Category: Value Investing

Avoiding Doomed Sectors

Avoiding Doomed Sectors

It’s a tough market out there.? You can’t eat relative performance, and I am off a percent or two year-to-date.? I have made a number of moves in the portfolio recently:

  • Rebalancing sale of Jones Apparel
  • Rebalancing sale of Shoe Carnival
  • Rebalancing sale of Lincoln National
  • Rebalancing buy of ConocoPhillips
  • Sale of Gehl in entirety

In a bear market, I consider it unusual that I have gotten off so many rebalancing sales, but part of that is being willing to embrace an out-of-favor sector — retail.? That said, my cash position has risen to around 6%.

In this situation, being willing to embrace out-of-favor sectors, but not “doomed” sectors can pay off.? In my opinion, depositary and credit-sensitive financials are a doomed sector until the backlog of questionable names begins to diminish.? Fannie and Freddie are off the table, and didn’t S&P do us a favor by kicking them out of their indexes?? Surely they will add them to the Small Cap 600, right?? Sorry, no.? The cow is out in the pasture; closing the barn door won’t help.

Part of the trouble here is ripple, or, second-order effects.? Ordinarily, second-order effect diminish and get swallowed up by larger factors effecting the economy/markets.? But with financials, because of all of the layers of debt, the failure of a large institution can lead to a cascade of failures.? Much as I don’t like government bailouts, the reason why the Treasury stood behind the senior obligations of Fannie and Freddie was to avoid a cascade of failures, because their senior debt and guaranteed MBS are so widely held by financial institutions.

Until the institutions that can produce ripple effects either fail or conclusively survive, the bear market continues.? Bear markets are most often financing-driven; so long as financial firms are under stress, firms that rely on them for financing will be under stress as well.

Bailout Conditions for Lehman Brothers

On an unrelated note, what should be the terms for bailing out Lehman Brothers?

  • The government should only care about systemic risk, not specific risk, so they should only guarantee the derivatives counterparty of Lehman, with significant skin in the game from Lehman.
  • The equity, preferred equity, and subordinated debt of Lehman should be wiped out before the Treasury shells out one dollar.
  • Senior debtholders should take a haircut — they will get paid in new Lehman stock.

Lehman reports tomorrow, ahead of schedule.? Fears have led to a fall in the stock price.? It is quite possible that Lehman will report a good quarter to dispel doubts; it is also possible that they will announce a government takeover of some sort.? I can’t tell.? I do know that for the market to normalize, the big problem have to be resolved.? Lehman Brothers is one of those problems and it is not resolved yet.

Full disclosure: long LNC SCVL JNY COP

When Good Things Happen to Bad Stocks

When Good Things Happen to Bad Stocks

I’ll write something more about Fannie and Freddie at a later time.? Things have worked out there largely as I expected.

What I did not expect is that the market would be up a lot on a day like today.? I did expect that Treasuries would be down.? After all, there are more claims on the Treasury now than before.

Why should the market be up?

  • The possibility of lower mortgage rates, which will help those that can put money down on a new home, and those that can refinance within conforming limits.
  • Risk is shifted off the balance sheets of lending institutions that held the senior debt of the GSEs.
  • A big uncertainty is resolved.? (And the next uncertainty has not arrived… yet.)

Now, as for me, I am probably having my best relative outperformance day ever, and it is due to one stock in my portfolio: Gehl.? As the AP says, “Construction and farm equipment maker Gehl Corp. said Monday it is being purchased by its largest shareholder Manitou BF SA for $450 million, or $30 per share.”? 120% premium to the Friday close.? I can live with that. 🙂

I don’t play for takeovers, particularly not in this environment where financing is scarce.? But in value investing, if you have reasonable financed assets trading at a discount to their value, takeovers will sometimes come, though rarely at premiums like this deal.? Wow.

There’s one more thing I would like to point out here.? I sometimes get a little criticism for not having an automatic sell rule.? My first purchase of GEHL was around $20.? I averaged down twice.? Each time I reviewed the position, and concluded financing was adequate, though short-term earnings did not look promising.? I concluded that over a 2-3 year timeframe, I would probably be rewarded, or not lose much.? If I had used a mechanical sell rule, I would not have gotten the good side of Gehl.? (And, for those that keep score, this gain almost pays for the loss in Deerfield.)

That’s how it goes.? I could not predict this incident, and I have enough bad things that happen that I also can’t predict.? But in a well-diversified portfolio of cheap, well-financed stocks, there can be room for good surprises.? I just happened to get a big one today.? (And, it puts me in the plus column for YTD performance.? What a tough year for the market.)

Full disclosure: Flat GEHL — my limit orders got lifted as I wrote this…

My Interview on BizRadio

My Interview on BizRadio

On Wednesday afternoon I was interviewed on BizRadio’s The MoneyMan Report regarding my recent piece: The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms.? (Boy, did that get a lot of play all over the web.)

You can listen to the interviews here (at my site):

Or here (at their site):

The two segments together are about 15 minutes in length.

I enjoyed the interview, though it would have helped if I had done a little more homework into the prevailing philosophy of the show, and if I had been more clear about how to introduce me.? I sent them my bio, but they must not have looked too As it is, they never mentioned my employer (bad — I want them to be better known).? Nor did they mention my blog, so if someone wants to read the piece, they don’t know where to find it.

So, I get heard across Texas, and wherever else they syndicate their programming.? It’s interesting talking with people who are looking to make money, and had to say to them, “Not yet, not yet.”? But, I tried, and I did better than I expected.? I would be willing to do other radio shows as the opportunity arises.

Another Look at My Investment Screening Methods

Another Look at My Investment Screening Methods

Recently I received an e-mail from one of my readers on my investing methods.? I thought it might be useful for all of my readers, so I am going to answer it here.

I liked your post of your 8 investing rules and also your 4/16/08 post where you list your metrics for ranking potential stocks.? I too believe that a disciplined investing style that adheres to certain rules and metrics is very important in controlling the emotions that lead to subpar returns, and have been trying to develop a set of metrics for my own quantitative investing methodology. I noticed that some of your metrics are different that the common ratios I’ve usually come across while developing my methodology.??I was wondering?if you could answer a few questions regarding?them.

Note: the links are to posts that I think he meant.? If not, my apology.

P/E:??You use?three different P/E criteria, which makes P/E very important in your strategy.??Why do you?use P/E as opposed to P/Cash flow, which many believe is more telling than P/E???Do you have any concern in using forward P/E ratios, considering that analysts are notorious for being wrong with their earnings predictions (David Dreman?discusses this in his books)?

Ideally, we want an accurate forward estimate of free cash flow.? No one knows that, so I have to compromise.? P/E did have three spots in my April post, but that gave it a weight of 3/13ths.? Why not cash flow?? I’m open to the concept, and I have used it in the past.? In tough markets where M&A is not happening, CFO and EBITDA measures tend not to work as well.? I give forward P/Es higher weights when we are in the beginning of a recovery, with corporate bond spreads starting their rally.? Once the rally is established, and spreads have tightened, that is when M&A heats up, that is when EV/EBITDA, and P/CFO metrics have more punch.? During bear phases, I give more weight to P/B and P/Sales.

I’ve talked with a lot of different investment managers, and some like trailing P/Es and others, forward P/Es.? In general, the sell side is optimistic, but there is an advantage to using their estimates.? They provide a control mechanism.? Their estimates drive stock performance in the short run and they provide a gauge to how results are tracking against expectations.? I think that their estimates reflect the view of the market as a whole usually.? I try to balance optimistic and pessimistic indicators in my valuations, so as not to overplay either side.

Net Operating Accruals:? Do you use this metric based on the research done by Sloan and used in Piotroski’s Z_score?

No, I got this through Hirshleifer and a number of other financial economists.? That doesn’t mean that it might not be the same thing researched by Sloan and Piotroski.? Piotroski’s Z-score has a lot to commend it; the only trouble is that very few companies get those high scores.

Volatility, RSI, Neglect:? These are metrics that I have seen few people discuss. ?What is?your basis for using them? I believe I read an abstract to a?study that found that low volatility stocks outperform high volatility stocks- is this what you are trying to take advantage of???What is the measurement for neglect anyway???Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this subject.? When I read this post I was suprised that, as a contrarian fundamental investor,?you used so many technical metrics.? Do you try to use metrics that have?very little following because?methodologies lose their?effectiveness when?they becomes popular (like the small cap effect)?

What is a technical indicator?? I don’t read charts.? I do try to look for stocks that are off the beaten path, and there are some non-price measures that indicate that.? As for volatility, I would point you to this article at the excellent CXO Advisory blog.? Yes, low volatility tends to outperform.

It’s not that I am looking at technicals, but anomalies.? I believe in the Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, which says that inefficiencies exist in the markets, but only for a while because when they are big enough, investors take advantage of them, and compete them away.? The markets are only mostly efficient, and I try to take advantage of what is “on sale” when I reshape my portfolio.

The neglect measure is what fraction of the company’s shares trade.? In general, companies with lower share turnover tend to do better.

As for RSI, that is one area where I have changed.? I used to use momentum as “buy what’s falling” metric.? There’s too much evidence for the contrary, and so I have flipped RSI so that weight is given to stocks with positive momentum.? Positive momentum tends to generate positive returns, because people are conservative in their estimates.? Buying momentum makes sense except when many are doing it.? After things have been running hot for a while, I would drop the metric.

What helps me go where others will not are my industry models.? One of my core beliefs is that industries are under-analyzed.? Also, Industry behavior is more basic to the market than size and value/growth distinctions.? If I analyze industries that are out of favor, and buy financially strong names in those industries, it is difficult to go wrong.

When I look at anomalies, I look for things where retail and professional investors tend to err.? Those are places where human nature tends to encourage people to make wrong decisions.? People like to play controversial stocks — they tend to be overvalued.? People like to play well-known stocks.? They are overvalued as well.? Momentum?? The market as a whole is slow to react to new data.

I don’t aim for metrics with small followings.? I aim for things that have worked over time.? Before the calculation of the metrics, my industry models toss in a number of out-of-favor names.? After the calculation of the metrics, I look at earnings quality, frequency of beating estimates, a more detailed look at the balance sheet, etc.

I view my non-fundamental variables as measures that complement the valuation side of the analysis.? (Valuation is most important, but it is not everything.)? They help in avoiding value traps (net operating accruals), and point at stocks that other investors are ignoring.? They aren’t perfect, and if they were perfect, I am sure that I don’t use them perfectly.? The object is to tilt the odds in my favor of having a successful investment.? That is what my screening methods (rule 8 ) intend to do, as well as the rest of my eight rules.

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

This article was posted at The Big Picture this morning as I was guest-blogging for Barry.? That’s a first for me, and there is no better site to do it at.? I present the article here for those that did not see it at The Big Picture.

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

This piece completes a series that I started RealMoney, and continued at my blog.? For those with access to RealMoney, I did an article called The Fundamentals of Market Tops, where I concluded in early 2004 that we weren?t at a top yet.? For those without access, Barry Ritholtz put a large portion of it at his blog.? I then wrote another piece at RM applying the framework to residential housing in mid-2005, and I came to a different conclusion: yes, residential real estate [RRE] was near its top.? Recently, I posted a piece a number of readers asked me to write: The Fundamentals of Market Bottoms, where I concluded we weren?t yet at a bottom for the equity markets.

This piece completes the series for now, and asks whether we are at the bottom for RRE prices. If not, when, and how much more pain?

Before I start this piece, I have to deal with the issue of why RRE market tops and bottoms are different.? The signals for a bottom are not automatically the inverse of those for a top. Tops and bottoms for RRE are different primarily because of debt investors.? At market tops, typically credit spreads are tight, but they have been tight for several years, while seemingly cheap leverage builds up.? There is a sense of invincibility for the RRE market, and the financing markets reflect that. Bottoms are more jagged, with debt financing expensive to non-existent.

As a friend of mine once said, ?To make a stock go to zero, it has to have a significant slug of debt.?? The same is true of RRE and that is what differentiates tops from bottoms.? At tops, no one cares about the level of debt or financing terms.? The rare insolvencies that happen then are often due to fraud.? But at bottoms, the only thing that investors care about is the level of debt or financing terms.

Why Do RRE Defaults Happen?

It costs money to sell a home ? around 5-10% of the sales price. In a RRE bear market, those costs fall entirely on the seller. That?s why economic incentives for the owners of RRE decline once their equity on a mark-to-market basis declines below that threshold. They no longer have equity so much as an option on the equity of the home, should they continue to pay on their mortgage and prices rise.

As RRE prices have fallen, a larger percentage of the housing stock has fallen below the 10% equity threshold. Near the peak in October 2005, maybe 5% of all houses were below the threshold. Recently, I estimated that that figure was closer to 12%. It may go as high as 20% by the time we reach bottom.

Defaults occur in RRE when there would be negative equity in a sale, and a negative life event occurs:

  • Unemployment
  • Death
  • Disability
  • Disaster
  • Divorce
  • Large mortgage payment rise from a reset or a recast

The negative life events, which, aside from changes in mortgage payments, can?t be expected, cause the borrower to give up and default. During a RRE bear market, most people in a negative equity on sale position don?t have a lot of extra assets to fall back on, so anything that interrupts the normal flow of income raises the odds of default. So long as there are a large number of homes in a negative equity on sale position, a certain percentage will keep sliding into foreclosure when negative life events hit. For any individual, it is random, but for the US as a whole, a predictable flow of foreclosures occur.

Examining Economic Actors as We near the Bottom

Starting at the bottom of the housing ?food chain,? I?m going to consider how various parties act as we get near the RRE price bottom. At the bottom, typically Federal Reserve policy is loose, and the yield curve is very steep. Financial companies, if they are in good shape, can profit from lending against their inexpensive deposit bases.

This presumes that the remaining banks are in good shape, with adequate capacity to lend. That?s not true at present. Regulation has moved into triage mode, where the regulators divide the institutions into healthy, questionable, and dead. The bottom typically is not reached until the number of questionable institutions starts to shrink. Right now that figure is growing for banks, thrifts, and credit unions.

The Fed?s monetary policy can only stimulate the healthy institutions. Over time, many of the questionable will slow growth, and build up enough free assets to write off bad debts. Those free assets will come through capital raises and modest profitability. Others will fail, and their assets will be taken over by stronger institutions, and losses realized by the FDIC, etc. The FDIC, and other insurance funds, will have their own balancing act, as they will need to raise premiums, but not so much that it harms borderline institutions.

Another tricky issue is the Treasury-Eurodollar [TED] Spread. Near the bottom, there should be significant uncertainty about the banking system, and the willingness of banks to lend to each other. Spreads on corporate and trust preferreds should be relatively high as well. Past the bottom, all of these spreads should be rallying for surviving institutions.

Financing for purchasing a house in a RRE bear market is expensive to nonexistent, but the underwriting is strong. At the bottom, volumes increase as enough buyers have built up sufficient earning power and savings to put a decent amount down, and be able to comfortably finance the balance at the new reduced housing prices, even with relatively high mortgage rates relative to where the government borrows.

Many other players in RRE financing will find themselves stretched, and some will be broken. Consider these players:

1) Home equity lenders will be greatly reduced, and won?t return in size until well after the bottom is passed.

2) Many unregulated and liberally regulated lenders are out of business. The virtue of a strong balance sheet and a deposit franchise speaks for itself.

3) Buyers of subordinated RMBS have been destroyed; same for many leveraged players in ?high quality? paper. Don?t even mention subprime; that game is over, and may even be turning up now as vultures pick through the rubble. This has implications for MBIA, Ambac, and other financial guarantors, since they guaranteed similar business. How big will their losses be?

4) Mortgage insurers are impaired. In earlier RRE bear markets, that meant earnings went negative for a while. In this case, one has failed, and some more might fail as well.

5) Do the GSEs continue to exist in their present form? That question never came up in prior bear markets, but it will have to be answered before the bottom comes. Will the FHLB take losses from their mortgage holdings? Will it be severe enough that it affects their creditworthiness? I doubt it, but anything is possible in this down cycle, and the FHLBs have absorbed a lot of RRE mortgage financing.

6) Securitization gets done limitedly, if at all. This is already true for non-GSE-insured loans; the question is how much Fannie and Freddie will do. My suspicion is near the bottom, as loan volumes increase, banks will be looking for ways to move mortgages off of their balance sheets, and securitization should increase.

7) The losses have to go somewhere, which brings up one more player, the US Government. Through the institutions the US sponsors, and through whatever m?lange of programs the US uses to directly bail out financially broken individuals and institutions, a lot of the pain will get directed back to taxpayers, and, those who lend to the US government in its own currency. It is possible that foreign lenders to the US may rebel at some point, but if the OPEC nations in the Middle East or China haven?t blinked by now, I?m not sure what level of current account deficit would make them change their policy.

That said, the recent housing bill wasn?t that amazing. Look for the US Government to try again after the election.

A Few More Economic Actors to Consider

Now let?s consider the likely actions of parties that are closer to the building and buying of houses.

1) Toward the bottom, or shortly after that, we should see an increase in speculative buying from investors. These will be smarter speculators than the ones buying in 2005; they will not only not rely on capital gains in order to survive, but they require a risk premium. Renting the property will have to generate a very attractive return in order to get to buy the properties.

2) Renters will be doing the same math and will begin buying in volume when they can finance it prudently, and save money over renting.

3) At the bottom, only the best realtors are left. It?s no longer a seemingly ?easy money? profession.

4) At the bottom, only the best builders survive, and typically they trade for 50-125% of their written-down book value. Leverage declines significantly. Land gets written down. JVs get rationalized. Fewer homes get built, so that inventories of unsold homes finally decline.

As for current homeowners, the mortgage resets and recasts have to be past the peak at the bottom, with the end in sight. (In my piece on real estate market tops, I suggested that after the bubble popped ?Short rates would have to rally significantly to bail these borrowers out. We would need the fed funds target at around 2%.? Well, we are there, but I didn?t expect the TED spread to be so high.)

5) Defaults begin burning out, because the number of the number of properties in a negative equity on sale position begins to decline.

6) Places that had the biggest booms have the biggest busts, even if open property is scarce. Remember, a piece of land is not priceless, but is only worth the subjective present value of future services that can be derived from the land to the marginal buyer. When the marginal buyers are nonexistent, and lenders are skittish, prices can fall a long way, even in supply-constrained markets.

For a parallel, consider pricing in the art market. Many pieces of art are priceless, but the market as a whole tends to follow the liquidity of the rich marginal art buyer. When liquidity is scarce, prices tend to fall, though it is often masked by a lack of trading in an illiquid market.

When financing expands dramatically in any sector, there is a tendency for the assets being financed to appreciate in value in the short run. This was true of the Nasdaq in the late ’90s, commercial real estate in the mid-to-late 1980s, lesser-developed-country lending in the late ’70s, etc. Financing injects liquidity, and liquidity creates confidence in the short run, which can become self-reinforcing, until the cash flows can?t support the assets in question, and then the markets become self-reinforcing on the downside, as buying power collapses.

The Bottom Is Coming, But I Wouldn?t Get Too Happy Yet

There are reasons to think that we are at or near the bottom now:

But I don?t think we are there yet, and here is why:

My best guess is that we are two years away from a bottom in RRE prices, and that prices will have to fall around 10-20% from here in order to restore more normal price levels versus rents, incomes, long term price trends, etc. Hey, it could be worse, Fitch is projecting a 25% decline.

Not all of the indicators that I put forth have to appear for there to be a market bottom. A preponderance of them appearing would make me consider the possibility, and that is not the case now.

Some of my indicators are vague and require subjective judgment. But they?re better than nothing, and keep me in the game today. Avoiding the banks, homebuilders, and many related companies has helped my performance over the last three years. I hope that I ? and you ? can do well once the bottom nears. There will be bargains to be had in housing-related and financial stocks.

Full disclosure: no positions in companies mentioned

Accounting for Quality: the Quality of Accounting

Accounting for Quality: the Quality of Accounting

Accounting is esoteric.? :(? I say this as one who has never taken an accounting course in his life, but has written papers on accounting standards, and has had to implement them in the life insurance industry, which is possibly the industry with the most complex accounting of any industry.? (Okay, if we did the investment banks properly, they would be more complex.)

My post is prompted by Barry’s post.? I have known for a while, and commented here that the SEC is planning on abandoning GAAP for IFRS.? Why are they suggesting this?

  • IFRS is not that much different from GAAP.
  • They want to have every company in the developed world on a similar accounting basis, even if the basis is slightly worse than the existing standards.
  • Then perhaps, foreign companies will once again list their equities in the US.

You can get the same information in different ways from:

The latter two links do not directly address the issue, but they write intelligently about accounting.

This download is big, but it summarizes the differences between FAS and IFRS (in 77 pages).

My short take is this:

  • IFRS is a more liberal accounting standard.? Not by a lot, but significantly.
  • There will be a ton of retraining for accountants in the US, and financial analysts (ouch).
  • Earnings will rise, but P/E multiples will fall.? The intial net effect should be small.
  • Value investors will fare relatively better, as they spend more time on the balance sheet, income statement, and other earnings quality issues.
  • Exchanges in the US might get more foreign listings, if Sarbox were repealed.? Moving to IFRS is not enough.
  • If I were on the SEC, I would not care about global comparability, I would stick with GAAP, and stand alone if necessary, among the nations of the world.? Why move to a less informative, and more rubbery standard?? I don’t see a good reason.

IFRS is more flexible, which means that companies under it are less comparable.? I don’t see the advantage in our moving away from GAAP, which has its problems, but less than IFRS.? When I get the web address to post complaints, I will post it here, and I will be writing the SEC to stop this foolishness.

Investing and Demographics, Redux

Investing and Demographics, Redux

My post last night attracted a number of intelligent comments.? I want to expand on what I said.

1) The Baby Boomers are different that other US generations.? They are less provident, willing to sacrifice the future for the present.? Not only do they save less, but they raid existing savings to fund current needs.? They are also more prone to investment scams.? When will Boomers realize that the amount that they can expect from investments with safety is not much higher than what long Treasuries yield?

2) My comment from last night, “The US is bad off demographically, but most of the rest of the world is worse off.? The US has a problem because it has not been saving, but that is largely because much of the rest of the world is neo-mercantilist, and is subsidizing export industries, and the US buys.” needs more explanation.

  • The US has its birth rate at replacement rate, which is unique among developed nations, and is largely due to the influence of Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals, recent immigrants (legal or not), and homeschoolers.? (Personal observation: even non-religious homeschoolers tend to have more kids on average.)
  • The rest of the world is worse off — China’s demographic problem is huge, but at least they save to compensate for it.? Europe is not quite as bad off, but nothing kills fertility quite so well as peace, moderate prosperity (meaning well-off with two working, not one working) and a decline in religious faith.

3) From a reader:

Can you please reconcile these two seemingly conflicting statements:

“[Boomers] will need to labor longer, and they should do so” and “To the extent that this causes labor shortages, the US will see greater employment prospects for its people”

Sorry that I wrote it that way.? There will be a balancing act that occurs in the economy around 2025 — wealthy Boomers retire, poor Boomers continue work.? The relative size of each cohort will determine what the effect is on the economy as a whole.? Beyond that, there is a third factor, immigration.? The US is more friendly than most places to legal and illegal immigration.? That helps solve our demographic problems, but it insures that my children learn Spanish.? If wages rise too much, immigration (and offshoring) will rise as well.? (It is akin to wealthy retired Boomers saying to their children, “You don’t have to care for us, we’ve found people who will do it more cheaply.”

4) Another reader comment:

Jeremy Siegel (Stocks for the Long Run) offers a pretty thorough and generally optimistic take on the Baby Boomer retirement issue in his latest book “The Future for Investors.” At the risk of oversimplifying a complex analysis, Siegel’s bottom line is that while there are not enough younger generation Americans to absorb the Boomers stock and bond assets at current prices, investors in emerging countries, like China and India, will more than make up for that and will end up buying the Baby Boomer’s paper assets as the Boomers sell them off to fund their retirements. The upshot is that foreigners will end up owning a lot of our companies by the year 2050. A potential snag, says Siegel, is whether America will be willing to let this happen, or will pass laws or adopt polices to discourage the transfer of US assets to foreign countries. This remains to be seen, but he is optimistic. On the other hand, the implications for the typical Baby Boomer’s most important asset, his or her house, is rather dire, because homes can’t be sold as readily? to foreigners, for obvious reasons. Siegel doesn’t provide an answer for the housing market, which is outside the scope of a book on stock investing in any event.

There is the political question around how much US corporations we would allow to be owned by foreigners.? I don’t know where the breaking point is there, but the answer will have an impact on the value of the US dollar.? As for homes, if we slow down the growth of the housing stock, and condemn more of the existing housing stock, we will eventually solve the excess housing problem.? As it is now, we have foreigners speculating on the value of residential US real estate.

5) One final note that I omitted last night.? Medicare is the big issue here, and we will begin to feel it over the next five years.? At least one election in the next decade will have Medicare as its top issue.? The Social Security problem is one-quarter the size of the Medicare problem.? No wonder Bush, Jr. did not try to deal with Medicare, but made the problem worse by adding the drug benefit.

6) I don’t see the emerging markets getting rich enough, fast enough, to do the wealth exchange necessary for the developed world on favorable terms for the developed world.

That’s all for now.? More comments, send them on.

Blog News and Recent Portfolio Moves

Blog News and Recent Portfolio Moves

Three notes on the blog itself.? 1) I will be guest-blogging for one post at another site on Thursday.? Won’t say where, but watch for “The Fundamentals of Real Estate Market Bottoms.”? It will be reposted here Thursday evening.? 2) I can’t paste certain bits of code in my blog because of a WordPress limitation introduced in version 2.5.? As of now, that won’t be remedied until version 2.9, which as far as I can tell, is a huge update, and is at least half a year off.? 3) I have not left RealMoney, though I have not posted there in a while.? I started this blog so that I would have a site with my own distinct voice, and so that I could have greater creative freedom to write about things dearer to me that I felt would not fit the RM audience.? Also, I felt that I had run out of articles to write, simply because I held myself to a higher standard, and didn’t want to write articles just for the sake of putting something into print.? RM readers deserve better.? I will come back to posting at RM, I just don’t know when, amid my current busy-ness.

I last mentioned portfolio moves a little more than a month ago.? Here are my moves since then:

Rebalancing Buys:

  • Ensco International
  • Nam Tai Electronics
  • Cemex
  • Assurant
  • Industrias Bachoco
  • Charlotte Russe
  • Valero
  • Cimarex

Rebalancing Sells:

  • Universal American
  • OfficeMax
  • International Rectifier
  • Jones Apparel
  • Smithfield Foods
  • Group 1 Automotive
  • Shoe Carnival

For a six-week period, that ‘s a decent number of trades, at least for me.? My methods are designed to try to not trade frequently, but to trade to minimize risk and maximize return in a majority of situations.? For those not familiar with my rebalancing trades, I keep a fixed set of target weights in a largely equally-weighted portfolio.? When a security gets more than 20% away from its target weight, I buy (after review) to bring it back to target weight, or sell to bring it back to target weight (take some money off the table).

There have been three other actions during this time. 1) National Atlantic’s merger went through.? A loss for me, but I ain’t missing them at all.? 2) After the buyback announcement, I traded my holdings in Anadarko for holdings in Devon Energy.? I like the valuation, and the Natural Gas exposure better at Devon.? 3) I tendered all my MetLife shares for shares in RGA.? I like RGA a lot here and am willing to make it a double-weight in my portfolio. In the current tender offer, I should get approximately 10% more value in RGA shares for my MetLife shares, subject to a number of conditions listed in the prospectus.? Also, RGA is a unique company that makes its profit mainly from mortality, which is not correlated with other financials.? It is a well-run company, and deserves to be valued at a significant premium to book value.

Full disclosure: long RGA MET DVN SCVL GPI SFD JNY IRF OMX UAM XEC VLO CHIC AIZ IBA CX NTE ESV

The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind…

The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind…

Gusty Hurricane Gustav

That said, my question is: do I buy the property reinsurers here?? My initial guess is yes, because it has been a weak hurricane season so far, and the beginning and end of the seasons tend to be correlated.? But, it is too early to take action.? What I am more likely to do is wait until my next reshaping at the end of September, and make some shifts then.? Perhaps Gustav and some other hurricanes will prove my thesis wrong by then.

So, how are valuations for the reinsurers?? Cheap, but pricing is weak, because capital is plentiful.

Source: Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg
Source: Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg

If I were looking to move tomorrow, I would consider IPC, Flagstone, and Validus among the “pure play” property reinsurers. Among the diversified players, I would consider PartnerRe, Endurance, Allied World, and Aspen. Note that the book value of PartnerRe is understated because they don’t discount their loss reserves. For conservative players, PartnerRe is compelling because of their strong balance sheet, very diversified book of business, and strong management. PartnerRe, Endurance, Flagstone, IPC and Allied World score some extra points in my book because of their conservative cultures.

I’m not doing this trade tomorrow, but with good weather, and continued pessimism over financials, this trade could look very good near the end of September.

Full disclosure: no positions

Finance When You Can, Not When You Have To

Finance When You Can, Not When You Have To

“Get financing when you can, not when you have to.”? Warren Buffett said something like that, and it is true.? My biggest early investment loss was Caldor, which Michael Price lost a cool billion on.? A retailer that could not hold up to Wal-Mart, Target, and Sears, Caldor expanded in the early 90s by scrimping on working capital.? Eventually a cash shortfall hit, and their Investor Relations guy said something to the effect of, “We have no financing problems at all!”? The vehemence cause the factors that financed their investory to blink, and they pulled their financing, sending Caldor into bankruptcy, and eventually, liquidation.

Caldor had two opportunities to avoid the crisis.? It could have merged with Bradlees and recapitalized, leaving it stronger in the Northeastern US.? It also could have done a junk bond issue, which was pitched to them eight months before the crisis, but they didn’t do it.? In the first case, the deal terms weren’t favorable enough.? In the second case, they thought they could finance expansion on the cheap.

Caldor is forgotten, but the lessons are forgotten today as well.? Today, overleveraged financial companies wish they had raised equity or long-term debt one year ago, when the markets were relatively friendly and P/Es were higher, and credit spreads were lower.

I know I am unusual in my dislike for leverage in companies, but on average less levered companies do better than those with more debt.? Caldor went out with a zero for the equity.? A few zeroes can really mess up performance.

Capital flexibility has real value to good management teams.? I don’t mind exess cash hanging out on the balance sheets of good firms.? Hang onto some of it, and maybe during a crisis you can buy a competitor at a bargain price.

But for the financials today, who has the wherewithal to be a consolidator?? Most of the industry played their capital to the limit, and are now paying the price.? Either the door is shut for new capital, or they are paying through the nose.

I don’t see anyone large who fits that bill of being a consolidator.? Maybe some of the large energy companies that have been paying down debt would like to diversify, and buy a bank.? Hey, feeling lucky?!? Lehman Brothers!

Look, I’m being a little whimsical here, but the point remains — run your companies with a provision against adverse deviation.? Be conservative.? For those that invest, avoid companies that play it to the limit, unless you are an investor with enough of a stake that you can control the company.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira