Search Results for: jbh

The Value.able class of 2010 is indeed all class.

Your nominations for the A1 stocks to watch in 2011 are fine examples of the sorts of companies that I eagerly seek for my own portfolio (with the exception of the odd recalcitrant student who diverged from the lessons learned).

I haven’t yet decided which will be revealed on Sky’s Twelve Shares of Christmas special tonight at 7pm, although the shortlist may be obvious from the numbers presented in the table below.

If we presume that all A1s have equally bright prospects – they don’t – then the job of picking the top stock comes down to the one that offers the highest return when combining the discount to intrinsic value and the prospective change to intrinsic value over the next two or three years.

One difficulty with such a simplistic approach is that firstly, varying degrees of certainty about the future cloud the picture. I have also used consensus numbers to produce the valuation changes and these are notorious for being optimistic at precisely the wrong points in the business cycle.

To avoid this dilemma for the purposes of the exercise (but perhaps not for the purposes of investing), I could elect to go with the choice that received the most recommendations. The winner of that contest would be a tie between Matrix Composite & Engineering (MCE) and Forge Group (FGE) and the equal runners up would be Oroton (ORL), ARB Corp (ARP), Cash Convertors (CCV), Cellestis (CST) and CSL (CSL). The remaining contributions include Acrux (ACR), BHP (BHP), Bradken (BKN), Centrebet (CIL), Coca Cola (CCL), Decmil (DCG), Euroz (EZL), Fleetwood (FWD), Focus Minerals (FML), FSA Group (FSA), Hunter Hall (HHL), iCash Payment Systems (ICP), Industrea (IDL), JB Hi-Fi (JBH), QBE (QBE), REA Group (REA), Resource Equipment (RQL), Seek (SEK), Seymour White (SWL), Sirtex (SRX), Speciality Fashion Group (SFH), The Reject Shop (TRS), ThinkSmart (TSM), Thorn Group (TGA) and Woolworths (WOW).

Whilst I have identified a universe of A1 companies trading at discounts to intrinsic value that have slipped under your radar, the objective of the exercise was to ask for your picks and now that I have the list, choose a winner I must.

On tonight’s Summer Money program on Sky Business at 7pm I will reveal the ONE stock that you have selected as the relatively best prospect for 2011. It won’t be Roger Montgomery’s pick. It will be the top pick by the Insights Blog Community –  the Value.able Graduate Class of 2010!

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 16 December 2010.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Investing Education.

• 114 Comments
• save this article
• 114
• POSTED IN Companies, Investing Education.

Christmas is about sharing and joyful memories. With just 18 days to go, I thought it would be educational, if not insightful, to share the performance of some of the securities Value.able Graduates have discussed here at my blog.

Does the Value.able approach to investing, as advocated some of the world’s leading investors, have merit?

First Edition Graduates may not be surprised by the results posted below. The higher quality businesses, those scoring A1 and A2 Montgomery Quality Ratings (MQRs), and those at larger discounts to intrinsic value have, in aggregate, beaten the index. Some have trounced it. And with the exception of QR National, the companies that were labeled as poor quality (C4 and C5 MQRs) and overpriced, have under-performed. Some of the maturing higher quality companies (think JB Hi-Fi) have indeed performed.

The following tables present some of the blog posts and the stocks that I have listed, mentioned or discussed in them. I have consistently suggested investigating an approach that seeks the highest quality businesses and prices that offer the biggest discounts to value.

Whilst the results are short-term (therefore nothing should be taken from them), they are nevertheless encouraging. The approach advocated in Value.able is worth investigating.

Many Value.able Graduates have suggested I start a newsletter or a stock market advice service. Thank you for the encouragement. I do enjoy the cross pollination of ideas and look forward to 2011 attracting even more investors to the patient and rational approach shared here at my blog.

Here are the tables (DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND RESEARCH. ENSURE YOU ARE COMPREHENSIVELY INFORMED. SEEK AND TAKE PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL ADVICE).

Do these three companies represent the last of good value? Oroton, JB Hi-Fi, DWS, Cogstate, Cash Converters, Slater & Gordon, ITX, Forge, Decmil and United Overseas

Which 15 companies receive my A1 status? CSL, Worley Parsons, Cochlear, Energy Resources, JB Hi-Fi, Navitas, REA Group, Carsales, Mondaelphous, Iress, Fleetwood, ARB, McMillian Shakesphere, Sirtex, Oroton.

Is Apple an A1? What A1 companies does Roger Montgomery think are the best value right now? Apple, Forge and Decmil.

Where are my valuations Roger? Cabcharge.

JBH’s years of fast growth has slowed.

What do you think of the QAN, JBH and ITX results Roger? Qantas and ITX

Telstra profits will continue to drop

Who is in front of the reporting season avalanche? Navitas, JB Hi-Fi, Cochlear and Matrix.

Part II: What else has the reporting season avalanche uncovered? Ross Human Directions, Monadelphous, Forge, Carsales, DWS, Finbar, SMS Management, CSL, Consolidated Media, Integrated Research, McMillian Shakesphere, Count Financial, Domino’s Pizza, The Reject Shop, Credit Corp, Chandler Macleod, Primary Healthcare, Slater & Gordon, Noni B, Embelton and Tamawood.

Retailing Maturity – Roger Montgomery now has reservations about JB Hi-Fi.

Part III: The avalanche is over – where should you be digging for A1s? Lycopodium, REA Group, Fleetwood, K2 Asset Management, Acrux, Hunterhall, Macquarie Radio, Blackmores, ISS Group, Thorn Group, GUD Holdings, Webjet, Kresta Holdings, Kingsgate, Fiducian and Euroz.

Foster’s turns down $2b bid.

How does cash flow through Decmil?

Part IV: Where should you focus your digging?

Will Roger Montgomery invest in QR National?

I thought the performance of Fosters after the wine bid was knocked back was interesting, but only another year or two will confirm whether the opportunity to add value was passed up. Some higher quality businesses also underperformed the market, thanks in part to deteriorating short-term prospects rather than deteriorating quality.

Remember to look for bright long-term prospects. Of course, in the short-term prospects will swing around – that is business, but longer-term prospects of businesses with true sustainable competitive advantages tend to win out.

Keep an eye on the blog before Christmas as I will be posting a couple of very handy lists (and possibly some homework) before the annual Montgomery Family Christmas break.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 7 December 2010.

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

• 40 Comments
• save this article
• 40
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education, Value.able.

In this appearance on Your Money Your Call, Roger Montgomery reveals his Value.able intrinsic valuations for popular retailer JB Hi-Fi (JBH), hearing device manufacturer Cochlear (COH), mortgage broking company Mortgage Choice (MOC), fund manager Platinum Asset Management (PTM) and construction company Leighton Holdings Limited (LEI). Which of these businesses are trading at a discount to Roger’s Value.able intrinsic valuation? And which businesses score Roger’s coveted A1 Montgomery Quality Rating (MQR)? Watch the interview.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, TV Appearances.

QR National is the second biggest float in Australia’s history and if I, as a value investor, am to be focused on extraordinary businesses, bought at discounts to intrinsic value, then the second biggest float ever deserves some of my attention.

But is QR National an extraordinary business? And is it available at a discount to its intrinsic value? They are the questions I need to answer.

QR Limited reported a loss of $37 million in 2010 (The Prospectus Appendix reports the continuing operations of QR Limited lost $37 million in 2010). A company-wide restructure, combined with customers rolling off old contracts and onto new, more commercial ones, as well as continued growth in coal haulage volumes however, is expected to result in a profit of $369 million in 2012 (and possibly much higher beyond that).

QR National will start its listed life with a balance sheet that has about $6.8 billion of equity. If QR National hits its targeted profits and pays its estimated dividends over the next 18 months, that equity will grow to $7.3 billion (I have excluded the impact on equity of the proposed dividend reinvestment plan). And if QR National hits its 2012 profit forecast, return on average equity will reach 5.1 per cent.

(POSTSCRIPT;  Much is being made of the profits beyond 2012 and the return on the $3 billion invested.  I had the opportunity to discuss this with L.Hockridge and he pointed to the prospectus forecast for an EBITDA run rate of $170-$190 million.  Aside from the fat that EBITDA is nonsense the NPAT return on capital at maximum capacity will be about 6%.  I talk about this below so I am not too worried about using the 2012 for a few years beyond it.  In any event if 2015 and beyond is where the rewards are; why the rush to invest today?)

Given that I can invest in companies generating 40%, 50%, 60% even 80% returns on equity, should I consider a return that is less than that which cash in the bank generates?

Because the dividend yield is so miserly (and because of negative cash flow after capital expenditure, those dividends are effectively funded out of borrowings) the company is being pitched as a growth stock and growth story.  Growth in coal volumes transported is the validation for the claim.  But when a company generates a 5% return on the profits they keep, you don’t want it to grow.  It is better they hand all the profits back to you so that you can put the money in the bank and get a higher and safer return.  Of course they can’t hand the profits back to you because the cash flow won’t support it for reasons I explain next.

QR National is a capital intensive business and even before dividends are paid, the cash flow will be negative. Between 2008 and 2012 (5 years) QR National will have expended $7.2 billion on ‘capex’ and the company will need to borrow $1.5 billion in the next few years (the prespectus explains it will draw on over $2 billion). This will partially cover the gap between the capex and the cash form operations of $3.4 billion.  The returns the company will be aiming for on this debt funding could be nine per cent or more, but my estimate is that the $170-$190 million in EBITDA from its GAPE project disclosed in the prospectus will be whittled down considerably by depreciation, interest and tax, such that the additional contribution to return on equity of the whole group may not be so significant.

As an aside the prospectus spends a great deal of time focusing on EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) but as Charlie Munger once observed, whats the point of looking at “earnings before costs”? And as Buffett noted, the “tooth fairy” doesn’t pay for these things.  Depreciation is a very real expense even though many finance professionals treat it as a non cash accounting item.  In reality when depreciation is based on the historical cost of an item, it will under-provide for the true cost of maintaining and ultimately replacing that item.  This is because the depreciation is based on the purchase price of the item many years ago, but maintaining and replacing it will suffer the impact of inflation.  Thinking about it another way; imagine employing a thousand people for ten years but paying for them upfront and expensing the cost over ten years – would you then say the item is non cash and can be ignored?  The real cost of employing these people will be higher than the depreciation suggests – they will demand salary increases.  Looking at earnings before real costs is nonsense.  Buffett’s advice from his 1989 letter to Berkshire Shareholders is even less accommodating: “Whenever an investment banker starts talking about EBDIT – or whenever someone creates a capital structure that does not allow all interest, both payable and accrued, to be comfortably met out of current cash flow net of ample capital expenditures – zip up your wallet.”

One other point: it appears to me that forecast profits (and by inference the 2012 Return on equity of circa 5%), may be boosted by some permitted accounting tricks.  The future profits may be boosted by the capitalisation of interest on debt used to finance assets under construction.  In other words not all of the interest expense in 2012 is flowing through the forecast profit and loss statement.  Some of it will be capitalised (converted to an asset on the balance sheet).  Telstra has done this with software development expenses and the end result is a profit figure that looks better than economic reality.  For QR National it means that $369 million profit reflects accounting reality rather than economic reality.

I appreciate two things about this float. First, some of the smartest operators and management in the country are now driving it and as they point out, quite rightly, prospectus requirements limit their ability to discuss what happens beyond 2012 (but beyond 2012 anything can change, even management themselves). If however, it is the case that returns on equity will creep towards double digits after 2012, then I must ask myself if there is there any urgency to buy today?

The risk of course is the cost associated with paying a higher price for the shares at some future date when the wonderful performance is confirmed. The second thing I appreciate is that I cannot predict what the share price will do. The vendors and their advisors are pulling out every device designed to support the price of the shares after the float. There is the loyalty bonus that incentivises retail investors not to sell until December next year, and there’s the greenshoe permit that allows the managers of the float to step in and buy shares in the aftermarket. The share price may very well perform brilliantly. I am the first to admit that I am no good at predicting what the shares will do.  That is the main reason why I always say you must seek and take personal professional advice. Your adviser is the only person who understands whether QR National or any company and their shares are suitable for you.

I estimate QR National’s shares have a 2012 intrinsic value of between $1.09 and $1.48, but thats in 18 months time. Given there will be 2.44 billion shares on issue, the intrinsic value of the whole business is about $3.7 billion in 2012. The intrinsic value is necessarily less than the equity or book value on the balance sheet because the equity is forecast to produce a lower return than that which I require from a business. The vendors want you today to pay up to double the 2012 intrinsic value ($2.40-$2.80 per share – loyalty bonus and Queensland resident bonus excluded).

I may indeed miss out on some gains if I don’t participate in the float, and I may miss out on very substantial gains. Of course there is the risk of loss too if I do participate. While I might be ok with either scenario, you may not be and so YOU MUST SEEK AND TAKE PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. My comments are general in nature and I have not taken into account anything about you or your financial needs and circumstances. If you want advice about what to do regarding the QR National float, speak to your advisor and if you haven’t got one, seek one out BEFORE doing or not doing anything.

Postscript:  as one of my friends, Chris  – also a fund manager – noted this morning:  “I haven’t looked at the detail yet, but thought it was worth pointing out that the EV/EBITDA multiples they’re using might be a touch disingenuous.  QR are using FY12 earnings on today’s balance sheet (i.e. current net debt of $500 million) despite the fact that they’ll have to drw down on at least $1.5 billion of further debt to generate those earnings.  Essentially you might like to have someone check if they might be using today’s balance sheet and tomorrow’s earnings to lower the multiple.”

On a more navel gazing note…

Short-term price direction is not the trigger for a change of heart towards a company. Indeed, a falling price for an A1 business generally represents an opportunity. Sometimes however the nature of price changes has me sitting up and taking notice – being alert rather than alarmed.

Currently, JB Hi-Fi’s share price has been heading in the opposite direction to that of most of the A1 companies that I am following. Such determined selling has often been the precursor to an announcement. Let me make it clear that other than knowing JBH will hold its AGM tomorrow in Melbourne, I don’t know whether an announcement, for example a trading update, will be forthcoming or not. The rather unidirectional nature of the price changes however, often bodes poorly for the contents of any announcement. Keep a watchful eye therefore on JB Hi-Fi.

I found at my recent visits to a handful of JBH stores that they were busier than ever. But the recent share price changes suggests someone is nervous.

The only subsequent thought I have had is that the high Australian dollar has resulted in price deflation, which JB Hi-Fi’s competitors will take advantage of and the company will have to respond to by lowering prices, putting pressure on gross margins. JB Hi-Fi remains at a discount to my current estimates of intrinsic value and as I just mentioned, I generally take advantage of the market and its Wallet rather than listen to its Wisdom.

Keep an eye on JBH and any news from tomorrow’s AGM in Melbourne particularly about margins, deflation and the Aussie dollar at 11.30am.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 12 October 2010.

Postscript #2:  JBH AGM notes.  first quarter trading has improved.  Total store sales are up 12.2% but behind BUDGET (not last year comprables) by 5%.  JBH expects to make it up over CHristmas but evidently they didn’t mention the previous guidance of 17% growth in sales (perhaps this IS budget).  Store roll out is on track and 18 additional stores are expected to be opened in the current financial year.  They DID say that they are well placed to maintain margins despite discounting.  Newspapers this morning point to a raft of new games to be released (JBH is the second biggest retailer of computer games) for Christmas.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Energy / Resources.

• 170 Comments
• save this article
• 170
• POSTED IN Companies, Energy / Resources.

We are now two weeks into one of the most important times of the year for investors – reporting season. Eighty companies have reported to date, some good, some not so good – I know this because I track every single one. Yes, I am very busy. Are you wondering which companies are my A1’s now and which stocks I am interested in? In the last two weeks you will have heard me on TV saying I have bought a few things. Well, I don’t buy C5s so read on.

TLS was a clear disappointment, as it has been since it listed. I have been on the front foot for a long time saying that this is a company to avoid, I hope you took notice. My valuation has fallen now from $3.00 to almost $2.50. If anyone can turn it around however I think Thodey can.

Qantas should have come as no surprise. A $300 million cash loss and I wouldn’t be surprised to see another raising of capital or debt.

Personally though I am not interested at all in TLS or QAN as investment candidates. I am only interested in the highest quality best performing businesses available – it’s here that intrinsic value can be created rather than destroyed and with reporting season just about to kick into top gear from this week, to find them, I put each company through the same rigorous process.

My initial screening process is a vital part of the investment process as it allows me to determine those companies that deserve to retain their place in the short list and it also highlights new opportunities as they arise. But to do this for some 2,000 listed Australian companies can be a very burdensome task unless you have a systematic way of analysing and comparing results in a consistent manner.

For me, it involves pulling out some 50-70 profit and loss, balance sheet and cash flow data fields from each annual report to populate my five models. All of these models employ industry specific metrics to calculate my quality and performance scores. This allows me to rank all companies from A1 – C5 to sort the wheat from the chaff.

For those not familiar with my ranking system, A1s are the simply the best businesses and the safest to own, while C5s are the poorest performers and the least safe.

Out of the 80 companies that have reported, only 5 have achieved my coveted A1 status – around 6.25% (the best of the rest).

NVT, JBH and COH had my A1 rating last year and retained it this year and there are 2 new entrants in MCE and RHD, with GCL (it was an A1 last year) having a dramatic rating decline. I tend to shy away from resource companies for obvious reasons.

On my blog I have previously spoken about NVT, JBH and COH and also mentioned ITX, so please revisit those thoughts. itX is under takeover and Navitas, it was recently reported, had been approached some time ago by Kaplan – a company I have done some consulting work for and a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Washington Post company – so a big tick for the A1 to C5 Rating system!

That only leaves MCE, an engineering business that currently generates most of its returns from the manufacture of riser buoyancy modules for deep-sea oil rigs. Its order book is already underwriting a doubling of revenue for 2011. The 2010 result revealed profits had almost tripled and significantly exceeded prospectus forecasts and it is producing returns on equity of 49% – a rate that is unavailable generally elsewhere. Borrowings amount to about $8 million compared to equity of about $60 million (of which a little over 10% is capitalised development and goodwill intangibles).  Best of all, the share price over the last week is a long way below my estimate of its intrinsic value.

If you have seen me on TV or heard me on radio in the last week or so you would have heard me mention that I had bought something, MCE is it. Please be mindful that if you act rashly and go and push the share price up, you will be helping me perhaps more than yourself. Also remember that I am not recommending the stock to you and that I cannot forecast the share price direction (although I am pleased with its performance since my purchase). The share price, I warn you, could halve, for example if there is a recession and or the oil price plunges – delaying expenditure of the construction of oil rigs globally. I simply am not recommending it to you.

Also remember that I am under no obligation to keep you informed of when I buy or sell nor answer any specific questions, which means 1) you have to do your own research and 2) you have to be responsible for your own decisions. Seek and take personal professional advice BEFORE you do anything.

Moving on, another 13 companies have achieved my second highest rating of A2. They are listed below with their prior years rating so you can compare.

Noteworthy in this list is the excellent performance of the Commonwealth Bank (which I continue to hold in my Eureka Report Value Line portfolio, along with JBH and COH) and those companies I generally classify as being in the Information Technology sector including OKN, ITX, CPU and ASW. Both sectors appear to be doing well in aggregate.

While focus should always be placed on the A1’s (the top 5-7% of the market) at any one point in time, A2’s are still very high quality businesses. The use of the two lists in tandem will therefore provide you with an excellent starting point in isolating those who have reported high quality financials and performance levels above the average business. An important first step in the Value.able Montgomery brand of investing.

It is from here that I will select candidates worthy of further analysis (qualitative and quantitative) and possibly meet with company management, if I have not already done so. Once again I have taken you to the river I fish in, you have my fishing rods and tackle box. Now up to you to catch the right priced fish.

Please use these two lists as a starting point to conduct your own research and use Value.able as a guide to estimate your own valuations. If you don’t yet have a copy you can order one at www.rogermontgomery.com so you too can do your own valuations. Remember to always focus on the highest quality and best performing business available.

If you focus on the best when they are cheap and simply forget the rest, you should avoid more (if not all) of the disasters and should be able to build a portfolio that will give you a greater chance of out-performing the market.

Happy reporting season!

To be continued… Read Part II.

Post by Roger Montgomery, 17 August 2010.

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

• 105 Comments
• save this article
• 105
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights, Investing Education.

Here we are in the midst of reporting season and there are some reasonably predictable results. Qantas reported a profit today that was less than a quarter of its profit more than ten years ago. The airline reported a $112 million profit but that was boosted by $1 billion of revenue from its Frequent Flyer program and a $300 reduction in employment costs. For those of you interested in the real numbers, the company actually lost $302 million (see my chapter in Value.able on cash flow) and this can be explained by the very wide gap between the depreciation item in the profit and loss statement and the real expenditure on property plant & equipment. Depreciation looks backwards, but new planes cost more.

Separately, JB Hi-Fi’s result was excellent but my concern is that its $94 million of cash flow (of which $67 million was allocated to dividends and $20 million allocated to paying down debt) is superfluous to its needs. Take a look at the biggest asset on the balance sheet – Inventory of $334 million. Then take a look at the creditors item in the current liabilities section. Almost the same amount!

Think about it this way; the suppliers are funding the inventory so the company doesn’t even need cash to pay have the stuff it sells and that are on its shelves. Actually it really does, the gap is about what is left over once we subtract the debt repayment and dividends from the cash flow. It is small though. Once the debt is gone and the cash keeps growing it may do something that could harm intrinsic value.

Now don’t get me wrong; JB Hi-Fi is an amazing business that retained its A1 status in this result and the risk associated with its plans to roll out more stores is very low. I also think intrinsic value will continue to rise at a satisfactory rate. The concern for me with all this cash (and there is no evidence of it yet) is that the company increases the dividend payout ratio again. This would mean a reduction in the rate of growth of intrinsic value. It could stop being the “compounding machine” it has been to date. Return on equity also appears to be flattening, which could mean within the next few years, the valuation may plateau (but at a higher level than the current price).

On an unrelated issue, I note that back on 4 May 2010, I put together a list of the companies that I though represented the last of value in a blog post entitled Do these three companies represent the last of good value? ITX was one of the companies listed and I note the company has announced “itX confirms that it is in discussions with an interested party regarding a preliminary non-binding indication of interest to acquire 100% of the ordinary shares in itX.”

I’m pleased to strike another one up for the quality rating and valuation approach advocated here at my Insights blog!

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 12 August 2010

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

• 29 Comments
• save this article
• 29
• POSTED IN Airlines, Companies, Insightful Insights.

JB Hi-Fi released its full year results in early August and Roger Montgomery has some interesting insights about the future of the retailer. Can JBH continue to generate very high rates of return on equity? Watch the interview.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, TV Appearances.

If you recently ordered my book Value.able, thank you and welcome! You have joined a small band of people for whom the inexplicable gyrations of the market will soon be navigated with confidence and far more understanding. If you have ever had an itch or the thought; “there must be a better way”, Value.able is your calamine lotion.

Its hard to imagine that my declaration to Greg Hoy on the 7.30 Report that Myer was expensive as it listed at $4.10, or elsewhere that JB Hi-Fi was cheap and Telstra expensive has anything to do with the 17th century probability work of Pascal & Fermet.

The geneology of both modern finance and separately, the rejection of it, runs that far back. From Fermet to Fourier’s equations for heat distribution, to Bachelier’s adoption of that equation to the probability of bond prices, to Fama, Markowitz and Sharpe and separately, Graham, Walter, Miller & Modigliani, Munger and Buffett – the geneology of value investing is fascinating but largely invisible to investors today.

It seems the intrinsic values of individual stocks are also invisible to many investors. And yet they are so important.

My 24 June Post ‘Which 15 companies receive my A1 status?’ spurred several investors to ask what the intrinsic values for those 15 companies were. You also asked if I could put them up here on my blog so you can compare them to the valuations you come up with after reading Value.able. Apologies for the delay, but with the market down 15 per cent since its recent high, I thought now is an opportune time to share with you a bunch of estimated valuations.

I have selected a handful from the 15 ‘A1’ companies named in my 20 June post and listed them in the table below. The list includes CSL Limited (CSL), Worley Parsons (WOR), Cochler (COH), Energy Resources (ERA), JB Hi-Fi (JBH), REA Group (REA) and Carsales.com.au (CRZ).

If you are surprised by any of them I am interested to know, so be sure to Leave a Comment. And when you receive your copy of my book (I spoke with the printer yesterday who informed me the book is on schedule and will be delivered to you very soon), you can use it to do the calculations yourself. I am looking forward to seeing your results.

The caveats are of course 1) that the list is for educational purposes only and does not represent a recommendation (seek and take personal professional advice before conducting any transactions); 2) the valuations could change adversely in the coming days or weeks (and I am not under any obligation to update them); 3) these valuations are based on analysts consensus estimates of future earnings, which of course may be optimistic (or pessimistic, and will also change).  They may also be different to my own estimates of earnings for these companies; 4) the share prices could double, halve or fall 90 per cent and I simply have no way of being able to predict that nor the news a company could announce that may cause it and 5) some country could default causing the stock market to fall substantially and I have no way of being able to predict that either.

With those warnings in mind and the insistence that you must seek advice regarding the appropriateness of any investment, here’s the list of estimated valuations for a selection of companies from the 15 A1 companies I listed back on 20 June.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 6 July 2010

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Investing Education.

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

“Roger, would you buy Nick Scali (NCK) over the likes of TRS, ORL and JBH?” This last week, its been a frequently asked question.

Let me start by saying that I consider Nick Scali to be a high quality business. While the business listed in May 2004, I have run my ruler over the business financials since the year 2001. In every single year its been an A-Class company and an A1 in most. This is impressive. Few businesses have such an excellent track record, which speaks highly of management.

Indeed, given my tough quality and performance criteria, NCK would be in the top 5% of all companies listed on the ASX.

But are high quality financials and a good track record of performance enough to justify buying a business?

Let’s consider the businesses of NCK and The Reject Shop – another high quality retailer.

NCK is engaged in sourcing and retailing of household furniture and related accessories. The Company’s product portfolio includes chairs, lounges, outdoor, dining, entertainment  – what are called ‘big-ticket’ items as well as and furniture care products. It has 28 showrooms located in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia under the Nick Scali brand, and additional showrooms in Adelaide under the Scali Living and Scali Leather brand.

TRS on the other hand is engaged in discount variety retailing. Its footprint of around 187 ‘convenience’ stores is focused on low price points, offering a wide variety of merchandise. Stores are spread throughout Australia.

TRS has an exceptional history of quality and performance, and in that respect is not dissimilar to NCK.

While NCK and TRS both have top tier fundamentals, there is one major difference; their business models. And this is the important difference that puts TRS far ahead of NCK in my mind from an investor’s perspective.

Consider the economic cycle and the impact it could have on each business; NCK is a retailer of ‘big ticket’ items and TRS is a retailer of ‘low price point items’. Cast your mind back just a few years to when the stock market was crashing, and depression talk filled the media. Do you think spending on big-ticket items like a sofa or a $2 tube of parallel imported toothpaste selling at a cheaper price than a major supermarket, would have been reined in first? This is where TRS offers arguably a more stable and slow-changing revenue stream. TRS of course has its own issues and risks, just as any business has, but the stability of earnings is perhaps superior to that offered by NCK.

TRS has positioned itself as providing ‘low price points’ on everyday goods. Things you always need – daily essentials. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stop brushing your teeth, even during a credit crunch, but you may defer the purchase of that new sofa or outdoor furniture. TRS gets you in by offering really low prices on the daily essentials and then tempts you to fill your basket with other cheap items that have a higher margin for the retailer.

The problem for investors deciding between TRS and NCK is therefore not the quality of each business – they are both very high quality and have excellent management teams – it lies in the cyclical nature of NCK’s earnings.

After determining the quality and risks for a business, the next step is determining its intrinsic values. If you don’t complete this step, you are not investing, you are speculating.

Now to me, investing in a business like TRS is a fairly straight-forward decision. An investment decision in NCK on the other hand requires much more thought about consumer sentiment toward big-ticket discretionary purchases and how susceptible leveraged households are to increases in interest rates. Buffett once said find the one-foot hurdles that you can step over.

I’m not saying I would never buy shares in NCK. There is always a time and a price at which even a cyclical business is cheap, provided its of the highest quality of course.  I just prefer to stick to the one-foot hurdles rather than trying to jump over seven footers.

I’m off to brush my teeth. Don’t forget to leave your thoughts.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 5 June 2010.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Consumer discretionary.

• 40 Comments
• save this article
• 40
• POSTED IN Companies, Consumer discretionary.

I was in Melbourne last week filming this year’s The Path Ahead DVD with Alan Kohler and Robert Gottliebsen. This is the third time Alan has asked Monique and I to participate, and in addition to enjoying it immensely, I am incredibly humbled by the invitation.

We sit around the breakfast table, enjoy some wonderful pastries, fruit and cheeses (a welcome break from my Dr Ross Walker breakfast regime) and I get to debate and hear a range of views about markets and the big picture issues for investors. The dialogue becomes quite animated at times, and I have to admit to often forgetting the four or five cameras recording our every utterance.

Tony Hunter from the ASX holds court, and directs questions that have been received by Alan to the panel, and almost always without notice. I thought I would write about this year’s experience only because one of the questions got me thinking about the clichés that investors often have at the back of their mind when making investment decisions.

Relying on investing clichés can be dangerous, if not because they are prevarications, but because they are the domain of the lazy who seek to grab the attention of those whose concentration has been diminished by the constant noise of the markets – much of which is useless and information-free (the noise that is).

Here is a few that came to mind immediately (some are useless but perhaps others aren’t); Sell in May and go away.  Buy the rumour, sell the fact. Don’t catch a falling knife. Feed the ducks while they’re quacking. Buy dips. Buy low and sell high. Only buy stocks that go up. This time its different. The trend is your friend. You can’t go broke taking a profit. Its time in the market not timing the market that counts.

You may have a few too, and I would love to hear them. Let me know if any have helped or hindered and feel free to add them by clicking ‘Leave a Comment’ at the bottom of this post.

There is no doubt you have heard many, if not all, of them before. They have become part of investing lore and yet they lead more to pain and suffering than they do to enlightenment. So why do they survive? Is it because there is truth in them?

I believe it is because there is a steady stream of new investors entering the market for whom the cliché has not yet become one. They run the risk of seeing the investing cliché as a truth – to be memorized and applied – and in doing so, they are guaranteed to repeat the mistakes made by the many that came before them.

Cliché 1:  You can’t go broke taking a profit

Think about the statement, You can’t go broke taking a profit; A new investor is almost certain to go broke doing just that. Why? Because a new investor will inevitably purchase a share only to see the price decline. Buying a low quality company (not one of my A1’s for example) or paying too a high a price (not estimating the intrinsic value of a company) will inevitably lead to a permanent loss of capital. The share price goes down and the investor, not wanting to accept a loss, holds on in the hope that one day the shares will recover. Then suppose the next investment decision leads to a gain; do you think the investor will hold this share for very long? The short answer is no. The fear of repeating the first mistake, resulting in another loss, is just too great. Better to take a small profit now than to see the shares fall again and have another loss.  The end result of repeating this numerous times is that the investor has several large losses and several small profits. The net result, of course, is a loss. You can go broke taking a profit just as surely as you can go broke saving money buying excessively-priced items that are on sale.

A further example refers to inflation, and its effect on the purchasing power of your money. Trading frequently involves substantial frictional costs. Brokerage, slippage and spreads seriously impinge on the returns otherwise available from a buy and hold strategy. Earning 15 per cent from buying and holding is always preferable to 15 per cent from trading, and that’s even before tax is factored into the equation. Suppose however, you don’t even achieve 15 per cent from trading frequently; after 20 years, you merely match the rate of inflation. Arguably, you have not lost purchasing power, but you have not gained any either. You have been taking profits but have not made any.

Similarly, if you sell a stock (using rising or trailing stops, for example) and make a 100 per cent return, but the shares rise 400 per cent, I would argue you have left a great deal of money on the table. You have certainly lost money taking a profit.

Cliché 2:  Its ‘Time in the market’ not ‘Timing the market’ that leads to success.

Another cliché that comes to mind is the idea that time in the market is the key to success rather than timing. At the outset, let me state that I don’t believe that timing the market or share prices works. Nor do I believe that time in the market works always, and if it sometimes does, the time can be so long that the returns are meaningless. Take for example the investor who purchased shares in Macquarie Bank at $90 some years ago; they are still waiting for a positive return. Or what about the investor who bought shares in Great Southern Plantation when the company listed? No chance of a positive return at all. If you purchased shares in Qantas or Telstra ten years ago, you would now have an investment with less value than you what commenced with.

Time in the market is no good if you buy poorly performing businesses or pay prices that are far above the intrinsic value of a company. For the seventeen years bound by 1964 and 1981 the Dow Jones rose just 1/10^th of one percent. Time, it seems, was not the friend of the merely patient investor. I can show you equally long periods of low returns on the Australian market too.

The point however is that time is only the friend of the investor who buys wonderful businesses at large discounts to intrinsic value. Otherwise, time is an enemy that steals returns just as surely as it steals a great day.

Don’t use time then as a band-aid to heal your investing mistakes. Stick to A1 businesses bought at discounts to intrinsic value and time will be your friend. So what are the businesses that time has befriended the most? What businesses have been increasing in intrinsic value the most over the last three, five or ten years?

The following Table should offer the answers.

Remember, these companies may be higher quality (Some are my A1’s), but they might not currently be cheap and I have not discussed the path of their intrinsic values in the future, which arguably is more important for the investor.  Be sure to seek personal professional advice before transacting in any security.

Company ASX Code	Annual Gain in Intrinsic Value	Company ASX Code	Annual Gain in Intrinsic Value
MND (Monadelphous)	30%	CAB (Cabcharge)	25%
WOR (Worley Parsons)	61%	ANG (Austin Eng)	98%
BTA (Biota)	38%	WEB (Webjet)	24%
COH (Cochlear)	18%	SUL (Supercheap Auto)	17%
RKN (Reckon)	29%	REX (Regional Express Airlines)	47%
CRZ (Car Sales)	124%	CPU (Computershare)	36%
REA (Realestate.com)	78%	TRS (The Reject Shop)	28%
CSL (CSL)	39%	REH (Reece)	21%
NMS (Neptune)	25%	IRE (Iress market tech)	19%
ORL (Oroton)	27%	ARP (ARB)	19%
JBH (JB Hi-Fi)	85%

The table reveals the companies that have demonstrated the highest growth in intrinsic values over the years and perhaps unsurprisingly, if my method for calculating intrinsic value is any good, you will find a very strong correlation between the increases in values and the increases in share prices.

If you have any questions of course, or would like to contribute a cliche you once thought of as a lore to live and invest by but now see it for what it is, feel free to share by clicking the ‘Leave a Comment’ link below.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 22 May 2010

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Investing Education.

• 86 Comments
• save this article
• 86
• POSTED IN Investing Education.

Roger Montgomery joins Peter Switzer to discuss two of Australia’s most well-known retailing businesses — Harvey Norman (HVN) and JB Hi-Fi (JBH). Whilst Roger considers Gerry Harvey to be a retailing genius, Roger says JB Hi-Fi does a better job selling the same products in the same market. So is JBH a buy? What is its forecast 2012 intrinsic value? And can Terry Smart continue the market-beating success of former CEO Richard Uechtritz? Watch the interview.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, TV Appearances.

Woolworths reported its first half 2010 results in recent weeks and the 17 per cent decline in the share price ahead of the result suggested investors may have been betting that the company was giving up ground to a revitalised Coles story. The price of Wesfarmers shares – being almost double their intrinsic value – certainly suggests enthusiasm for the latter company’s story.

Studying the results and the company however suggests any pessimism is unfounded and premature.

When I study JBH’s results there’s evidence of a classic profit loop. Cut prices to the customer, generate more sales, invest in systems and take advantage of greater buying power, invest savings in lower prices and do it again. Entrench the competitive advantage.

It would be obvious to expect Woolworths, with its history of management ties to Wal-Mart (who also engages the profit-loop) to be producing the same story, however WOW is flagging an arguably stronger position.

Where JBH’s gross profit margin keeps declining and net profit margin rising, Woolworths’ gross margin has increased every year since 2005. Revenues were 4.2% higher and gross profits rose by 6.5% in the latest half year result. Like JBH, WOW’s EBIT growth was stronger at 11%. As analysts we are mystified as to what is driving the increase in gross profit margins but standing back, you realise its a really good thing; if analysts cannot work it out then perhaps neither can the competitors and that’s good for maintaining a competitive advantage.  Competitors cannot replicate something if they don’t know how its produced.

Woolworths competitive advantage – an important driver of sustainably high rates of return on equity (I expect them to average 27% for the next three years – subject to change of course at any time and without warning or notification afterwards) – is its scale and its total dominance, ownership of and class leadership in supply-chain management.  The result is that a small increase in revenue even if due to inflation, results in a leveraged impact on profits.

From a cash flow perspective the other fascinating thing is the negative working capital. To those new to investing, working capital is typically an investment for a company; a business orders its products from a supplier, pays on 30 days terms and then spends the next few months selling the product it sells. If its takes a long time to sell the product and the customer takes time to pay, then there is an adverse impact on cash flow because the business is forking out cash today and not getting paid for some weeks or months.

In Woolworths case, as you might expect, the company is so strong and its buying power so dominant that it can dictate terms to its suppliers, making sure they deliver the right quantities at the right time. It can pay them when it likes and perhaps even pay them AFTER it sells the goods to consumers who buy with a debit, cash or credit card, which means Woolworths gets its money from its sales activity immediately. The difference of course can be invested.This virtuous cycle is highlighted by a negative number for working capital (WC = Inventory – Trade Payables + receivables – other creditors) which in Woolworth’s case, got even more negative! Don’t go rushing out and buying the shares because of this fact – its well known to the market and suppliers (who no doubt resent the company’s powerful market position). In the latest result, it was also attributable to timing differences in creditor payments.

The steep decline in the share price ahead of the company’s first half results suggests that many investors and analysts may have considered the company “ex-growth” and favoured Wesfarmers. Given the relative performances and valuations, this is likely to prove to be a mistake (more about that in a moment).

The company still has a lot of room to substantially increase sales and profits and the disbelief in this regard reminds me of the decade after decade in which analysts said Coca-Cola couldn’t grow anymore.

It would take a very almost illegally-informed and dedicated analyst to reach the conclusion that the company cannot continue to enlarge its coffers from further improvements to its overseas buying capability, its private label sales (both admittedly to the detriment of many smaller local owners of branded products) or its supply chain management. There’s also growth from acquisitions (speculative and don’t ever base a purchase on it), the Everyday Rewards loyalty card program and the hardware rollout (it will interesting to find out what they think their USP is).

While it will be interesting to find out what has been driving the competitor Wesfarmers sales numbers (basket size of more customers), the fact remains that it is premature to write off Woolworths. Many analysts will also be concerned about retailers cycling (comparing sales and profits to previous results) the fiscal stimulus, this is simply a short-term distraction and does not have anything to do with the long-term value of the company.

On that front, my calculated intrinsic value for Woolworths has risen every year for the last decade. When Buffett says he’s looking for companies with a “demonstrated track record of earnings power”, its because it translates to rising valuations. Woolworths was worth $2.39 in 2000. Intrinsic value rose to $14.84 in 2005 and $25.70 in 2009. Today’s value of $25.80 is expected to rise to $28.00 in 2011 and almost $30 in 2012.

The current price of $28.05 is therefore now equivalent to the valuation 15 months out and the February low prices are perhaps a better reflection of the current valuation that I have.

I have rarely been able to buy Woolworths at any significant discount to intrinsic value in the last decade and while I don’t know what the price will do next, I do know that irrespective of whether Woolworths offers lower prices in the supermarket or the share market, you would be ill advised to ignore them.

Please be reminded that my valuations for the future are based on analyst expectations, which can change at any time.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 8 March 2010.

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

• 36 Comments
• save this article
• 36
• POSTED IN Companies, Consumer discretionary, Insightful Insights.

Mark Twain (1835 – 1910) said; “I Am Not So Concerned With The Return On My Money As The Return Of My Money.” It may surprise you to know he was quite the investor and liked to make comment about his observations.  His quips always revealed a deep understanding of the nonsense that goes on in the stock market.  What fascinates me is that the mistakes Twain observed during his lifetime are being repeated today.

I am occasionally asked why I spend so much time offering my insights when many observe that there is neither an obligation nor financial need.  The reason is quite simple, I enjoy the process and of course, the proceeds of investing this way.  I find it reasonably undemanding and so I have a little time to share my findings.  And there’s the ancillary benefit of seeing hundreds of light-bulb moments when people ‘get it’.  I note Buffett’s obligations and financials are even less necessitous and yet he has devoted decades to educating investors and students.  I really enjoy my work.  It is fun and thank you for making it so.

Investing badly in stocks is both simple and easy.  But while investing well is equally simple – it requires 1) an understanding of how the market works, 2) how to identify good companies and finally, 3) how to value them – investing well is not easy.

This is because investing successfully requires the right temperament.  You see you can be really bright – smartest kid in the class – and still produce poor or inconsistent returns, invest in lousy businesses, be easily influenced by tips or gamble. I know a few who fit the “intelligent but dumb” category.  Because you are bombarded, second-by-second, by hundreds of opinions and because stocks are rising and falling all around you, all the time, investing may be simple but its not easy.

Buffett once said; “If you are in the investment business and have an IQ of 150, sell 30 points to someone else”.

Everyone reading this blog is capable of being terrific investors.  But it is important to know what you are doing and to do the right things.

To this end I have asked a couple of investors with whom I have corresponded for permission to discuss their correspondence because it provides a more complete understanding of the research that’s required before buying a share.

I regularly warn investors that what I can do well is value a company.  What I cannot do well is predict its short-term share price direction.  Long-term valuations (what I do) are not predictions of short term share prices (what I don’t do).

Generally the scorecard over the last 8 months is pretty good.  The invested Valueline Portfolio, which I write about in Alan Kohler’s Eureka Report, is up 30% against the market’s 20% rise.  I have avoided Telstra and Myer, bought JBH, REH, CSL and COH.  Replaced WBC with CBA last year and enjoyed its outperformance.  Bought MMS and sold it at close to the highs – right after a sell down by the founding shareholder – avoiding a sharp subsequent decline.

But this year, there have been a couple of reminders of the inability I admit to frequently, that of not being able to accurately predict short term prices.  And it is understanding the implications of this that may simultaneously serve to warn and help.

Even though I bought JB Hi-Fi below $9.00 last year, its value earlier this year was significantly higher than its circa $20 price.  And the price was falling.  It appeared that a Margin of Safety was being presented.  And then…the CEO resigned and the company raised its dividend payout ratio.  The latter reduces the intrinsic value and the former could too, depending on the capability of Terry Smart.

The point is 1) You need a large margin of safety and 2) DO NOT bet the farm on any one investment – diversify.

You can see my correspondence about this with “Paul” at http://rogermontgomery.com/what-does-jb-hi-fis-result-and-resignation-mean/

The second example is perhaps more predictable.  Last year, Peter Switzer asked me for five stocks that were high on the quality scale; not necessarily value, but quality.  We didn’t then have time to reveal the list, so I was asked back, in the second half of October 09.  By that time, the market had rallied strongly, as had some of the picks.  The three main stocks were MMS, JBH and WOW.

But because I didn’t have five at that time, I was asked for a couple more.  I offered two more and warned they were “speculative”.  “Speculative” is a warning to tread very, very carefully – think of it as meaning a very hot cup of tea balanced on your head.  You just don’t need to put yourself in that position!  But I was aware that viewers do like to investigate the odd speculative issue. A company earns the ‘speculative’ moniker because its size or exposure (to commodities, for example) or capital intensity render its performance less predictable or reliable, earning it the ‘speculative’ moniker.  Nevertheless, based on consensus analyst estimates they were companies whose values were rising and whose prices were at discounts to the intrinsic values at the time – a reasonable starting point for investigative analysis.  ERA was one and SXE was the other.  Both speculative and neither a company that I would buy personally because their low predictability means valuations can change rapidly and in either direction.

My suggestions on TV or radio should be seen as an additional opinion to the research you have already conducted and should motivate investors to begin the essential requirement to conduct their own research.  Unfortunately, I have discovered to my great disappointment, that some people just buy whatever stocks are mentioned by the invited guests on TV.  Putting aside the fact that I have said innumerable times that I cannot predict short-term movements of share prices, it seems some investors aren’t even doing the most basic research.

As I have warned here on the blog and my Facebook page on several occasions:

1)   I am under no obligation to revisit any previous valuations.

2) I may not be on TV or radio for some weeks and in that time my view may have changed in light of new information.  Again, I am not obligated to revisit the previous comments and often not asked.  Only a daily show could facilitate that.  An example may be, the suggestion to go and investigate ERA because of a very long term view that nuclear power is going be an important source of energy for a growing China followed by a more recent view (see the previous post) that short term risks from a Chinese property bubble could prove to be a significant short-term obstacle to Chinese growth.

3)   I don’t know what your particular needs and circumstances are.

4)   I assume you are diversified appropriately and never risk the farm in any single investment

5)   The stocks that I mention should be viewed, in the context of other research and your adviser’s recommendations, as another opinion to weigh up – to go and research not rush out and trade…rarely is impatience rewarded.

There are further warnings that are relevant and described in the correspondence related to the post you will find at http://rogermontgomery.com/what-does-jb-hi-fis-result-and-resignation-mean/

One investor wrote to me noting he had bought ERA and it had dropped in price.  This should not be surprising – in the short run prices can move up and down with no regard or relationship to the value of the business. But like JBH before it, ERA had of course made a surprise announcement that would affect not only the price but the intrinsic value.  In this case, it was a downgrade and a rather bleak outlook statement relating to cash flows.  Analysts – whose estimates are the basis for forecast valuations here – would be downgrading their forecasts and as a result the valuations would decline just as they did when JB Hi-Fi increased its payout ratio.  Over the long-term the valuations in ERA’s case, continue to rise (these valuations are also based on earnings estimates – new ones but which it should be noted are themselves based on commodity prices that are impossibly hard to forecast), but all valuations are lower than they were previously.

Our correspondence reminded me to regularly serve you with NOTICE that there is serious work to be done by you in this business of investing.  In a rising market you can pretty much close your eyes and buy anything but you should never conduct yourself this way.  If you work appropriately during a bull market, you will be rewarded in weaker markets too.  And while many may complain when I say on air “I can’t find anything of value at the moment”, I would rather you complain about the return ON your money than the return OF your money.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 5 March 2010.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights.

• 41 Comments
• save this article
• 41
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights.

AGL, like Origin Energy and Arrow, has been expensive for a long time. According to Roger Montgomery this seems to be a general trend in the energy sector. In his appearance on Nina May’s Your Money Your Call Roger also reveals his 2010, 2011 and 2012 valuations for Bluescope and JB Hi-Fi, and discusses the impact of management’s decision to raise JBH’s dividend payout ratio from 50% to 60%. Watch the interview.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Media Room, TV Appearances.

• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, TV Appearances.

Richard Uechtritz built revenue from $158 million to $2.8 billion in a decade. Will JB Hi-Fi be the same without him? Read online.

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

• save this article
• POSTED IN Media Room, On the Internet.

I have just completed a phone interview with Ross Greenwood on his Money News program at radio station 2GB.  He was interviewing me and Patrick Elliott, the Chairman of JB Hi-Fi following todays result.  As you have all probably noticed, the half year result was excellent but JBH has traditionally exceed the market’s expectations for earnings and sales growth.  Today’s interim FY10 profit was up 29% on sales growth of 19%, and while it was at the upper end of expectations – it didn’t exceed those expectations.  Believe it or not, the result will be downward revisions to analysts future estimates.

The share price decline today – it was down 6.5% at one stage – to be down 5.1% at $19.07 per share, was partly the result of the ‘voting’ machine saying; “the growth is not going to be as high as we envisaged” but probably to a greater extent, it was due to the fact that Richard Uechtritz announced his retirement in “July/August”.

Having grown revenues in ten years from $145 million to $2.8 billion, the resignation of Richard is a blow to the company.  But as my restaurant owner friend says; “revenue is vanity, profit is sanity” and the new CEO will be no slouch.  Terry Smart joined JBH when Richard did, as part of the private equity funded management buy in.  They’ve all made millions and plenty of Terry’s money remains invested.

The changeover reminds me of the retirement of one of Australia’s retailing legends, Barry Saunders, from the Reject Shop.  He handed the reins over to Jerry Masters and Jerry continued to grow and expand The Reject Shop.  Jerry was an outsider and arguably not the first choice.  Terry is a JB Hi-Fi insider and remember my comments that the business boat you get into is far more important than who is rowing it.  I think you will find that with 210 identified stores and 140 likely to be rolled out by the end of 2010, there is still plenty of room for growth.  More over, Richard’s resignation is similar to The Reject Shop in one important way; neither Barry nor Richard departed to compete. Richard, like Barry will remain a consultant and Richard on the board.

But unfortunately, it is not growth that determines intrinsic value.  Its the return on equity, the payout ratio and the equity itself that determines whether the value continues to rise.  The big news on this front is that the dividend payout ratio continues to rise.  Now at 60%, the increased dividend is a classic response by the board to a business that is generating cash faster than it can use it.  But thats a shame because the company is generating 45% returns on its equity.  I would much prefer they kept the money – prepay some leases and get a discount (get the contingent liabilities down) – than hand it to me as a dividend.  The best I can do with it is perhaps 8% in a 5 year term deposit.  Not bad, but not 45%.

The result of not employing as much retained earnings at 45% is that the intrinsic value declines.  Its still going up but not as much.  The conservative intrinsic value before this result was about $20.30.  Now it is $19.30.  The intrinsic value next year falls from $24.14 to $22.50 and the year after from $29-ish to $26-ish.  So where previously we were looking at a rise to the $30 area for intrinsic value by 2012, it now seems the value will be at best $26.50.

The sole reason for the change to intrinsic value is the increase in the payout ratio. More dividends means less profits being retained in the business, earning more than 45%.  Now don’t get me wrong, this is still an amazing business – one of the best and intrinsic value is still forecast to rise by a compounded 16.3% per annum over the next 2 years or so.  To get really excited however, you now want a bigger discount to the current intrinsic value.

Posted by Roger Montgomery, 8 February 2010

by Roger Montgomery Posted in Consumer discretionary.

• 34 Comments
• save this article
• 34
• POSTED IN Consumer discretionary.

Some time ago Peter Switzer invited me on to his program to discuss five stocks for the long term that met my criteria for quality at least, and value if possible.

We didn’t end up with enough time to cover them so I was asked back on October 28. By that time the market had rallied hard so the three I could find were MMS ($3.99 back then) now $4.44, JBH (then $21.50) now at $22.96 and WOW (then $28.82) now $28.42.

The other two I mentioned, to satisfy the more speculative viewers, were ERA (then $24.70) now $24.46 and SXE ($1.62) now $1.63.

The 2009 valuations for MMS, JBH, and WOW are $4.69, $25.76 and $27 respectively. For ERA and SXE the 2009 valuations are $33 and $1.97 respectively.

At all times I have deliberately based these valuations on consensus analyst’s estimates so that there is no favouritism. But keep in mind analysts estimates are prone to change and therefore so are the valuations.  Further, it is worth remembering that when I run my aggregate valuations over the market, it tells me that the market as a whole is about 15 percent above its valuation.  In other words the market in aggregate is no bargain and may be a little expensive.

Also keep in mind that if you go and transact in any security in any way based on these opinions, you do so at your own risk. I really do mean it when I recommend that you seek advice from a professional adviser, broker or planner that knows your financial circumstances.

By Roger Montgomery, 19 November 2009

by rogermontgomeryinsights Posted in Companies, Insightful Insights.

• 12 Comments
• save this article
• 12
• POSTED IN Companies, Insightful Insights.

The retailer’s same-store and overall sales were strong, it is dominating its sector and its prospects are bright.

by Roger Montgomery Posted in On the Internet.

• READ ONLINE
• save this article
• POSTED IN On the Internet.