Investing Education

In August 2010 Matrix Composites & Engineering, when we first began commenting on the company, was trading around $2.90. Thirty days later the share price was at $4.48. Today MCE is trading at just over $9.00 and has a market capitalisation of more than half a billion dollars. It’s no longer just a little engineering business. Like the Perth industrial precinct of Malaga in which its headquarters are based, MCE is growing rapidly (according to Wikipedia there are currently 2409 businesses with a workforce of over 12,000 people in Malaga. The 2006 census listed only 28 people living in the suburb).

But has MCE’s share price risen beyond what the business is actually worth?

Stock market participants are very good at telling us what we should buy and when. When it comes to selling, it seems silence is the golden rule.

If you receive broker research, take out a report and turn to the very back page – the one beyond the analyst’s financial model. You will often find a table that lists every company covered by that broker’s research department. Now look to the right of each stock listed. What do you notice?

Buy… Buy… Hold… Buy… Buy… Accumulate… Hold…

What about sell?

There aren’t many companies in Australia worthy of a buy-and-hold-forever approach. And if you have invested in a company with a previous BUY recommendation, the luxury of a subsequent Ceasing Coverage announcement by the analyst is not helpful.

So then, when should you sell? It is a question I have been asked, to be honest, I can’t remember how many times. Because I have been asked so many times, it’s a question I answered in Chapter 13 of Value.able – a chapter entitled Getting Out.

Value.able Graduates will recognise a sell opportunity. Yes, it is an opportunity. Fail to sell shares and you could eventually lose money.

Of course, any selling must be conducted with a certain amount of trepidation, particularly when capital gains tax consequences are considered. But not selling simply because of tax consequences is unwise.

We pay tax on our capital gains because we make a gain. Yes, its difficult handing over part of our investment success to the Tax Man for seemingly no contribution, but without success our bank balance would remain stagnant forever.

When then should you sell? In Value.able I advocate five reasons. For now I would like to share with you a possible reason.  Based on any of the other reasons I may be selling Matrix so make sure you understand this is a review based on one of five reasons.

Eventually share prices catch up to value. In some cases it can take ten years, but in the case of Matrix, it has taken far less time for the share price to approach intrinsic value.

One signal to sell any share is when the share prices rise well above intrinsic value.

There are no hard and fast rules around this. And don’t believe you can come up with a winning approach with a simple ‘sell when 20% above intrinsic value’ approach either.

What you MUST do is look at the future prospects. In particular, is the intrinsic value rising? I believe it is for Matrix (and I am not the only fund manager who does – you could ask my mate Chris too).

Here’s some of his observations:  Risks associated with the timing of getting Matrix’s facility at Henderson up and running are mitigated by keeping Malaga open. And Malaga is producing more units now than it was only a few months ago. Matrix could also produce more units from Henderson than they have suggested (the plant is commissioned to produce 60 units per day) and I believe the cost savings will flow through much sooner than they say. Recall the company has indicated Henderson could save circa $13 million in labour, rent and transport costs (see below analyst comment). Excess build costs are now largely spent and if the company can ramp up to 70 units a day, HY12 revenue could double.

Why do I believe this? Because a recent site visit for analysts suggested it. As one analyst told me: “Production of macrospheres has started from Henderson with 7 of the 22 tumblers in operation. This is a good example of the labour savings to come as it’s now a largely automated process – there were only 3 people working v >20 on this process at Malaga.”

(Post Script:  My own visit to WA at the weekend revealed a company capable of producing just over 100 units per day – Henderson + Malaga)  Moreover, the sad events unfolding in Japan will force a rethink on Nuclear.  If nuclear energy – recently hailed as a green solution to global warming – reverts to being a relic of an old world order, demand for oil will increase.  Oil prices will rise.  Deep sea drilling will be on everyone’s radar even more so.

And the risks?  Well, one is pricing pressure from competitors. This is something that needs to be discussed with management, but preferably with customers!

Some Value.able Graduates may be reluctant to place too much emphasis on future valuations. Indeed I insist on a discount to current valuations. If it is your view that future valuations should be ignored, then you should sell.

Personally I believe one of my most important contributions to the principles of value investing is the idea of future valuations. Nobody was talking about them at the time I started mentioning 2011 and 2012 Value.able valuations and rates of growth. They are important because we want to buy businesses with bright prospects. And a company whose intrinsic value is rising “at a good clip” demonstrates those bright prospects.

If you have more faith and conviction that the business will be more valuable in one, two and three years time, you may be willing to hold on. On the basis of this ONE reason I am currently not rushing to sell Matrix (of course I may sell based on any of the other four reasons), however notwithstanding a change to our view (or one of the other four criteria for selling being met) I do hope for much lower prices (buy shares like you buy groceries…)

I cannot, and will not, tell you to sell or buy Matrix and I might ‘cease coverage’ at any time. As I have said many times here, do not use my comments to buy or sell shares. Do your own research and seek and take personal professional advice.

What I do want to encourage you to do is delve deeply into the company’s history, its management, their capabilities, recent announcements and any other valuable information you can acquire.

And in the spirit demonstrated by so many Value.able Graduates, feel free to share your findings here and build the value for all investors.

When the market values a company much more highly than its performance would warrant, it is time to reconsider your investment. Looking into the prospects for a business and its intrinsic value can help making premature decisions. Premature selling can have a very costly impact on portfolio performance not only because the share price may continue rising for a long time, but also because finding another cheap A1 to replace the one you have sold, is so difficult. At all times remember that my view could change tomorrow and I may not have time to report back here so do your own research and form your own opinions. Also keep in mind that we do not bet the farm on any one stock so even if MCE were to lose money for us (and we will get a few wrong) we won’t lose a lot.

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

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

• 294 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Energy / Resources, Investing Education, Value.able

UPDATE: I spoke with Graham, editor of thesmsfreview.com.au, this afternoon. There are only a few (around ten) seats left at the event. If you would like to attend, Graham has asked me to kindly request you do so before 5pm Friday 11 March. Click here to book online.

The SMSF Review and Alan’s Eureka Report, together with my team, have gathered some of Australia’s most respected self managed superannuation and investment experts – Alan Kohler, the Cooper Review’s Jeremy Cooper, ATO Superannuation Assistant Commissioner Stuart Forsyth, Jonathan Payne and Super System Review panel member Meg Heffron, to name a few.

The SMSF Strategy Day – for charity will be held in Sydney on Tuesday, 15 March. The day begins at 8.30am with a Keynote speech from ATO Assistant Commissioner (Superannuation) Stuart Forsyth and concludes at 4pm.

I will speak at 10.30am and at 12pm will join Alan Kohler, Jonathan Payne and Jeremy Cooper for a panel discussion to debate the most popular SMSF investment strategies.

Tickets are $77 (including GST) and 100 per cent of the net proceeds will be donated to those most affected by Australia’s recent spate of natural disasters.

Click here to book your seat online.

To download the event brochure, click here.

I look forward to meeting you next week for this valuable cause.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 8 March 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

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

When a company buys back its shares, the announcement is often accompanied by reports suggesting either 1) the company has no other growth options towards which it can employ equity capital or, 2) the company has great confidence in its future and other shareholders should be following its lead rather than selling out to the company itself.

Back in 1984, in his Chairman’s Letter to Shareholders (a source of information I have quoted frequently here and in Value.able), Warren Buffett observed:

“When companies with outstanding businesses and comfortable financial positions find their shares selling far below intrinsic value in the marketplace, no alternative action can benefit shareholders as surely as repurchases.”

Note to CFOs and CEOs: “shares selling far below intrinsic value in the marketplace.”

It is just as important for the CEO of a public company to be buying shares only when they are below intrinsic value, as it is for Value.able Graduates building a portfolio.

Buying shares above intrinsic value will destroy value as surely as buying high and selling low – something many Australian companies became all to expert at during the GFC as they issued shares in their millions at prices not only below intrinsic value, but below equity per share.

One question to ask is if companies are engaging in buy backs today, why weren’t they when their shares were much, much lower? The answer of course may be that they may not have had the capital back then. A recovery from the lows of the GFC has not only occurred in the prices of shares trading in the market place, but also in the cash-generating performance of the underlying businesses themselves.

Irrespective of the circumstances, a company now buying back shares that had previously issued them at the depths of the GFC is having a second crack at wealth destruction.

I am pleased to report that not all companies are following the crowd. Some larger companies, including BHP, RIO and Woolworths, have announced buy backs at or slightly below my estimate of their Value.able intrinsic values.

Webjet, Customers, Coventry Group and Charter Hall Retail REIT have all announced buy backs and Bendigo/Adelaide Bank is engaging in one to reverse the impact of shares issued through their DRP.

As I wrote yesterday (Is there any value around?), value is becoming much harder to find. Companies are expensive, even my A1s. Whilst any Value.able valuation is merely an estimate, the absence of a large Margin of Safety, combined with the announcements of buy backs, does not inspire my confidence.

In the US, share buy backs historically peak at market highs. Think back to the first half of 2007 and in 1999 and 2000 – two periods that investors may have wished they’d sold shares back to the companies – are also periods during which buy backs peaked.

Share buy backs are a very public demonstration of management’s capital allocation ability, or lack thereof.

Whilst Warren Buffett is regarded as the master of share buy backs, he has often sited another capital allocator as the real genius – the late Dr. Henry Singleton, the founder and CEO of Teledyne.

When the inflation-devastated stock market of the 1970s had pushed shares to the point that some suggested ‘equities were dead’, Henry Singleton bought back so many shares that by the mid 1980s there were 90% less Teledyne shares on issue. Here’s a para from the web: “In 1976, the company attempted, for the sixth time since 1972, to buy back its stock in order to eliminate the possibility of a takeover attempt by someone eager for the cash reserves the company had accumulated. Altogether, Teledyne spent $450 million buying back its stock, leaving $12 million outstanding, compared to $37.4 million at the close of 1972. With many of the company’s divisions showing stronger results and fewer shares outstanding, Teledyne’s stock increased from a low of $9.50 per share to $45 per share, becoming the largest gainer on the New York Stock Exchange.”

Who is Teledyne’s Australian equivalent?

One iconic Aussie business (it achieves my second highest MQR – A2) immediately springs to mind. In 2009 this business issued shares at a high price to fund a $A3.5 billion acquisition. But things didn’t quite go to plan… the US Federal Trade Commission intervened and the shares slumped. What did management do? They used the cash raised from the share issue to buy them back. Amazing!

Fast-forward twelve months and this business has nearly $1 billion in cash in the bank and no debt. If it keeps using its own cash and that being generated, and buying back shares at the present rate (and assuming the share price doesn’t change of course), it will have bought back all its shares in seven years. A Value.able business… what do you think?

Yes, if not for management’s decision to buy back shares ABOVE intrinsic value.

Unfortunately CSL’s share price may not be as high in seven years as it could have been, had management chosen to buy back its shares below intrinsic value.

If you own shares in a company engaging in a buy back, ask yourself whether value is being added to the company? Value is generated when the shares being purchased are available at prices below your estimate of its Value.able intrinsic value.

If management are overpaying, inappropriate capital allocation practices may be the only addition to the future prospects of the business.

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

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Health Care, Investing Education.

• 58 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Health Care, Investing Education

Two themes seem to be gaining traction amongst Value.able Graduates at the moment.

1. Value is becoming harder to find (yes, I agree), and

2. Questions related to share buybacks have increased remarkably

This afternoon I will address the growing problem of finding value (and save buybacks for another day).

As I scan the market for great quality businesses trading at large discounts to my estimate of their Value.able intrinsic value, I am finding fewer and fewer opportunities. And when it comes to ‘small caps’, the prospects are few and far between.

On Peter Switzer’s show last Thursday a caller asked me what was good value in the small cap space. I define ‘small cap’ as anything between $300 million and $2 billion (below that is micro caps and nano caps). The fact is, only four or five of my highest Montgomery Quality Rated (MQR) businesses (think A1, A2, etc) are cheap. And most of them you already know about.

Forge and Matrix Composite are still below rising intrinsic values (more on those soon), and Cabcharge and ARB Corporation are just below intrinsic value. The remaining value is in much smaller companies and of course, the risk when investing in this space can be much higher.

Many Value.able Graduates have commented that investing in these micro and nano cap stocks is akin to scraping the bottom of the barrel. Whilst I tend to agree, I also believe that when it comes to investing, little is more satisfying than discovering an extraordinary business beyond the reach of the managed funds that have self-imposed restraints and must only invest in the top 200 or 300 companies.

There is merit in the concept of investing in small businesses that have the potential to become large. And there are profits to accrue when they do. Before you dismiss this idea, keep in mind that many of the large companies dominating Australia’s competitive landscape today were once small. Admittedly, in many cases they were small while they were buried in private ownership or private equity ownership, but in some examples they were small and grew to be large whilst they were listed. Can you think of a few examples? The Value.able community has shared a few here at my blog.

Given Australia’s small population, the big businesses that dominate the investment landscape are mature and have to make smart decisions and continually reinvent themselves to continue to grow. Think about Harvey Norman. Its failing is not in the fact that the economy is slow or that consumers can buy cheaper goods overseas. Its failing is that it is a tired old concept that has lost its mojo. The company has failed to change and failed to reinvent itself. Its own failure has seen it fall victim to the JB Hi-Fi’s and the buy-online-from-overseas-cheaper.com merchants of the world.

So whilst scouring for smaller companies may seem like bottom-fishing, there is merit in catching the smaller fish. And for those investors who prefer to stay clear, patience, bank bills and term deposits are the solution.

Far better is it to be in the safety of cash than in inferior investments, such as companies trading at premiums to intrinsic value.

Forewarned is forearmed. And to be forewarned, don’t miss out on your copy of Value.able. As I told Peter last week, there aren’t too many Second Edition copies left.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 28 February 2011.

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

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

With food prices on the way up and Woolies share price on the way down, I have received many requests for my updated valuation (my historical $26 valuation was released last year). Add to that Woolworths market announcement on 24 January 2011, and you will understand why I have taken slightly longer than usual to publish your blog comments.

With Woolworths’ shares trading at the same level as four years ago (and having declined recently), I wonder whether your requests for a Montgomery Value.able valuation is the result of the many other analysts publishing much higher valuations than mine?

Given WOW’s share price has slipped towards my Value.able intrinsic value of circa $26, understandably many investors feel uncomfortable with other higher valuations (in some cases more than $10 higher),

Without knowing which valuation model other analysts use, I cannot offer any reasons for the large disparity. What I can tell you is that no one else uses the intrinsic valuation formula that I use.

So to further your training, and welcome more students to the Value.able Graduate class of 2011, I would like to share with you my most recent Value.able intrinsic valuation for WOW. Use my valuation as a benchmark to check your own work.

Based on management’s 24 January announcement, WOW shareholders can expect:

– Forecast NPAT growth for 2011 to be in the range of 5% to 8%
– EPS growth for 2011 to be in the range of 6% to 9%

The downgraded forecasts are based on more thrifty consumers, increasing interest rates, the rising Australian dollar and incurring costs not covered by insurance, associated with the NZ earthquakes and Australian floods, cyclones and bush fires. The reason for the greater increase in EPS for 2011 than reported NPAT is due to the $700m buyback, which I also discussed last year.

Based on these assumptions and noting that WOW reported a Net Profit after Tax of $2,028.89m in 2010, NPAT for 2011 is likely to be in the range of $2,130.33 to $2,191.20. Also, based on the latest Appendix 3b (which takes into account the buyback), shares on issue are 1212.89m, down from 1231.14m from the full year.

If I use my preferred discount rate (Required Return) for Woolies of 10% (it has always deserved a low discount rate), I get a forecast 2011 valuation for Woolworths of $23.69, post the downgrade. This is $2.31 lower than my previous Value.able valuation of $26.

If I am slightly more bullish on my forecasts, I get a MAXIMUM valuation for WOW of $26.73, using the same 10% discount rate.

So there you have it. Using the method I set out in Value.able, my intrinsic valuation for WOW is $23.69 to a MAXIMUM $26.73.

Of course, I only get excited when a significant discount exists to the lower end of these valuations and until such a time, I will be sitting in cash.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 14 February 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Consumer discretionary, Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

• 312 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, Consumer discretionary, Insightful Insights, Investing Education

On the last show of 2010, Peter Switzer asked me to list six of my A1 businesses that, at the time, were displaying the largest margins of safety. Tonight Peter has invited me to join him once again to review how those six A1s have performed (and chat about Telstra’s result no doubt). Tune into the Sky Business Channel (602) from 7pm (Sydney time).

Here’s the article/transcript from that appearance.

Click here to watch the latest interview and discover how my A1 picks performed.

A1 stocks are the cream of the crop, but how do you know which stocks measure up? To find out, Roger Montgomery joins Peter Switzer on his Sky News Business Channel program – SWITZER.

Montgomery explains he classes companies from A1 down to C5.

“A1 is a business, I think, that has the absolute lowest probability of what I call a liquidity event – the lowest chance of having to raise capital, the lowest chance of needing to borrow more money, the lowest chance of defaulting on any debt that it has, breaching a banking covenant or a debt covenant, the lowest chance of needing money or going bust,” he says.

Montgomery says he’s interested in consistency of performance – A1s that he think will be A1 in the next 12 months.

“I’m looking for the companies that have been consistently A1s or A2s over a longer period of time,” he says. “They’re the ones that I think are most likely to be next year as well.”

Montgomery stresses that it’s important to diversify and get professional advice.

“Make sure you don’t bet the farm on any one company,” he says. “That’s why you need personal professional advice, because you’ve got to make sure that you’re doing the right thing for you and everybody has different risk tolerances.”

Montgomery’s A1 stocks

Platinum Asset Management – he says this is an “obvious A1 – a great performer, has no need for debt, pays all of its cash out.” The company is trading at about its intrinsic value, so it’s not a bargain, but it’s good quality. The intrinsic value is expected to rise around 14 per cent over three years.

Cochlear – “It’s been an A1 for years,” he says adding that its current share price is not cheap enough. Its intrinsic value is expected to rise around 13 per cent over the next three years.

Blackmores – “Expensive at the moment,” he says. “The intrinsic value is only expected to rise about five per cent over the next three years.”

Real Estate.com – “It’s expensive again – it’s trading at about 15 per cent above its intrinsic value.” The intrinsic value is expected to rise 15 per cent in a year. Its intrinsic value is forecast to rise by about 15 per cent a year. “In a year’s time, its intrinsic value will be its current price.”

M2 Telecommunications – This company is trading at a 10 per cent premium to its intrinsic value, Montgomery says. “It’s not cheap, but its intrinsic value is forecast to rise by eleven and a half per cent.”

Mineral Resources – This is a mining services business and is trading around its intrinsic value. The intrinsic values are forecast to increase by around 30 per cent a year over the next three years – “So that’s not bad.”

DWS Advanced – Montgomery says this IT services business is trading at a three per cent discount to intrinsic value and its intrinsic value is expected to rise by about 13 per cent.

Centrebet – Montgomery explains that people tell him there’s not many competitive advantages with the company because barriers to entry to the industry are low. “The owners of the licenses for these things would say they disagree – barriers to entry are quite high,” he says. Centrebet is at a six per cent discount to intrinsic value and it’s forecast to rise around five per cent a year, Montgomery says.

ARB – “Trading at about 11 per cent discount to its intrinsic value. Forecast intrinsic value is going to rise by about three-and-a-half per cent,” he says.

Oroton – “There’s been some talk about the CEO selling shares. The issue is I’ve bought shares from CEOs and founders who’ve sold shares and the share price has gone up a lot since then. I’ve also seen situations where the CEO has sold and that’s been the best time to have sold.”

Montgomery says there hasn’t been research to show CEOs selling shares indicated anything, but there has been research to suggest CEOs buying shares may indicate something. Oroton is trading at a 13 per cent discount to intrinsic value and is expected to rise 13 per cent per annum.

Companies trading at premiums to their intrinsic value

Reckon

Thorn Group

GUD Holdings

Fleetwood

Wotif

Monadelphous

The intrinsic value on these companies are rising anywhere from six per cent to around 17 per cent per year over the next three years, Montgomery says.

Montgomery says it’s important to do further research on the companies – “you can’t just go out and buy them – some of them, as I’ve pointed out, are expensive, so I wouldn’t be buying them. Some of them are A1s but that doesn’t mean that they’re amazing businesses and they’re the best businesses to buy. They’re the least chance of having a liquidity event.”

Companies trading at discount to intrinsic value

Montgomery explains he isn’t predicting share price; he’s valuing the company.

“Valuing a company is different to predicting where the share price is going to go”.

In descending order – biggest discount to smallest discount:

Matrix

Composite and Engineering

Nick Scali

JB Hi-Fi

Oroton

ARB

Centrebet

DWS

“We’ll come back in the New Year, we’ll have a look at how the index has gone, and we’ll have a look at how that little group of companies has performed.”

Important information: This content has been prepared by www.switzer.com.au without taking account of the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular individual. It does not constitute formal advice. For this reason, any individual should, before acting, consider the appropriateness of the information, having regard to the individual’s objectives, financial situation and needs and, if necessary, seek and take appropriate professional advice.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 10 February 2010.

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

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

At this time of year, well-meaning articles on the subject of how to invest in the year ahead abound. Indeed I have contributed to the pool of wisdom in my recent article for Equity magazine titled Is your stock market on or off?.

Value.able Graduates know to turn the stock market off and focus on just three simple steps. Even if you have read Value.able, or joined in the conversation at my blog, its not just me that believes they’re worth repeating. Ashley wrote about the article ‘More of the same stuff for the Value.able disciples but the more you read it the more you will practise it’ and from David ‘‎’twas a good refresher indeed!’.

Step 1

The first step of course is to understand how the stock market works. Once you understand this, turning it off is easy. And you do need to turn of its noisy distraction.

Step 2

The second step is to be able to recognise an extraordinary business (Go to Value.able Chapter 5, page 057).

I have come up with what are now commonly referred to by Value.able Graduates as Montgomery Quality Ratings, or MQR for short. Ranking companies from A1 to C5, my MQR gives each company a probability weighting in terms of its likelihood of experiencing a liquidity event.

Step 3

Finally, the third step is to estimate the intrinsic value of that business. Use Tables 11.1 and 11.2 in Value.able.

Three simple steps. If you get them right, you too can produce the sorts of extraordinary returns demonstrated and published, for example, in Money magazine.

The key is to buy extraordinary companies. To save you some time, I would like share a current list of companies that don’t meet my A1 rating. Indeed these are the companies that receive my C4 and C5 ratings, the worst possible. Avoiding these is just as important as picking the A1s because even diversification doesn’t work when your portfolio is filled with poor quality companies or those purchased with no margin of safety.

Whilst the eleven companies listed above are low quality businesses, they won’t necessarily blow up. This is not exhaustive, nor is it a list of companies whose share prices will go down. It is however a list of companies that I personally won’t be investing in.

If your first question is what are the chances of loss?’ then my C5 rating represents the highest risk. But of course risk is based on probability. And a probability is not a certainty. Nevertheless, I prefer A1s and A2s. More on those lists another time.

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

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

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

If you are new to my stock market Insights blog, welcome. And to the Value.able community, thank you for your many comments and encouraging words. It gives me great encouragement and motivates me to hear how your investing and returns have improved as a result of reading Value.able and the collection of comments posted by Graduates here at my blog. Thank you also for spreading the word and purchasing additional copies for family and friends.

Taking a look back over the stocks we discussed last year, it appears the Value.able approach to investing in the highest quality businesses, with a true margin of safety, has been doing quite well.

In addition to the blog, I also wrote about many of the stocks that achieve an A1 Montgomery Quality Rating (MQG) in my Value.able stocks for Money magazine over the last six months of 2010.

The stocks are listed in the table below. The column titled ‘Gain’ demonstrates you can do well without exposing yourself to lots of risk – for example the risk that is inherent in speculative stocks.

The returns exclude the dividends received, which would obviously boost results materially. The correct comparison therefore is the All Ords price index rather than the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index. Since 30 June 2010 the All Ordinaries has risen 12%. That is a stark contrast to many of the returns produced by the high quality businesses listed above.

The returns stand even higher above the Index when the selection is ranked by those that I regarded as offering the greatest margin of safety at the time the stock was mentioned: Oroton (up 37.5%), ARB Corporation (up 29.8%), JB Hi-Fi (bought and then sold the next month (up 5%), Monadelphous, Forge, Decmil and Matrix (up 44%, up 59%, up 35%, and up 37% respectively). The average, six month, price-only return of these businesses is 34.8%. And some of these A1 businesses, a margin of safety still exists.

If you are new to value investing you will, when searching around, find many commentators, portfolio managers and investors who may disparage value investing generally. They may question the method of calculating intrinsic value or even dismiss the valuations produced, but quite seriously, the proof is in the eating. And the returns offered have been nothing short of mouth watering.

But six months is NOT enough to hang your hat on, as Tony and Adam recently pointed out on my Facebook page. So if you have been an investor in any of these companies, following a conversation with your adviser of course, remember that the change in price over a year or two shouldn’t excite or concern you. It’s the change ahead in the Value.able intrinsic value of the company that matters.

If you haven’t already purchased your copy of Value.able, I commend it to you. It will change the way you think about investing in the stock market for the better, and as the many independent comments elsewhere here on the blog can attest, it may also materially improve your results. Value.able is available exclusively at www.rogermontgomery.com

Posted Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 2 February 2011.

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

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

Tonight at 6.30pm on Today Tonight I will share my insights on a well known stock.

Tune into Channel 7 from 6.30pm Sydney time. More insights will be posted tomorrow.

An all-time record for the shortest post ever Posted by Roger Montgomery, 27 January 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

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

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

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