Tag Archives: alt-investing

Thinking And Worrying Are Not The Same Thing!

Skeptical investors usually do well, cynics do not. A high market capitalization to GDP ratio indicates capital inefficiency. Bond markets are becoming increasingly dangerous. A cynic is someone who is negative ahead of the evidence and will who only, if ever, grudgingly admit to reality. Financial markets have always been afflicted by cynical perma-bears and detractors who simply refuse to acknowledge the power of the market’s relentless upward drift in equity prices over the past two centuries. The data is unassailable. The prophets of doom are ever ready to announce the imminent collapse of the entire financial system and predict that yes, this time is truly different! In other words, they want to short civilization- a view perhaps best expressed by selling all financial assets and hoarding real property such as gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ) . Personally, I subscribe to a more optimistic Whig historiography, which while conceding setbacks, believes in the inexorable march of progress. The most fundamental aspect of successful investing is to recognize that more wealth has been created by investing in evolution and growth than has been saved by preparing for Judgment Day. However, I am paid to worry and to question my chief premises. That is my job. The U.S. equity market has had a great five-year Bull Run, but there are now clear signs of exhaustion. Maybe today’s lofty equity prices are indeed just a reflection of a highly manipulated monetary system and are due for a big correction. Is it wise to reduce exposure now that both U.S. and European equities seem to have broken out on the upside? Here are some facts: S&P 500 company year over year sales growth was 3.1% in 2014 and is forecast to decline by .2% in 2015. More troubling, year over year earnings growth looks set to rise by just 2.4% in 2015 after a 7.2% rise in 2014. Of course, the energy sector is pushing estimates down, but even some of 2014’s best performing sectors such as Heath Care (XLV ) and Utilities (XLU ) , are forecast to have big percentage earnings declines, although profit margins seem set to remain at near record highs. As always, it is certainly possible that estimates get revised up or down as 2015 plays out. Everyone knows the S&P 500 Index has doubled in price over the past five years, yet U.S. real GDP has only grown by a cumulative 12% during the same period. Admittedly, the S&P 500 index is more than a reflection of the U.S. economy, but world GDP has only grown by only 15% since 2009, not outpacing the U.S. by any noticeable margin. The much-maligned market capitalization to U.S. GDP ratio now stands at 124% – meaning that the S&P 500 is collectively worth more than all the output of the U.S. economy. An illustrative equivalence may be in order here. Individually, many companies have a single year sales or revenues far in excess of their capital. For example, Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ) had 2013 revenues of $56bn with capital of $21bn. Similarly, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) had $183bn in sales on $112bn of capital in its latest annual report. In other words, it’s reasonable to assume that one-year sales exceed capital for many companies, yet overall capital exceeds sales for the entire S&P 500! One must wonder why so much capital is needed in aggregate to produce so little in sales. The TMC or Total Market Cap to GDP ratio is tainted by the largest banks such as JP Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM ) , which held $211bn of equity in 2013 to generate just $96bn is sales. Now I understand that JPM and the other banks are forced to hold much more capital that they would like to in an ideal post-2008 world. Regardless of the reasons, it is fair to conclude that the S&P 500 is too highly capitalized, in aggregate, given the sales and earnings metrics of its constituent companies in relation to overall capitalization. It simply means that on average, the return on one unit of capital will be less than if the capital was more prudently deployed. The current situation can only resolve itself in one of the five ways listed here: Sales and earnings grow at a much faster pace than forecast Companies decrease capital by increasing dividends and share buybacks There is a sudden burst in productivity, allowing companies to extract greater units of earnings from the current stock of capital The overall equity market sells off Nothing changes and GDP eventually catches up with the market cap of the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ) I am not in the habit of making bold predictions. Each of the five outcomes listed above are possible, but the last two options, a market sell-off or no change, requires the least amount effort to succeed in bringing the TMC ratio back to a more sustainable level. The main fault with my argument here and indeed with many notions about lofty valuations needing to decline is that equities, even U.S equities, offer compelling value on a relative basis compared to bonds. At a multiple of 20x, the S&P 500 offers an earnings yield of 5% and when coupled with the dividend yield of 2%, offers investors an expected return of around 7%. That compares favorably with U.S. 10y government bonds that now offer about 2.10%. Regrettably, investors cannot spend expected returns and must wait for real returns to materialize. Nonetheless, bonds, as an asset class, are becoming increasingly dangerous. Little noticed during this past month was the doubling of Japanese 10y yields from 20 bp to 40 bp. Sure, Japan’s yields are still extraordinarily low, as are yields in Germany, the UK and, of course, here in the U.S. Volatility in the bond markets is on the rise too. See (CBOE: VXTYN). If U.S 10y government bond yields were to double from 2.10% to 4.20%, admittedly a very low probability scenario, investors would be looking at a near 18 full point loss on their holdings (200 bp * modified duration of ~9). Now I know active traders would never remain idle in the face of such a selloff, however, many passive investors, housed deep inside index funds, will see real losses mount as bond yields rise. So I think it too soon to underweight U.S. equities for the simple reason that there is nothing worth over weighting right now. Holding a reasonably diversified portfolio, suited to an investor’s goals and risk preferences, remains the best means to build real wealth and avoid the pitfalls of over-reacting to high valuations and volatility. Expanding the investable universe, both in geographic and asset class terms, will enhance a portfolio’s risk and return characteristics. Diogenes of Sinope is credited with being the world’s first great cynic. He famously said, “I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels.” According to legend, he carried a lamp by day in his cynical search for an honest man. Today, investors are hunting for decent returns while hoping to avoid catastrophic draw downs. That is a job for a skeptical optimist, not a scoffer of the most ordinary kind. What about the search for an honest man? I am convinced they do exist. You just need to know where to look. Disclosure: The author is long SPY. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it. The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Centrica’s Dividend Cut – How Should Shareholders React?

This week I was mildly surprised to see that Centrica ( OTCPK:CPYYF ) ( OTCPK:CPYYY ) (which I’ve owned since 2012) had cut its final dividend as part of a plan to rebase the dividend some 30% below its previous level. It wasn’t a complete surprise given the recent collapse in the price of oil, but it’s the sort of event which demands some sort of reaction. As I see it, shareholders have three main options: Panic sell: Break out in a cold sweat, curse Centrica’s management and place a sell order immediately. Do nothing: Be mildly miffed, but do nothing with the intention of holding the shares “forever”. Weekend review: Wait for the weekend and then review the company again in order to decide whether to keep holding, start selling or perhaps even buy more if the price drops enough. Reaction option 1: Panic sell If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you’ll know that I am not a fan of panic selling, especially when it relates to an established, successful company like Centrica . Sure, panic sell an AIM-listed micro-cap mining company that operates in some country you’ve never heard of, but Centrica? I’ve written about this before, but in my view panic selling a defensive dividend payer like Centrica is like selling a buy-to-let property because its rental income drops for a year or two. Typically, rent will drop because there’s a void period, i.e. a period where one tenant leaves and another can’t be found immediately. The property sits empty for a few months and so rental income for the year is lower. Panic selling in that situation would mean putting the house up for sale immediately at a knock down price, perhaps 20% below its true market value, just to get rid of the place. To me that is just crazy. It locks in a massive capital loss just because income has dropped a little bit for a little while. The property is still there, its basic ability to generate an income is no different, and in time the income may well bounce back to where it “should” be. The same could easily be said of Centrica or any other defensive dividend payer. The same sort of situation led investors to sell Aviva (NYSE: AV ) after it cut its dividend in 2013, causing them to miss out when the share price rebounded massively shortly after (a roller coaster ride which I went through myself). Reaction option 2: Do nothing Now, this is much closer to my heart. I like to be efficient, i.e. to minimise the amount of work I need to do (which my wife describes as “lazy”). The minimum amount of work in this situation is to simply do nothing at all. In fact, this is a popular strategy which generally falls under the banner of “buy and hold”. A good example of the buy and hold approach is the High Yield Portfolio strategy (HYP) developed by Stephen Bland, which has its spiritual home on the Motley Fool bulletin boards. With HYP, defensive dividend payers are bought with attractive yields and then left untouched for all eternity, and “tinkering” with the portfolio is a definite no-no. While this sounds more attractive to me than panic selling, and is for the most part a fairly sensible strategy if you’re buying the right sort of companies, it isn’t for me. I don’t like the idea that I would buy a company in 2010 and still be holding it in 2030 without ever having thought about whether it was worth holding on to. When a company is first bought, it is analysed to make sure it’s a defensive dividend payer. At the same time, its share price is analysed to make sure the yield is sufficiently good. So, if it makes sense to check those things when the shares are bought, why does it make sense to never check them again? What if the company goes down the pan, never to recover? Surely, at some point it makes sense to move on and buy another company that is far more successful? Or what if the company does okay, but the share price doubles or triples, dropping the dividend yield to well below the market rate? Wouldn’t it make sense in that case to lock in those excess capital gains by selling? The proceeds could be reinvested into another, equally solid company but with a more attractive valuation and dividend yield? That’s not to say buy and hold isn’t a good strategy. It can be, but only for those who really do never ever want to make any investment decisions ever again, or at least no more than once every few years. For me that is far too boring and leaves far too many potential returns on the table. So, while I think doing nothing is probably much better than panic selling, I’m not going to stick with Centrica forever and ever, regardless of how it performs. I want something in between those two extremes. Reaction option 3: Weekend review And so we come to my preferred approach, which is the weekend review. The idea with a weekend review is to take the middle path between an emotionally driven knee-jerk reaction on the one hand and a complete absence of reaction on the other. It may seem odd to wait for the weekend, but there are good reasons for doing so: The markets are closed so you can’t see the price ticking lower ever few seconds and you can’t execute a trade immediately, which means you can concentrate on doing a good review without distraction It will usually be a day or so since the original unpleasant results were announced so you will have had time to calm down (although if you get upset by bad news, you’re probably not diversified enough), which should help you to think more clearly Once the weekend rolls around you would just sit down and do a thorough review of the company (Centrica in this case) using its latest results and its latest share price (using this investment spreadsheet if you like). In my case, as a defensive value investor I would be looking to see: Defensiveness: Is Centrica still a relatively defensive dividend payer (despite the dividend cut), with reasonable medium- and long-term growth prospects? Value: Is the valuation still attractive, given the company’s slower growth rate and reduced dividend? Here are Centrica’s results up to and including the dividend cut: The profits are a bit jerky but the general trend is upward, although of course there are no guarantees for the future. At 255p, the company and its shares have the following metrics, which I have compared against the FTSE 100: Growth: 10-year revenue/earnings/dividend growth rate = 8% (FTSE 100 = 1%) Quality: 10-year growth quality (consistency) = 79% (FTSE 100 = 54%) Value: PE10 ratio (price to 10-year average earnings) = 11.3 (FTSE 100 at 6,850 = 14.4) Income: Dividend yield = 4.7% (FTSE 100 = 3.4%) Profitability: ROCE = 12.4% (using post-tax profit) (FTSE 100 = 10%) By those metrics, the company still has a better track record than the market average and its share price is still more attractively valued than the market by a considerable margin. After looking at the numbers, I reviewed the company’s operations and its market, and I think it is by no means clear how Centrica will perform in the medium to long term. The oil price is uncertain, the political situation is uncertain, and the economy is uncertain. However, this degree of uncertainty is entirely normal as the future is almost always uncertain. Rather than try to predict an uncertain future, my approach is to defend against it instead. I think the best way to defend against an uncertain future is build a highly diversified portfolio of successful, established, dividend paying companies, and then for the most part to let them get on with it. On that basis, I will be holding on to Centrica for now, despite the dividend cut. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Duke Energy – FY 2014 Results And Future Guidance Takeaways

Summary Expected EPS growth in 2015 ($4.55-$4.75) from $4.55 in 2014. Expected EPS growth of 4-6% through 2017. Commitment to dividend and maintaining a strong balance sheet. Potential risks include exposure to Brazil, decreased residential energy usage, and volatile oil prices. Duke Energy’s Q4 Earnings Call On February 18, 2015, Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK ) reported their fourth quarter and full year 2014 earnings. Within the earnings call, the company identified four financial objectives for 2015 and beyond within their presentation: (1) Current Year earnings guidance, (2) Long-term earnings growth, (3) Dividend growth, (4) Balance sheet strength. In this article, I will review these four financial objectives and provide an outline and analysis on the company’s projections. Refer to the company’s earnings call transcript and power point for additional details. Expected EPS Growth in 2015 In 2014, the company achieved an adjusted diluted EPS of $4.55, which fell in the range of the original guidance ($4.45-$4.60) and the revised guidance ($4.50-$4.65). The guidance range for 2015 earnings guidance is $4.55-$4.75. Key assumptions for 2015 in obtaining this estimate are: Capital expenditures falling within the range of $7.4-$7.8 billion in 2015. This represents a moderate increase of 35% to 42% from the $5.5 billion in 2014. This increase is a positive sign for the company in the future as they make commitments to pursue alternative energy generation sources to decrease their financial dependency on crude oil prices. Retail load growth of 0.5-1.0% in 2015. This range has been reached each year since 2012 (0.6% in 2012, 2013, and 2014). This will be a key metric to monitor throughout the year as the company experienced a difficult year for residential sales in 2014. The company experienced a 0.1% decline in weather-normalized residential sales, but the decline was much worse in Q4 2014 specifically where they experienced a 2.2% decline. 700M average shares outstanding as of 12/31/2015. This shouldn’t be a difficult metric for the company to achieve as they had 707M outstanding as of 12/31/2014 with no planned equity issuances through 2017. $65 per barrel average Brent crude price for 2015. This is a hard assumption to question as oil has become a major battleground and everyone has a different opinion on the future price of oil. I expect that oil inventories will continue to rise and prices will continue to decrease in 2015. Based on the February 2015, EIA report, Brent crude oil prices are expected to be $57.56 in 2015. Exchange rate of approximately 2.85 BRL/US$ (2.35 in 2014). Again, like oil, this is a hard assumption to question, but the BRL/US$ exchange rate has seen a relatively steady increase since September 2014 and I expect this to continue as the Brazilian economy struggles and the US economy strengthens in 2015. Expected EPS Growth Past 2015 In addition to achieving 2015 adjusted diluted EPS guidance, the company is striving for per share growth of 4-6% through 2017. The key growth drivers in this per share growth are: Retail load growth of 1% going forward. Based on the analysis above, the company has been stagnant with a 0.6% retail load growth from 2012 to 2014. I think it is going to be very difficult for the company to achieve a 1% growth going forward. I think it is going to be difficult to achieve because of the lower energy usages in homes. I don’t see this trend reversing and allowing this 1% growth rate to be achieved. The company expects total wholesale net margin to increase due to the new 20-year contract with NCEMC at Duke Energy Progress (began in 2013) and 18-year contract with Central EMC at Duke Energy Carolinas growing to a load of 900MW in 2019 from 115MW in 2013. FY2015’s total wholesale net margin is expected to be approximately $1.1 billion with an anticipated 5% compound annual growth rate. Regulated earnings base growth is expected to follow the $2 billion growth trend in 2015 that was seen in 2014. Commitment to Dividend and Maintaining a Strong Balance Sheet In 2014, the company paid out a dividend of $3.18 per share with that amount expected to rise to $3.24 per share in 2015 (almost 2% increase year-over-year). With the company achieving a payout ratio close to 70% and management’s commitment to paying out a quarterly dividend to investors, I do not see the company’s current 4% dividend yield to be at risk. Management has paid 89 consecutive years of dividends with increases coming the past 7 years. This is largely possible due to the company’s strong balance sheet and no planned equity issuances through 2017. In addition, the company announced a strategically tax-efficient way to repatriate $2.7 billion back to the U.S., which will help fuel the dividend increases going forward. 3 Potential Risks The exposure to Brazil is a significant risk for the company’s future, which was seen in the 2014 financial results. In 2014, there was a decrease in sales volume as well as higher purchased power costs due to the interruptions in the hydrology production. Per the earnings call, they are assuming normal hydrology despite the rainy season starting slowly. Brazil is a major story to follow for Duke Energy in 2015 and beyond as the company is predicting EPS growth from this business segment despite recent downward trends in profits there as well as the Brazilian economy. I think the company will have difficulty increasing the retail load growth to 1% given the increased technologies and social initiatives to decrease electric use. Oil prices will continue to be a wild card going forward. Forecasting a price on such a volatile asset is a difficult task. If oil prices continue to fluctuate widely, it will significantly impact the company’s bottom line. Conclusion: Duke Energy Corporation faces some difficult obstacles including a slowing Brazilian economy, lower residential energy usage, and volatile oil prices; however, I believe that the company gave conservative and very obtainable estimates in each of the key assumptions used to allow them to meet their financial objectives for FY 2015 and beyond. While I don’t see Duke Energy being a rapid growth story going forward, I do believe they have the ability to present slow stock appreciation with the safety of a consistent dividend. Disclosure: The author is long DUK. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Neutral Results for ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague