Finding diamond in a coal mine

By Rohit Chauhan

In Investment process, Uncategorized

December 18, 2011

5 Min read

16 comments

F

I have nothing against the airline industry, other than the fact that it is injurious to investor wealth.  There are other industries such as sugar which fall in the same group, where most of the players are not even able to meet their cost of capital over a business cycle.

I got several comments, where it was noted that there are some companies such as spice jet in the airline industry could turn out to be successful. A comparable example is bharti airtel which has done well in a fairly competitive industry with poor profitability (telecom)

I do not deny the fact that it is possible to find a profitable company which manages to buck the trend. There are often profitable companies in terrible industries and poor performers even in profitable ones (such as FMCG)

A probabilistic exercise

Let play a game of chance. Suppose I give you two dices and say that if you roll a 1,1 or  6,6 (both dices turn up one or six), I will pay you  5 for every one rupee you wager. Will you play this game?

If you understand the concept of expected value, you will decline it (read here about it and I will strongly recommend you to understand this concept thoroughly). You may get lucky once a while (roughly 5% of the times) but over a long period of time you will lose money by playing this game (you will lose 1 rupee 95% of the times and gain 5 rupees, 5 % of the times giving a net loss of .7 for the game)

So what does this game have anything to do with investing in an airline? Let me explain –

If you read through the previous post closely, you would have noticed that roughly around 16 or more airlines have failed till date and all the current ones are also losing money (some of these could fail too –at least for their shareholders). So even if spice jet or some other airline succeeds, you are talking of a 6-7% success rate in the industry.

Will you play a game where the probability of success is less than 10%? If yes what should be the payoff?

Well, venture capitalists who make such investments (low probability of success) typically expect a payoff of 20 or more for every rupee invested, to earn a respectable return on capital. Can you expect the same from spicejet or Jet airways?

But I am not putting all my money on airlines

You can make an argument that one is not really putting all his money in the airline industry and hence the above probabilities don’t apply. That is really not the case, as the said probabilities do apply to the specific idea, if not to the entire portfolio.

At the same time think of it – If you put a certain portion of your portfolio in industries with poor economics and high levels of failure, are you not setting yourself up for failure?  The ex-ante probability of success in all such cases is quite low. If you are really a smart investor, does it not make sense to invest in industries where the chance of success is high to begin with and then on top of that you can apply your considerable skills to improve the eventual outcome.

The counter argument

I can think of two counter arguments to my logic

The first one is that if one has some special skills or insight into the industry and thus an edge over the market, it makes sense to invest in that industry inspite of the problems. Even in such as case, I cannot think of a scenario where most of the investors would have a considerable edge in a wide range of industries (including the lousy ones).

The second counter argument is the graham style of investing – pick a lousy company so cheap, that when the industry turns a bit, this company goes from a bargain price to just about cheap. I have done this several times in the past and made some money from it. This is however a 1-2 year game of cycling through such stocks on a regular basis, and constantly looking for the next one. There is nothing wrong with it except, that it requires wide diversification and constant effort to look for new ideas.

Ignoring industries with poor economics or governance?

Does the above post mean that one should just ignore and never try to learn about an industry which is known for poor economics? I think that would be silly. It is not like one will get some kind of infection or loose money just by reading about such an industry. One should practice safe investing, but that does not mean one should not learn about these companies.

Let me give an example – I am quite allergic to real estate companies. The industry has extremely poor governance, unethical practices and is a cesspool of corruption. At the same time, it does not mean that one should never study or look at real estate companies.

I am actually reading the annual reports of several real estate companies and find some of them interesting and surprisingly clean! The question I am now grappling with is how do you value a realesate company? That will most probably be the next post

Look for diamonds in a diamond mine

I think one should be intellectually honest with oneself. If you genuinely think that you have considerable insight into some industry and can do well inspite of the poor economics of the industry – then more power to you.

In my own case, inspite of understanding the poor economics of the sugar or metals industry, I have invested some money in the past and learned an expensive lesson.

I think it is far more profitable for investors to look for diamonds in a diamond mine, than go searching for one in a coal mine.

Read on16 comments

Why I will never buy an airline stock ?

By Rohit Chauhan

In Industry analysis, Uncategorized

December 10, 2011

5 Min read

19 comments

W

The short answer to this question is – Most companies in this industry never make any money ! Sure they make money once a while, but over a period of time most airlines loose money. As a whole the industry has lost money for its investors over a period of time.

If you don’t believe me, following is the list of airlines since early 90s, which closed down or got bought out by other airlines.

Air Deccan , Air Sahara , Archana Airways , Crescent Air,  Damania Airways , East West Airlines , Himalayan Aviation, Indian , Indus Air , Kalinga Airlines , MDLR Airlines , ModiLuft , Paramount Airways , Skyline NEPC , Tata Airlines , Vayudoot.

Do you think the airlines which have survived such as jet airways or kingfisher are making money ? Kingfisher’s troubles are in the news and jet airways has lost money in aggregate over the last 5 years. The other airlines are not doing much better.

If the above reasoning is not sufficient, read on

Let’s look at the competitive structure of the industry

Entry barriers

There are some entry barriers in the industry in the form of capital requirements and license. These barriers make it difficult for a small time entrepreneur to start an airline in India, but any one with deep pockets and a desire to burn money can get the required permissions to start an airline.

The entry barrier may be tough, but the exit barriers are even tougher. Once you start an airline , it is not easy to unwind it. It is difficult to layoff the employees and sell off the planes.  In most cases, airlines have generally been sold off to competing airlines for a fraction of the cost of setting it up.

Pricing and competition

Competition in the airline industry across the world is Kamikaze  behavior. It is generally a race to the bottom  as airlines compete on the basis of price. The majority of an airline’s costs are fixed  – cost of an airplane, fuel and salaries  do not vary with the number of passengers flown.

In addition the perishable nature of the product (an empty seat on a flight is a lost forever), the incremental pricing is generally based on the marginal cost of revenue which is  the cost of the peanuts or snacks on the flight.

So an airline looses money whether it flies a half empty plane or drops the ticket price to fill it up. Finally in times of peak demand, a hike in the ticket prices has led to a lot of howling and pressure from the government  to cut down the price hike.

In such an environment, is it a surprise that most airlines in india loose money ?

Power of suppliers

Who are the suppliers to this industry ? They are the aircraft manufacturers, the fuel providers and finally the unionized pilots and other employees.  I don’t think most airlines have much leverage with the aircraft manufacturers or can negotiate the price of fuel . In addition pilots and other personnel are unionized, so airlines really cannot fire them or reduce their pay easily.

In terms of the cost  structure, airlines are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place

Irrational behavior of the largest airline in India

I now come to an emotional topic (atleast for me ) – Air india !. You will have to excuse me for the rant and can choose to skip the next few paragraphs.

Why the ***@@ is the government running an airline ? We are not a rich and developed country with too much money lying around. Air india has always lost money and now has accumulated debt of 45000 Crs and operating loss of 22000 Crs (there is no typo in these numbers !). The government is planning to pump in 10 billion dollars over the next 10 yrs into airindia !

Can you imagine the waste? . In a poor country like india this money can be spent on infrastructure (roads, schools)  healthcare or education. Heck, even if the government decided to just give away this money to people below the poverty line, I would be fine.

The government in its infinite wisdom continues to run the airline run for politicians and babus. At the same Airindia  prices tickets below cost on several route to increase the utilization factor (on which it is measured) without concerning itself with the profitability of such a decision. This kind of behavior has caused losses for the entire industry which has to match the pricing of  the most irrational player.

By the way, an airticket priced below cost is an indirect subsidy to people like me (who don’t need it). < end of rant J >

Future of airlines in india

Any industry with such poor economics is bound to loose money. This has been the case for airlines in the US and other countries. In addition, we have the largest airline in india (air india) which is not run with any profit motive. In such a situation it is difficult to imagine if any airline will consistently make money over the next 10 years .

In investing, sometime discretion is the better part of valor. I will buy a ticket to fly  (kingfisher is my favorite J ), but will never invest in an airline.

Atleast when I fly by  jet or kingfisher the flight is good and the airhostesses are pretty J .  That is money well spent !

Read on19 comments

Why do stocks go up?

By Rohit Chauhan

In Uncategorized

November 27, 2011

6 Min read

26 comments

W

This is an odd post to write when markets are dropping by the day. However I think that at times like these, it is important to remind ourselves of the basics so that one does not get overwhelmed by the negativity and fear around us.

So coming back to the question – Why do stocks go up? Well it depends on who you ask.

 If you ask a day trader, he or she is likely to say that it is due to volumes, the day’s news and finally due to sentiments. If you ask a technical analyst, the reason could range from the ordinary (volumes, patterns etc) to the esoteric (Elliot wave theory, Fibonacci sequence etc). If you ask the lay person, they would usually have no answer for it (as most consider the stock market to be nothing more than a casino).

As a long term investor, I prefer to ask the question in a different way. I am not concerned directly with the stock price, which merely reflects the business value over the long run. I am more concerned with what causes the business value to rise. If the intrinsic value of the business rises, the stock price is bound to follow sooner or later.

What is the difference?

If you agree with my argument that the key question to ask is what increases the intrinsic value, then the focus of analysis changes completely. One is no longer concerned with the market price (which will follow intrinsic value in time), but more concerned with the fundamentals of the business.

A focus on business value means that one is now concerned with the economics of the business, the competitive dynamics of the industry and finally the actions of the management.

The time horizon also changes from the short (price action) to the long term (business value). The reason for this change is also due to the fact that business value does not change much from day to day and usually takes anything from a few quarters to years to change.

What causes the business value to increase?

So let’s come back to the original question and restate it as – what causes the business value to increase?

Let me put a simple hypothesis – The value of a business usually increases if the management is able to invest, incremental capital at high rates of return.

Let me explain – Let’s say a company is earning around 15% on invested capital. If the management can re-invest the profits or borrowed money (incremental capital) at 20-25% on a sustained basis (say 5-8 yrs), intrinsic value is bound to increase and the stock price will follow in due course of time.

In the above example, if the management can re-invest at these high rates through new or existing businesses, then growth (which is what almost everyone is focused on) will follow automatically. Growth thus becomes a derivative of high rates of re-investment.

Examples of the value creators

Let try to understand the implication of the above hypothesis for various types of companies and see if it matches with reality.

Let’s look at the case of a few highly successful companies such as Hero Honda motors (10 yr CAGR = 34%) and HDFC (10 yr CAGR = 29.1%).

HDFC bank has maintained an average ROE in excess of 16% during the last 10 years and has grown its book value (which is a good proxy for intrinsic value) at the rate of 23% during the same period. The overall stock returns have followed this growth in book value, with a small delta coming through an increase in valuations (PE ratio).

The company has re-invested almost 75% of the profits (dividend payout is 25%) at high rates of return and thus increased the intrinsic value of the business

Hero Honda has an effective Return on capital of 100% or higher in its core business. It is very very difficult to re-invest all the profits back into the business at such high rates of return. The company has paid out a dividend of around 65% of its profits and re-invested the rest into the  business or held it as cash equivalents on its books.

Any business which can earn such stupendous rates of return on capital and re-invest even part of it at such high rates is likely to increase the intrinsic value of the business.

The value destroyers

The second group of companies are those which have a high return on capital, are not able to re-invest the profits at high returns but have chosen to retain this capital and invest it into low yielding deposits or mutual funds. These type of companies are actually destroying value as they are retaining the excess capital and ‘re-investing’ it at low rates.

The market clearly dislikes these type of companies and tends to give them a low valuation. An example which come to mind is a company  like Cheviot Company. These type of companies have above average rates of return in their core business, but choose to hold back majority of the profits on their balance sheet in low yielding deposits. These companies are value traps (in which yours truly has invested in the past)

The final group of companies are those which earn a low rate of return and tend to re- invest all the incremental capital at these low rates of return. This would include most of the commodity companies in sectors such as cement, steel, sugar  etc. These companies destroy value as they grow and hence never get decent valuations in the stock market. For example, pickup any sugar company and look at their  5 and 10 year returns. Investors have lost money over a 5 to 10 year period in these companies.

Does the hypothesis help in picking stocks?

The above proposition does not help one in picking the next multi-bagger. Although it is easy to see which company performed well in hindsight, returns come from being able to identify which company will do well in the future and then buy it at a reasonable price.

Inspite of this limitation, the above thought process helps one to avoid a certain set of companies. Not losing money is half the battle in the stock market.

If one has a 3-5 year time horizon, then it is important to avoid companies which are likely to destroy value by re-investing at low rates of return – in the core business or by just holding the cash.

Read on26 comments

Applying models to real life

By Rohit Chauhan

In Uncategorized

November 16, 2011

5 Min read

9 comments

A

As an armchair investor, I usually analyze companies and their economic models through their annual reports and other published documents. This is a top down approach and does not involve any grass roots analysis or any kind of investigation at the ground level. At the end of the day, it has a virtual feel to it.

I recently met a distant relative, who is in the transportation business – mainly long distance trucking and started talking with him about the economics of his business. He mentioned a few key points of his business

–          The pricing in the business is very volatile in nature. He was able to get good pricing (rate per tonne) during the 2004-2008 period. The rates collapsed during the 2008 -2009 period. Rates have recovered since then, but are still not anywhere near the peak levels.

–          The current rates are slightly above break even. He is able to make good profits in a few months, but ends up giving back (looses money) part of it in the other months.

–          He had contracted with large companies via fixed rate contracts and got killed by these contracts during the downturn due to low utilization (A truck under a fixed rate contract cannot be hired out). At present, he has inflation related pricing clauses, but is unable to enforce them due to severe competition.

–          The trucking business is driven by vehicle finance from banks and NBFCs. Large companies like TCI are able to negotiate rates and payment terms with them. However as a small operator, he is unable to do so.

–          The current ROC in the business is an anemic 10-13% of capital. At the same time there is a lot of stress. Due to these factors a lot of small operators are exiting the business and he is planning to do the same.

I started thinking about the economics of the business and did a mental exercise of applying the porter’s five factor model to the business to see how the facts fit the model

a.    Entry barriers: This business has low to nonexistent barriers to entry. A typical truck costs around 22-29 lacs (total cost) and one can easily get a loan of around 20 lacs. So anyone can enter this business with a starting capital of 7 lacs. In addition, one does not need any specialized skills in this business (beyond a driver’s license and a transport permit). Finally, there is an open market for trucking service (via brokers) and any operator can contract out his vehicle (if he accepts the offered price)

b.    Buyer power: Buyer power is quite high in this industry, especially with large companies. A large cement or steel companies drives a hard bargain with the transport operator as trucking, atleast at the small scale is a commodity product.

c.    Supplier power: Supplier power is quite high too. A small transport operator has to deal with large banks or NBFC for finance and with Tata motors or Ashok Leyland for the trucks. It is easy to see the lack of leverage in this unequal relationship. Fuel is the biggest variable cost, which also is priced by the government.

d.    Substitute product: Although there is not much substitution for road transport, multi-modal transport is now becoming a viable alternative. Large operators like GATI, concor or gateway distriparks now offer a combination of road and rail transport and thus provide a cheaper option. This has now started to hurt the smaller operators

e.    Competitive intensity: This is very high in the industry. As it is easy to add capacity (does not take much to buy trucks or divert it to a more profitable routes), pricing is driven by demand and supply. Due to the highly fragmented nature of the industry, most of the small operators are price takers and are not able to earn an attractive return on capital

It is also clear that the industry is now consolidating with the exit of the smaller players. In a commodity industry, the pricing is driven by the lowest cost operator. In the trucking industry the large operators (especially multi-modal transporters) have some leverage with the suppliers and are able to drive costs down (due to scale) and thus earn an attractive return on capital.

One added reason for doing this mental exercise is that I did a short project with Tata motors in their heavy vehicle business as a management student in the late 90s. The economics for the small operator had started deteriorating then and has now become worse due to the entry of multi-modal transport operators.

At the end of the conversation, I did not want to advise my relative that he should exit this business as it would seem presumptuous (what would an armchair investor know?). However, I am guessing that he has arrived at the same conclusion without using the fancy models and would be exiting it soon.

In the end, I think it was a good learning experience for me. The trucking business reminds me of the following quote by warren buffett

‘When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact’

Read on9 comments