Day: November 13, 2013

Classic: Talking to Management, Part 3: The Competition

Classic: Talking to Management, Part 3: The Competition

This was originally published on RealMoney on April 17, 2007:

The Competition

What are you seeing that you think most of your competitors aren’t seeing? Or: What resource is valuable to your business that you think your competitors neglect?

This question is an open invitation to a management team to reach into its “brag bag” and pull out a few of its best differential competences for display. The answer had better be an impressive one, and it had better make sense as a critical aspect of the business. Good answers can include changes in products, demand, pricing and resources; they must reflect some critical aspect of business that will make a difference in future profitability.

Consider two examples from the insurance industry, both of which are future in nature:

I posed this question to the CEOs of several Bermuda reinsurers, and the answer was: “We don’t think that the profitability of casualty business is as profitable as the reserving of some of our competitors would indicate.” That might have been a bit of trash talk; perhaps it was a word to the wise. I favor the latter interpretation.

Then there was a CEO who suggested that many specialty casualty insurers he competed against had underinvested in claims control. That’s fine in the bull phase of the cycle, but it can spell trouble in the bear phase, when cash flow might go negative and skilled claims adjusters are hard to find.

If you could switch places with any of your competitors, who would it be and why? Alternatively, if you think you are the best positioned, who is next best, in your opinion?

This question usually won’t get an answer in large forums. It’s best saved for more intimate gatherings, because to the wider investing public, most companies portray themselves as the best. Also, in diversified corporations, it’s useful to ask this question of divisional heads rather than the CEO. They have a closer feel for the competition they face on a day-to-day basis.

When answered, this query can yield new research vistas. Who knows company quality better than an industry insider? The response can bring out the unique reasons a competitor is succeeding — and, potentially, what this company’s current management team is doing to challenge the competitor.

Note: The opposite question, “Which companies are not run properly?” will not get answered, except perhaps in one-on-one meetings. Few managements will publicly trash-talk the competition. The few that will do so deserve a red flag for hubris.

As an example, I had an interesting experience while at a financial conference. I was at a breakout meeting where J. Hyatt Brown, of Brown & Brown, was taking questions. Of the insurance brokers, Brown & Brown is no doubt the best managed, and Hyatt Brown has strong opinions and is almost never at a loss for an answer. When my turn to ask a question came up, I said, “OK, you’re the best-run company in your space. Who is No. 2?”

Hyatt Brown looked reflective, paused for 20 seconds and answered that it is was tough to say, but he thought that Hub International (HBG) was No. 2. And now Hub has gone private in a much better deal than Goldman Sachs’ (GS) buy of USI Holdings (USIH), from a quality standpoint. To my chagrin, I didn’t buy Hub off of Hyatt Brown’s comments. I missed a cool 59% in 10 months, but you can’t kiss them all.

What would your competitors have to do in order to reverse-engineer your competitive position? Or, why do you suppose other companies don’t adopt your methods?

This question gets at what management views as its critical differences for business success. The answer had better be a good one; it should be something important, and hard to duplicate. As Warren Buffett might put it, we are trying to determine the size and depth of the “moat” that exists around the business franchise.

If the answer doesn’t deliver an idea that is weighty and makes sense from a competitive standpoint, you can assume that the business doesn’t have a lot of franchise value and doesn’t deserve a premium multiple.

Valero Energy (VLO) is the leading oil refiner in the U.S. It also has the leading position in refining both heavy (high-density) and sour (high-sulfur) crudes, which cost less, leading to higher profit margins. It would cost a lot of money for a competitor to create or purchase the same capacity, assuming it could get all of the regulatory permits to do so.

On a competitive basis, who has the most to lose in the present environment?

Some executives won’t name names, but they might be able to point out what characteristics the worst-positioned competitors don’t have. In commodity businesses, the executive could point at those with bad cost structures. In businesses where value comes from customization, the executive could say, “To be a real player, you can’t just sell product, you must be able to assess the needs of the client, advise him, sell the product, install it and provide continuing service, leading to ancillary product sales.”

As commodity prices move down, the recent acquirers and developers of high-cost capacity fare the worst. With life insurance today, scale is becoming more and more of an advantage. Smaller players without a clear niche focus are likely to be the losers; that’s one reason I don’t get tempted to buy most of the smaller life insurance companies that trade below book value. Given their fixed expenses and lack of profitability, they deserve to trade at a discount to book.

Full Disclosure: long VLO

Classic: Talking to Management, Part 2: Gleaning Financial Subtleties

Classic: Talking to Management, Part 2: Gleaning Financial Subtleties

This was originally published on RealMoney on April 17, 2007:

Financial Questions

What proportion of your earnings are free cash flow, available to be invested in new opportunities, stock buybacks, or dividends?

(Note: The free cash flow of a business is not the same as its earnings. Free cash flow is the amount of money that can be removed from a company at the end of an accounting period and still leave it as capable of generating profits as it was at the beginning of the accounting period. Sometimes this is approximated by cash flow from operations less maintenance capital expenditures, but maintenance capex is not a disclosed item, and changes in working capital can reflect a need to invest in inventories in order to grow the business, not merely maintain it.)

Again, a good analyst has a reasonable feel for the answer to this question. If management oversells its ability to deliver free cash flow, that’s a red flag. With companies that I am short, I often ask about when they will increase the dividend or buy back stock. Alternatively, I ask about the prospective rate of return on their new projects, but more on that in the next section. You can ask a management team outright what proportion of the company’s earnings is free cash flow and then analyze that for reasonableness.

As an aside, you can stay clear of a lot of blowups by avoiding companies that have strong earnings and weak or negative free cash flow. If a company has to plow a lot of cash back into the business to maintain it, it’s often a sign of costs that aren’t reflected in the current profitability of the business. At the edge, big deviations can indicate fraud; for example, I avoided investing money in Enron as a result of this analysis.

What’s your best reinvestment opportunity for free cash flow? Or, what’s your most promising new project?

Questions like this can flesh out the intentions of management and give longer-term investors a new avenue of inquiry in future quarters; follow up on the answers. The idea is to judge whether the new projects are valuable or not, or big enough to make a difference. Another thing that will be learned here is what time horizon management is working on, and whether the investments targeted are cash-consuming or cash-generating.

It’s possible that management might let drop the anticipated rate of return on the new project, or even their target hurdle rates for new projects in general. You can ask for that figure, but don’t be surprised when you get turned down; rather, be surprised if you get it. I wouldn’t hand that information out if I were a company because competitors would like to know that information.

How is the turnover rate for your employees? How many suppliers have left you over the last year? What percentage of your business comes from repeat customers?

These questions can apply to any key relationship that the company has. If the company has difficulty retaining employees, suppliers or customers, that can be a warning sign. On the other hand, it is possible for the company to have too low a “quit rate.” This could imply that it isn’t extracting as much from the relationships as it possibly could.

Consider two examples for insight into how high and low employee turnover can affect a business. The first insurance company I worked for, Pacific Standard Life, had a 50% employee turnover rate. The place was a mess because institutional memory, particularly among mid- to lower-level employees, was forever disappearing. It was a wild ride for me, as the company grew by a factor of 10 in the 3? years I was there, before it became insolvent in 1989 due to a bad asset policy forced on it by its parent company. (Trivia: At $700 million in assets, it was the largest life insolvency of the 1980s. The ’80s were kind to life insurers.)

Then there is a college that I know of that has a turnover rate of nearly zero. Many of the employees there stay because it’s the best place that would have them; they might not have other opportunities. As a result, productivity in some areas is low and new ideas are few.

A healthy organization tends to have at least 5% turnover. Depending on the industry, a turnover rate between 5% and 15% strikes a good balance between institutional memory and new ideas.

The same logic can apply to suppliers. Long-term relationships are good, but there is value in testing them every now and then to see whether a better deal can be struck in price, quality or other terms.

Repeat customers work the same way. Too low a repeat customer rate means that marketing costs will be relatively high. Too high a repeat customer rate, and the company might be missing out on additional profits from a price increase.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira