Value Investing – Page 50

On Insurance Stock Indexes

Posted on 3 January 20123 January 2012 by David Merkel

I’m still toying with the idea of starting an insurance-only hedge fund.? I own a lot of insurers, and I think that I get the better of that market.

Where I have a harder time is with what to short. Shorting is tactical not structural, and I am less good at the tactical vs structural.? Having a tradable benchmark to short against would be useful, but what exists there?

There is one ETF focused on insurance that has any significant volume — KIE.? In the past, it was capitalization-weighted, but now it is equal-weighted.? That stems from a change in the index that the ETF follows, from one set by KBW to one set by S&P.

Personally, I don’t get the change, but here are my statistics on the change:

The “Old KBW” column comes from segmentation done by KBW.? The other columns are done by me.? There are some matters for judgment:

Do you include Berkshire Hathaway?? I think you should.? Do you include foreign life insurers traded on US exchanges?? I think you should.

I am also more willing to place a company in the “Conglomerate” category because of companies that are in multiple lines of insurance, without a dominant area of insurance that they are in, or, they have significant non-insurance ventures.

Anyway, the new KIE overstates the insurers in Bermuda and the Brokers.? It understates life insurers and conglomerates.

Aside from that, the new S&P index, being equal-weighted, is more mid-cap than a whole market index would be.? Also, if I put more effort into this, I would segment companies into their proportions, and there we be no conglomerates.

These may be trivial concerns to some, but if you are thinking of running a portfolio that might be shorting KIE against other insurance longs, it makes a considerable difference.

The Rules, Part XXVII, and, Seeming Cheapness vs Margin of Safety

Posted on 29 December 201129 December 2011 by David Merkel

The market takes action against firms that carry positions bigger than their funding base can handle.? Temporarily, things may look good as the position is established, because the price rises as the position shifts from being a marginal part of the market to a structural part of the market.? After that happens, valuation-motivated sellers appear to offer more at those prices.? The price falls, leading to one of two actions: selling into a falling market (recognizing a true loss), or buying more at the “cheap” prices, exacerbating the illiquidity of the position.

When an asset management firm is growing, it has the wind at its back.? As assets flow in, they buy more of their favored ideas, pushing their prices up, sometimes above where the equilibrium prices should be.

As Ben Graham said, “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine.”? The short-term proclivities of investors usually have no effect on the long run value of companies.? Rather, their productivity drives their long-term value.

There have been two issues with asset managers following a “value” discipline that have “flamed out” during the current crisis.? One, they attracted hot money from those who chase trends during the times where lending policies were easier, and the markets were booming.? And often, they invested in financials that looked cheap, but took too much credit risk.? Second, they invested in companies that were seemingly cheap, rather than those with a margin of safety.

My poster child this time is Fairholme Fund.? Now, I’ve never talked with Bruce Berkowitz; don’t know the guy at all.? Every time I read something by him or see a video with him, I think, “Bright guy.”? But when I look at what he owns, I often think, “Huh. These are the stocks you own if you are really bullish on financial conditions.”

Yesterday, I saw a statistic that said that his fund was 76% invested in financial stocks as of 8/31.? Now I believe in concentrated portfolios, and even concentrated by sector and industry, but this is way beyond my willingness to take risk.? From Fairholme’s 5/31/2011 semi-annual report to shareholders, here are the top 10 holdings and industries:

Aside from Sears, all of the top 10 holdings are financials.? And, of those financials that I have some knowledge of, they are all what I would call “complex financials.”

In general, unless you are a heavy hitter, I discourage investment in complex financials because it is hard to tell what you are getting.? Are the assets and liabilities properly stated?? Financial companies are just a gaggle of accruals, and the certainty of having the accounting right on an accrual entry decreases with:

Company size (the ability of management to make sure values are accurate or conservative declines with size)
Rapidity of the company’s growth
Length of the asset or liability
Uncertainty over when the asset will pay out, or when the liability will require cash
Uncertainty over how much the asset will pay out, or when how much cash the liability will require

It’s not just a question of whether the assets will eventually be “money good.”? It is also a question of whether the company will have adequate financing to hold those assets in all environments.? For financials, that’s a large part of “margin of safety,” and the main aspect of what failed for many financials in the last five years.

Another aspect of “margin of safety” for financials is whether you are truly “buying it cheap.”? All financial asset values are relative to the financing environment that they are in.? Imagine not only what the assets will be worth if things “normalize,” or conditions continue as at present, but also what they would be worth if liquidity dries up, a la mid-2002, or worse yet, late 2008.

Also remember that financials are regulated, and the regulators tend to react to crises, often making a marginal financial institution do something to clean up at exactly the wrong time, which puts in the bottom for some set of asset classes.? Now, I’m not blaming the regulators (or rating agencies) too much; no one forced the financial company to play near the cliff.? Occasionally, for the protection of the system as a whole, the regulator shoves a financial off the cliff.? (or, a rating agency downgrades them, creating a demand for liquidity because of lending agreements that accelerate on downgrades.)

Finally, think about management quality.? Do they try to grow rapidly?? That’s a danger sign.? There is always the tradeoff between quality, quantity, and price.? In a good environment, you can get 2 out of 3, and in a bad environment, 1 out of 3.? Managements that sacrifice asset quality for growth are not good long run investments, they may occasionally be interesting speculations at the beginning of a new boom phase.

Do they use odd accounting metrics to demonstrate performance?? How much do they explain away one-time events?? Are they raising leverage to boost ROE, or are they trying to improve operations?? Do they try to grow through scale acquisitions?

Are they willing to let bad results show or not?? Even with good financial companies there are disappointments.? With bad ones, the disappointments are papered over until they have to take a “big bath,” which temporarily sets the accounting conservative again.

The above is margin of safety for financials — not just seeming cheapness, but management quality and financing/accounting quality.? They often go together.

Fairholme’s annual report should come out somewhere around the end of January 2012.? What I am interested in seeing is how much of his shareholder base has left given his recent disappointments with AIG, Sears Holdings, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Brookfield, and Regions Financial.? Even the others of his top 10 have not done well, and the fund as? a whole has suffered.? Mutual fund shareholders can be patient, but a mutual fund balance sheet is inherently weak for holding assets when underperformance is pronounced.

(the above are estimates, I may have made some errors, but the data derives from their SEC filings)

Now, we eat dollar-weighted returns. Only the happy few that bought and held get time-weighted returns.? And, give Fairholme credit on two points (though I suspect it will look worse when the annual report comes out):

A 9.9% return from inception to 5/31/2011 is hot stuff, and,
A 6.0% dollar-weighted return is very good as well.? Only losing 3.9% to mutual fund shareholder behavior is not great, but I’ve seen worse.

This is the problem of buying the “hot fund.”? Once a fund becomes the “Ya gotta own this fund” fund, future returns on capital employed get worse because:

It gets harder to deploy increasingly large amounts of capital, and certainly not as well as in the past.
Management attention gets divided, because of the desire to start new funds, and the complexity of running a larger organization.
When relative underperformance does come, it is really hard to right the ship, because assets leave when you can least handle them doing so.? The manager has to think: “Which of my positions that I think are cheap will I liquidate, and what will happen to market prices when it is discovered that I, one of the major holders, is selling?”

That is a tough box to be in, and I sympathize with any manager that finds himself stuck there.? It can be a negative self-reinforcing cycle for some time.? My one bit of advice would be: focus on margin of safety.? If you do, eventually the withdrawals will moderate, and then you can work to rebuild.

Life With Wife

Posted on 24 December 201125 December 2011 by David Merkel

My wife has only given me financial advice twice in my life.? She was totally right both times.? Now, she doesn’t have a financial bone in her body.? She was raised in a household where she never lacked anything, with non-materialistic parents where the father earned a lot as a nuclear physicist.? She was a princess,never having to worry, and married a prince, me, where she never had to worry.

As an aside, the father recently died, and he was quite a guy, but humble.? If you ever get therapy in a hospital that requires a cyclotron or any delivery device that allows positrons or any anti-particle to be used in surgery, my father-in-law was the brains behind it.? He was an amazing man, and though my wife is astounding, one benefit of marrying her was getting to know her father, who was an amazing man.? (Did I tell you he was amazing? 😉 )

Anyway, the first time my wife gave me investment advice was when I worked for the St. Paul.? My boss invited me to his officein early 2000, and handed me an envelope.? He said, “This is your bonus, invest it wisely.”? At that point in time, St. Paul was in the tank, and no one liked it much at all.? I took the wad, and put it all on The Saint Paul.? (My wife was amazed at the size of the bonus, but the bonus was given for keeping the company safe, not for making a ton.)

Eventually, it leaked out that I had invested so much in the parent company.? Members of my investment team told me I was a dope, and that the St. Paul was a lousy company to invest in. One told me, “No that’s not value investing, value investing requires a catalyst, and there is no catalyst here.”? (Note: catalysts do not always appear, and they can be expensive.)

Me, a value investor thought that buying a company at 55% of liquidation value, and a single digit multiple of forward earnings would do fine.? After one month, several P&C insurance CEOs announced that they were seeing pricing power, and the stock of the St. Paul rose 30%.? I could not sell, because I was constructively an insider, though I had no insider information.

After another 3 months, the cycle was in full swing, and the St. Paul’s common stock was up 80% from where I bought it.? At that point, my wife came to me and said, “You’ve been talking a lot about the St. Paul over the last few weeks, how important is it to our family?”? I told her, “It is half of our net worth.”? She said, echoing things she had heard me say previously, “Shouldn’t you take something off the table?”? I told her that I would.? I liquidated the whole position at my first opportunity, given my restrictions.? My gain was 95%, over six months.

As it was, after I did this, that many people at the St. Paul came to me saying, “You sly dog, you are a genius, but now we are doing it too; we are in this with you.”? I told them, “Aack, no.? Don’t do this.? You are buying? the top.”? And, wrong again, the price rose for a few more months, only to fall dramatically.

-==-=–=-=-==-=-=-=–=–==–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=–

A few years later, my wife said to me, “You keep talking about Wright Manufacturing, and how well it is doing, but how much do we own of the company?? I said, “You see our house?”

She said, “Of course.”

I said “Well, our holdings are worth a little more than our house.”

Beyond her ordinary ability, she asked, “Okay, David, but would you invest in this company to the degree that you have if it were publicly traded?”

I told her “No.”

She then asked, “then why don’t you take something off the table?”

I was cut to the heart, and I told her I would do so.? I sold half of my shares to the second largest shareholder.He told me that he would meet me at my office at Hovde.? After he got there he was amazed at me and said, “Wait, you are a smart guy, what am I missing here?”? I told him that I needed the money for the college educations of my children, so I needed more liquidity.

That mollified him, and allowed me to sell before the price cratered in 2008-9, as the company nearly failed.

But that’s another story, one where I bought amid distress, but not enough….

-==–=-=-==–=-=-=-==–=-=-==-=-=-=-=–==–==-=–=-=-==-=-=–=-=-==-

I love my wife.? We just celebrated our silver (25th) anniversary.? She is wonderful in so many ways that I cannot describe here, and her children (and mine), biological and adopted would agree.

Though a princess, she absorbed enough of my ideas to counsel me at two particularly important turning points for the good of our home.? With the St. Paul, I probably would have done the right thing but with Wright Manufacturing, probably not.

So I praise her here for absorbing my wisdom, and applying it to me, when I could not do so myself.

–==–=-==-=–=-==–=-=-==-=-=-=–=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=–==-=-=-=-=-=–==-=-=-

To bright people in finance I would say pay attention to those near you who don’t have your acumen, if they have been around you long enough.? They may give you cues that you could not ordinarily get, and it might just save your hide.

For me, this gives me an opportunity to praise the second most important person in my life, my wife, who typically has no impact on financial decisions, but at a few critical points did very well for me and the family.? She learned from me.

As for the one most important, that would be Jesus Christ, who many imagine they are honoring at this time of year, even though he never asked that his nativity be celebrated.? Just saying.

Returns on Equity Amid the Financial Crisis, Redux

Posted on 20 December 2011 by David Merkel

To have a full version of my article, with the equations that explain my reasoning, Returns on Equity amid the Financial Crisis.?? Thanks to all who read it.

Returns on Equity Amid the Financial Crisis

Posted on 20 December 2011 by David Merkel

I wrote the following for the 2012 Baltimore Business Review.? When it is publicly available on the web, I will highlight it.? For now, I will offer you the unedited version of my paper that will be published there:

-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–==-=–=-=-=-==–==-=–=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Returns on Equity amid the Financial Crisis

Abstract

From 2005-2010, the change in public company returns on book equity [ROE] was wrenching during the financial crisis.? The results were uneven by sectors, and even by geography, for stocks traded in US equity markets.? This paper looks at the differences, and attempts to explain why there was so much variation by sector and geography.? After that, the paper attempts to explain the correlation between changes in ROE and stock returns, by year, sector, and geography.

Introduction

Since 2005, equity markets have seen a boom, a bust, and a tepid recovery. Financial stocks seem to have had the worst of it, but is that really true?

This paper attempts to disaggregate the differing effects of geography (countries/US states), and economic sector over time to try to understand how the boom, bust and recovery have affected public companies.

Part 1 ? Return on Equity

Method

This study excluded stocks with market capitalizations under $100 million at the end of the study period.? It also excluded miscellaneous financial companies such as exchange-traded products, closed-end funds, and special-purpose acquisition companies, because they don?t have operating businesses.? That left 3,796 companies that trade on US exchanges available for the analysis.

Given the tendency for businesses in states and countries to be concentrated in one or two sectors, a minimum was imposed for states and countries to be analyzed individually.? Countries with fewer than four companies trading on US exchanges were placed in the ?other? country category, and states with fewer than four companies trading on US exchanges were placed in the ?other? state category.

Over the years 2005-2010, data regarding book equity, net income, market capitalization, market price, share count, and total returns were gathered, and aggregated by geography (Country if non-US, state if US), sector, and year.

Using Ordinary Least Squares Regression, the following relationship was estimated:

Where:

?is the set of dummy variables for geography.
?is the set of dummy variables for sectors.
?is the set of dummy variables for the years 2005-2010.
?is the contribution to return on equity due to geography.
?is the contribution to return on equity due to sector.
?is the contribution to return on equity due to year.
?is the net income for a given geographic area, sector, and year.
?is the book equity for a given geographic area, sector, at the prior year end.
?is the error term for a given geographic area, sector, and year.

The reasons for using this sort of equation is twofold: first, by using dollar figures rather than earnings per share and book value per share, large companies are given their proper weight versus smaller companies.? Second, it allows for the effects of ROE changes by geography, sector and year to be separated.

In an analysis where there are multiple groups of dummy variables, at most one set of dummy variables can be complete if there is no intercept term, and no set can be complete if there is an intercept term.? If not, the regression will fail.? The choice of what to omit is arbitrary, and does not affect the relative relationships within a set of dummy variables.? For the purposes of this paper the sector dummy variables were left complete, and the coefficients on the first geographic area (Argentina) and the first year (2005) were set to zero.

Results

The R-squared of the regression was 55.7%, which has a prob-value of greater than 99.9%.

Here are the results of contribution to ROE by country:

18.1%	Mexico
16.9%	Chile
15.4%	Other Nations
15.1%	Brazil
14.1%	Australia
13.4%	Spain
13.2%	India
10.6%	Bermuda
10.6%	Hong Kong
7.3%	Greece
7.1%	Russia
6.5%	Taiwan
6.3%	Netherlands
6.3%	Italy
6.3%	Switzerland
6.1%	China
5.9%	Norway
5.8%	Canada
5.1%	Sweden
5.1%	Germany
4.1%	France
3.7%	United Kingdom
2.8%	United States
1.9%	Singapore
1.9%	Israel
1.0%	Cayman Islands
0.6%	Japan
0.1%	South Korea
0.0%	Argentina
-0.2%	Puerto Rico
-1.4%	Finland
-3.1%	Ireland
-3.2%	Luxembourg
-6.3%	South Africa

The United States is included for comparison purposes as the weighted average of the contribution to ROE by states.? There was not a separate variable for the US in the analysis.

As Latin America moved toward freer markets, with growing middle classes, their contributions to ROE were relatively high.? In general, resource rich nations tended to have higher contributions to ROE.

Mexico?s contribution to ROE was led by communication companies Telmex, America Movil, and Grupo Televisa and consumer-oriented companies like Coca-cola Femsa, FEMSA, and Wal-Mart de Mexico.? A growing middle class pushed up demand for these companies.

Chile?s contribution to ROE was led by the utilities Enersis and Empresa Nacional de Electricidad, the banks Banco Santander Chile and Banco de Chile, and chemical company Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile.? A growing economy boosted demand for electrical power, their banks didn?t make the mistakes made by most of the rest of the developed world, and Sociedad Quimica y Minera was in the ?sweet spot? for the chemicals it produced, particularly fertilizers, and lithium which goes into rechargeable batteries.

Brazil?s contribution to ROE was led by the energy giant Petrobras, the diversified mining company Vale, and the banks Banco Santander (Brasil), Itau Unibanco Holding, and Banco Bradesco.? Global demand for crude oil, iron ore, and other resources boosted the contributions to ROE with Petrobras and Vale.? Brazil?s banks also didn?t make the mistakes made by most of the rest of the developed world.

On the negative side, contributions to ROE in Finland were held down by Nokia, where they fell behind consumer trends with cell phones and other portable wireless devices.? Ireland was held back by banking sector, which lent too much on Irish residential property, amid other errors.? Luxembourg had ArcelorMittal, which slumped with the global steel industry as prices for coking coal and iron ore rose.? South Africa had the worst contribution to ROE as a country because of the heavy weight their economy has in basic materials.? Basic materials was a strong sector, but South Africa was concentrated in one the weakest ROE industries in that sector, gold mining.

Here are the results of contribution to ROE by US state:

18.6%	Washington
16.9%	Arkansas
13.0%	District of Columbia
11.3%	Minnesota
10.0%	Connecticut
10.0%	Oregon
8.9%	Rhode Island
8.2%	New Jersey
7.8%	Kentucky
6.7%	Nebraska
6.6%	Indiana
6.2%	California
6.1%	Georgia
5.5%	Wisconsin
5.4%	Missouri
5.1%	Iowa
5.0%	Texas
4.4%	Tennessee
3.2%	Illinois
3.1%	Florida
2.9%	Maryland
2.8%	US Average
2.5%	North Carolina
1.2%	New York
1.2%	Pennsylvania
1.1%	South Carolina
0.8%	Other
0.6%	Ohio
-0.4%	Utah
-0.5%	Nevada
-1.3%	Louisiana
-2.3%	Arizona
-3.6%	Colorado
-4.6%	Massachusetts
-5.6%	Alabama
-7.9%	Oklahoma
-10.3%	Virginia
-31.9%	Kansas
-83.6%	Michigan

To some degree, historical accidents help explain why some states have high contributions to returns on equity, and others low contributions.? Washington State has Microsoft, Amazon, and Costco, all of which started out there.? Michigan has General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler; the automobile industry has long been a big part of the state economy.

The contribution to ROE of Arkansas can be entirely attributed to Wal-Mart.? Washington, DC can largely be attributed to Danaher, though Fannie Mae pulled the contribution to ROE down considerably as it failed in 2008.

The results of Kansas are dominated by Sprint Nextel, which has been a weak competitor in wireless telephony, though YRC Worldwide also had some impact on the low contribution to ROE as it was too acquisitive heading into a major recession.? Virginia has many strong companies, but Freddie Mac pulled the contribution to ROE down with it failure in 2008.

Companies don?t move often, so attributing the differing contributions to ROE to state policies is unlikely.? In the extreme cases listed above, all of the companies listed had been headquartered in their respective states for a long time, and most had been started there.

Here are the results of contribution to ROE by sector:

25.91%	Consumer Non-Cyclical
23.31%	Basic Materials
20.20%	Energy
18.10%	Health Care
14.59%	Utilities
14.24%	Capital Goods
14.07%	Technology
10.56%	Services
10.20%	Consumer Cyclical
9.52%	Financial
4.72%	Transportation
-5.58%	Conglomerates

The end of the first decade of the new millennium was characterized by strong development around the world, with many nations clamoring for resources and non-cyclical consumer goods, which why the contribution to ROE by sector was led by Consumer Non-Cyclicals, Basic Materials, and Energy.

Conglomerates are the smallest sector, at 0.3% of total book equity, so it is difficult to draw conclusions about why it had the lowest contribution to ROE.? That said, it is difficult to manage disparate enterprises for organic operating returns.? Increases in energy costs hurt transportation ROEs, which unlike utilities, have a harder time passing the price increases through.

Financial stocks saw their contribution to ROE drop because of the financial crisis.? The contribution to ROE includes two great years 2005-2006, two horrible years 2007-2008, and two years of recovery.? The contributions to ROE in the financial sector in 2007-2008 more than erased the gains made earlier in the decade.

Contribution to ROE for Consumer Cyclicals were damaged by bad results in the Automobile industry and slumping demand as the economy went into a recession in 2008, and had a rather weak recovery in 2009-2010.

Here are the results of contribution to ROE by year:

0.00%	2005
2.04%	2006
-1.28%	2007
-18.37%	2008
-8.06%	2009
-3.72%	2010

Contribution to return on equity rose 2% over 2005 levels in 2006.? In 2007, as the stock market reached new highs and began to fall in the fourth quarter of 2007, partially because the contribution to ROE fell below 2005 and 2006 levels.

In 2008, as the financial crisis arrived, the contribution to ROE plummeted.? Much of the effect was concentrated in financial stocks, but the contribution to ROE for the market as a whole fell 17%.? In 2009 and 2010, as the recovery from the crisis progressed contribution to ROE rose each year, but still remained below the contribution to ROE that existed during the boom years 2005-2007.

Part 2 ? Total Returns

Method

The same stocks as in the first section, and the same methods were used to estimate the following relationship, using Ordinary Least Squares:

Where:

?is the set of dummy variables for geography.
?is the set of dummy variables for sectors.
?is the set of dummy variables for the years 2005-2010.
?is the contribution to total return due to geography.
?is the contribution to total return due to sector.
?is the contribution to total return due to year.
?is the dollar value of gains or losses for a given geographic area, sector, and year.
?is the market capitalization for a given geographic area, sector, at the prior year end.
?is the error term for a given geographic area, sector, and year.

The dollar value of gains or losses is calculated by the change in market capitalization, plus dividends, less the proceeds of shares issued, plus the cost of shares bought back.

Results

The R-squared of the regression was 76.7%, which has a prob-value of greater than 99.9%.

Here are the results of contribution to total return by country:

216.77%	Israel
24.53%	Chile
17.34%	Singapore
12.44%	Other Nations
11.99%	China
11.34%	Australia
10.37%	Hong Kong
8.32%	Mexico
7.62%	Bermuda
7.15%	Brazil
4.14%	Netherlands
3.41%	Germany
3.24%	Greece
2.32%	Spain
1.93%	Norway
1.72%	Italy
1.62%	United Kingdom
1.61%	Cayman Islands
1.30%	US Average
1.24%	Taiwan
1.08%	India
0.86%	France
0.76%	Switzerland
0.74%	Puerto Rico
0.13%	Finland
0.00%	Argentina
-1.44%	Russia
-3.46%	South Korea
-4.16%	Canada
-4.32%	Japan
-4.44%	Ireland
-6.19%	South Africa
-8.72%	Sweden
-17.49%	Luxembourg

The United States is included for comparison purposes as the weighted average of the contribution to ROE by states.? There was not a separate variable for the US in the analysis.

Looking at the countries at the top and the bottom, Israel benefitted from Teva Pharmaceutical, Check Point Software Technologies, and a scad of little technology companies that soared in value.? Singapore was led by Avago Technologies which has been seeing strong growth in demand for their analog semiconductor devices.

Chile, as mentioned above, contribution to total return was led by the utilities Enersis and Empresa Nacional de Electricidad, the banks Banco Santander Chile and Banco de Chile, and chemical company Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile.? In addition, Lan Airlines grew their net income by 150% over the whole of the study period, as a growing middle class flew more often.

Ireland, Luxembourg and South Africa were low on the contribution to ROE by countries.? Ireland?s contribution to total returns was held back by its banking sector, as mentioned previously.? The same applies to Luxembourg with ArcelorMittal.? And again, South Africa had a low contribution to total returns as a country because of the heavy weight their economy has in basic materials.? Basic materials was a strong sector, but South Africa was concentrated in one the weakest industries for total returns in that sector, gold mining.

Sweden had three large companies Ericcson (Telecommunications Equipment), Volvo (Automobiles) and Swedbank (Banking) that underperformed.? Volvo and Swedbank were in weak industries given the financial crisis, while Ericcson underperformed versus competitors in its industry.

Note that the order of the lists of contribution to ROE and contribution to total return across are similar.? The correlation of the two sets of coefficients is 1.8% — statistically indistinguishable from zero, but the rank correlation of the two sets is 62.7%, which is significantly greater than zero with 95% certainty.? The high coefficient on Israel?s contribution to total returns throws the ordinary correlation coefficient off; without Israel, the correlation would be 64.5%.

Thus it seems that contribution to ROE and contribution to total return are related across countries.

Here are the results of contribution to total return by US state:

19.12%	Oregon
15.18%	Kentucky
13.85%	Iowa
13.28%	Michigan
12.77%	Nebraska
12.53%	Arizona
11.52%	Rhode Island
9.35%	Colorado
9.24%	Texas
8.10%	Alabama
7.18%	Louisiana
7.02%	Oklahoma
6.26%	Illinois
5.58%	California
5.01%	New Jersey
4.58%	Massachusetts
3.49%	Missouri
2.62%	Maryland
2.21%	South Carolina
2.17%	Minnesota
1.56%	Utah
1.40%	Washington
1.30%	US Average
-0.02%	Wisconsin
-0.49%	Connecticut
-1.11%	New York
-1.39%	Arkansas
-2.02%	Indiana
-3.13%	Pennsylvania
-4.49%	Florida
-5.21%	Ohio
-7.04%	Tennessee
-7.76%	North Carolina
-8.19%	Kansas
-8.42%	Nevada
-12.06%	Georgia
-19.45%	Other
-21.02%	Virginia
-33.73%	District of Columbia

Oregon?s contribution to total return was high because of Nike and Precision Castparts.? Both have been based in Oregon since their founding.? The same can be said of Yum! Brands, Humana, and Brown Forman in Kentucky.? Yum Brands began with Pepsi?s purchase of Kentucky Fried Chicken, which was founded by Colonel Sanders out of home in Corbin, Kentucky in 1930.? Brown Forman was started in Kentucky in 1870 by George Garvin Brown.

Terra Nitrogen, LP was an Iowa firm from its founding until its parent company was acquired by CF industries in mid-2010.? It is counted as an Iowa firm for this study, but is now based in Illinois.

DC and Virginia have the lowest contributions to total returns because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively.? Georgia had a low contribution to total returns, largely due to SunTrust Banks, which holds the dubious distinction of receiving four installments of bailout cash.? Nevada had a low contribution to total returns because of their high exposure to the casino/gaming industry, which did poorly during and after the financial crisis.

All of these companies are historical accidents.? They were based in their states since their founding.

The state lists on contribution to ROE and contribution to total return across are not similar.? The correlation of the two sets of coefficients is -10.68% — statistically indistinguishable from zero.? The rank correlation of the two sets is 26.68%, which is also not significantly greater than zero with 95% certainty.

It seems there is no relationship at the state level between contribution to ROE and contribution to total return.

Here are the results of contribution to total return by Sector:

34.22%	Basic Materials
33.86%	Consumer Non-Cyclical
33.13%	Conglomerates
30.87%	Transportation
27.49%	Utilities
24.38%	Technology
23.69%	Consumer Cyclical
22.88%	Services
21.94%	Energy
19.80%	Health Care
19.51%	Capital Goods
15.49%	Financial

The lists between contribution to ROE and contribution to total return by sector are different.? The correlation coefficient between them is -0.50%, which is virtually zero.? But excluding the two smallest sectors, Conglomerates and Transportation, which have noisy data with only 2% of the total market capitalization, the correlation would be 71.51%, which would be statistically different from zero with 95% probability.? Thus it seems that contribution to ROE and contribution to total return are related across sectors.

The low contributors to total return by sector are led by Financials and Capital Goods, both of which did poorly in the recent crisis and the aftermath.? Basic Materials and Consumer Non-Cyclicals led the high contributors to total return by sector, as a growing global middle class created demand for commodities and staple consumer goods.

Here are the results of contribution to total return by year:

0.00%	2005
-5.35%	2006
-11.15%	2007
-67.18%	2008
5.51%	2009
-12.47%	2010

The contributions to ROE and contributions to total return by year are very similar, though the contribution to total return is far more volatile.? Also, total return anticipates changes in ROE, exacerbating the fall in 2007 and 2008, and anticipating tougher market conditions in 2011 in the results of 2010.

Without adjustment for leading effects, the correlation of the two series is 80.83%, which is different from zero with greater than 95% probability.? Thus it seems that contribution to ROE and contribution to total return are related across years.

In a regression of the two series, where ROE contribution by year is the independent variable, and total return contribution by year is the dependent variable, the beta of the regression was 2.86, with a 94% prob-value? for the coefficient and the regression as a whole.

That total returns should be levered 2.86 times to changes in ROE should surprise no one.? Markets anticipate, and change disproportionately, because they can?t tell whether changes are temporary or permanent, and so a multiple near 3 splits the difference.

Avenues for Further Study and Conclusion

The researcher did not use the CRSP database, because he had no easy access to it.? This study could be done over far more years and with greater precision.

The markets during 2005-2010 rewarded companies the served the growing global middle class, and aided the growth of the developing world.? It punished financial companies, and cyclical companies that did not have significant markets in the developing world.

In general, US state policies did not directly affect the financial results.? The best and worst companies by state were generally long term residents of the state in question.? Historical accidents dominate over companies that choose to move to other jurisdictions.

In general, contributions to ROE and total returns are related, but contributions to total returns lead contributions to ROE.? Markets anticipate changes in future profits.

Disclosure: David Merkel and clients of Aleph Investments own shares of Wal-Mart and Petrobras, as of the date this was originally written.

Industry Ranks December 2011

Posted on 10 December 201111 December 2011 by David Merkel

I?m working on my quarterly reshaping ? where I choose new companies to enter my portfolio.? The first part of this is industry analysis.

My main industry model is illustrated in the graphic.? Green industries are cold.? Red industries are hot.? If you like to play momentum, look at the red zone, and ask the question, ?Where are trends under-discounted??? Price momentum tends to persist, but look for areas where it might be even better in the near term.

If you are a value player, look at the green zone, and ask where trends are over-discounted.? Yes, things are bad, but are they all that bad?? Perhaps the is room for mean reversion.

My candidates from both categories are in the column labeled ?Dig through.?

If you use any of this, choose what you use off of your own trading style.? If you trade frequently, stay in the red zone.? Trading infrequently, play in the green zone ? don?t look for momentum, look for mean reversion.

Whatever you do, be consistent in your methods regarding momentum/mean-reversion, and only change methods if your current method is working well.

Huh?? Why change if things are working well?? I?m not saying to change if things are working well.? I?m saying don?t change if things are working badly.? Price momentum and mean-reversion are cyclical, and we tend to make changes at the worst possible moments, just before the pattern changes.? Maximum pain drives changes for most people, which is why average investors don?t make much money.

Maximum pleasure when things are going right leaves investors fat, dumb, and happy ? no one thinks of changing then.? This is why a disciplined approach that forces changes on a portfolio is useful, as I do 3-4 times a year.? It forces me to be bloodless and sell stocks with less potential for those with more potential over the next 1-5 years.

I like some technology names here, some energy some healthcare-related names, P&C Insurance and to a lesser extent Reinsurance, particularly those that are strongly capitalized.? I?m not concerned about the healthcare bill; necessary services will be delivered, and healthcare companies will get paid.

A word on banks and REITs: the credit cycle has not been repealed, and there are still issues unresolved from the last cycle ? I am not interested there even at present levels.? The modest unwind currently happening in the credit markets, if it expands, would imply significant issues for banks and their ?regulators.?

I?m looking for undervalued and stable industries.? I?m not saying that there is always a bull market out there, and I will find it for you.? But there are places that are relatively better, and I have done relatively well in finding them.

At present, I am trying to be defensive.? I don?t have a lot of faith in the market as a whole, so I am biased toward the green zone, looking for mean-reversion, rather than momentum persisting.? The red zone is pretty cyclical at present.? I will be very happy hanging out in dull stocks for a while.

P&C Insurers Look Cheap

After the heavy disaster year of 2011, P&C insurers and reinsurers look cheap.? Many trade below tangible book, and at single-digit P/Es, which has always been a strong area for me, if the companies are well-capitalized, which they are.

I already own a spread of well-run, inexpensive P&C insurers & reinsurers.? Would I increase the overweight here?? Yes, I might, because I view the group as absolutely cheap; it could make me money even in a down market.? Now, I would do my series of analyses such that I would be happy with the reserving and the investing policies of each insurer, but after that, I would be willing to add to my holdings.

Do your own due diligence on this, because I am often wrong.? One more note, I am still not tempted by banks or real estate related stocks.? I am beginning to wonder when the right time to buy them as a sector is.? As for that, I am open to advice.

Book Review: What Works on Wall Street (4th Edition)

Posted on 8 December 20118 December 2011 by David Merkel

I previously reviewed the First Edition.? Now it is time for the Fourth Edition.? Rather than do a teardown, I think it would be more useful if I explained how the book can best be used.? Here goes:

There has been a lot of research done on stock returns, the results of which have encouraged investment in:

Cheap stocks relative to book value, earnings, sales, EBITDA, FCF, etc.
Stocks with strong price momentum.
Stocks with strong earnings quality.

And such is true of this book.? And so, I encourage investors to focus on earnings quality, cheapness, and maybe, momentum, which hasn’t done so well of late.? (Probably too many following it.)

Now, the wrong way to use the book is to look at the highest returning strategy of the past, and follow it.? Since they test so many strategies, the one at the top is an accident of the historical period it covered.? Far better to be more humble and use a strategy that borrows from many successful strategies.? In doing that, there is less chance of amplifying the noise of the past.

Quibbles

The danger of this book is data-mining.? The deeper you dig to find what would have worked best in the past, the more you mirror the idiosyncrasies of the past, which does not then reveal the long-term principles that generally work, over intermediate-term periods.

Far better to stick with “pretty good” methods that never reach the top, but usually work.? Don’t be concern about hitting home runs, as much as getting on base regularly.? I say this because it works well for me and my clients.

Who would benefit from this book: Most investors would benefit from this book, if they are careful not to grab for the “brass ring” and imitate the strategy that has worked best in the past.? If you want to, you can buy it here: What Works on Wall Street.

Full disclosure: The publisher asked if I wanted the book.? I said ?yes? and he sent it to me.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Valuing Behemoths, Redux

Posted on 7 December 20117 December 2011 by David Merkel

A few things I left out last night.? Here’s a country breakdown for Behemoths trading on US exchanges:

Note: if I had a Bloomberg terminal and could give you global data, this would look much less US-centric.

And, here is a sector and industry breakdown:

Going cell-by-cell, Oil & Gas – Integrated had the largest concentration. The companies were Exxon Mobil Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell plc (ADR), Chevron Corporation, Petroleo Brasileiro SA (ADR), BP plc (ADR), and TOTAL S.A. (ADR).? Oil & Gas Operations was not all that different, and that company was PetroChina.? These are simple companies, as I view them, mining all over the world to find energy for a hungry planet.

Then there is Schlumberger, in the Oil Well Services & Equipment industry.? They are the elephant in their industry, though small compared to the majors, and smaller compared to the national oil companies that control most of the world’s oil resources.

Computer services are IBM and Google, two very different companies.? Software & Programming is Microsoft and Oracle, also very different.? Apple is Computers & Hardware.? Intel is Semiconductors.? The hard question with this group is who is managing their companies to use free cash flow wisely.? This is a maturing industry, and the best companies in the future will treat their capital providers well.

In Healthcare the differences in industries is not worth considering.? The companies are: Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis AG (ADR), Roche Holding Ltd. (ADR), GlaxoSmithKline plc (ADR).? They are all big pharmaceutical developers, though J&J has significant hardware businesses.

Communications Services boils down to China Mobile Ltd. (ADR), AT&T Inc., Vodafone Group Plc (ADR), Verizon Communications Inc.? Big companies pursuing their advantages in the US, UK and China, with wireless dominating over wireline.

As for Retail, that is WalMart.? Who else could it be?? No other company in retail is so extensive. The hard question for them is how they move the needle.? Are there no more worlds to conquer, a la Alexander?

Those that call regional banks are not so — JP Morgan and Wells Fargo are Money Center banks.? HSBC (ADR) is as well.

Rounding out the financials are two nontraditional companies — Berkshire Hathaway, and General Electric.? BRK is an insurance company funding an industrial conglomerate.? GE is an industrial company with a finance arm attached to it.

Beverages (Non-Alcoholic) are simple. Coke and Pepsi.? What could be simpler?

The other three in Consumer Non-Cyclical are Unilever N.V. (ADR), Procter & Gamble, and Philip Morris.? It would be very difficult to reverse-engineer the competitive advantages that these companies have built up.

With Metals Mining it is BHP Billiton Limited (ADR), Vale (ADR), and Rio Tinto plc (ADR).? They have become almost an oligopoly for a variety of minerals.

Finally, among auto and truck manufacturers, there is Toyota Motors, a well-run company that has had its share of problems lately.

=-=–==-=-=–=

Most of these companies are likely to be slow growers.? One exception is some of the tech and pharmaceutical companies, where they will fight for new markets versus obsolescence of old markets.? Unless one is an industry expert, hard to see how the battle comes out.

And, as I commented on last night’s piece:

Maynard, that?s a concern of mine as well. Will they dispose of noncore assets attractively? Even slack cash, after a suitable buffer, is noncore. How will management use the free cash flow?

1) Dividends?
2) Small value-creating acquisitions that can be grown organically?
3) Buybacks at discounts to the firm?s private market value?

Those create value, but it is hard to manage a complex company ? so growing via acquisition is tough without overpaying by buying scale, or creating a company that is even more complex, and unmanageable.

That?s why I think management is the key with large companies ? will they make the right capital allocation choices or not?

Tough analysis — but to me it boils down to how shareholder friendly behemoth companies will be. Try to analyze what the main strategies are, and only invest where you think they are managing for the good of shareholders, rather than management.

Full disclosure: my clients are long CVX, PBR, TOT, VOD, WMT, INTC, ORCL

Valuing Behemoths

Posted on 6 December 2011 by David Merkel

There have been a lot of articles recently about how cheap the Behemoth stocks are — I define Behemoth stocks as those with over $100 Billion of market capitalization.? At the close on December 2nd, there were 39 of them that trade on US Stock exchanges.

It’s no secret that Behemoth stocks have underperformed.? One example of it comes from looking at the cap-weighted S&P 500 versus the equal-weighted S&P 500 over the last decade.? The larger cap stocks underperformed, particularly the financials, as they ballooned, and popped.

Here is a graph showing how the median P/Es of the current behemoths have declined, and may decline further, if prices don’t rise, but earnings do.

So why have the P/Es of the largest companies compressed? In an environment where low global growth is expected, the biggest companies have felt it most severely.? They are so big that they cannot compensate much for changes in global demand, as opposed to smaller companies that can try to tap markets that they haven’t tapped so far.

For Behemoth companies to achieve large earnings growth, they have to find monster-sized innovations to do so.? Those don’t come along too regularly.? Even for a company as creative as Apple (or Google), it becomes progressively more difficult to create products that will raise earnings by a high percentage quarter after quarter.

As a result it should not be a surprise that Behemoth stocks trade at discounts to the market when global growth prospects are poor.? They have more assets and free cash flow to put to work than is useful in a bad environment.? Not every environment offers large opportunities.

My clients and I own 7 of the 39 Behemoths (18% of assets).? When is it reasonable to own Behemoths?

It makes sense in a period where leverage is expanding, but that’s not now.? It also makes sense to own them when the earnings yield (E/P) exceeds the return on high-yield bonds by 3% or more.? In that case, like Buffett, we look at the stock like a bond, and look for growth in the book value per share to drive the growth in the price.

There is another value driver — I have a saying: “The equity always holds the capital structure option.”? For small companies, they can decide to merge or lever up.? For Behemoth companies they can decide to pay special dividends, buy back stock, or spin off or sell subsidiaries.

I don’t know that the Behemoth companies that I own will do this, but I expect at valuation levels like we are at today, where the prospective earnings yield is 9% or better, there will be enhancements to value and plenty of them.? After all, the Behemoths for the most part don’t face liquidity issues, and most of them have cash flow in excess of investment needs.

But the big payoff may come from Behemoths splitting into smaller companies.? Management abilities peak out after a certain level of asset value… it’s hard to manage Behemoth companies, unless the company is simple — energy companies can grow larger, because it is only a question of more geography.? There is no threat that they need to sell a different product.

As a result of all of this, we should pay much greater attention to how shareholder-friendly the Behemoths are.? Analyze the management teams, and see how willing they might be to take actions that will enrich shareholders.

Personally, I think almost all companies with market caps over $100 billion would perform better if they broke themselves into more logical pieces.

Book Review: The Greatest Trades of All Time

Posted on 5 November 2011 by David Merkel

This book grew on me. Think of it as “How I hit a home run in investing.”? Who are the sluggers that earned outsized returns?

But, there is a problem here, and the book would have been better if it had recognized the problem.? In a few cases, the “greatest” made one (or a few) good decisions.? In more cases, they made many good decisions that compounded over time.

Was the first group lucky? Maybe, but when things work out for the reasons that you specify in advance, I think not.? The problem of the first group is repeatability, which for John Paulson, is proving to be an issue for his asset management shop at present.

The investment markets are cruel.? No matter what you have done in the past, the question comes, “What have you done for me lately?” The pressure is high, so no wonder that one of the investors that the book mentioned has gone into hiding.

There are two more dimensions here.? Imagine an investor that made some amazing gains , but then craters.? There are some brilliant investors for which that has been true: Livermore, Niederhoffer, Keynes, and more… how much credit should we give to the gains, if the price is flameouts?

Second, imagine someone who is the best in class at a low-return area of the asset markets, like Jim Chanos in short-selling, or Bill Gross at Pimco.? They may not earn that much, but the skill level is really high.? But is the skill level so high when they chose areas of the market to work in that are low -return?

Maybe the book should have featured private equity players, or real estate investors, or those that have managed university endowments well… there are other investors that would be comparable or better to the returns of some in this book.

Or ask, where is Buffett?? He would deserve a spot here, not for any one trade, but for the multitude of clever trades and mergers he has done over the years.

Quibbles

The book needed a better editor.? Information on Templeton is repeated.? Beyond that, most of the ideas on how an average investor could try to replicate the strategies of the great investors are akin to drinking near-beer.? They are too weak, but on the other hand, without the brilliance of the investors, an average person would not know when to but and sell.

With those caveats, I recommend the book highly.? It is well-written, and it will fill out knowledge gaps in amateur investors.

Who would benefit from this book: Most investors would benefit from this book.? If you want to, you can buy it here: The Greatest Trades of All Time: Top Traders Making Big Profits from the Crash of 1929 to Today (Wiley Trading).

Full disclosure: The publisher asked if I wanted the book.? I said ?yes? and he sent it to me.