Latest stories

The Momentum mindset

T

From my recent note to subscribers

I have spent the last 9-12 months digging deeper into other approaches to investing. I have read up on the momentum style, technical analysis, trading, options and more. The reason was to understand how other investors think

It is easy to become dogmatic about your approach and think only you have access to the ultimate truth. I have been guilty of that. I have seen a few value investors (including friends) talk about these other approaches and that intrigued me to dive deeper.

It has given me a better appreciation of these other styles and understand (NOT predict) the price movement in stocks much better.

I have defined my approach as value investing – buying companies for less than their intrinsic value and then holding them for the long term (2-3 years).  This approach involves deep analysis of the business and its prospects. However an under-appreciated aspect of value investing is the time horizon.

Value investing or in other words convergence of price to value of a company, usually happens in 2+ years. In the short term markets are quite efficient and tend to price the near term quite well. The gap (if there is any) usually closes over the long run.

The approach is sound and has worked for a long time. What has changed ofcourse is the definition of value. If you still follow the traditional approaches of PE, P/B ratios and so on, then you will not do well as markets and economies have evolved a lot in the last 15-20 years.

In comparison, other approaches such as Momentum (where you buy stocks which have done well recently in terms of price performance) have worked quite well in the recent past. This approach is practiced more widely in India and there are a lot of very successful practitioners. The difference however extends beyond just the approach. It also involves a shorter time horizon and a difference in temperament.

Although the upside is good, this approach comes with its own risk in the form of momentum crashes. Investors who practice this form of investing have a methodology (rules based or otherwise) to exit their positions when the momentum turns to reduce the downside.

This often means changing your view and portfolio positions overnight. It is important to recognize which approach fits your temperament and which positions make sense for it. The worst thing to do is to buy a momentum stock with a value investing framework.

The momentum mindset

Even though I am not picking stocks based on momentum (yet), I want to build that mindset into my decision making process. The trading or momentum mindset is more rational, even more so when it is rules based.

Investors who follow the non-discretionary approach in momentum or trading, exit their positions when their system gives the signal to do so. Their effort is to back test the system and validate it. However once that confidence is developed, it is followed with discipline.

On the contrary investors like me, tend to get wrapped up too much with our narratives (or stories). As result, even when external conditions change, we tend to stick to our outdated stories and refuse to exit the position.

I have been guilty of this and even when I do change my mind, tend to get emails accusing me of abandoning a stock as if we should remain married to it forever.

I have been re-thinking my approach and you could see a higher turnover or exits even where I was optimistic or positive earlier. Some of you will hate me for taking small losses when I am wrong. I will treat that as an occupation hazard.

It is far better to take a small loss initially than lose much more later.

Negative free cash flow is (often) a good thing

N

I tweeted the following half-jokingly

This is in response to comments from investors and analysts where they raise a red flag on a company with negative free cash flow, without further analysis.

What’s free cash flow

Let’s define free cash flow for a business

Free cash flow = Operating cash flow (including depreciation) – Maintenance capex

Maintenance capex is defined as capital required by a business to maintain its unit volume and competitive position. This capex would be in the form of working capital and fixed assets.

Let’s take a simplified example to illustrate it. Let’s say you own a house on your own piece of land (a rarity but go with me on this one). After a few years, you decide to get the house repainted as the old paint is peeling off and there are cracks in the wall. Let’s say you spend 5 lacs on the whole thing.

After the house is painted and repaired, you feel good about it. Keep in mind that the value of the house hasn’t gone up. If you were to list the house it would not sell for more (though it could have sold for less if the repairs had not been done).

Let’s fast forward a few years. You decide to extend your house and build a new room. The square footage of the house goes up by 15%. If you decide to sell the house now, you will be able to get a higher price for the house as the area of the house has increased.

The first scenario is that of maintenance capex – money spent to maintain value of the asset. The second is the case of growth capex – money spent to increase the value of the asset.

No published numbers

The same point holds true for a business/ company. The only difference is that a company will rarely break out the annual investment into maintenance and growth capex. This is something an investor has to figure out based on a study of the business.

Investors look at the cash flow statement with the following math

Operating cash flow + depreciation – working capital investment – fixed asset investment

If the above number is negative, they flag it as an issue. The problem here is that the investor is not distinguishing between growth and maintenance capex.

Any money spent on maintenance capex does not increase the value of the business. If all the investment in the above equation is maintenance capex and the resulting number is negative, then it is a red flag.

A lot of businesses, especially in the commodity space, have to keep investing just to stay in the same place from a competitive position. That’s the main reason why these businesses do not create value for their investors over a business cycle.

A company in growth phase and investing into growth capex, will also have negative free cash flow which could create value down the road.

How to evaluate growth capex

This requires a detailed understanding of the business and competence of the management.

There are businesses which requires very little maintenance capex (almost equal to depreciation) and re-invest all their free cash flow for growth and at high rates of return. Such businesses create a lot of wealth for their shareholders in the long run.

The key point to evaluate is whether the investment is being above the cost of capital (including debt). If yes, then you want the management to invest as much as it can (within reasonable limits) as these incremental investments will create value for us down the road.

The main job of the analyst is to figure out whether the management is truly investing above the cost of capital. That unfortunately cannot be accurately estimated to a decimal point, though there are indicators which can help you make an educated guess. You need to ask questions on the attractiveness of the industry, the opportunity size and capability of the management (based on past performance) and come up with a rough guess.

The next time you hear someone talk of negative free cash flow without an analysis of growth v/s maintenance capex – you can recall my tweet above. Such a person is implying that spending on education is a red flag as there no free cash flow being generated in the present.

Survival is the ultimate prize

S

It seems ages since I wrote the following comment three months back

How does one invest under such extreme uncertainty? One option is to assume that there will be a quick recovery and go all in. The other extreme is to wait till it is all clear and then deploy the capital. In the first approach one is making a bet on a specific scenario which may not occur, leading to sub-par results. In the second case, we may end up with sub-par returns too but only because prices will adjust once all the uncertainty goes away.

At that point of time the future was uncertain and anyone making a specific bet was ‘assuming’ a specific scenario. If we assume that 50% of the investors bet on rapid recovery and the other 50% bet on the whole thing dragging on, the first group turned out to be right.

You are now hearing from such investors who went all-in, in the month of March/April.

It could have easily gone the other way and in that scenario, the second group would be highlighting the merits of being cautious, whereas the first group would have been silent.

I personally avoid taking a specific view of how the future will unfold. The risk of doing so is high, if you get it wrong. If you are managing money for others (like me), then the risk is asymmetrical. If you get it right, you can tout your performance. If not, then your investors bear the brunt.

I will not tar all managers with the same brush. A lot of them, including us, are invested the same as their investors. In such cases, the behavior of the manager changes quite a bit. In such cases, your focus shifts to survival, than shooting the lights out. It does not mean that you will not make mistakes, but are very focused on managing the risk.

If the goal of investing for an individual is to achieve his/her financial goals, then the first priority is to ensure that you don’t incur a massive loss from which you cannot recover. The older you are, the higher the risk. I would recommend an individual investor to NOT look at the performance (especially near term) of professional investors. You should never do what this class of investors is doing, not because they are smarter (they are not), but because of the asymmetry of risk faced by them.

I took the following approach in the middle of the crisis

Under the circumstances, my approach is that of ‘regret minimization’. That’s a fancy way of saying that I will do something in middle, so that I can avoid FOMO (fear of missing out) if the first scenario occurs, but at the same time have enough dry powder available incase the economic recovery takes longer.

Instead of going all in, we have slowly added (and even sold) positions as shape of the crisis has become clear at the company level (and not at a macro level). It has allowed me to sleep well and live to fight for another day.

In investing, there is no finish line and gold medal at the end of it. The end goal is survival and meeting your financial goals.

Basket Bet

B

I wrote the following note to my subscribers on a recent position we have initiated. Specialty chemicals and Pharma is currently among the few sectors which have caught the fancy of the markets. I think these sectors do have the potential for above returns in the long term, though not every company will benefit equally from the tailwind.

The success or failure of each company will come down to the unique advantages/ competencies built by the management and their execution going forward. In addition to that, each company faces idiosyncratic (fancy word for unique) risks with FDA audits being one of them.

As a result, a single company bet can lead to losses even if rest of the sector does well

In order to mitigate this risk, I have taken a basket bet approach for the portfolio. This is also due to the fact, that one cannot estimate such risks ex-ante (before the fact). Diversification across the sector reduces, though does not eliminate the risk.

Pharma Sector bet

This is different from our usual transactions. This transaction is part of a sector bet. I am betting on the pharma sector for the following reasons

  • Several companies in the sector have been investing in R&D across a wide range of products such as Finished generics, API, Biosimilars and new dosage forms. As these investments have a long gestation period, the result is not fully visible in the P&L statement yet. We are now at the cusp of seeing the result of these investments, which have been made over the last 5+ years
  • Several companies have been investing on the front end (marketing) for the US and other markets. This allows the company to have a better control on the supply chain (with better margins) and work directly with customers. However, building the front end takes time and we are seeing early results of that.
  • The industry went through a growth phase till 2015, when it was hit by a mix of issues. The industry was hit by FDA audit failures which resulted in a loss of revenue for companies which failed the audit. At the same time, there was a consolidation of buyers (companies which buy pharmaceuticals for hospitals and pharmacies) which resulted in higher pricing pressure. This caused a drop in the growth and margins for the industry resulting in re-rating of the sector.
  • The industry has since then improved its processes and has a much better record of passing FDA audits. In addition to that, companies continue to invest in these processes to improve their compliance rate.
  • Several companies in the sector are now expanding beyond the US (and India) into other countries such as the EU, Japan and Africa. This should provide further growth opportunities for the sector.

We have an option to bet on a single company to play the above theme, but the risk of FDA audit and higher pricing pressures in some product segments continues to be high. I want to take advantage of this long-term tailwind and growth opportunity, but at the same time reduce the risk of failing an FDA audit.  Hence my plan is to go ahead with a sector bet where we will spread out our capital across a few attractive ideas.

I have not decided the number of companies or the size of the bet yet.

The ideas in this bucket – which I will call the pharma bet (PB) could be rotated in and out with a much higher frequency compared to other positions in our portfolio. I have been studying the sector for some time now and like a few other companies in this space. My plan is to add companies some of which could be long term plays whereas others could be more tactical in nature.

Subscription

Enter your email address if you would like to be notified when a new post is posted:

I agree to be emailed to confirm my subscription to this list

Recent Posts

Select category to filter posts

Archives