Browsed by
Month: October 2012

What Drives Operating Metrics? Simple Things I Forget (#investing, #finance)

What Drives Operating Metrics? Simple Things I Forget (#investing, #finance)

A few weeks ago I was looking over the Morningstar.com tearsheets for about forty different mid-to-large-cap companies on a small assignment for an acquaintance. The project involved looking at the major financial metrics for a number of companies as provided on these tear sheets and trying to develop a quick, summary opinion of their business performance over the last decade.

On the one hand, it was just a bunch of series of numbers, going up, going down, sometimes not going much of anywhere at all. Depending on the metric being examined, this might be good, bad or ugly. But, if you looked a little closer, you might realize that even these simple numbers could tell a larger story about the business and what was happening to it or with it over time. You see, every financial metric I looked at was merely the result of the interplay of two, three, four or more other numbers “beneath” it. As one or some of these numbers changed, so, too, did the “top level” metric I was looking at on the tearsheet.

I spent a considerable amount of time, specifically, looking at the income and cash flow metrics, the reason being that most of these were large, stable and often growing enterprises– the balance sheet is always useful but with these kinds of companies what happens to income and cash flows over time can be an even more exciting and compelling story.

When analyzing an income statement, there are three key profit measures that investors like to look at: gross, operating and net profits. Additionally, when examining the balance sheet for the cash generating abilities of the business, there are two key measures investors focus on: operating and free cash flows.

If you’re like me, you sometimes forget the simple relationships these metrics have with other financial statement figures in terms of how one number drives another. Or maybe you’re new to studying financial statements and are looking for a handy reference. Either way, the following information may be helpful for you.

Let’s start with the income statement metrics:

  • Gross Profit, equal to total revenues minus the costs of goods sold; because of this, higher gross profits are arrived at by either increasing the price at which goods are sold (making revenues larger) or decreasing the costs of the goods sold (making COGS smaller)
  • Operating Profit, equal to gross profit minus the expenses incurred in running the business, such as paying sales costs (marketing, advertising, commissions), employees salaries and bonuses and corporate administration (SG&A), using PP&E and incurring depreciation or amortization expense and any costs related to the development of new products and services (R&D); because of this, higher operating profits can be achieved by lowering R&D expenses, lowering SG&A expenses, lowering D&A expense or raising gross profits by one of the methods discussed previously
  • Net Profit, equal to operating profit minus interest expense and tax liability; because of this, higher net profits can be achieved by minimizing tax expenses, reducing financial leverage and the interest burden that comes with it (or by refinancing existing debt at a lower rate), or raising operating profit by one of the methods discussed previously

If you are examining a series of income results for a company over a period of years and notice a variance in any of these primary profit metrics, look to the component drivers of those metrics to help explain the reason for the variance.

Now let’s take a look at the two cash flow items:

  • Operating Cash Flow, equal to net income plus the addition of all non-cash expenses (such as depreciation and amortization) and the net change in working capital; increases in operating liabilities increase operating cash flow, increases in operating assets decrease operating cash flow, higher D&A charges increase operating cash flow and of course, a higher starting net income increases ultimate operating cash flow
  • Free Cash Flow, equal to operating cash flow minus total capital expenditures; the less the company invests in maintenance and growth expenditures of capital now, the higher free cash flow will be, but if not enough is spent to protect the business’s earnings power and market position, long-term free cash flow generation abilities may become impaired

The operating cash flow metric is important to look at because it tells you whether the company actually generates a positive cash return on its investments from its main business activities. Companies that can’t generate cash from their operations over time are destined to financial and economic failure. Changes in operating cash flow when compared to changes in net earnings can give a window into how the company is generating profit– through business and market management, or through accounting manipulation and trickery.

The free cash flow metric is valuable because it shows the resources the company generates, beyond those needed to grow and maintain its current capital investments, which can be used to reduce indebtedness or reward shareholders with buybacks and dividends. Companies with relatively high and sustainable free cash flow-generating characteristics can be rewarding investments over long periods of time if they can be bought at low multiples to their normalized free cash flow.

There is a lot more to financial analysis than this. There are hundreds of ratios, metrics and other financial data you can use to measure the operating efficiency and management talent of companies you are interested in. This is not meant to be a comprehensive review. It’s possible I even missed a few items of note with regards to the metrics I singled out.

But sometimes I forget these simple truths when trying to think deeply about businesses I am analyzing, so I wanted to leave this little note for myself in case I ever get stuck and forget the obvious again. With any luck, this information will help someone else out in a similar fix, or else it will prove to be a stepping stone for a beginner making their first inquiry into the world of business analysis.

How Did I Come Up With My 16 JNets? (#JNets, #NCAV)

How Did I Come Up With My 16 JNets? (#JNets, #NCAV)

A couple days ago someone who follows my Twitter feed asked me what criteria I had used to pick the 16 JNets I talked about in a recent post. He referenced that there were “300+” Japanese companies trading below their net current asset value. A recent post by Nate Tobik over at Oddball Stocks suggests that there are presently 448 such firms, definitely within the boundaries of the “300+” comment.

To be honest, I have no idea how many there are currently, nor when I made my investments. The reason is that I am not a professional investor with access to institution-grade screening tools like Bloomberg or CapitalIQ. Because of this, my investment process in general, but specifically with regards to foreign equities like JNets, relies especially on two principles:

  • Making do with “making do”; doing the best I can with the limited resources I have within the confines of the time and personal expertise I have available
  • “Cheap enough”; making a commitment to buy something when it is deemed to be cheap enough to be worthy of consideration, not holding out until I’ve examined every potential opportunity in the entire universe or local miniverse of investing

That’s kind of the 32,000-ft view of how I arrived at my 16 JNets. But it’s a good question and it deserves a specific answer, as well, for the questioner’s sake and for my own sake in keeping myself honest, come what may. So, here’s a little bit more about how I made the decision to add these 16 companies to my portfolio.

The first pass

The 16 companies I invested in came from a spreadsheet of 49 companies I gathered data on. Those 49 companies came from two places.

The first place, representing a majority of the companies that ultimately made it to my spreadsheet of 49, was a list of 100 JNets that came from a Bloomberg screen that someone else shared with Nate Tobik. To this list Nate added five columns, to which each company was assigned a “1” for yes or a “0” for no, with category headings covering whether the company showed a net profit in each of the last ten years, whether the company showed positive EBIT in each of the last ten years, whether the company had debt, whether the company paid a dividend and whether the company had bought back shares over the last ten years. Those columns were summed and anything which received a “4” or “5” cumulative score made it onto my master spreadsheet for further investigation.

The second place I gathered ideas from were the blogs of other value investors such as Geoff Gannon and Gurpreet Narang (Neat Value). I just grabbed everything I found and threw it on my list. I figured, if it was good enough for these investors it was worth closer examination for me, too.

The second pass

Once I had my companies, I started building my spreadsheet. First, I listed each company along with its stock symbol in Japan (where securities are quoted by 4-digit numerical codes). Then, I added basic data about the shares, such as shares outstanding, share price, average volume (important for position-sizing later on), market capitalization, current dividend yield.

After this, I listed important balance sheet data: cash (calculated as cash + ST investments), receivables  inventory, other current assets, total current assets, LT debt and total liabilities and then the NCAV and net cash position for each company. Following this were three balance sheet price ratios, Market Cap/NCAV, Market Cap/Net Cash and Market Cap/Cash… the lower the ratio, the better. While Market Cap/Net Cash is a more conservative valuation than Market Cap/NCAV, Market Cap/Cash is less conservative but was useful for evaluating companies which were debt free and had profitable operations– some companies with uneven operating outlooks are best valued on a liquidation basis (NCAV, Net Cash) but a company that represents an average operating performance is more properly considered cheap against a metric like the percent of the market cap composing it’s balance sheet cash, assuming it is debt free.

I also constructed some income metric columns, but before I could do this, I created two new tabs, “Net Inc” and “EBIT”, and copied the symbols and names from the previous tab over and then recorded the annual net income and EBIT for each company for the previous ten years. This data all came from MSN Money, like the rest of the data I had collected up to that point.

Then I carried this info back to my original “Summary” tab via formulas to calculate the columns for 10yr average annual EBIT, previous year EBIT, Enterprise Value (EV), EV/EBIT (10yr annual average) and EV/EBIT (previous year), as well as the earnings yield (10yr annual average net income divided by market cap) and the previous 5 years annual average as well to try to capture whether the business had dramatically changed since the global recession.

The final step was to go through my list thusly assembled and color code each company according to the legend of green for a cash bargain, blue for a net cash bargain and orange for an NCAV bargain (strictly defined as a company trading for 66% of NCAV or less; anything 67% or higher would not get color-coded).

I was trying to create a quick, visually obvious pattern for recognizing the cheapest of the cheap, understanding that my time is valuable and I could always go dig into each non-color coded name individually looking for other bargains as necessary.

The result, and psychological bias rears it’s ugly head

Looking over my spreadsheet, about 2/3rds of the list were color-coded in this way with the remaining third left white. The white entries are not necessarily not cheap or not companies trading below their NCAV– they were just not the cheapest of the cheap according to three strict criteria I used.

After reviewing the results, my desire was to purchase all of the net cash stocks (there were only a handful), all of the NCAVs and then as many of the cash bargains as possible. You see, this was where one of the first hurdles came in– how much of my portfolio I wanted to devote to this strategy of buying JNets. I ultimately settled upon 20-25% of my portfolio, however, that wasn’t the end of it.

Currently, I have accounts at several brokerages but I use Fidelity for a majority of my trading. Fidelity has good access to Japanese equity markets and will even let you trade electronically. For electronic trades, the commission is Y3,000, whereas a broker-assisted trade is Y8,000. I wanted to try to control the size of my trading costs relative to my positions by placing a strict limit of no more than 2% of the total position value as the ceiling for commissions. Ideally, I wanted to pay closer to 1%, if possible. The other consideration was lot-sizes. The Japanese equity markets have different rules than the US in terms of lot-sizes– at each price range category there is a minimum lot size and these lots are usually in increments of 100, 1000, etc.

After doing the math I decided I’d want to have 15-20 different positions in my portfolio. Ideally, I would’ve liked to own a lot more, maybe even all of them similar to the thinking behind Nate Tobik’s recent post on Japanese equities over at Oddball Stocks. But I didn’t have the capital for that so I had to come up with some criteria, once I had decided on position-sizing and total number of positions, for choosing the lucky few.

This is where my own psychological bias started playing a role. You see, I wanted to just “buy cheap”– get all the net cash bargains, then all the NCAVs, then some of the cash bargains. But I let my earnings yield numbers (calculated for the benefit of making decisions about some of the cash bargain stocks) influence my thinking on the net cash and NCAV stocks. And then I peeked at the EBIT and net income tables and got frightened by the fact that some of these companies had a loss year or two, or had declining earnings pictures.

I started second-guessing some of the choices of the color-coded bargain system. I began doing a mish-mash of seeking “cheap” plus “perceived quality.” In other words, I may have made a mistake by letting heuristics get in the way of passion-less rules. According to some research spelled out in an outstanding whitepaper by Toby Carlisle, the author of Greenbackd.com, trying to “second guess the model” like this could be a mistake.

Cheap enough?

Ultimately, this “Jekyll and Hyde” selection process led to my current portfolio of 16 JNets. Earlier in this post I suggested that one of my principles for inclusion was that the thing be “cheap enough”. Whether I strictly followed the output of my bargain model, or tried to eyeball quality for any individual pick, every one of these companies I think meets the general test of “cheap enough” to buy for a diversified basket of similar-class companies because all are trading at substantial discounts to their “fair” value or value to a private buyer of the entire company. What’s more, while some of these companies may be facing declining earnings prospects, at least as of right now every one of these companies are currently profitable on an operational and net basis, and almost all are debt free (with the few that have debt finding themselves in a position where the debt is a de minimis value and/or covered by cash on the balance sheet). I believe that significantly limits my risk of suffering a catastrophic loss in any one of these names, but especially in the portfolio as a whole, at least on a Yen-denominated basis.

Of course, my currency risk remains and currently I have not landed on a strategy for hedging it in a cost-effective and easy-to-use way.

I suppose the only concern I have at this point is whether my portfolio is “cheap enough” to earn me outsized returns over time. I wonder about my queasiness when looking at the uneven or declining earnings prospects of some of these companies and the way I let it influence my decision-making process and second-guess what should otherwise be a reliable model for picking a basket of companies that are likely to produce above-average returns over time. I question whether I might have eliminated one useful advantage (buying stuff that is just out and out cheap) by trying to add personal genius to it in thinking I could take in the “whole picture” better than my simple screen and thereby come up with an improved handicapping for some of my companies.

Considering that I don’t know Japanese and don’t know much about these companies outside of the statistical data I collected and an inquiry into the industry they operate in (which may be somewhat meaningless anyway in the mega-conglomerated, mega-diversified world of the Japanese corporate economy), it required great hubris, at a minimum, to think I even had cognizance of a “whole picture” on which to base an attempt at informed judgment.

But then, that’s the art of the leap of faith!

16 Japanese Net-Nets I Put In My Portfolio (#JNets, #NCAV)

16 Japanese Net-Nets I Put In My Portfolio (#JNets, #NCAV)

Listed below are the 16 Japanese companies that currently compose my “basket” (portfolio-within-the-portfolio) of Japanese net-nets, which I refer to as “JNets”. While most of my picks were classic Benjamin Graham-style companies trading for 2/3rds or less of their Net Current Asset Value (current assets minus total liabilities), some were selected on the basis of being a Net Cash Bargain (trading below the value of the company’s cash minus total liabilities) or as a Cash Bargain (profitable company with no debt trading for less than the cash on the balance sheet).

Strictly speaking, a Net Cash Bargain is a more conservative valuation than a Net Current Asset Value Bargain as there are more assets in front of the liabilities, while a Cash Bargain is a less conservative valuation (it may or may not be an NCAV Bargain) but typically you are getting a higher quality company with stronger earnings power as a result. As Graham noted, equities can be analyzed much like bonds and the true safety of a bond comes from the underlying company’s earnings power, not necessarily the asset values which are a worst-case fall back measure to protect against loss.

The figures in the list below are all in Yen, typically in millions of Yen besides the per share price. At the time of purchase, the approximate exchange value of the dollar against the Yen was 1 USD = 78 JPY. All figures and prices are the most recent available at time of purchase.

For comparative purposes, I summarize at the end of the list the metrics for the entire basket (as if it was a conglomeration of 100% of the equity of all companies included) as well as on an average basis as a representative for an individual company within the basket.

Links in the name of each company take you to their website, if available. Links in the symbol of each company take you to their Bloomberg business bio page, if available.

16 Japanese Bargain Shares (Net-Nets, Net Cash and Cash Value)

Name: Sakai Trading
Symbol: 9967
Industry/product: imports, exports, and wholesales chemical products, synthetic resins, and electronic materials
Market Cap (Ym): 2,210
Share price (Y): 235
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 2,851
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 12.3x
NCAV (Ym): 4,973
 
Name: Shinko Shoji Co. Ltd
Symbol: 8141
Industry/product: sells electronic parts and equipment such as integrated circuits (IC) and semiconductor devices, liquid crystal (LC) display modules, condensers, ferrite cores, coils, power supplies, thin film transistor (TFT) thermal printers, head magnets, transformers, motors, sensors, and connectors
Market Cap (Ym): 16,905
Share price (Y): 625
Debt (Ym): 3,000
Cash (Ym): 10,610
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 12x
NCAV (Ym): 41,899
 
Name: KSK Co Ltd
Symbol: 9687
Industry/product: develops computer software for various systems related to telecommunication and LSI (Large Scale Integration), provides data processing services for government and insurance group, sells OA (Office Automation) equipment and computer peripheral
Market Cap (Ym): 3,300
Share price (Y): 450
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 4,461
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 1.6x
NCAV (Ym): 4,926
 
Name: Daichii Kensetsu
Symbol: 1799
Industry/product: constructs railways mainly for East Japan Railway, constructs infrastructure such as sewage facilities, tunnels, and waterways, builds commercial, institutional, and residential buildings
Market Cap (Ym): 15,124
Share price (Y): 685
Debt (Ym): 151
Cash (Ym): 17,230
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 2.3x
NCAV (Ym): 19,099
 
Name: Choukeizai Sha
Symbol: 9476
Industry/product: publishes economics, finance, law, accounting, and tax related books and periodical magazines and business related books, operates a planning center which handles advertising on publishes,provides design & production services for sales promotion pamphlets
Market Cap (Ym): 1,434
Share price (Y): 326
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 2,501
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): -0.1x
NCAV (Ym): 2,933
 
Name: CLIP Corp
Symbol: 4705
Industry/product: operates a network of cram schools in Nagoya, operates soccer school and lunch box delivery services
Market Cap (Ym): 4,022
Share price (Y): 886
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 5,029
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 0.1x
NCAV (Ym): 4,196
 
Name: Noda Screen
Symbol: 6790
Industry/product: processes electrical components such as plastic package substrates and printed circuits boards (PCBs), through a subsidiary, manufactures and sells screen stencils and fluoride chemical products
Market Cap (Ym): 2,849
Share price (Y): 27,000
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 3,641
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): -0.2x
NCAV (Ym): 4,146
 
Name: Kitakei Co Ltd
Symbol: 9872
Industry/product: wholesales housing materials and home furnishings based in the Kansai area, sells housing facility products such as bathroom units, wooden building materials, special wooden products, housing equipment, veneer boards, chemical products, and housing preservative agents
Market Cap (Ym): 2,963
Share price (Y): 296
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 5,045
EV/EBIT (1oyr avg): 16.8x
NCAV (Ym): 5,133
 
Name: Ryosan Co Ltd
Symbol: 8140
Industry/product: distributes electronic components, such as integrated circuits (ICs), electronic tubes, semiconductor elements, and personal computers, manufactures heat sinks
Market Cap (Ym): 47,582
Share price (Y): 1,387
Debt (Ym): 172
Cash (Ym): 36,452
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 7x
NCAV (Ym): 92,515
 
Name: Daiken Co
Symbol: 5900
Industry/product: manufactures and sells metal and other material parts for building construction and exterior products including curtain rails, exterior panels, garages, and bicycle parking units, provides installation of these products and real estate leasing service
Market Cap (Ym): 2,245
Share price (Y): 376
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 1,753
EV/EBIT (1oyr avg): 5.4x
NCAV (Ym): 4,375
 
Name: Ryoyo Electro Corporation
Symbol: 8068
Industry/product: wholesales electronic components including semiconductors, sells workstations, personal computers, and printers, operates offices in Singapore and Hong Kong, trades semiconductors from Mitsubishi Electric
Market Cap (Ym): 22,205
Share price (Y): 771
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 28,443
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 1.6x
NCAV (Ym): 54,847
 
Name: Nihon Dengi
Symbol: 1723
Industry/product: designs, constructs, and maintains integrated building management systems for air-conditioning, security, and electrical facilities, develops integrated production systems for industrial factories
Market Cap (Ym): 4,805
Share price (Y): 586
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 6,313
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 4.3x
NCAV (Ym): 8,613
 
Name: Odawara Engineering
Symbol: 6149
Industry/product: manufactures automatic coil winding machines including micro motor, coreless motor, universal motor, and stepping motor type, provides reconstruction, repair, and parts replacement services for its winding machines
Market Cap (Ym): 4,154
Share price (Y): 650
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 5,411
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 2x
NCAV (Ym): 6,423
 
Name: Natoco Co Ltd
Symbol: 4627
Industry/product: manufactures and sells various types of paints including paints for metals, building materials, and auto repair, manufactures high polymer compounds which are used as material for liquid crystal displays
Market Cap (Ym): 4,414
Share price (Y): 603
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 5,403
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 5x
NCAV (Ym): 6,967
 
Name: Fuji Oozx
Symbol: 7299
Industry/product: manufactures automobile engine parts such as valves, valve adjusters and rotators, has subsidiaries in Korea, Taiwan, and the United States
Market Cap (Ym): 6,189
Share price (Y): 301
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 6,884
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 1.6x
NCAV (Ym): 11,623
 
Name: Excel Co Ltd
Symbol: 7591
Industry/product: sells electronic products, such as liquid crystal devices (LCD), semiconductors, and integrated circuits (IC), including thin film transistor (TFT) modules, TFT-LCDs, cellular phones, car navigation systems
Market Cap (Ym): 6,208
Share price (Y): 683
Debt (Ym): 0
Cash (Ym): 6,679
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): 4.7x
NCAV (Ym): 18,574
 
Total Basket
Market Cap (Ym): 129,974
EV (Ym): -15,499
10yr avg EBIT (Ym): 27,046
Debt (Ym): 3,323
Cash (Ym): 148,796
NCAV (Ym): 291,244
EV/EBIT (10yr avg): -0.57x
P/NCAV: 0.45x
P/Net cash: 0.89x
P/Cash: 0.87x
EBIT yield (EBIT/Mkt Cap): 21%
 
Representative Company (Avg)
Market Cap (Ym): 8,123
EV (Ym): -969
10yr avg EBIT (Ym): 1,690
Debt (Ym): 208
Cash (Ym): 9,300
NCAV (Ym): 18,203
DreamWorks Animation CEO Katzenberg On The Studio’s Future Opportunity ($DWA)

DreamWorks Animation CEO Katzenberg On The Studio’s Future Opportunity ($DWA)

Am I reading this correctly? Is he saying films like Madagascar 3 generate $1.5B in revenue over their lifetime, and that in the future these films will generate $3.75B in revenue?

From a USA Today interview:

Take a movie like Madagascar 3. About 150 million people pay us about $10 from beginning to end on the movie. Some people go to the movie theater, some buy a DVD, some get it from HBO, some from Netflix, some from Redbox. But you sort of take it through the whole course, whole life of the movie, (it) is about 150 million people, and it’s about $10, on an average.

Ten years from now, two and a half billion people are going to pay us, on average, $1.50. Literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people for 65 cents will watch it on a smartphone in all parts of the world. Then you’ll pay $2 to watch it on your iPad. You’ll pay $5 to watch it on a big high-def flat-screen TV, and you’ll pay $15 to watch it in a premium movie theater, $25 to watch it in IMAX and $10 billion to watch it in Richard Branson’s spaceship somewhere.

The one thing that the movie business has done, which is very different than music, is we have always made our product available to people in different shapes, different forms, different prices. You can own it, you can rent it, you can borrow it. Please don’t steal it. Digital will move us to a mass, mass, mass market, radically different from what we have today. All the stakeholders will change in terms of what their stakes are.

Video – Seth Klarman On Leadership (#leadership)

Video – Seth Klarman On Leadership (#leadership)

The Harvard Business School presents Seth Klarman, founder and president of the Baupost Group

Major take-aways from the interview:

  • I don’t think a lot about being a leader; our goal is to be “excellent” and to be proud of what we do
  • Main principle for leadership or management-style: “Do unto others…”
  • Big believer in leading by example; you can’t expect other people to do things you’re incapable of or unwilling to do yourself
  • Sometimes organizations are stuck, people want to do more but they haven’t been asked the right way; don’t overlook the power of re-anchoring via leading by example
  • Leadership stems from credibility — credibility stems from being “right” over time and from having knowledge — and from moral values
  • Two important moral values for leaders:
    • Football field test; play the game from the center of the field, not near the sidelines, where it is easy to go out of bounds without intending to do so
    • WSJ test; live your life in a way that you would not be embarrassed to have it reported on the front page of the WSJ
  • Every quarter, I sit down with the non-investment team members of the firm and explain the current investment strategy; the idea is to help the rest of the firm understand why the firm is doing well or poorly; this creates a culture where everyone is on the same page
  • You want to create a culture where everyone is willing to stay late to finish a job if they have to, where people will spend time double-checking for mistakes; people paying attention to detail at every level of the firm is important
  • Leaders don’t take credit, they give credit; be quick to give everyone around you credit, it is empowering to those people
  • Turnover is a hidden cost of business; it can take so long to get someone up to speed, train them properly, get them to the point that they can contribute; treating employees properly and caring for them is a smart business decision
  • If you have someone who is not getting the job done, other people are probably carrying their weight and working extra hard for them, and this isn’t fair; good leaders need to be fair
  • Get a good mentor; find a place to work where they care about you, that will nurture you and be interested in your development; if you can find one it sets you on the road to success
  • An experience SK feels good about as a leader: the time the leaders of the firm decided to buy the entire firm playoff tickets for the Red Sox game that ended up being a historic game– an order of magnitude different from handing over a $1000 bonus
  • A mistake SK made as a leader: tolerating a “difficult person” for far too long, because they were a talented individual; it poisoned the well, tarnished the moral character of the firm, led to some financial losses; focused too much on the short-term pain rather than the long-term benefit of that decision
  • A leader is not afraid to fail, is not afraid to be wrong or to lose money in the short-term; a leader always adheres to their principles and standards
  • JP Morgan: “I can do the work of a year in 9 months, but not in 12”; it’s important to set time aside to refresh, relax, reflect
  • Marathon, not a sprint; don’t focus on the short-term because it causes anxiety and makes you hyperactive in an effort to compensate for short-term poor performance
  • You can’t be a leader if you burn out; find balance, seek a variety of interests
  • Working a couple years at an intense pace (80hrs+/week) is okay if it’s for a specific purpose; ideally, if you are going to work that hard, do something entrepreneurial, then you’re doing it for yourself and the benefits, if any, accrue to you
  • Understand that if you plan to compete by being willing to work 100 hours a week, you’ll be beat by people willing to work 110 hours
Video – Hugh Hendry Interviewed By Steven Drobny At LSE (#macro)

Video – Hugh Hendry Interviewed By Steven Drobny At LSE (#macro)

Hugh Hendry interviewed by Steven Drobny at the London School of Economics, 2010

Major take-aways from the interview:

  • How he got his start: began at an eclectic asset management firm in Edinburgh, which rotated its young associates; began at age 21 in the Japanese stock market the year after it peaked in 1990; the next year rotated to UK large companies; the next year US equities; moved to London in 1998/9 and no one would employ him because he was a jack-of-all-trades, master of none
  • 1929/1930 marked a “revulsion with debt” period, which changed very slowly, ultimately eradicated from society in 1973/74; then the opposite cycle occurred, with society massively leveraging; during this upswing, it has paid to be optimistic and the financial economy has become the economy; we appear to be on the verge of a generational shift again, where farmers will reign over hedge fund managers
  • Macro opportunities are created by the interactions of economics and the abilities of politicians to try to fudge them
  • “The best trade is the one where you don’t fear the consequences of being wrong”
  • China
    • China’s economic development strategy is not unique, it’s just large-scale; economy is being directed toward sovereign-profit, not corporate-profit
    • Pursuing sovereign power over economic power results in building your economy on foundations of sand; Japan tried the same thing and it appeared to work until it was revealed to have not worked; Confucius saying, “Wise-man not invest in over-capacity”
    • China is like the sun, you can’t get too close or you’ll melt (can’t short equities in China, HK, or commodity futures or equity derivatives in the West); used the “satellite”, bought CDS on a basket of Japanese industries, as Japan is very reliant on trade with China– steel, for example
  • If we’re going to have hyperinflation and the dollar loses its value, you need something profoundly negative to shake the course of economic growth globally, because only if that happens will the central bankers respond with this dramatic decision of hyperinflation
  • Slowdown in China, economic restructuring in Europe would be the economic equivalent of a meteor hitting Earth
  • Market call: the Yen and the USD could appreciate greatly, because there is so much borrowing in those currencies, if asset values take a hit, you have a shortage of dollars or Yen to pay against the collateral values of that lending; combined with calls on the Nikkei at 40,000, 50,000 (want to be very long equities at that point)
  • Good hedge fund managers give great weight to the consequence of their actions and are fearful of them, so they won’t be hurt too much if they’re wrong
  • Being plasticine: we spend so much time trying to see the future, we’re deluding ourselves because we have no chance to see the future; better to be careful and flexible, avoid dramatic injury and maintain optionality to respond to whatever the future holds
  • Be a centipede, not a mountain climber; have a hundred legs so you can let one or two go if you have to do so
  • Strategically, it’s not rational to try to outsmart bright people; bright people are encouraged to be logical in their constructions; my business franchise is trying to get opportunities from the arcane world of paradox, disciplined curiosity, the toolset of the maverick
Video – Hugh Hendry Visits The Milken Institute (#macro)

Video – Hugh Hendry Visits The Milken Institute (#macro)

Hugh Hendry interviewed in a panel discussion at the 2012 Milken Institute Global Conference

Major take-aways from the interview:

  • Global economy is “grossly distorted” by two fixed exchange regimes: the Euro (similar to the gold standard of the 1920s) and the Dollar-Renminbi
  • China is attempting to play the role of the “bridge”, just as Germany did in the 1920s, to help the global economy spend its way into recovery
  • Two types of leverage: operational and financial; Germany is a country w/ operational leverage; Golden Rule of Operational Leverage, “Never, never countenance having financial leverage”, this explains Germany’s financial prudence and why they’ll reject a transfer union
  • Transfer of economic rent in Europe; redistribution of rents within Europe, the trade is short the financial sector, long the export sector
  • Heading toward Euro parity w/ the dollar, if not lower; results in profound economic advantage especially for businesses with operational leverage
  • “The thing I fear” is confiscation: of client’s assets, my assets; we are 1 year away from true nationalization of French banks
  • Theme of US being supplanted as global leader, especially by Chinese, is overwrought
  • Why US will not be easily overtaken: when US had its “China moment”, it was on a gold standard…
    • implication, as an entrepreneur, you had one chance– get it right or you’re finished
    • today is a world of mercantilism, money-printing, the  entrepreneur has been devalued because you get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th chance
    • when the US had its emergence on a hard money system, it built foundations which are “rock solid”
    • today, this robust society has restructured debt, restructured the cost of labor, has cleared property at market levels
    • additionally, “God has intervened”, w/ progress in shale oil extraction technology; US paying $2, Europe $10, Asians $14-18
  • Dollar is only going to go one way, higher; this is like early 1980/82
  • “I haven’t finished Atlas Shrugged, I can’t finish it”: it’s too depressing; it reads like non-fiction, she’s describing the world of today
  • The short sale ban was an attack on free thought; people have died in wars for the privilege to stand up and say “The Emperor has no clothes”; banned short selling because truth is unpalatable to political class; the scale and magnitude of the problem is greater than their ability to respond
  • We are single digit years away from a most profound market-clearing moment, on the order of 1932 or 1982, where you don’t need smarts, you just need to be long
  • Hard-landing scenario in Asia combined w/ recession in Europe would result in “bottoming” process, at which point all you need is courage to go long
Doing The Hugh Hendry (#debt, #diversification)

Doing The Hugh Hendry (#debt, #diversification)

Below is some commentary from Hugh Hendry I found in an FT.com editorial I since can not access as I don’t have a login. But I thought it was interesting when I first read it awhile back and I still think it’s interesting now. I meant to post it earlier. Rectifying my mistake:

For the moment, let us forget the chances of a hard landing in China. Forget the drama of Europe’s circus of politically inspired economic incompetency. Forget that the good news of the US economy’s succession of positive economic surprises is really bad news as fixed income managers have sold copious amounts of too cheap volatility and because it has made equity investors turn bullish, sending stock market volatility back to 2007 levels. This is dangerous. Improved US data may represent a classic short-term cyclical upturn amid a profound global deleveraging cycle.

Such moves have been commonplace for the past three years and have yet to prove a harbinger of any structural upswing. I worry that the pathological course of the last several years will see volatility rise sharply once again. Even so, there exists, in terms of my parochial world of hedge fund investing, a bigger issue.

I fear that my no longer small community has been compromised. Last year was generally very tough for long/short strategies and I commiserate with all concerned. But last year world class funds lost more than 15 per cent in just two months. Today they are celebrated again for making double digit returns in the last quarter even though they still languish below high water marks and their reputation for risk management, at least to those clients who have poured over their copious due diligence statements, has been sorely compromised.

You can probably live with that if you are a pension scheme or a large, sophisticated fund-of-fund because you have a global macro sub-sector that can benefit from short-term shifts in volatility. But the unfortunate thing is that this group exercised its stop losses somewhere between the great stock market rallies of 2009 and 2010. That is to say, they honoured the pact they had with clients. They adhered to the terms of their risk budget: they lost money and they reduced their positions. I fear that owing to this nasty experience the financial world is in danger of harvesting a monoculture of fund returns that could prove less than robust should the global economy suffer another deflationary reversal.

To my mind the situation has parallels with the plight of the banana. Today the world eats predominately just one type of banana, the Cavendish, but it is being wiped out by a blight known as Tropical Race 4, which encourages the plant to kill itself. Scientists refer to it as programmed death cell destruction. In stressful situations bananas fortify themselves by dropping leaves, killing off weaker cells so that stronger ones may live to fight anew. They operate a stop-loss system.

But modern mass production of single type bananas has replaced jungle diversity with commercial monocultural fields that provide more hosts to harbour the blight. The economy keeps producing stressful volatility events. Good managers keep shedding risk and monetising losses and are duly fired, leaving us with a monoculture of brazen managers who will never stop loss because they are convinced central banks will print more money.

Diversification has proven the most robust survival mechanism against failures of judgment by any one society, hedge fund manager or style. But what if we are now a single global hedge fund community afraid to take stop losses and convinced of an inflationary outcome to be all short US Treasuries and long real assets?

This is pertinent as I have always been fascinated by that second rout in US Treasuries in 1984, long after the inflation of the 1970s was met head on by Paul Volcker’s monetary vice and a deep recession. How could 10-year Treasury yields have soared back to 14 per cent and how could so many investment veterans have been convinced that a second even more virulent inflation wave was to hit the global economy?

Psychologists tell us the explanation is embedded deep in the mind. They refer to the “availability heuristic”. Goaded by the proximity to the last dramatic event, investors overreacted to the news that the US economy was pulling out of recession in 1984. They saw high inflation where there was none.

With this in mind, I would contend that it may take several more years before the threat of debt and deflation can be successfully exorcised from investors’ minds, even if the global economy were not set on such a perilous course. Such is the potency and memory of 2008’s crash that anything remotely challenging to the economic consensus could be met by a sudden and severe reappraisal to the downside.

Should such an event send 30-year Treasury yields back to their 2008 low of 2.5 per cent, we believe enlightened investors might better be served by thinking the opposite. Only then might it prove rewarding to short the government bond market and embrace what may turn out to be a much promised once in a lifetime buying opportunity for risk assets.


Quotes – Entrepreneurship Implies Action (#entrepreneurship, @richardbranson)

Quotes – Entrepreneurship Implies Action (#entrepreneurship, @richardbranson)

Some people say that my vision for Virgin breaks all the rules and is too wildly kaleidoscopic; others say that Virgin has become one of the leading brand names of the century; others analyze it down to the last degree and then write academic papers on it.

As for me, I just pick up the phone and get on with it.

~Richard Branson

Fees, Firepower & Funds: The Incentives Faced By Private Equity (@EpicureanDeal, #PrivateEquity)

Fees, Firepower & Funds: The Incentives Faced By Private Equity (@EpicureanDeal, #PrivateEquity)

I know very little about the private equity world, mindset, incentive structure and investment strategy, but I am eager to understand it better. I found a recent post, “Too Much Is Never Enough” at the Epicurean Dealmaker blog, to be informative reading, assuming the author knows what he is talking about. Plus, it came chock full of Seven Samurai quotes, which is pretty awesome:

Tempting as it may be to imagine Steve Schwarzman and Leon Black dressed in top hat, tails, and duck bill masks whooping and hollering atop $10 billion mountains of gold coins in swimming pool vaults deep under Midtown Manhattan streets, private equity firms almost never get to hold the actual money nominally under their control for longer than it takes to keystroke a wire transfer into somebody else’s bank account. The multibillion dollar funds they raise with such fanfare in the press represent commitments by their limited partners to invest up to that amount in appropriate investments described and limited by the master fund agreement, not actual currency sitting in a bank account. When the financial sponsor finds and buys a company, it levies a capital call on its investors, and they are contractually obligated to deliver those funds in a timely fashion so the general partner can purchase the target. The trillion dollars which Mr. Sorkin so gleefully describes is not actual money gathering dust under the Carlyle Group’s mattress but rather a promise to invest that much by the pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors who employ it and its brethren to make money.

Second, there is the issue of how long financial sponsors actually get to call that money from investors, the key issue at hand but one which Mr. Sorkin skips rather lightly over in his haste to portend doom. For while most private equity firms raise investment funds with lives of a decade or more, by the same token most of them have significantly shorter actual investment periods. Usually, if the general partner is unable to find appropriate companies to buy or other investments to make within four to six years of the initial closing of the fund, the limited partners’ obligation to fund further capital calls goes away. More importantly, from the private equity firm’s perspective, the fund agreement dictates that it can no longer charge its full (2%) management fee on the full committed amount. In other words, if financial sponsor Dewey Trickem & Howe only spends $4 billion of its $10 billion DTH Rape and Pillage Fund XXIII by year six, it can no longer charge its limited partners $200 millionper year in management fees. Instead, it can only dun them for 2% (or less) of the actual money invested, $4 billion, or a paltry $80 million. Given that DT&H has lots of expenses to pay, including luxurious Park Avenue office space, oodles of advisors and consultants, and legions of sharp-toothed Henry Kravis wannabes, you can just imagine how little they want to let that $6 billion of uncommitted capital (and, more importantly, $120 million of annual income) slip through their fingers.

Gross these management fees up across the multiple funds which large asset managers run in parallel (Fund I, fully invested and in harvest mode; Fund II, recently fully invested; and Fund III, recently raised and currently being invested), and you can see the 2% management fees which these firms charge add up to some serious revenue. Spread it out across multibillion dollar investment firms which employ a relatively paltry few hundred professionals, and you may understand that incentives to make investments which actually make money for limited partners get materially blurred by the incentive to gather assets.