outright, you may take into account the cash the company has in its bank accounts. After buying the business you may be able to access this cash and withdraw it to lower the purchase price. Alternatively, if you are selling a business, in an IPO for example, you may be just as keen to take the cash out before selling it to maximise the return to you and reduce the return available to otherwise anonymous share market investors (this latter strategy is very popular).

The arithmetic result of taking out the cash is a lower P/E multiple. And that is what I thought you may be interested to discuss.

Are there any companies listed in Australia that are trading on very low multiples of earnings once their cash is taken into consideration? The broad based market declines have ensured there are indeed a few.

Step 1

My search began by opening our next-generation A1 service (Value.able Graduates – your exclusive invitation to pre-register is not far away). I applied a filter to discover those companies whose shares were trading at a P/E-less-cash ratio of less than 6 times. From the more than 2000 companies reviewed, there are 18 such companies that meet the criteria today. Keeping in mind some businesses have cash on their balance sheet that would NOT be accessible to a buyer (legislated, regulation or simply working capital needs), here are the eighteen:

Step 2

Next, I retained only those companies that have a current estimated forecast increase in intrinsic value of 10% or more. This filter reduced the field to just 11 companies, removing ASX, OZL, CGS, CFE, BTA, PBP AND MOC. Here are the eleven:

Step 3

Finally, I removed companies whose previous year’s ROE was less than 15%. I also removed any companies with a C1-C5 Quality Score. Low ROE stocks removed were; CLQ, CLH, SVW AND STS and C-rated companies removed were; SFH AND PEM. That left just five companies. Here they are:

And there you have it, companies trading at enterprise multiples that may be attractive to a buyer who could potentially use the cash on the balance sheet to reduce their purchase price.

Amazing, incredible simple. No manual calculations required (ever again).

Remember, this exercise did not incorporate any of the traditional Value.able investing considerations we usually discuss at the Insights Blog… safety margin, intrinsic value.

For the record, only two of the listed businesses look cheap on the Value.able score today. With reporting season about to begin in ernest, keep in mind the results and cash balances of these companies will all change.

You must do your own research into their prospects and remember to seek and take personal professional advice.

Very soon, finding extraordinary A1 companies offering large safety margins will become simple and even fun. Our next-generation A1 service that my team and I have been tirelessly working on will inspire your investing and re-energise your portfolio.

Value.able Graduates – stay tuned. Your exclusive invitation to pre-register will arrive in your inbox very soon. If you are yet to join the Graduate Class, click here to order your copy of Value.able immediately. Once you have 1. read Value.able and 2. changed some part of the way you think about the stock market, my team and I will be delighted to officially welcome you as a Graduate of the Class of 2011 (and invite you to become a founding member of our soon-to-be-released next-generation A1 service).

Back to the program… this reporting season, who do you think will surprise with better than expected earnings?

Who do you think will struggle?

And what stocks are looking cheap to you right now?

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 29 July 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Investing Education.

• 87 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Investing Education

A couple of weeks ago Tony and Stevo made the following suggestion at my Facebook page: If given $100,000 to invest in the stock market, would I spread my money equally across the portfolio or invest a larger percentage in the very best stocks that are trading at prices less than they’re worth?

Here are the highlights from that appearance on Peter’s Switzer TV.

Peter has invited me to join him again this Thursday from 7pm on the Sky Business Channel (Channel 602).

What’s your portfolio construction strategy?

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 12 July 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Investing Education, TV Appearances.

• 181 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Investing Education, TV Appearances

For those interested in Shale Gas stocks, an interesting article was published in the New York Times at the weekend.

Here’s an excerpt or two from the article…

“Money is pouring in” from investors even though shale gas is “inherently unprofitable,” an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote to a contractor in a February e-mail. “Reminds you of dot-coms.”

“And now these corporate giants are having an Enron moment,” a retired geologist from a major oil and gas company wrote in a February e-mail about other companies invested in shale gas. “They want to bend light to hide the truth.”

…and here is the link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011 and a link to more than 480 pages of leaked insider emails and reports: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive

And more recently, in this e-mail chain from April 2011, United States Energy Information Administration officials express concerns about the economic realities of shale gas production.

I am not allowing any comments on this subject. Do your own research and seek personal professional advice.

Please continue contributing to the two prior posts, listing the companies you think we should be watching this reporting season (Scroll Down).

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager , 27 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Energy / Resources, Investing Education, Value.able.

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

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