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

“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

There’s a lot in this post. So sit back and relax. Put up your feet, pull down the blinds and get comfortable.

Billionaire Oilman J. Paul Getty famously advised; “Buy when everyone is Selling and Hold until everyone is Buying”. Knowing what price to pay most certainly helps to enhance returns in the long run.

An investor without the knowledge to estimate Value.able intrinsic valuations is surely blind to the opportunities presented by a sea of red ink. Without it, one cannot see beyond today. And without intrinsic values one sees only falling prices and fears further declines – frozen in the spotlight of a market collapse.

Even though they told themselves they would buy if prices dropped, now they can’t. Tomorrow, they reassure themselves, will be a better day.

Focus instead on business quality. Seek out those whose prospects are bright and whose Value.able intrinsic values you expect to rise 10, 15, 20 per cent over the years. Identify those whose returns on equity puts your term deposit to shame and whose balance sheet can survive the next GFC, should it occur.

With the downturn in the US’s business cycle triggering fears of recession, I would like to share with you a list. It’s not a list of A1s, and it’s not a list of all companies trading at prices less than they’re ‘worth’.

It is instead a Value.able watchlist of companies that achieve some of our higher quality and performance ratings – A2 or B1 (I shared a list of A1s here a couple of weeks ago) and includes CSL, Data#3, David Jones, Decmil, Mortgage Choice, Oakton, Saunders International, Treasury Group, West Australian Newspapers, Wridgways Australia, Austin Engineering, Myer and Woolworths.

Each business reported return on equity greater than 20 per cent last year and may or may not be demonstrating a safety margin. Some have a track record of extraordinary performance; whilst others, well, won’t (p.s. that’s a clue)

Your Long Weekend Study Guide

The watchlist forms part of your Value.able education. Like the Insights blog itself, it is for educational purposes only. If you haven’t reviewed Value.able lately, I encourage you to spend some time over the long weekend (between periods of relaxation of course) reviewing Part Two – Identifying Extraordinary Businesses, then research your answers to the following questions for each company.

1. Extraordinary prospects: Does the future look bright? Or, if you don’t believe the future will be as extraordinary as the past, why not?

2. Competitive Advantage: What sets this business apart from its competitors?

3. Debt/Equity: How has management managed capital? What is the evidence?

4. Cashflow: Track record of cash flow? Use my quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to asses the true cash power of the business.

5. Which three are going straight to the top of your Value.able watchlist, and why?

Lets build a body of ideas under this post that adds value. If you complete the questions for one or all the companies listed, or if you have identified another company you would like included, go ahead and add it in. Please try and keep your comments under this post consistent with the above, five-part format.

And if all that seems like too much work, keep calm. My team and I are fine-tuning something that will knock your value investing socks off.

Those who have already had a private screening don’t want to be without it, and some Graduates are happy to pre-pay for it, sight unseen!

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.

If you like the taste of Coca Cola, you don’t settle for Pepsi. Even if Pepsi throws in more – an extra 300ml, an extra can or bottle, or even a free holiday – it’s just not the real thing.

Nothing matches what we are putting the finishing touches on for you.

We have been told it is the ‘next-generation’. Actually, its five generations ahead of anything else we have seen. It is A1, it is world leading with global plans and soon it could be yours.

So save your pennies because it won’t be discounted and we won’t need to fill a show bag full of other stuff to convince you.

If Value.able is the menu, then our next-generation A1 is the entire fine-dining kitchen.

Value.able Graduates will be offered first priority, followed by the loyal Facebook community.

So if you haven’t yet ordered your copy of Value.able, now is not the time to procrastinate. Remember, Value.able Graduates will be offered first priority.

Posted by Roger Montgomery and his A1 team, fund managers and creators of the next-generation A1 service for stock market investors, 9 June 2011.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Value.able.

• 130 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Companies, 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

If you take your cues from price rather than values, fear may have recently set in. For Value.able investors, a market correction is a reason for celebration rather than consternation. Roger Montgomery explains why holding on may be the wiser decision. Read Roger’s article

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, On the Internet, Value.able.

• 29 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, On the Internet, Value.able

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

Roger Montgomery and Ross Greenwood talk about the Federal budget and the legalities of the compulsory acquisition of shares in a takeover situation. Roger also shares his thoughts about the tidal wave of new floats. Has a new business caught Roger’s Value.able eye? Listen to podcast.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, Radio, Value.able.

• 3 Comments
• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, Radio, 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

Stuart sent me an email yesterday that provides some insight into what investors are experiencing right now.

Stuart wrote “…each time the level at which I would like to sell has seemingly been within short striking distance, somewhere around the world there has been an earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, Eurozone bailout, currency fluctuation, credit downgrade, flood, famine, pestilence, war or some other extraneous event – that spooks the markets and triggers another backslide in the portfolio valuation. The investment headwinds just don’t seem to be letting up…”

I hear you [Stuart], but what is anyone doing about it? Many investors hold verrucose portfolios of A5/B4/B5/all ‘C’ MQR companies, waiting for the price to rise back to some psychologically relevant level – their purchase price, for example.

But the market does not recognise such nostalgia. By holding onto stramineous stocks, you not only miss out on hoped-for gains. You also miss out on the gains from companies you could otherwise own – an opportunity cost! At best, the existing portfolio thus produces occultation, if not obfuscation. What are you doing this weekend? Re-reading Value.able?

When I was young, I spent time on the land fox hunting, under the tutelage of my friend’s father. I remember I had a tough time pulling the trigger. John and Ray explained to me that a single feral cat can devour more than a 100 lizards, birds and native mice in a week. The destruction wrought on native fauna by the fox is not dissimilar.

John and Ray then explained; don’t think of the fox you are aiming at, think of the many thousands of other animals you are saving. It’s a harsh reality and surprisingly, it applies to your share portfolio.

Don’t think about a perfect exit from the rubbish in your portfolio. Think about the extraordinary companies you could own if you no longer held the rubbish. The best time to clean your portfolio is always ‘now’.

What would you prefer? A portfolio of A1 businesses whose value is forecast to rise from $170.00 today to $211.39 in 2013 (yielding $8.98 this year, rising to $12.41 in 2013)? Or a portfolio of so-called ‘blue chips’ whose value has decreased 30 per cent over the past ten years and is forecast to increase just five per cent over the next three?

Take a look at the following chart. It’s the A1 Index from January 2009 to today. The constituents are the 20 biggest A1’s listed on the ASX by market capitalisation. The red line is the poor old ASX 200. As you can see, there is genuine merit to sticking with quality.

So who are A1s?  It’s been a while since I last published a list of A1s with conservative valuations… Go and research the companies in this list, then return and share your comments with our Value.able community.

* MIN 2012 valuation substantially higher ($9.78). 2011 is low here because of the capital raising’s impact on ROE that year.

What makes Matrix Composite, Nick Scali, JB Hi-Fi, Oroton, ARB Corp., Centrebet, DWS Advanced, Mineral Resources, Platinum Asset Management, M2 Telecommunications, Monadelphous, Wotif, Fleetwood, GUD Holdings, REA Group, Thorn Group, Carsales.com, Blackmores, Cochlear and Reckon extraordinary?

Re-read Part Two of Value.able then come back and share your insights. Go right ahead and share whatever you know or think, but only about the companies in the  above list.

Just as your portfolios need a clean out, so does my Insights blog.

Please refrain from posting any banter as comments on this post. Just your highest quality thoughts only.

1) Please keep your comments to the format below and we will build a useful library of insights.

2) Do not post any questions to me or other bloggers at this post.

Here’s the format to follow:

COMPANY NAME

Insights: If you work in the industry or have before, or perhaps you work for one of the companies or a competitor. Do you have a special or unique insight. ONLY comment if your insights are of the genuine industry variety.

Extraordinary prospects: Why does the future look bright for this business? Or if you don’t believe the future will be as extraordinary as the past, why not?

Competitive Advantage: What sets this business apart from its competitors? Don’t debate other’s comments, just post your own thoughts without reference to others.

Debt: How has management managed capital? What is your evidence?

Cashflow: Track record of cash flow?

The Value.able community, Graduates and I look forward to reading your insights.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, author and fund manager, 11 May 2011.

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

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

Less than an hour ago, Microsoft Corp. agreed to buy the Internet telephone company Skype SA for $8.5 billion. The company was started by Niklas Zennstrom (who remained CEO until September 2007) and Janus Friis (one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People 2006) in 2002 and they sold it to eBay in 2005 for $3.1 billion.

eBay bought Skype in 2005 for $3.1 billion and sold 70% to private equity for $2 billion in late 2009. Up until yesterday, it was owned by private equity, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and eBay. Now Microsoft is buying the company for three times what private equity paid —an increase in value of more than $5.5 billion in about 18 months. Skype’s original founders also ended up in the syndicate through their company Joltid.

It is the biggest deal in Microsoft’s history. Some of that 36-year history includes a friendship between former CEO Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. One wonders if Warren was consulted because the initial metrics are staggering. Some may argue the high price is because Microsoft was competing against an imminent IPO. With more than $50 billion in cash (much held offshore for tax purposes), Microsoft merely needs to beat the aggregate cash return, which in the US is somewhere just north of zero.

Skype’s ‘customers’ made 207 billion minutes of voice and video calls last year – up 150% on 18 months ago. Most of those calls however are free. Less than 9 million customers per month, or a little more than five percent, paid Skype anything.

The company did produce revenue of $860 million last year, but Skype lost $7 million. $8.5 billion is quite staggering. I think Skype is great and I know many who use it to avoid paying anyone for phone and video calls.

You may recall Microsoft has previously bid $47.5 billion for Yahoo Inc. Yahoo rejected Microsoft’s advances and Microsft dodged a bullet; Yahoo is now available at half the price.

Perhaps we are not in bubble territory? Perhaps it all works out? Perhaps its just a repeat of Foster’s purchase of Southcorp – on a much grander scale? Or perhaps Microsoft will start charging everyone for a call? A charge of 1 cent per minute – and no loss of customers – would be worth $2.07 billion in revenue… What percentage of Skype’s free riders do you think would submit credit cards etc. to subscribe and be willing to be charged?

Posted by Roger Montgomery, Value.able author and fund manager, 11 May 2011.

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

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