Tag Archives: author

Connecticut Water Service – A Stable Business With A Twist

Summary The company is primarily a water utility business. While the utility business is highly profitable, the return on equity is capped at around 10%. The Services and Rentals could generate significant value in the future. Connecticut Water Service (NASDAQ: CTWS ) is a utility company that focuses on water distribution. As a water utility company, the company does not have to worry about commodity fluctuations, unlike a natural gas utility company . Unfortunately, the company was not able to escape the pessimism in the market. Despite on the way to post another year of growth, the stock barely budged in 2015, fluctuating around $36. In the chart above, we can see that over the long-term, the stock tracks the company’s top-line growth. This makes a lot of sense because the company primarily runs a regulated business, so margins will be fairly consistent from year to year. More recently, the company seems to have benefited from economy of scale, as the operating margin climbed along with the growth in revenue. For any other company, this track record would suggest an extremely well-run business with the potential to generate a lot of profit. Unfortunately for investors (and fortunately for citizens), the utility business is regulated for this exact reason. The company’s two main water subsidiaries in Connecticut and Maine have a rate cap (return on equity) of 9.75% and 9.5%, respectively As you can see, ROE has fluctuated around the 10%, reflecting this cap. What this means is that the maximum growth equity investors can expect from the company’s regulated business over the long-run is around 10%. Because the company provides a critical service, I have no doubt that the company will achieve this rate of return over the long term. Of course, the company can try to apply for rate increases, but I wouldn’t count them since there is no way to know in advance whether they will be approved. While most of the revenue comes from the regulated water utility business (~90%), the company does have some non-regulated operations. On the non-regulated side, the main segment is Services and Rentals. The segment’s operation is quite diverse, ranging from typical repairs to providing emergency drinking water. While small, the company is highly profitable. Year to date, the segment’s net profit margin was 24%. This is pretty much on par with the margin of the water business (25%)! However, it would seem that the management has trouble growing it. Quarter on quarter, revenue only increased by 5%. That being said, the segment could generate significant value if the management figures out a way to scale it. While I am not seeing any promises right now, it nevertheless has good option value, after all, the segment’s services do go hand in hand with the water business. Conclusion If you are satisfied with the rate of return (~10%) over the long-term, then I think Connecticut Water Service represents a good opportunity. Due to the nature of water utility (a critical service), the company should be able to reach the rate cap over the long-run. While the non-regulated side of the business is still small, I believe that once the management finds a way to convince more water business customers to use the company’s maintenance services, there could be significant upside. Overall, I believe that the company will continue to deliver stable profits from its water business, and the non-regulated activities are an added bonus for investors.

RSX: OPEC, Sanctions On Turkey And The Stubborn Ruble

Summary OPEC fails to provide support to oil prices, posing a significant risk for RSX. The story with Turkey is evolving as I predicted, and does not add much to the bear thesis. The ruble remains relatively overvalued. Market Vectors Russia ETF (NYSE: RSX ) had an interesting November. The ETF moved up and down, fueled by implications of Paris attacks, the shooting of the Russian jet by Turkey and the fluctuations of oil prices. In this article, I’ll focus on two major developments – the Russian sanctions on Turkey and OPEC’s decision to leave things as they are. Turkey In my article on RSX that was published right after the jet incident I stated that Russia’s response won’t be harmful for RSX components. This what exactly happened. In essence, Russia banned tourism and food from Turkey. The food ban comes into power on January 1, 2016, but multiple reports from Russian media show that it is already next to impossible to bring food from Turkey in reasonable time due to customs’ intense checks. Short-term, this will increase inflation, as Russia imports most fruits and vegetables that it consumes in winter because of obvious geographical reasons. As for RSX holdings , this might hurt the retailer Magnit, but I don’t think that it will have a big impact on Magnit’s bottom line. Russian president promised more sanctions on Turkey, but so far there was more harsh talk than real actions. Given the nature of the incident, tourism and food bans are a very light response. I anticipate more words (like the recent mutual accusations of involvement in the ISIS oil trade) from both sides as politicians want to score some points, but I expect little action. Among RSX holdings, the biggest risk is on Sberbank (OTCPK: OTCPK:SBRCY ), which is the fund’s biggest holding. Sberbank owns DenizBank, which is a notable player in the Turkish market. In the latest interview to the Russian media, Sberbank’s head German Gref stated that he saw no significant risks for Sberbank in Turkey, and I agree with his assessment. OPEC OPEC’s decision to live things as they were was predictable, but, nevertheless, was bad for Russia. I think that OPEC’s inability to function as an organization will put more pressure on the oil market. I recently argued that a perfect storm could push oil to $25 per barrel. Such a drop will push RSX way past the lows of December 2014. However, even current prices present an enormous threat to the Russian economy as the country eats through its emergency funds. The ruble The ruble (which is an important factor for the dollar-denominated RSX) stays relatively strong given the current oil price. The ruble-denominated oil price stubbornly stays around 2900 per barrel, while the Russian budget for 2016 needs at least 3150 per barrel. Sanctions on Turkey limit the Central Bank’s ability to decrease the rate, which is currently at 11% . However, if oil stays weak in the beginning of 2016, I expect that the Central Bank will have to cut the rate to provide some help to the Russian budget. Bottom line I remain bearish. RSX was clearly not the easiest short trade in the last few months. There was some optimism about Russia and buying activity was real. However, I question the Russian economy’s ability to successfully operate at current oil price levels. Also, as I think that the next leg down in oil is around the corner, I expect further weakness in RSX.

The Average Joes Of The Dow

Summary We all know about the Dogs of the Dow. Last week I wrote about the Dow’s lowest-yielding stocks – the Gods of the Dow. The next step was to look at the middle-yielding stocks – the “Average Joes of the Dow.” See the results. In the past week I released an article, exclusively on SA, called ” The Gods of the Dow .” The main thrust of the article was to compare the performance of the 10 highest-yielding stocks of the Dow (the Dogs) against the 10 lowest-yielding stocks (what I called “the Gods”) over a decade. The Dogs won the contest by quite a margin. Here is a summary chart showing the performance of the investment strategies. The next logical step is to see how the middle 10 stocks of the Dow would perform. I call this cohort of stocks the “Average Joes of the Dow.” I am having a bit of fun running these tests, but I do believe these 3 groups – the Dogs, the Gods, and the Average Joes – act as rough proxies for value investment, growth investment and the middle ground in between. The Average Joes of the Dow Investment Strategy On December 31, buy the Dow’s 10 middle-yielding stocks. Hold these stocks for a year. Sell the 10 positions on December 31 the following year. Repeat the above process annually. Note: Stocks that are dropped from the Dow during the course of the year are still held until year-end — e.g., you would still hold AT&T through December 31, 2015, if you had purchased it December 31, 2014. Another note: The data for the test comes from the “Dogs of the Dow” website. I am not sure what would happen in the event or a merger or acquisition. A current example would be Pfizer: Allergan has proposed acquiring Pfizer in 2016. If you bought Pfizer on December 31, 2015, you would most likely sell the merged company or acquirer on December 31, 2016, but I am uncertain as to how such events were handled in this historic data set. The Dogs of the Dow Investment Strategy The same as above, but you buy the 10 highest-yielding stocks of the Dow year after year. The Questions What was the annual performance of each strategy on a total return basis? What was the overall performance of each strategy over a 10 year period? Some Sample Data The Dogs of the Dow on December 31, 2014 were: (NYSE: T ) AT&T 33.59 5.48% (NYSE: VZ ) Verizon 46.78 4.70% (NYSE: CVX ) Chevron 112.18 3.82% (NYSE: MCD ) McDonald’s 93.7 3.63% (NYSE: PFE ) Pfizer 31.15 3.60% (NYSE: GE ) General Electric 25.27 3.48% (NYSE: MRK ) Merck 56.79 3.17% (NYSE: CAT ) Caterpillar 91.53 3.06% (NYSE: XOM ) ExxonMobil 92.45 2.99% (NYSE: KO ) Coca-Cola 42.22 2.89% The Average Joes of the Dow on 31 December 2014 were: PG Procter & Gamble 91.09 2.82% IBM International Business Machines 160.44 2.74% CSCO Cisco Systems 27.82 2.73% JNJ Johnson & Johnson 104.57 2.68% MSFT Microsoft 46.45 2.67% JPM JPMorgan Chase 62.58 2.56% DD DuPont 73.94 2.54% INTC Intel 36.29 2.48% BA Boeing 129.98 2.25% WMT Wal-Mart 85.88 2.24% The Results The total returns each year of the Joes vs. the Dogs is shown in the chart below: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Joes 7.65% 18% 16.60% -24.81% 26.65% Dogs -3.46% 25.80% 2.10% -36.56% 17.19% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Joes 16.40% 9.25% 13.19% 33.77% 11.63% Dogs 21.43% 16.85% 8.95% 28.54% 6.45% Here’s a year-by-year comparison of the Joes Vs the Dogs in an easier-to-read graphic. The true outperformance is best explained by considering how well a $10k investment in each strategy on December 31, 2004, would have fared, as shown below: Over the 10-year period, the Joes strongly outperformed the Dogs. The Dogs strategy would have nearly double your money in 10 years, turning $10,000 into $19,320 — not bad. But the Joes strategy would have performed much better, turning $10,000 into $30,320! Conclusion First of all, I want to qualify the above analysis with the observation that it is only based on 10 years of data. As such, the Joes may have had a few exceptionally good years at the start of the decade which then exaggerates out-performance in the later years of the decade. Indeed looking at the Joes cohort from 31 December 2014, one would be concerned by some of the picks: P&G has lost 14% TR YTD IBM has lost 11% TR YTD Wal-Mart has lost 28% TR YTD But despite the above, the Average Joes has only lost 3% YTD on a total return basis. The Joes has included some good performers: MSFT has gained 20% TR YTD Boeing has gained 15.5% TR YTD JPMorgan Chase has gained 10% TR YTD The Dogs have had a better 2015 so far, with just a 1% loss. I have to say it is quite comforting to know that with such big individual losers in the Joes, that the overall loss is not too bad. I know in my own portfolio that I have had big losers this year, and it is quite easy to dwell on those underperformers. When I look at my total performance, it’s actually okay — it’s breaking even — and I need to focus on the big picture.