Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Exodus as investors see no equity in equities (Australia)


Exodus as investors see no equity in equities
Gareth Hutchens
December 20, 2011


 <p></p>
INVESTORS continue to pull their money out of the stockmarket at record rates, ploughing their savings into term deposits in an attempt to escape the turmoil on global markets.

Australian term deposits have swelled by $276 billion since July 2007, growing at an annualised rate of 22.3 per cent.
The local equity market, which was worth $1.4 trillion in mid-2007, lost about $243 billion over the same period. It is now worth about $1.157 trillion.
 (1 trillion = 1 million x 1 million)

Squirrel
Saving for winter: There has been an 'almighty switch' from equities to term deposits.
Charlie Aitken, managing director at Bell Potter Securities, said there has been an ''almighty switch'' from equities to term deposits.

''It appears Australians approaching retirement simply want out of any form of ''volatile'' asset class, even if that means accepting diminishing unfranked yields in the term deposit market,'' Mr Aitken said. ''Cash rates falling sharply in the form of term deposit rates hasn't slowed the capital flow into those unfranked term deposits.''

At the peak of the market in July 2007, the term deposit market was worth $207 billion. That figure has since grown to $438 billion.

Meanwhile, the return on the local equity market declined by 4.4 per cent a year over the same period.

''We all know it, but it's got to the point now where equity yield, when you include the franking credits, commands a record premium in my lifetime to unfranked one-year term deposit rates,'' he added.

Mark Todd, a director at FIIG Securities, said investors were less likely to believe claims that there was value in equity markets. ''Investors wants less volatility and consistent returns,'' he said.

''We're seeing real growth in term deposits and fixed-income assets as people get more familiar with the concept of credit … We've seen this since the global financial crisis, when people took long-term views in the middle of the crisis. The rates they could get from the banks were good so they took two and three-year term deposits. This is just an evolution of that experience. They're familiar with consistent returns.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/money/investing/exodus-as-investors-see-no-equity-in-equities-20111220-1p3ec.html#ixzz1h4fbVcEf

Monday, 19 December 2011

VALUE STOCKS IN A WEAK MARKET

In the face of so much blood, why are investors not looking for value shares?  One could argue that market psychology drives the fear of more blood yet to come.  Timid investors wait for the bottom.  Value investors look for opportunities and jump in with an eye towards minimising losses.


----


Value investing takes many different forms, but all approaches aim to achieve the same objective - buying something for less than it is worth.


Value Stocks In A Weak Market

By Bob Kohut  19.12.2011
You’ve heard this investing maxim near and dear to the hearts and minds of value investors everywhere – The Time to Buy is when there is blood in the streets.  British Banker Baron Rothschild supposedly made this observation after making a fortune buying in the midst of the panic preceding the Battle of Waterloo.
Today there is certainly blood in the streets, yet trading volumes in share markets everywhere are dwindling as buyers are not stepping in and following Rothschild’s advice.  Just how much blood is enough?
Here is a brief overview of the some recent bloody events:
    The HSBC flash Chinese PMI (Purchasing Manager Index) for November was 48 – the lowest in 32 months.  The October PMI was 51. Values below 50 indicate contraction in the manufacturing sector.
•    The HSBC Flash China Manufacturing Output Index also hit a 32 month low at 46.7, down from 51.4 in October.
•    Share markets in Europe and the US collapsed as investors learned the catastrophic results of a German government bond auction. 
•    The United States may be headed for another credit downgrade as lawmakers failed to reach agreement on a long term deficit reduction plan.  There is already legislation in preparation to reverse some of the automatic cuts to the defense budget agreed on in the August deal.
•    France looks set to be downgraded this week, which will see its coveted AAA rating.
The inconvenient truth here is there is ample opportunity for more blood to be spilt before this is over.  Australians might take heart that of the three most troublesome areas – China, Europe, and the US – China is still in the best position to continue to deliver economic growth.
The unexpected drop in the HSBC indicators is troubling.  As you know, readings below 50 indicate contraction in economic activity.  The world has been expecting a slowdown in the expansion in China, not a contraction. 
However, other numbers provide a measure of comfort.  The Chinese government has been implementing policies to slow growth to help control what they see as a bigger problem – inflation.  In July of this year inflation reached a three year high of 6.5% but figures released in November show annual inflation fell to 5.5%.  This gives the government room to go back to policies to stimulate growth.
Europe is a catastrophe.  Germany is the Eurozone’s strongest economy and in a recent auction, bond investors responded to the government’s attempts to sell 6 billion Euros in ten year notes with a resounding yawn.  Only 60% of bonds up for auction were sold. It's tough to see a way out in the near future with France set to be downgraded, UK unemployment at a 17-year high, and Spanish house prices tumbling for the 14th consecutive quarter while unemployment soared to 23%.  
Perhaps the greatest concern is the possibility of yet another downgrade to the US credit rating.  The rating agencies have warned of this possibility if the US did not come up with a credible long term deficit reduction plan.  Not only did their politicians not do that, there is growing evidence some of the automatic cuts that were to take place in the event of a failure to reach agreement on a broader plan may be scaled back.  With the concern over China’s contraction and the Eurozone debt crisis, this US threat is still under the radar of many investors.
In the face of so much blood, why are investors not looking for value shares?  One could argue that market psychology drives the fear of more blood yet to come.  Timid investors wait for the bottom.  Value investors look for opportunities and jump in with an eye towards minimising losses.
Value investing takes many different forms, but all approaches aim to achieve the same objective – buying something for less than it is worth.  The difficulty with disciplined value investing is determining the true worth of a company, or its intrinsic value.  Many who consider themselves value investors use some shortcuts, including P/E and P/B ratios, dividend yield, ROE, PE/G, and Debt to Equity (Gearing) rather than the more complex discounted cash flow calculations.  
A P/E less than 10 with a P/EG less than .5 would be a potential value share for any value investing methodology.  The P/EG is a ratio popularised by Peter Lynch that expands on the P/E by using estimated future earnings growth in the denominator.  
We searched the ASX for companies with a minimum market cap of 500 million dollars that met those two criteria along with a minimum dividend yield of 2%.  Here are eight value candidates we found:
Company Code P/E P/EG ROE Div Yield Share Price 
Air New ZealandAIZ 7.96 .11 5.4% 9.1% $0.67
Boart Longyear BLY 9.36 .21 8.5% 2.6% $3.03
Emeco Holdings EHL 10.14.46 9.2% 5.7%$1.00 
Fletcher BuildingFBU9.68 .43 9.8% 6.3% $4.61
Henderson Group HGG 8.61.31 20.2% 6.8% $1.59 
Mount Gibson Iron MGX 4.50.11 19.8% 4.9% $1.18
One SteelOST 5.07 .495.3% 10.8% $0.77 
Telecom NZ TEL 11.46.6416.7% 9.7% $1.56

Where do we begin with this mass of numbers?  Some investors forget that each number is a part of a whole and instead gravitate towards their favorite metric.  Dividend yield is a major attraction of value investing as it provides a cushion in difficult markets.  On that measure alone, one might zero in on OST and TEL.
When you look at the whole forest rather than individual trees OST appears to be the most undervalued.  With a P/E of only 4.57 and a book value of $3.77 per share, it is trading at far below its book value with a share price of a meager $.77.
However, we have yet to look at another critical benchmark for value investing – debt.  While always a concern, we are now faced with the possibility of another global credit crunch which will put companies that rely heavily on short term borrowing and excessive long term debt at significant risk.  So let’s take a look at some debt and liquidity measures for our candidate shares:
Quick Ratio Current Ratio Gearing 2011 - (2010) Long Term Debt  ($m) 2011 - (2010) 
AIZ .64 .81 83.4% -- (68.6%) 851.5 - (731.2) 
BLY 1.122.09 23.5% -- (14.5%) 243.5 - (147.7) 
EHL 1.4 2.34 48.8% -- (48.8%) 290.5 - (298.9) 
FBU .92 1.78 54.2% -- (40.3%) 1,442 - (920.5)
HGG .91 1.31 50.5% -- (64.5%) 272 - (325.9) 
MGX.90 3.69 3.9% -- (14.4%) 16.5 - (36.8) 
OST .75 1.89 41.8% -- (23.3%) 1,809 - (715.2) 
TEL .58 .67 90.7% -- (91.2%) 1,312 - (1,736)
   
In better times some value investors might overlook higher debt levels.  Right now that could be a big mistake.  Long term debt is frequently restructured to get better terms.  In the face of a credit freeze, that is not likely to remain a possibility.  High gearing indicates a company is using more of “other people’s money” to operate than its own money.  Liquidity ratios – the quick and the current – represent a company’s ability to convert assets into cash to meet short term liabilities.  Ratios below 1.0 could represent a problem.  If credit availability dries up, liquidity ratios become even more important.
All these indicators must be viewed in the context of the sector in which the company operates.  For example, TEL’s 90.7% gearing seems outrageous until you compare it to Australia’s Telstra, with a gearing ratio of 115.3%.
Another issue with debt and gearing is the trend.  Companies lever up and take on debt for expansion purposes and this is something you need to research.  In our table we showed the year over year difference in gearing and long term debt for each company.  You can see that OST more than doubled its debt and raised it gearing by about 40%.
On other measures, OST seems like it might be a bargain, but the bottom line is they are carrying too much debt.
Now let’s briefly review the other shares and see which ones shake out as potential bargains.
Air New Zealand (AIZ) is the premier air carrier in New Zealand.  Unfortunately, it operates in an industry now dominated by rabid competition and rising fuel costs.  Its debt position is no more than adequate and liquidity ratios under 1.0 could spell trouble.  Compared to some of the other shares in the table, the ROE is nothing to get excited about.  It does have a substantial dividend yield at 9.1%.  Investors interested in AIZ need to check the company’s dividend history and payout ratio.  Remember, yield is based on prior dividends paid with no guarantee of dividends going forward.  In short, there are probably better options.
Boart Longyear (BLY) provides equipment, drilling services, and other consumable products to the mining industry.  As such, they are at risk of a continued drop in commodity prices and a significant slowdown in China which will affect their customers – the miners.  Although their dividend payout ratio is low at 2.8%, dividend payout has been spotty, with no dividend paid for FY2009.  Although they modestly increased debt and gross gearing, they are still low enough to consider their balance sheet as reasonably strong.  BLY is a share that bears watching.
Emeco Holdings (EHL) is another mining services company, specialising in renting heavy earth moving equipment.  They are one of the few companies that actually reduced long term debt year over year although gearing remained the same.  Their 5.7% dividend yield beats most term deposit rates but the most compelling thing about EHL is the share price of $1.02 compared to its book value.  EHL is certainly a candidate for further review.
Fletcher Building (FBU) is a New Zealand based provider of building and construction materials.  Although it has an attractive dividend yield, it has minimal exposure outside New Zealand and Australia.  The company’s dividend payout has been gradually declining since the GFC.  Should the building and construction business deteriorate further, FBU faces significant risk.  There are other shares in our table that appaer to be better candidates.
Henderson Group (HGG) offers investment services in Europe, North America, and Asia.  They are based in London.  This company offers a substantial dividend of 6.8% and a solid ROE of 20%.  Many value investors look for an ROE of 15% minimum to qualify for their consideration.  However, considering the volatility of investment markets and the near certainty (in the opinion of many experts) the volatility will continue, the risks may be too great to look to invest in this company at this time.
Mount Gibson Iron (MGX) is a junior iron ore miner in Western Australia.  Although subject to the same risks from volatile commodity prices and a Chinese slowdown, their numbers are compelling.  The P/E of 4.50 and a P/EG of .11 are substantially better than the sector averages of 11.43 and .53.  An ROE performance of over 19% and a share price very close to book value per share make them a prime bargain bin candidate.  In addition, note they cut their long term debt more than in half and reduced gearing by approximately 70%.  Although the current dividend yield is modest, analysts forecast the dividend to double in FY2012 and FY2013.  MGX deserves a prime spot in the bargain bin.
Telecom NZ (TEL) was once upon a time a state run monopoly offering telecommunication services in New Zealand and parts of Australia.  Although they stand to benefit from the coming broadband explosion, regulatory changes and fierce competition pose significant risks going forward.  Although the dividend yield stands at a stunning 9.7%, dividend payouts have been decreasing over the past few years.  There are better candidates.

Finding value shares is not for the casual investor.  Today more and more investors seem to want someone to “give them a fish”, rather than “learning how to fish.”  Value investing is hard work.  We started with nine shares and boiled down to three – Boart Longyear, Emeco Holdings and Mount Gibson IronDepending on your risk tolerance, you may want to include others.  However, to find real bargains you need to go beyond what we have uncovered here to look deeper into consistency of historical performance of a target share.  The greatest challenge is determining the real or intrinsic value of the company, not just the stated book value per share.  You need to know what goes into the accounting definition of “book.” 


Saturday, 17 December 2011

Shareholders' group calls for company reports to be made shorter

Shareholders' group calls for company reports to be made shorter
The length of companies' annual reports should be be made far shorter and their structure fundamentally changed, according to the Association of Investment Companies (AIC).


Shareholders' group calls for company reports to be made shorter
FTSE 350 companies' annual reports and accounts average 135 pages, the AIC says. Photo: AFP
The investment trust industry's trade body wants to see annual reports split into two parts: a strategic report no longer than 12 pages and a comprehensive supplementary report, which would be available online.
This change would produce "higher-quality, user-friendly reports which better meet the needs of shareholders", according to the AIC.
With FTSE 350 companies annual reports and accounts averaging 135 pages, the AIC says the measures would also reduce waste and end the huge postal bills sending out reports entail.
Ian Sayers, AIC director general, said: “Today’s annual reports are so long and detailed that investors cannot see the wood for the trees.
"Key information about the business is lost in pages and pages of detail. This complexity harms rather than helps market understanding. A new approach could encourage disclosures which highlight key information which is of real use to investors."
Under the AIC's recommendations to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the short strategic report would provide an overview of what the company does and how it has performed in the year.
That would be broken down into sections covering: strategy and business model; company performance; principal risks and uncertainties; key performance indicators; key financial information; and a consistency report from auditors
There would also be details of where to obtain the supplementary report on the internet.
The longer report which would be available as a print copy on request and would detail corporate governance, remuneration information, company law disclosures, environmental and social information and financial statements.
"Our approach would mean that the vast majority of investors with less interest in the detail will receive a report they may read and absorb, instead of a tome which does nothing but fill the recycling bin," the AIC said.
The AIC, which has 344 members with assets of £77bn, said its recommendations would not allow companies to hide information and as the full statements would still be available on the internet.
The proposals won support from the UK Shareholders' Association.
Brian Peart, the association's national vice-chairman, said: "The first three pages of a report are what I look at most: the chairman or chief executive's statement and the summary financials.
"I don't want a lot of unnecessary stuff that's just for the board. I want to read about the financial capabilities of the company and whether it's successful or not."

Learn to love stockmarket falls


  • 13 Aug 07

Most people are net buyers of stocks throughout their lives, which means that market falls should be welcomed rather than feared.


You could be forgiven for thinking that there had been some major ructions in the stockmarket over the past couple of weeks. There’s been talk of crashes, collapses and crunches, with well-known Wall Street pundits shouting and screaming (if only for effect). So far at least, though, we haven’t even seen the 10% drop that people arbitrarily consider is necessary for a ‘correction’ and the All Ordinaries Index is still above where it stood in March.


The truth is that fear and panic get people’s attention and the media is well aware of it. But it’s at times like this that investors need to stand back from the crowd and make a cold assessment of what’s going on. No doubt some companies are affected by recent turmoil in global debt markets, but some have, and/or will generate, all the cash they need for their future investing plans and have little to fear from a recession, which might in fact help them take market share from competitors. Yet these companies have been getting cheaper along with everything else and we’ve been licking our lips.


Only a few stocks have so far drifted into our buying range – Corporate ExpressTen Network and Servcorp (almost) – but we’re hopeful of bigger falls and further opportunities.


It’s a truism to say that, all things being equal, you’ll do better from stocks if you buy them cheaply. But what people forget is that for most of their lives, they’re net buyers, or at least holders, of stocks. And the ideal situation is to reach retirement with enough in your pot that you never have to become a net seller. So for most people, for most of their lives, stockmarket falls are good things.

Price and value


The crucial point to understand is that the price of a stock and its value are two different things. The market sets the former and we spend our days trying to estimate the latter. To make our life easier, we generally avoid poorly managed, debt-laden or cyclical businesses where predictability is poor, and we look for a margin of safety to protect us against an error of judgement – the more uncertain we are about a company’s value, the greater the margin of safety we require.
Most of the time, price is pretty close to value. But sometimes it gets out of whack, and occasionally by enough to give us a decent margin of safety. It’s these situations that present the greatest opportunities for canny investors and the greatest dangers for those who succumb to understandable but irrational mood swings. Preparedness makes all the difference.


Imagine you’re researching a company, Little Acorn Limited, which operates in a predictable industry, has decent management and pays no dividends. It reinvests all its profits, meaning that returns are entirely in the form of capital growth. You’ve done the work, and are as comfortable as you can be that Little Acorn will grow earnings per share (EPS) at 10% per year, from the current level of $1.00, with very little chance of variability.


Deeming Little Acorn to have all the right stuff, you buy the stock for $15 – a price-to-earnings ratio of 15. If your estimate of earnings growth is accurate, then EPS will grow from $1.00 to $2.59 over the next decade. If the market is still happy to pay a PER of 15 at that point, then the stock will trade at around $38.85, and you’ll have achieved an annual return of 10%, in line with the earnings growth.


The future is always uncertain


Of course, the stock might trade lower in a pessimistic market in 2017, giving you a lower annual return (but an underpriced stock that’s likely to do well in future years). Alternatively, it might trade higher, giving you a larger annual return (but an overpriced stock that you might choose to sell).


Which of those possibilities eventuates is of some importance. But what happens in the stockmarket over the next week, month or year doesn’t make a lick of difference as to how the market will view Little Acorn in ten years’ time.
Great oaks from little acorns grow
Price in 2007Price in 2017Annual return
Expected$15$38.8510.0%
outcome$8$38.8517.1%
Lower$15$255.2%
outcome$8$2512.1%
Higher$15$5012.8%
outcome$8$5020.1%
So let’s say that shortly after purchasing Little Acorn for $15, the market tanks and takes Little Acorn with it – down to $8. The talking heads everywhere go berserk over the ‘blood on the streets’ and you’re staring at a ‘loss’ of almost 50%. The emotional investor gets the chance to do some real and permanent damage here. Avoid this at all cost.


Assuming that Little Acorn is still as likely as ever to grow its EPS at 10% per year and arrive in 2017 with EPS of $2.59 and a stock price of $38.85, your forecast of its future is unchanged, and your expected return from yesterday’s investment is unchanged at 10% per year. You won’t get that return if you sell out now. But if you do nothing but hold, your eventual wealth will be just as great as if the share price followed a straight line from $15 to $38.85 over the course of a decade.


But wait there’s more


If you have some spare cash, though, you can actually improve your position, by going against the crowd and buying more shares in Little Acorn at $8. At that price, your additional investment will compound at 17% per year until the shares trade at $38.85 in 2017, dragging up your average return in the process. So the market tumble has actually provided an opportunity.


Of course, the real world isn’t so neat. Market crashes can hurt the economy, affecting company profits in the short and medium term. And the 2017 value of the stock will swing based on both the mood of the markets then, and the company’s growth in the intervening years. But that’s the case regardless of whether stocks are cheap or expensive today. Which brings us back to the trusim that the less we pay for our stocks, the greater the bargains they’ll prove to be.


So remember that when the market takes a tumble, it’s just changing the price that it’s setting for stocks. The value of those stocks, all things being equal, will remain the same. You don’t have to sell your stocks, but you can choose to buy, if you have the spare cash and can find something suitable. Viewed like this, market crashes won’t do any harm to long-term investors, but actually offer you the chance to compound your money at a greater rate.

http://www.intelligentinvestor.com.au/articles/230/Learn-to-love-stockmarket-falls.cfm

Handling stock price falls


  • 30 May 03

When a stock price falls, do you sell, buy more or hold on? It all depends, but there are some techniques to help you with your thinking, and your emotions.

One of the questions we're frequently asked is how to handle a tumbling stock price. Should you cut your losses, buy more or sit on your hands nervously and do nothing?
Unfortunately, the Zen art of value investing doesn't lend itself particularly well to never-fail formulas, so absolute answers are impossible. There are, however, some basic principles that you can look to for guidance.
First of all, you should be looking to sell (or not buy) shares that look expensive and aiming to buy shares that look cheap. The direction in which a share price has recently travelled is not in itself an indicator of this.

When to hold
Secondly, too much trading will just hand the returns from your portfolio over to your broker. That means that there's usually a large grey area between buy and sell where you should be happy simply to hold.
Finally, you should always maintain a sensibly diversified portfolio so that your fortunes are not too closely tied to a few holdings.
If a share falls and you keep adding large chunks, then it might end up accounting for too much of your portfolio. That's not a happy situation even if you think it's the cheapest share on the market.
It's worth noting that all of this has just as much relevance if a stock in your portfolio has gone up in price, or even if it hasn't moved at all. What matters is the relationship between the price and the underlying value, subject to diversification and keeping your trading costs down. Putting this all together, we can get an idea of what to do in certain situations.
If a share has fallen by, say, 20%, but you estimate that its underlying value has fallen by less, or indeed grown, then generally we believe it makes more sense to at least consider buying more (subject to keeping sensibly diversified).
An example of this would be Macquarie Bank (see page 4), which we've consistently seen as being undervalued. As its price fell from above $30 last year, we continued to recommend buying and it became a strong buy in issue 114/Oct 02 (Strong Buy up to $21 - $20.39). The shares have now recovered to $27.70.

Time to sell
If a share has fallen by a certain amount but you estimate that its underlying value has fallen by more, then you certainly shouldn't be buying more. That would just compound the original mistake. Instead, you'd want to face up to the mistake and think about selling.
If a share has fallen and you estimate that its underlying value has fallen by a similar amount, then you'd sit on your hands and do nothing.
To avoid too much expensive trading, this should probably be your starting point. To either buy more or sell, your views should be very strongly held.
Our recommendations on AMP are an example of the sell and hold situations. At the beginning of last year, with its share price up near the $20 mark, we had it as a hold. But we were unimpressed by its results in March 2002 noting, in particular, that its 'international or bust attitude' was cause for concern.
So we downgraded it to sell in issue 98/Mar 02 (Sell/Switch to Suncorp - $19.12) and continued to recommend selling as the price fell (and as its underlying value evaporated).
We finally reverted to a hold in issue 113/Oct 02 (Hold while Unstable - $11.78), because we considered that the fall in the share price had finally caught up with the deterioration in the underlying value of the stock.
Since then, we've felt that the falling share price has been matched by a fall in business value (such as we're able to judge it) and have continued with the Hold while Unstable recommendation.

Different thinking
It can sometimes help to imagine that you don't actually own your downtrodden shareholding, but instead have its value in cash. If that was the case, would you use the cash to buy those shares at the current price or invest in something else?
If you find you get a definite no, then it might be time to sell. If you get a definite yes, then you'd think of buying more.
If you get a maybe, then you're probably in the area where the transaction and tax costs of taking any action would outweigh any potential benefits. In this case, it's usually best to to sit on your hands and hold on to your shares.
It's never easy to deal with a falling share price and there are no clear-cut rules to follow. But this approach, used advisedly, can be a useful way of addressing the issue. We hope it helps.