Latest stories

Evaluating past performance

By Rohit Chauhan
In Investment process, Uncategorized
December 6, 2006
2 Min read
3 comments
E

I have been doing an analysis of my past stock picks and comparing my notes with how the stock picks have turned out over time.

I have been able to divide my picks into broadly three groups

Group A – The multibaggers. These were picks like concor, marico , asian paints, blue star etc. I had no inkling that these companies would do so well and the stock price would appreciate multiple times over the last few years when I first analysed and purchased the stocks. However on deeper analysis I found that the key reason the pick turned out well was due to a double dip I received. First the gap between the intrinsic value and the stock price closed. At the same time, these companies have been able to increase their intrinsic value through some great perfromance in the last couple of years. As a result of these two happy occurences, I have been able to get good profits

Group B – Good return stocks. These were picks like kothari products, macmillan, KVB bank etc. In case of these picks there was a narrowing of the gap between stock price and intrinsic value. As a result I was able to get decent returns as a whole. However in some cases where I was late in selling the stock, the eventual returns were lower.

Group C – The dogs. These were picks like Larsen and tubro (ouch !! see here), SSI, arvind mills etc. Each pick had its own reason for going wrong from over paying for the stock, poor performance of the business, sloppy analysis etc.

The above analysis is definitely not earth shattering and I have known it vauguely for some time. But after almost 8-9 years of buying, selling and analysing stocks, I thought of doing some analysis so as to improve my future performance.

Ofcourse the logical conclusion would be to always buy stocks in group A. However most of the stocks in that group seem to be fairly or over priced. I am finding more picks in group B. Not too exicted about it, but beats overpaying for quality stocks or picking dogs. Key point for me to remember would be to sell these stocks in time if they do not show promise of improvement in intrinsic value

Read on3 comments

Postmortem of an arbitrage opportunity

By Rohit Chauhan
In Arbitrage, Uncategorized
December 5, 2006
2 Min read
5 comments
P

I was analysing a potential arbitrage for Infomedia Limited in april. I posted my analysis here and here.

At the time of analysis the stock was selling at 210. Based on a quick analysis, I felt the intrinsic value for the stock was around 180-190. As the terms of the buyback stated that for any holding greater than 50 shares, the acceptance ratio would be around 14%, I passed the opportunity as I felt that post the buyback, I may not be able to sell the stock at a price higher than the purchase price and I was not comfortable buying and holding the stock at 210.

So how did my thesis play out?

Well my thesis proved to be correct, but I still missed an opportunity as I did not track the stock subsequently. Let me explain,

If I had bought the stock at 210 and attempted to arbitrage, I would have suffered a loss of 16% on my investment (assuming a sale price of the stock at 170 after the close of the buyback on 8th August).

However had I continued to track the stock, there was a buying opportunity in june (see graph above, around 8 – 15th) when the stock traded briefly between 115- 140. A purchase at that price (and sale at 170 after buyback) would have given me an annualised return of 135 %.

So lesson for me is that I need to keep tracking an arbitrage stock till the end of the event to take advantage of any sudden opportunities which may come up.

Additional note: I read a few analysis from some brokerage houses of the above arbitrage and found that the analysis covered only the upside and had no mention of the risk or downside.
Read on5 comments

More on Valuation of banks

By Rohit Chauhan
In Finance and Banking, Industry analysis, Uncategorized
November 26, 2006
3 Min read
2 comments
M

Got the following comments on my previous post from prem sagar. Thought they were very valid points and hence I am posting my reponse to it seperately in a post.

Hi Rohit,

nice analysis. But I get some thoughts here.

1. What if the bank had been increasing leverage to increase or maintain higher ROE? The bank wud have maintained a 20% ROE, but leverage wud have gone higher and hence the risks. Would you not like to consider higher ROE maintained at stable net interest margins and stable net profit margins in your equation? Paying higher price to book just to maintain higher ROE can be a double edged sword where leverage can be dangerous. Dont we need to maintain our profitability and margin spread too?

2. What would you pay for a bank/nbfc with a low leverage (Say IDFC with leverage of around 4 times)..that has potential to increase leverage and hence ROE in future…as per your ROE equation, IDFC wud get a low Price to book.
3. Why shouldnt we consider ROA (assets net of NPA) instead of ROE in ur calculation? THis will show if constantly increased leverage was the reason in maintaining ROE or not.

I agree with all the above points. The post on bank valuation is a simplistic approach to valuing a bank. I always consider leverage an important variable expecially for a financial institution, such as a bank. As a matter of fact I tend to avoid companies with high leverage unless they are well run. Businesses with high leverage are extremely dependent on the quality of management. A small error by management can hurt the business very badly (note the number of banks and FI which have failed and been bailed out by the government on tax payers money).

What I should have put in my previous post is that all of the following factors being in favour, ROE can be used as a good variable to value a bank.

Factors
1. Leverage – This is represented by CAR (capital adequacy ratio). Higher the CAR, better the quality of the business. As a personal note, I prefer to select banks with CAR of atleast 10-12%
2. Level of NPA and asset quality. A bank can have high ROE and still have a lot of problems loans which are hidden by a practise called as greening of loans (give loan to an existing account to prevent the loan from defaulting)
3. Level of operating expense / Net interest income. This reflects the operating efficiency of the bank
4. Level of non-interest, fee based income. Higher the better.
5. Brand name, retail network and management quality. All fuzzy factors, but fairly important ones for a bank

I tend not to overwiegh ROA. An ROA of 1.3% or more is good. Acutally a very high ROA may not be a good sign (possible that the bank is lending to high yield, high risk segment)

I also agree with prem’s point that if a bank has a low leverage, then earnings can expand more easily. To put it another way, the bank will have no need to access the capital market to raise equity to fund its growth (one of the problems being faced by several public sector banks).

All said, valuing and analysing a bank is far more diffcult (according to me) than other businesses. However the ROE approach can be taken as one approach to arrive at an estimate of intrinsic value. I acutally use this instrinsic value as a starting point and then adjust this number based on the other factors, after the bank meets the basic quality standards

Read on2 comments

Valuation of Banks – some thoughts

By Rohit Chauhan
In Industry analysis, Investment process, Uncategorized, Valuation
November 22, 2006
3 Min read
3 comments
V

I have been reading the book – The warren buffett way (previous post here). There are several instances of valuations in the book on various companies such as Cap cities/ABC, American express etc. One point which caught my attention was the comparison of a company to a Long term bond investment. Buffett has mentioned several times that he uses the long term bond rates for discount in the DCF model.

Using the above comment, I have used the following thought process to look at another way of valuing a bank (earlier post on the same topic here).

The current long term rate for a 10 year bond is say 7 % (example purpose). So I would be ready to pay 100 Rs for this bond (face value). Now if I have a bond, say Bond B (of similar risk) which pays 14 % on face value, I would be ready to pay around Rs 188 for a face value of Rs 100 for the Bond B (A 7% bond would give 196 Rs in 10 years v/s 370 Rs for the 14 % Bond).

Taking the analogy to equity, lets consider a bank which has an ROE of 14%. Assume a 10 year period for which the bank can maintain this ROE ( This is the crucial part as this is the assestment an investor has to make on the competitive advantage of the Bank and its ability to maintain the high ROE). Beyond the 10 year period the bank’s ROE returns to 7% and so the bank in investment profile is similar to a Long bond.

In the above case, the Bank is similar in its return profile to Bond B. So everything else being equal I would value this bank at 1.88 times Book value.

Ofcourse the above is a very simple sceanrio. But we can add more complexity to the above case and make it more realisitic

Case 1: The ROE is 20 %. This ROE can be maintained for 10 years as in the above example. In such as case, I would value the bank at 3.14 times book value.

Case 2 : The ROE is 14%, but the Excess returns can be maintained for 20 years instead of 10. In such as case the valuation can be at 3.55 times book value

Case 3 : ROE is 20% and the period is 20 years. In that case the bank can be valued at 9.9 times book value.

So the simple conclusion is that higher the ROE and the longer the period for which it can be maintained, the higher is the instrinsic value of the bank (which is basic Discounted flow approach).

The above is a more shorthand approach of valuing a bank. I would look at the valuation in the following way now,

– What is the ROE for the bank
– What is the adjusted book value (net of NPA)
– What is the likely duration of excess return (select only a bank which is well run and hence the duration is atleast 10 years)

Based on the above factors I would prefer to invest at 1.5 – 2 times the adjusted book value (keeping a reasonable margin of safety).

Read on3 comments

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