One stock, three viewpoints

By Rohit Chauhan

In Company analysis, Uncategorized

January 8, 2012

7 Min read

15 comments

O

Confirmation bias is the tendency to look for confirming evidence to support an idea. As an investor, one of the risks is that once you like or fall in love with an idea, it is easy to ignore all the negatives and risks associated with the company.  In order to avoid this trap, I typically compare notes with my friends and fellow investors Ninad kunder and Neeraj marathe ( and a few more ).

We are all value investors who share the same philosophy and similar thought process. You would assume that if we look at an idea, we would come up with similar conclusions and more or less agree with each other thus re-enforcing the confirmation bias. 

The reality is much different. I have routinely found that we look at the same facts and arrive at very different conclusions. I consider this difference of opinion as a good thing as it helps me in avoiding confirmation bias when I bounce my idea with other investors.

Let’s look at a live example. In the last 2-3 months I have been analyzing one such company – NESCO. Both ninad and Neeraj have been looking at the same company independently and have arrived at their own conclusions.  I am posting my analysis of nesco below. You can read ninad kunder’s analysis here and neeraj marathe’s analysis here . We have decided to do a joint post to highlight the difference in our conclusions inspite of looking at the same company at the same time.

Moral of the story : Share you analysis with other smart investors who share your philosophy but are not your clones 🙂

About

NESCO is a real estate and capital goods company. The company has a parcel of land in Mumbai on which it has developed an exhibition centre (BEC- Bombay exhibition centre) and an IT park. In addition the company has a capital goods business – Indabrator group which has plants in Gujarat.

The company was originally a capital good company, but started incurring losses in the late 90s. The company res-structured its operations and moved the plants to Gujarat. In addition the company has a large piece of land in goregaon, Mumbai where it has developed one of the largest convention centres in India and is now developing an IT park on the same land

Financials

The revenue of the company increased from 16 crs in 2001 to around 145 Crs in 2011. This revenue growth although good, does not highlight the change in the quality of the revenue.

The company had a net margin of around 3% in 2001 and was equal parts a capital goods and Services Company (convention centre). Since then the capital good segment has more or less stagnated and the service segment has expanded with expansion in the convention centre and addition of buildings in the IT Park. The company earned a net margin of 48% in 2011.

The profits of the company, especially from the services business is entirely free cash and has been used to pay off debt. The company now has almost 200 Crs cash which is around 20% of the company’s market cap. The ROE of the company is now 35% and if one excludes the surplus cash, it is in excess of 100%.

The company is able to earn such high margins as the services business (convention centre and IT Park) involve upfront investment and very low operating expenses. In addition the company’s business is now working capital negative due to minimal inventory (only in capital goods business) and low accounts receivables (due to customer advances for the services business).

Positives

The financial positives are listed in the previous section. The company is able to earn such high margins and high ROE due to the competitive advantage of the business. The company has been able to develop one of the largest convention centres in Mumbai which is not easy to develop considering the cost of land. In addition the company is developing additional buildings in the IT Park with the surplus cash (without incurring any debt).

The company thus enjoys a form of local monopoly (large piece of land at negligible cost on the books) and has used this advantage to develop an increasing stream of income. The company plans to re-invest the surplus cash into new buildings in the IT Park (building IV) which are high IRR projects.

The company has also re-structured its capital good business in the last 5-6 years and although this business is not generating attractive returns, it is not a big drain on the company.

Risks

The company has a large number of advantages and a steady cash flow. The business risk comes from a slowdown in the economy, which could impact the utilization of the convention centre and lower tenancy in the IT parks.

I personally feel the above risks are low and would be temporary in nature (will not impact the long term cash flow of the company).

The bigger risk is the re-investment risk. The company has developed 30-40% of the land and will continue developing the rest using the cash flow from the existing properties. In a period of 4-5 years, the company will be done with the development and could be generating 150-200 Crs of free cash flow with no clear avenues for re-investment in the business. At that point of time, the risk is that the management may re-invest the cash in all kinds of poor businesses.

Management quality checklist

Management compensation: The management compensation is around 3% of net profits which seems reasonable.

Capital allocation record: The management has allocated capital intelligently for the last 10 years and may do so for the next 3-4 years. It remains to be seen what will happen after that.

Shareholder communication: Management provides the mandated disclosure through its annual reports and details of the business are available on the website. The communication is adequate, though not extensive.

Accounting practice: The company has followed a bit of aggressive accounting in the past . During the period of 2000-2005, the company was re-structuring the capital goods business and also had accumulated losses. The company capitalized the VRS expenses and other costs and wrote them off till 2006 as it became profitable. The company has however followed conservative accounting since then.

Conflict of interest: None as yet

Performance track record: Above average in the last 10 years. The company has re-structured the capital goods business and expanded the real estate business which is a very high IRR business.

Valuation

The company is currently valued at around 800 Crs and has around 200 Crs on it balance sheet (which is likely to be used partly for IT Park IV). Net of cash the company sells for around 600 crs which is around 7-8 times the expected earnings for 2012. This valuation is low for a company which has an ROE in excess of 100% and can grow at 20%+ for the next 4-5 years with small amounts of added capital.

The above valuation appears low from a cash flow standpoint and the company can be conservatively be valued at 1600-1700 crs (twice the current market cap).

Another view point can be based on the assets of the company. The company has around 70 acres which itself can be valued at a minimum of 2000 crs (if not more). This does not include the value of the BEC business or the IT Park, which enhance the value of the land bank.

Conclusion

The company possess close to a local monopoly due to a large piece of land in a prime location. The management has re-structured its capital goods business and shifted focus to the real estate (exhibition and IT Park) business which has high profitability. The company is developing new projects (at high IRR) which should increase its profitability in the near future. In view the above the company appears to be undervalued as of writing this note.

Stocks discussed in this post are for educational purpose only and not recommendations to buy or sell. Please read disclaimer at the bottom of blog.

Read on15 comments

Happy new year

By Rohit Chauhan

In Uncategorized

January 1, 2012

1 Min read

10 comments

H

Wish you all a very happy new year



Read on10 comments

What’s on my mind – Dec 2011

By Rohit Chauhan

In Uncategorized

December 29, 2011

6 Min read

16 comments

W

I want to close the year by discussing a few things which are on my mind and do not warrant individual posts for each topic.

Buy or hold for a crash

The market has dropped by 22% in the case of large caps and more than 30% in case of mid caps or small caps. That’s painful to say the least and has driven a lot of investors (should we call them that?) out of the market.

The most common view (including of some smart fellow investors I personally know) is that we have a lot of pain to follow in the coming quarters and hence it would be smart to wait for the prices to correct further, before diving in.

I agree with everyone that power, infrastructure, real estate and as a result banking are in for rough times over the next few quarters. Where I diverge from almost everyone is that, prices in some cases reflect the pessimism and more. As a result, the valuations are quite attractive and as it not possible to predict stock prices (at least in my case), I would rather buy based on what I think I know (cheap valuations) than what I would like to guess (prices in the short to medium term)

This is a risky stand to take and I am standing completely away from the crowd. I can’t think of any analyst or newspaper (not that I care about them) that is encouraging the investors to get into the market. On the contrary, almost everyone is exercising caution.

My reason for deploying my capital on a consistent basis is that the short to medium term may be bad, but the economy should recover in the next 1-2 years and as a result some of the companies which are hated now, should do fine.

I may end looking like a complete moron or a hero in a year’s time.  I am hoping for my sake, that I am at best early and not wrong.

The story stocks

I come to the next point – my allergy with story stocks. If you have been around, you will remember that IT companies were the story stocks of early 2000, infra and real state in 2006-07 and consumption or consumer stocks since 2009.

I find it quite amusing when others expound the virtues of the current favorites. The typical argument is that the Indian middle class is growing, so it will buy more of X and hence the future of these companies is bright. I don’t disagree with this thesis at all.

What I find amusing is that this is hardly new. This has been the case for the last 15 years and it is only now that the market has taken a fancy to this concept and bid the valuations up. I have a mind block due to the fact that the market generally tends to overdo a good thing. In its enthusiasm for IT or infrastructure stocks, the valuations went way up and when the mood turned, the results were not pretty.

Just in case you are thinking that this is a case of sour grapes in my case ,I would like to add that I started my professional career with a consumption company (asian paints) and my initial investments were all such companies (pidilite, asian paints, GSK consumer, P&G etc) as they were much easier for me to understand .

One another point – If you think these companies and the stocks will continue to do well, then how can the rest of the industry (power, infrastructure, banking etc) continue to do badly as implied by the current valuations. If the current dichotomy were to continue for 5 or more years, we may have a very weird economic outcome in the country.

I personally like a lot these ‘consumption’ companies, but not the valuations.

What mutual funds to buy?

I recently received the following comment (slightly edited) on mutual funds.

One thing i need to ask about your mutual fund portfolio is diversification..i am commenting about 5 funds u have selected ( may be possible that u don’t have any positions in them now )
1. Are all your funds are large caps and multicaps..why?
2. Don’t u believe in core and satellite approach which many magazines, papers are advocating these days
3. you are an aggressive investor and your mutual portfolio doesn’t reflect that?
4. u have invested in growth style funds only..not in any value fund why? don’t u think diversification in investment style is also necessary

The above comment raises good questions and as it was not possible to do justice via a comment, I have decided to take it up in this post

First a disclosure – I do not hold any mutual funds now. It is true that I have held mutual funds in the past (for almost 8-9yrs) as I elaborated in this post. I also elaborated on why I followed this strategy inspite of investing in stocks (see here).

In addition to the reasons in the post, I have always had this question in my mind – Are my return due to luck or skill? One needs to look at performance over a long period of time to be sure that the results are mainly due to stock picking skills and not a fluke. After picking stocks for 10+ years and outperforming most of the mutual funds I held during this period, I am inclined to believe that it must be due to skill and hopefully not luck (though one can never be sure).

My mutual fund selection process has never been based on market cap, investment style or any core/ satellite approach. You can find my approach in selecting equity funds here.

Frankly, I find the entire market cap, value versus growth or any other approach of selecting mutual funds downright self serving on part of financial advisors, mutual fund companies and personal finance magazines. How will they make money if they give you a simple, though equally effective plan ?

I have never quite understood the market cap or sector approach to fund selection till date. It is like asking Sachin tendulkar to score a hundred while playing only 3 balls in each over. Why would you want to invest in a fund where you restrict the manager in his or her stock picks? I would rather go with a diversified fund where an intelligent manager can picks attractive stocks with no restrictions.

I would personally prefer to invest regularly in index funds or widely diversified equity funds with a long term track record . My suggestion may appear as odd and opposite of what almost everyone has to say. I would rather keep investing in mutual funds simple and focused on the basics and not get carried away with all the fancy marketing which is used to sell garbage to investors.

On the last point of being an aggressive investor? I actually consider myself quite risk averse (to the point of being chicken) and am constantly obsessing with the downside of my stock picks. The upside on the other hand usually takes care of itself.

Read on16 comments

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