Wednesday, 28 March 2018

THE KIND OF BUSINESS THAT WILL MAKE WARREN SUPERRICH

THE KIND OF BUSINESS  THAT WILL MAKE WARREN SUPERRICH

To understand Warren's first great revelation we need to understand the nature of Wall Street and its major players. Though Wall Street provides many services to businesses, for the last 200 years it has also served as a large casino where gamblers, in the guise of speculators, place massive bets on the direction of stock prices.

In the early days some of these gamblers achieved great wealth and prominence. They became the colorful characters people loved reading about in the financial press. Big "Diamond" Jim Brady and Bernard Baruch are just a few who were drawn into the public eye as master investors of their era. 

In modern times institutional investors---mutual funds, hedge funds, and investment trusts---have replaced the big-time speculators of old. Institutional investors "sell" themselves to the masses as highly skilled stock pickers, parading their yearly results as advertising bait for a shortsighted public eager to get rich quickly.

As a rule, stock speculators tend to be a skittish lot, buying on good news, then jumping out on bad news. If the stock doesn't make its move within a couple of months, they sell it and go looking for something else.

The best of this new generation of gamblers have developed complex computer programs that measure the velocity of how fast a stock price is either rising or falling. If a company's shares are rising fast enough, the computer buys in; if the stock price is falling fast enough, the computer sells out. Which creates a lot of jumping in and out of thousands of different stocks.

It is not uncommon for these computer investors to jump into a stock one day, then jump out the next. Hedge fund managers use this system and can make lots and lots of money for their clients. But there is a catch: They can also lose lots and lots of money for their clients. And when they lose money, those clients (if they have any money left) get up and leave, to go find a new stock picker to pick stocks for them.

Wall Street is littered with the stories of the rise and fall of hot and not-so-hot stock pickers.

This speculative buying and selling frenzy has been going on for a long, long time. One of the great buying frenzies of all times, in the 1920s, sent stock prices into the stratosphere. But in 1929 came the Crash, sending stock prices spinning downward.

In the early 1930s an enterprising young analyst on Wall Street by the name of Benjamin Graham noticed that the vast majority of hotshot stock pickers on Wall Street didn't care at all about the long-term economics of the businesses that they were busy buying and selling. All they cared about was whether the stock prices, over the short run, were going up or down.

Graham also noticed that these hot stock pickers, while caught up in their speculative frenzy, would sometimes drive up the stock prices to ridiculous levels in relation to the long-term economic realities of the underlying businesses. He also realized that these same hotshots would sometimes send stock prices spiraling to insane lows that similarly ignored the businesses' long-term prospects. It was in these insane lows that Graham saw a fantastic opportunity to make money.

Graham reasoned that if he bought these "oversold businesses" at prices below their long-term intrinsic value, eventually the market would acknowledge its mistake and revalue them upward. Once they were revalued upward, he could sell them at a profit. This is the basis for what we know today as value investing. Graham was the father of it.

What we have to realize, however, is that Graham really didn't care about what kind of business he was buying. In his world every business had a price at which it was a bargain. When he started practicing value investing back in the 1930s, he was focused on finding companies trading at less than half of what they held in cash. He called it "buying a dollar for 50 cents." He had other standards as well, such as never paying more than ten times a company's earnings and selling the stock if it was up 50%. If it didn't go up within two years, he would sell it anyway. Yes, his perspective was a bit longer than that of the Wall Street speculators, but in truth he had zero interest in where the company would be in ten years.

Warren learned value investing under Graham at Columbia University in the 1950s and then, right before Graham retired, he went to work for him as an analyst in Graham's Wall Street firm. While there Warren worked alongside famed value investor Walter Schloss, who helped school young Warren in the art of spotting undervalued situations by having him read the financial statements of thousands of companies.

After Graham retired, Warren returned to his native Omaha, where he had time to ponder Graham's methodology far from the madding crowd of Wall Street. During this period, he noticed a few things about his mentor's teachings that he found troubling.

The first thing was that not all of Graham's undervalued businesses were revalued upward; some actually went into bankruptcy. With every batch of winners also came quite a few losers, which greatly dampened overall performance. Graham tried to protect against this scenario by running a broadly diversified portfolio, sometimes containing a hundred or more companies. Graham also adopted a strategy of getting rid of any stock that didn't move up after two years. But at the end of the day, many of his "undervalued stocks" stayed undervalued.

Warren discovered that a handful of the companies he and Graham had purchased, then sold under Graham's 50% rule, continued to prosper year after year; in the process he saw these companies' stock prices soar far above where they had been when Graham unloaded them. It was as if they bought seats on a train ride to Easy Street but got off well before the train arrived at the station, because he had no insight as to where it was headed.

Warren decided that he could improve on the performance of his mentor by learning more about the business economics of these "superstars." So he started studying the financial statements of these companies from the perspective of what made them such fantastic long-term investments.

What Warren learned was that these "superstars" all benefited from some kind of competitive advantage that created monopoly-like economics, allowing them either to charge more or to sell more of their products. In the process, they made a ton more money than their competitors.

Warren also realized that if a company's competitive advantage could be maintained for a long period of time---if it was "durable"---then the underlying value of the business would continue to increase year after year. Given a continuing increase in the underlying value of the business, it made more sense for Warren to keep the investment as long as he could, giving him a greater opportunity to profit from the company's competitive advantage.

Warren also noticed that Wall Street---via the value investors or speculators, or a combination of both---would at some point in the future acknowledge the increase in the underlying value of the company and push its stock price upward. It was as if the company's durable competitive advantage made these business investments a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was something else that Warren found even more financially magical. Because these businesses had such incredible business economics working in their favor, there was zero chance of them ever going into bankruptcyThis meant that the lower Wall Street speculators drove the price of the shares, the less risk Warren had of losing his money when he bought in. The lower stock price also meant a greater upside potential for gain. And the longer he held on to these positions, the more time he had to profit from these businesses' great underlying economics. This fact would make him tremendously wealthy once the stock market eventually acknowledged these companies' ongoing good fortune.

All of this was a complete upset of the Wall Street dictum that to maximize your gain you had to increase your underlying risk. Warren had found the Holy Grail of investments; he had found an investment where, as his risk diminished, his potential for gain increased.

To make things even easier, Warren realized that he no longer had to wait for Wall Street to serve up a bargain price. He could pay a fair price for one of these super businesses and still come out ahead, provided he held the investment long enough. And, adding icing to an already delicious cake, he realized that if he held the investment long-term, and he never sold it, he could effectively defer the capital gains tax out into the far distant future, allowing his investment to compound tax-free year after year as long as he held it.

Let's look at an example: In 1973 Warren invested $11 million in The Washington Post Company, a newspaper with durable competitive advantage, and he has remained married to this investment to this day. Over the thirty-five years he has held this investment, its worth has grown to an astronomical $1.4 billion. Invest $11 million and make $1.4 billion! Not too shabby, and the best part is that because Warren has never sold a single share, he still has yet to pay a dime of tax on any of his profits.

Graham, on the other hand, under his 50% rule, would have sold Warren's Washington Post investment back in 1976 for around $16 million and would have paid a capital gains tax of 39% on his profits. Worse yet, the hotshot stock pickers of Wall Street have probably owned this stock a thousand times in the last thirty-five years for gains of 10 or 20% here and there, and have paid taxes each time they sold it. But Warren milked it for a cool 12,460% return and still to this day hasn't paid a red cent in taxes on his $1.4 billion gain.

Warren has learned that time will make him superrich when he invests in a company that has a durable competitive advantage working in its favor.


Tuesday, 27 March 2018

How To Evaluate The Quality Of EPS

How To Evaluate The Quality Of EPS

by Rick Wayman
Earning per share (EPS) manipulation might be the second oldest profession, but there is a relatively easy way for investors to protect themselves. This article will show you how to evaluate the quality of any kind of EPS, and find out what it's telling you about a stock.

Tutorial: Examining Earnings Quality
Overview
The evaluation of earnings per share should be a relatively straightforward process, but thanks to the magic of accounting, it has become a game of smoke and mirrors, accompanied by constantly mutating versions that seem to have come out of "Alice in Wonderland". Instead of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum we have pro forma EPS and EBITDA. And, despite rumors to the contrary, the whisper number - the Cheshire cat of Wall Street - continues to exist as guidance.

To be fair, this situation cannot be totally blamed on management. Wall Street deserves as much blame due to its myopic focus on the near-term and knee-jerk reactions to 1 cent misses. A forecast is always only a guess - nothing more, nothing less - but Wall Street often forgets this. This, however, does create opportunities for investors who can evaluate the quality of earnings over the long run and take advantage of market overreactions. (For background reading, check out Earnings Forecasts: A Primer.)


EPS Quality
High-quality EPS means that the number is a relatively true representation of what the company actually earned (i.e. cash generated).  But while evaluating EPS cuts through a lot of the accounting gimmicks, it does not totally eliminate the risk that the financial statements are misrepresented. While it is becoming harder to manipulate the statement of cash flows, it can still be done.
A low-quality EPS number does not accurately portray what the company earned. GAAP EPS (earnings reported according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) may meet the letter of the law but may not truly reflect the earnings of the company. Sometimes GAAP requirements may be to blame for this discrepancy; other times it is due to choices made by management. In either case, a reported number that does not portray the real earnings of the company can mislead investors into making bad investment decisions. 

How to Evaluate the Quality of EPS
The best way to evaluate quality is to compare operating cash flow per share to reported EPS. While this is an easy calculation to make, the required information is often not provided until months after results are announced, when the company files its 10-K or 10-Q with theSEC.

To determine earnings quality, investors can rely on operating cash flow. The company can show a positive earnings on the income statement while also bearing a negative cash flow. This is not a good situation to be in for a long time, because it means that the company has to borrow money to keep operating. And at some point, the bank will stop lending and want to be repaid. A negative cash flow also indicates that there is a fundamental operating problem: either inventory is not selling or receivables are not getting collected. "Cash is king" is one of the few real truisms on Wall Street, and companies that don't generate cash are not around for long. Want proof? Just look at how many of the dotcom wonders survived! (To learn more about what happened, see Why did dotcom companies crash so drastically?)

If operating cash flow per share (operating cash flow divided by the number of shares used to calculate EPS) is greater than reported EPS, earnings are of a high quality because the company is generating more cash than is reported on the income statement. Reported (GAAP) earnings, therefore, understate the profitability of the company.

If operating cash flow per share is less than reported EPS, it means that the company is generating less cash than is represented by reported EPS. In this case, EPS is of low quality because it does not reflect the negative operating results of the company and overstates what the true (cash) operating results. 
  
Watch: Earning Per Share


An Example
Let's say that Behemoth Software (BS for short) reported that its GAAP EPS was $1. Assume that this number was derived by following GAAP and that management did not fudge its books. And assume further that this number indicates an impressive growth rate of 20%. In most markets, investors would buy this stock.

However, if BS's operating cash flow per share were a negative 50 cents, it would indicate that the company really lost 50 cents of cash per share versus the reported $1. This means that there was a gap of $1.50 between the GAAP EPS and actual cash per share generated by operations. A red flag should alert investors that they need to do more research to determine the cause and duration of the shortfall. The 50 cent negative cash flow per share would have to be financed in some way, such as borrowing from a bank, issuing stock, or selling assets. These activities would be reflected in another section of the cash flow statement.

If BS's operating cash flow per share were $1.50, this would indicate that reported EPS was of high quality because actual cash that BS generated was 50 cents more than was reported under GAAP. A company that can consistently generate growing operating cash flows that are greater than GAAP earnings may be a rarity, but it is generally a very good investment. (To learn more about this metric, check out Operating Cash Flow: Better Than Net Income?)

Trends Are Also Important
Because a negative cash flow may not necessarily be illegitimate, investors should analyze the trend of both reported EPS and operating cash flow per share (or net income and operating cash flow) in relation to industry trendsIt is possible that an entire industry may generate negative operating cash flow due to cyclical causes. Operating cash flows may be negative also because of the company's need to invest in marketing, information systems and R&D. In these cases, the company is sacrificing near-term profitability for longer-term growth.

Evaluating trends will also help you spot the worst-case scenario, which occurs when a company reports increasingly negative operating cash flow and increasing GAAP EPS. As discussed above, there may be legitimate reasons for this discrepancy (economic cycles, the need to invest for future growth), but if the company is to survive, the discrepancy cannot last long. The appearance of growing GAAP EPS even though the company is actually losing money can mislead investors. This is why investors should evaluate the legitimacy of a growing GAAP by analyzing the trend in debt levels, times interest earned, days sales outstanding and inventory turnover. (To learn about why companies fudge cash flow, readCash Flow On Steroids: Why Companies Cheat.)

The Bottom Line
Without question, cash is king on Wall Street, and companies that generate a growing stream of operating cash flow per share are better investments than companies that post increased GAAP EPS growth and negative operating cash flow per share. The ideal situation occurs when operating cash flow per share exceeds GAAP EPS. The worst situation occurs when a company is constantly using cash (causing a negative operating cash flow) while showing positive GAAP EPS. Luckily, it is relatively easy for investors to evaluate the situation. 

by Rick Wayman

Friday, 9 February 2018

The stock market is officially in a correction... here's what usually happens next

The stock market is officially in a correction... here's what usually happens next

"The average bull market 'correction' is 13 percent over four months and takes just four months to recover," Goldman Sachs Chief Global Equity Strategist Peter Oppenheimer said in a Jan. 29 report.

But the pain lasts for 22 months on average if the S&P falls at least 20 percent from its record high — past 2,298 — into bear market territory, the report said. The average decline is 30 percent for bear markets.

The last week of stock market drops has taken the S&P 500 into correction territory for the first time in two years.


The S&P 500 fell officially into correction territory on Thursday, down more than 10 percent from its record reached in January.

If this is just a run-of-the-mill correction, then we are looking at another four months of pain, history shows. If the losses deepen into a bear market (down 20 percent), then it could be 22 months before we revisit these highs, history shows.

"The average bull market 'correction' is 13 percent over four months and takes just four months to recover," Goldman Sachs Chief Global Equity Strategist Peter Oppenheimer said in a Jan. 29 report.



Source: Goldman Sachs

But the pain lasts nearly two years on average if the S&P falls at least 20 percent from its record high — past 2,298 — into bear market territory, the report said. The average decline in a bear market is 30 percent, according to Goldman.



The last week of stock market drops has taken the S&P 500 into correction territory for the first time in two years

Stocks remain in an upward bull market trend, the second longest in history.

S&P 500 corrections and bear markets since WWI



Source: Goldman Sachs

Evelyn Cheng CNBC



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/the-stock-market-is-officially-in-a-correction--heres-what-usually-happens-next.html?__source=Facebook%7Cmain

Thursday, 18 January 2018

KLCI 18.1.2018 (Market PE)

Company Mkt Cap (b) PAT (m) DIV (m) Equity (m) Shares (m)
AMBANK (1015) 14.287       1,308.3          530.0          16,272.8             3,014.1
ASTRO (6399) 13.765           734.1          651.1                667.4             5,214.0
AXIATA (6888) 50.398           575.5          725.7          25,239.1             9,048.1
CIMB (1023) 62.641       4,270.0       1,847.9          48,968.0             9,225.5
DIGI (6947) 37.476       1,491.3       1,626.5                544.3             7,775.1
GENM (4715) 32.778       2,396.1          980.1          20,185.8             5,938.0
GENTING (3182) 37.016       2,394.3          481.2          35,055.8             3,851.8
HAPSENG (3034) 24.1       1,065.9          872.4            6,122.3             2,489.7
HLBANK (5819) 38.802       2,241.6          973.9          24,714.4             2,167.7
HLFG (1082) 20.403       1,575.5          436.6          17,106.6             1,147.5
IHH (5225) 49.438           826.4          247.2          22,336.4             8,239.7
IOICORP (1961) 29.157           998.5          597.7            7,413.0             6,283.8
KLCC (5235SS) 14.262           879.3          643.2          12,836.3             1,805.3
KLK (2445) 26.965       1,005.0          533.9          11,605.4             1,067.5
MAXIS (6012) 47.254       2,137.2       1,564.1            6,874.3             7,810.6
MAYBANK (1155) 106.462       7,748.3       5,621.2          73,513.5           10,808.3
MISC (3816) 33.211       2,443.8       1,338.4          36,420.0             4,463.8
NESTLE (4707) 25.092           579.2          632.3                673.0                 234.5
PBBANK (1295) 81.214       5,469.0       2,249.6          36,122.6             3,882.1
PCHEM (5183) 65.6       4,159.8       1,521.9          27,530.1             8,000.0
PETDAG (5681) 24.757       1,522.6          695.7            5,922.1                 993.5
PETGAS (6033) 35.498       1,771.4       1,228.2          12,318.2             1,978.7
PMETAL (8869) 21.625           584.3          367.6            1,815.2             3,861.6
PPB (4065) 20.628       1,325.7          297.0          21,076.4             1,185.5
RHBBANK (1066) 21.053       1,751.5          482.1          23,015.7             4,010.1
SIME (4197) 18.43       3,227.7       1,564.7          38,516.4             6,800.7
SIMEPLT (5285) 37.473                  -                   -                         -               6,800.9
TENAGA (5347) 89.523       6,902.3       3,455.6          57,185.7             5,666.0
TM (4863) 22.961           807.1          808.2            7,528.6             3,757.9
YTL (4677) 16.366           788.7       1,036.0          15,587.4           10,910.7
TOTAL             1,118.64     62,980.4    34,010.3        613,166.7
18.1.2018
KLCI 1824.81
Market PE 17.76
Market DY 3.04%
ROE 10.27%
P/BV 1.82