Monday 22 March 2010

How interest rates affect your share portfolio


GREG HOFFMAN
November 5, 2009

    When most people hear the term ''interest rates'', they think of the official cash rate (consciously or otherwise). This rate is set by the Reserve Bank board each month and is important because it impacts the cost of short-term finance, including the rates charged on variable rate mortgages.
    The official cash rate is used as both an economic accelerator and handbrake by the Reserve Bank. When economic conditions turn down, as they have over the past 18 months, lower cash rates stimulate economic activity. When the Reserve Bank board believes things are heating up, it raises rates to slow them down; as it has done at its past two monthly meetings.
    It's important to be aware of the official cash rate but there's another rate that should have as big a bearing on your sharemarket investment decisions as the official cash rate does on your mortgage: the 10-year government bond rate. There are several reasons why this is an important rate.
    Firstly, it's a decent guide to future movements in short term rates. In January, buyers of 10-year government bonds were locking in a return of less than 4% for the coming decade. By June, that figure had risen to 5.8%; to anyone tracking this key measure, recent rises in the official cash rate would have come as no surprise.
    Another reason why the 10-year bond rate is important is that it is typically viewed as an investor's ''opportunity cost''.
    As a long term investor, by buying a 10-year government bond you can currently lock in a return of a little over 5.6% for the coming decade.
    As it essentially involves lending money to the Federal Government, the 10-year bond rate is often referred to as the ''risk free interest rate''.
    So, to take on the considerable risk of investing your money in shares, you need to be confident of an average annual return well in excess of this risk-free rate. In this way the 10-year bond rate exerts a ''gravitational pull'' on sharemarket returns; the higher the bond rate, the less a prospective investor will be inclined to pay for shares.
    That's because our hypothetical investor will demand a higher return from the sharemarket to lure them away from the safety of government bonds. And, using this frame of reference, we can intuit a few things about the relative value between the sharemarket and the bond market.
    Back in January, as the sharemarket was approaching a low point, the 10-year bond rate sank below 4%. This meant the gravitational pull on share prices was very weak by historical standards; bonds weren't offering much return compared with the dividend yields provided by a portfolio of blue chip shares.
    Since January, the equation for share investors has become more treacherous; the 10-year bond rate has surged to 5.6% at the same time as share prices have risen strongly. In other words, 10-year bonds look more attractive than they did in January, while stocks look less so after having already risen by so much.
    Capital growth eyed
    Buying a portfolio of Australia's top blue chip stocks will likely provide a dividend return of less than 3.5% over the coming year. So today's buyer is counting on a decent amount of capital growth to ensure they're ahead of the safe-and-sound government bond investor, at the same time as shares have already delivered remarkable returns from their low point.
    It's not impossible that the sharemarket will rise strongly from here, but it's much less likely to do so than it was back in January. Interestingly, though, while short term rates were nudged up this week by the Reserve Bank, the 10-year bond rate has eased a little over the past fortnight - from 5.8% to 5.65%.
    This has occurred in tandem with the past fortnight's sharemarket hiccup. And if both of these trends continue (lower bond rates and a falling stockmarket), then the equation for sharemarket investors will improve once more.
    Our analysts would rarely let broad financial or economic factors stop them buying a good share at a sensible price.
    But it's all part of the backdrop we consider when going about our daily search for sharemarket bargains and provides some useful food for thought.

    The Packer factor in investing


    GREG HOFFMAN
    March 3, 2010
      I’d spent 10 years flitting from one investing approach to another, including stints drawing fancy charts - by hand, no less - and “momentum investing”. That all changed when I picked up Buffett: The making of an American capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein, 14 years ago. It still retains top billing on The Intelligent Investor’s recommended reading list.
      Lowenstein weaves the value investing philosophy deep into the fabric of this eminently readable biography of (arguably) the world’s greatest investor. By its end, I was hooked.
      Value investing made inherent sense to me and Warren Buffett’s investing career, along with other successful value investors mentioned in the book, provided proof of its efficacy.
      Only one Bond
      In my teenage years I’d spend many hours studying the BRW Rich List. Chartists, or “technical analysts” as they are sometimes known, never featured on it. But many fortunes were built with a value-based approach.
      Kerry Packer was a great example. People talk about his “good timing” but it was more a function of buying something when it’s cheap and selling it when it’s not. Despite his emotional investment in the Nine network he was famously willing to sell to Alan Bond for $1.055 billion, of which $200 million was in the form of preference shares in Bond Media.
      Bond combined the Sydney and Melbourne stations he bought from Packer with his Brisbane and Perth television stations, and other radio licences, and floated the lot just before the 1987 sharemarket crash.
      After, Bond companies were sitting on total debts of about $US10 billion, including the $200 million owed to Packer. Bond was unable to pay and Packer took back the Sydney and Melbourne stations plus the Brisbane station in exchange for the preference shares.
      In the wash-up, Packer netted $855 million in cash and got the Brisbane station for free. As he said after the sale in 1987, “you only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime, and I’ve had mine”. It was a classic value play.
      Somewhat less famously, in 1986 Packer bought Valassis, the largest American publisher of advertising inserts for magazines. It was an unloved company struggling against competition from Rupert Murdoch, among others. His private companies made the purchase so it’s difficult to ascertain an accurate price but the oft-quoted figure is $US365 million.
      He set about cutting costs and restoring profitability before selling 51 per cent in a 1992 public float for $US375 million and the remaining 49 per cent in 1997 for $US500 million. Including dividends it’s probable that Packer made almost $1 billion from Valassis, although some put the profit as high as $2 billion.
      Gambling on Crown
      In late 1996, Crown Casino moved from its temporary Galleria site to its present location at Southbank in Melbourne. Building the casino was a long and expensive process so a separately listed company was set up to make the investment.
      The two largest shareholders were Packer’s Consolidated Press and his mate Lloyd Williams’s development company, Hudson Conway. Trading at the temporary site was not strong enough to cover the costs of development and financing, so the company reported losses until well after the Southbank complex was established.
      The 1998 financial year was the first full year of operation at the Southbank site. Sales were up 51 per cent to $977 million, cash flows were $102 million, but a net loss of $350 million was reported including asset write-downs, interest and depreciation. With net debt of $900 million and large headline losses, the share price was languishing.
      Packer took advantage of the pessimism with a takeover offer using a combination of cash and shares in his listed vehicle, PBL. With an outlay of about $1.7 billion, he gained control of one of the world’s largest casinos and PBL went on to make billions out of this transaction as the value of the casino soared.
      Packer, like Buffett, had a temperament suited to buying when the price of an asset was depressed, whether because of a short-term issue or because of depressed markets in general. That’s an approach we’d all do well to cultivate. 
      Reading Roger Lowenstein’s excellent biography of Warren Buffett may well give you a push in the right direction. It certainly did for me.

      William Cheng buys 33.5m Lion Industries shares

      William Cheng buys 33.5m Lion Industries shares


      Written by Joseph Chin
      Monday, 22 March 2010 19:36

      KUALA LUMPUR: Tan Sri William Cheng acquired 33.5 million shares of Lion Industries Corp Bhd at the exercise price of RM1.29 per share from Megasteel Sdn Bhd.

      Lion Industries said on Monday, March 22 the acquisition of the shares was the remaining stake he was to acquire from Megasteel under a put option of 51 million shares.

      He had on Dec 23, 2009 acquired 17.5 million shares also at RM1.29.

      Under the terms of the proposed disposal, Cheng was required to complete the acquisition of 51 million shares, representing 50% of the 102 million shares under the put option, by March 31.

      http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/business-news/162060-william-cheng-buys-335m-lion-industries-shares.html

      Comment: Maybe a reason why Mr. Cheng has been selling so many shares in Parkson.

      Billions pour into wind farms


      March 22, 2010 - 3:07PM
        Blow by blow...sheep graze near China's Dabancheng Wind Power Plant. Chinese investment in green power is growing.
        Blow by blow...sheep graze near China's Dabancheng Wind Power Plant. Chinese investment in green power is growing. Photo: Reuters
        China WindPower Group, Iberdrola and Duke Energy will lead development of an estimated $US65 billion ($71 billion) of wind-power plants this year that let utilities reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
        The estimate from Bloomberg New Energy Finance assumes a 9 per cent increase in global installations of wind turbines this year, adding as much as 41 gigawatts of generation capacity. That's the equivalent of 34 new nuclear power stations.
        Utilities that built natural gas-fired generators during the last decade are increasingly erecting turbines and buying wind power from competitors, tapping a renewable-energy source as governments consider ways to penalize carbon-based fuels.
        ``Wind development is moving fast,'' James Rogers, chairman of Duke, which owns utilities in the US Southeast and Midwest, said in London. 

        Housing at these prices will leave us all a heavy debt to bear


        March 23, 2010

          Average buyers can't compete with rich, tax-subsidised investors.
          SYDNEY'S Sunday Telegraph was breathless with joy. ''IT'LL BE WORTH DOUBLE'', its headline screamed. ''Sydney is on the verge of becoming a city of suburban property millionaires as house prices soar,'' it frothed, ''in many cases, doubling in value over the next 10 years.''
          In Perth, The Sunday Times was euphoric over similar predictions there. Here the Sunday Herald Sun was more restrained, but its figures showed a similar result. Even in Keilor, Reservoir and Upwey, median house prices in 2020 were forecast to reach $1.1 million.
          If that proves right - and these are just forecasts, done by Australian Property Monitors for the Murdoch tabloids, apparently assuming that past price trends continue for another decade - it would put home ownership out of reach for millions of younger and lower-income Australians. It would complete our transformation from a nation of home owners to one of landlords and tenants.
          But it won't happen. Melbourne house prices have trebled since 1997, not because our incomes trebled, but because we paid those prices by a massive increase in debt. In the 20 years to January 2010, household debt to the banks grew 10 times over, from $118 billion to $1224 billion. As a share of our disposable income, they more than trebled, from 45 per cent of what we earn to 156 per cent.
          If we want house prices to keep growing at that pace, we'll have to keep going deeper into debt at that pace - to more than $4 trillion by 2020, or more than three times our income. Any volunteers?
          Yes, house prices are now soaring at double-digit rates. Agents report 87 per cent auction clearance rates, with many properties sold well above their reserve price.
          But those projections are duds. We won't take on debt like that again. As I pointed out last week, it is an illusion to think that rising house prices increase our net wealth. For we buy in the same market that we sell in. Rising house prices mean we get more when we sell - but we pay more when we buy.
          If you are an aspiring first home buyer, rising house prices raise the bar and put home ownership out of reach. If you are upgrading to a better home, rising house prices widen the gap between what you get and what you pay. The only people who benefit from rising house prices are people downgrading to a smaller home - and investors.
          From 1995 to 2007, the Bureau of Statistics reports, home ownership among people aged 25 to 34 shrank from 52 per cent to 43 per cent. Among people aged 35 to 44, it shrank from 73 per cent to 65 per cent.
          Flinders University academics Joe Flood and Emma Baker have examined these trends from census data. Between 1986 and 2006, they report, home ownership in Melbourne among people aged 25 to 44 on middle incomes fell from 68 per cent to 57 per cent. In Sydney, the fall was even steeper: from 60 per cent to 45 per cent.
          House prices have soared because of a widening gap between supply and demand. The supply of new homes has barely grown in 40 years, averaging 154,500 over the '00s. Yet demand has soared, for two reasons. Population growth has doubled, to almost 500,000 a year. And 40 per cent of lending to people buying established homes now goes to investors.
          It wasn't always like that. Before Labor restored the tax break for negative gearing in 1987, investors took only 8 per cent of lending for established homes. Most of their borrowing was to build new homes, such as apartment blocks. And most landlords made a profit from renting.
          But not now. Tax Office figures show 1.1 million Australians declared negatively geared property investments in 2006-07. They claimed total losses of more than $10 billion, which probably cut their tax bills by about $4 billion. In effect, that $4 billion then falls on other taxpayers.
          What's the point of running a rental business that loses money? Because your losses - assuming they're real - are more than offset by the capital gain when you sell the property. And thanks to John Howard, you pay only half as much tax on capital gains as you pay on the income you earn from working.
          Few countries offer housing investors such a generous tax deal. In most, you can write off your losses against rental income, but not against income from other sources. That's what we need to do here, where the scale of negative gearing is now so massive that housing cannot become affordable to young and low-income buyers competing with so many richer, tax-subsided investors.
          Consider this: in the 13 years to 2006-07, landlords as a group went from declaring net profits of $399 million to net losses of $6.4 billion. Those reporting profits grew by 36,000. Those reporting losses grew by 594,000.
          The problem is not landlords: I've been one myself, and they will always have a vital role in supplying housing for those who lack the means to buy.
          The problem is our tax laws, which have overturned the proper balance between home owners and investors and have led 1.1 million people to become landlords who make losses in order to reap the tax gains. That flood of investors has upended the balance between supply and demand, driving up prices and denying millions the chance to own their own homes.
          You can see why the politicians don't want to touch it. But because it is so large, we can't make housing affordable until they do.
          Tim Colebatch is economics editor.

          Source: The Age

          Stern Hu pleads guilty to bribery charge: lawyer


          March 22, 2010 - 5:00PM
            Stern Hu... charged.
            Stern Hu... charged.
            Australian Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu, who has been detained for almost nine months in China, pleaded guilty today to charges of bribery in a Shanghai court, a lawyer involved in the case said.
            Hu and three Chinese employees of Rio were accused of taking bribes and violating commercial secrets.
            Hu was accused of receiving bribes of about 6 million yuan ($962,000), said lawyer Tao Wuping, who represents Liu Caikui, one of the Rio employees charged.
            Liu faced bribery charges involving about 3.7 million yuan, Tao said after the morning hearing in Shanghai. 
            The highly sensitive trial of the four Rio staff members has strained ties with Canberra and stoked concerns about doing business in China

            Keep investing in your own knowledge bank

            Warren Buffett has said that he doesn't know any highly intelligent people who aren't voracious readers. It's unlikely you'll develop a great long-term track record without also investing in your own knowledge bank. These recommendations set you up to make a healthy deposit.

            Primary patience tested over Bateman's millions


            GREG HOFFMAN
            March 10, 2010

              Primary Health Care owns the nation's second-largest pathology business and a growing collection of medical centres. These should be good businesses, enjoying the twin tailwinds of an ageing population and growing healthcare expenditure.
              Yet Primary, when we first analysed it in detail in early May last year, failed to pass muster on two important points. First, it had an uncomfortably high debt level - $1.5bn, in fact. Second, our analysis revealed several aggressive accounting treatments; nothing illegal, just things that could have been couched more conservatively.
              But another more alarming red flag was about to surface.
              In early May the company undertook a large share placement of $315 million. Another occurred in September, infusing an additional $180 million of much-needed cash into the company. Both raisings helped reduce Primary's debt, which was fine as far as it went.
              Until I read the second page of September's two-page announcement, that is. It revealed that Primary's founder and managing director, Dr Edmund Bateman, “intends to sell down approximately 11.6 million shares ... in conjunction with the placement.”
              Bateman took more than $70 million off the table (the final placement price was $6.08 per share) - about 30% of his stake in the company. The timing proved fortuitous.
              Profit shock
              On 16 February, less than six months after the share sale at $6.08, Primary reported a half-year profit that fell well short of investor expectations. Primary's share price is now languishing close to $4.
              There's nothing necessarily wrong with sales such as Bateman's. Occasionally we get lucky, at other times less so. As with John Gay at Gunns, Bateman may have had his own reasons for cutting his stake. Given subsequent events, though, shareholders could be forgiven for feeling apprehensive about his behaviour.
              At the November annual meeting, Bateman revealed some disturbing news from the September quarter (bear in mind his share sale was announced on 15 September, towards the end of that period).
              “Reduction in the rate of GP bulk billing throughout Australia has already started to occur with a >1% reduction in the September 2009 quarter (the greatest fall in 6 years)”, the announcement said.
              Could Bateman have known about this at the time of the share sale? And if not, why not? Bateman is managing director after all.
              November a key month
              It then eventuated that, following Primary's introduction of co-payments, revenue in its key pathology business fell sharply in November.
              This was the month of the annual meeting and about six weeks after Bateman's share sale.
              Primary's 6,750 shareholders didn't find this out until February 16 when the official results were released. Cast in this light, shareholders could be forgiven for thinking twice about the timing of Bateman's September share sale.
              There are two immediate questions. Firstly, when did Bateman find out that Primary's profit performance was declining markedly? And secondly, if it wasn't until just before shareholders were told mid-last month, three months after the business started to suffer, why did it take so long?
              If this isn't a regulatory issue, then surely it must be a managerial one. Either way, it appears that Primary shareholders have an issue to grapple with.
              This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).
              Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investorwhich provides independent advice to sharemarket investors.

              What to do when insiders sell


              GREG HOFFMAN
              March 22, 2010 - 1:19PM

                CSL's McNamee sells down. Should you?
                Last week, CSL chief Brian McNamee announced the sale of $8.4 million worth of his shares in the company, amounting to about one sixth of his total holding. There is no doubt that this is a significant sale. How CSL shareholders interpret its significance is less certain.
                At times I have regretted not following the insiders' moves after holding on to my stock. Equally, there have been occasions where the share price has surged after sales like McNamee's. There is simply no clear-cut rule to follow when an insider in a stock you own disposes of a large parcel of shares.
                But there are two key questions to ask when considering such sales, the answers to which might provide some guidance for you:
                1. Is the stock expensive?
                In January 2008 The Intelligent Investor published an analysis of then-darling stock Reverse Corp (which offers the 1800-REVERSE service). Our analyst noted the combination of an expensive-looking stock price and sales by founder and executive director Richard Bell. We suggested investors steer clear and shareholders follow Bell's lead. The stock price is now down 95%. But how does CSL fare on this score?
                Coincidentally, the same analyst who pulled apart Reverse Corp also covers CSL for The Intelligent Investor. Almost two years to the day after issuing his negative view of Reverse Corp, he recommended CSL to our members at $31.30 per share.
                That price, Nathan Bell explained, was ''reasonable for such a high quality business''. Even though CSL shares have risen by 15% since January, we don't believe the overpriced condition applies in this case.
                2. Is this a series of sales by the same director or, more importantly, sales by multiple directors?
                Between October and December 2007 we noted nine sales by six individual directors of Roc Oil, at prices between $2.95 and $3.43. The share price today stands at 36 cents.
                In CSL's case, the previous director sale came from Ian Renard in August last year. To find the next most recent sale, you have to go back to McNamee's previous sale in April 2007.
                To me, this record is clean enough. McNamee is not a serial seller (at least, not yet) and nor are his fellow directors.
                When looked at in this light, McNamee's sale shouldn't send waves of panic through CSL's share register.
                But insider sales should always be taken seriously, even if they don't necessarily prompt a sale in your own portfolio. Director sales are not always a bad sign but they're never a good one. To wit, if you've had your CSL shares in the bottom drawer for a few years, it may be time to move them a little closer to hand and follow the story a little more carefully.  
                If you're interested in following share purchases and sales, the free site Directors' Transactions (run by The Intelligent Investor) is designed to help you do exactly that.


                Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investorwhich provides independent advice to sharemarket investors