Tag Archives: management

Tracking The Sequoia Fund: Q3 2015 Update

Summary Year-to-date, the fund is up 1.97%, versus -5.29% for the S&P 500. Top 10 holdings (65.2% of the fund): Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Berkshire Hathaway, TJX Companies, O’Reilly Automotive, Fastenal, Precision Castparts, MasterCard, Idexx Laboratories, Mohawk Industries, and Google. During the third quarter, the fund was adding to its positions in Rolls-Royce, Constellation Software, and Jacobs Engineering. An update on Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Since its inception on 7/15/1970 an investment in the Sequoia Fund (MUTF: SEQUX ) has returned 14.34% annually versus 10.65% for the S&P 500. The fund is noted for its long-term value investing style, portfolio concentration, and outperforming in down years. For more background on the fund you can check out my original article here . The big news for the Sequoia Fund is the Valeant Pharmaceuticals controversy. The fund started accumulating shares in the second quarter of 2010 and by the end of the year held 11.3 million shares. The stock price during this period ranged from $14 to $30. You can find the fund’s reasoning for getting into the company in the 2010 annual report, which you can find here . Valeant quickly became the fund’s largest position. It said at the time: Valeant and Biovail merged during the year, and on December 31 the combined company, called Valeant, was our second largest holding. In recent weeks, rapid appreciation in Valeant shares caused it to surpass Berkshire and become Sequoia’s largest holding. It is the first time in nearly 20 years that Berkshire has not been the largest investment in the Fund. Speaking of Berkshire, it was Charlie Munger that first sounded the alarm that all might not be up to snuff. Munger is Chairman of the Daily Journal Corporation and was asked about Valeant at the last annual meeting. He responded: Valeant is like ITT and Harold Geneen come back to life, only the guy is worse this time. For those unfamiliar with the ITT story you can check out this article , which gives a nice summary. Basically, like Valeant, ITT was built up on acquisitions and debt. And what was once a growth story turned into a mish mash of debt laden businesses. Despite Munger’s warnings Valeant’s stock continued its upward trajectory, reaching a high of $263.81 on August 6th. Munger wasn’t the only one suspicious of the stock. On August 13 blog AZ Value Investing published an article on Valeant, calling it a dangerous story told well. You can find the article here . Trouble for Valeant was just around the corner. On September 17th infectious disease website Healio reported that Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of its Daraprim drug from $13.50 per tablet to $750. The USA Today followed up with its own article the next day and did the math for us, noting the price hike was 5,000%. Then Hillary Clinton jumped on board, tweeting on September 21st: Price gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous. Tomorrow I’ll lay out a plan to take it on. That put all specialty pharma companies in the crosshairs, including Valeant. In a week the stock dropped from $245 to $155. But the pain wasn’t over. On September 28 Citron Research, a specialist in unearthing frauds and terminal business models, published a report saying a congressional subpoena to Valeant on price gouging should be granted. Plus it gave a short term price target of $130 with the stock in the $170-$180 range at the time. The initial report didn’t move the stock much. But sure enough on October 14 subpoenas were issued. And then Citron wrote another report detailing the whole Philidor RX issue. By the time the dust had settled Valeant had dropped 50%, from $180 to $90, in just a few days. On October 28 the Sequoia Fund addressed the issue in a letter to shareholders which you can find here . Key comments: The short seller Andrew Left (of Citron Research), writing as Citron Research, exploited the negative sentiment surrounding Valeant. Our consultations with lawyers who specialize in the pharmaceutical industry lead us to believe there is no legal reason Valeant can’t advise, control or own Philidor. We work hard to understand Valeant and its business model. Our belief has always been that Pearson is honest and extremely driven. He does everything legally permissible to maximize Valeant’s earnings. At a recent price of $110, Valeant trades for about seven times the consensus estimate of 2016 cash earnings, which does not strike us as a rational price for a company with a diverse collection of product lines and strong earnings growth. So it appears the Sequoia Fund is sticking with Valeant. As of 6/30/15 Valeant was a $2.5 billion position in the fund, and its largest, accounting for 28.7% of the fund. As of 9/30/15 Valeant was a $2.0 billion position in the fund, and its largest, accounting for 24.8% of the fund. Based on my numbers, assuming the fund didn’t sell any shares, the position is now worth about $1 billion at a price of $90. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see the fund’s activity in Valeant during the fourth quarter of 2015. Here’s the fund activity for the third quarter of 2015. New Stakes: None. Stake Disposals: None. Stake Increases: Rolls-Royce ( OTCPK:RYCEY ) designs, develops, manufactures, and services integrated power systems worldwide. The company is known for its expertise in making engines for wide body jets. The fund has been in Rolls-Royce since 2007. It built up the position to over 12 million shares by the end of 2008. Since then it’s held, save very minor selling. Despite continuing to hold, the fund is very concerned over the position. While it admires its jet engine business, it questions the board of directors recent decisions to diversify into marine engine and power generation businesses. It’s also concerned the company is abandoning its Total Care service contract selling model which was very successful under the former CEO. As for the current CEO, John Rishton, the fund says, “… in our meetings with him, has shown minimal awareness of the returns on capital his acquisitions have generated.” The fund was selling in the second quarter of 2015, trimming the position by 437k shares when prices traded between $13.75 and $16.00. Rolls Royce announced in April that John Rishton was retiring and be replaced by John Rishton. The fund must like East’s plan as they did an about face in the third quarter of 2015, adding just over 7 million shares as prices ranged from $9.75 to $13. Constellation Software ( OTCPK:CNSWF ): Constellation Software, based out of Toronto, acquires, manages, and builds vertical market software (VMS) businesses. The fund likes the company because the software they provide tend to be essential to the customers’ operations. It also likes Constellation for being an adept acquirer and then increasing the cash flow of acquisitions. During the fourth quarter of 2014 the fund acquired 257k shares for a 1.09% position. Prices for the fourth quarter of 2014ranged from $240 to $300 for the ADR. During the third quarter of 2015 the fund added another 165k shares boosting its position by 64%. Prices ranged from $380 to $460. This is now a 2.19% position in the portfolio. Jacob’s Engineering (NYSE: JEC ) provides technical, professional, and construction services to industrial and government clients. The fund first established a position in the fourth quarter of 2013, picking up 743k shares when prices ranged from $56 to $64. That turned out to be near the high point for the stock which has been falling since January of 2014. The fund added another 716k shares in the second quarter of 2014 when prices traded between $53 and $65. This past quarter the fund added another 764k shares. Prices traded between $36.50 and $44.50. This stock is a 1% position in the portfolio. Stake Decreases: None. Kept Steady : Omnicom (NYSE: OMC ), Precision Castparts (NYSE: PCP ), Compaignie Financiere Richemont SA ( OTCPK:CFRUY ), O’Reilly Automotive (NASDAQ: ORLY ), Canadian Natural Resources (NYSE: CNQ ), Sirona Dental Systems (SRIO), Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A & BRK.B), Danaher (NYSE: DHR ), EMCOR Group (NYSE: EME ), Trimble Navigation (NASDAQ: TRMB ), Mohawk Industries (NYSE: MHK ), Expeditors International (NASDAQ: EXPD ), Perrigo Company (NYSE: PRGO ), Valeant Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: VRX ), West Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: WST ), Zoetis (NYSE: ZTS ), Fastenal Company (NASDAQ: FAST ), Praxair (NYSE: PX ), IMI plc ( OTCQX:IMIAY ), MasterCard (NYSE: MA ), Brown & Brown (NYSE: BRO ), Google (NASDAQ: GOOGL ) and (NASDAQ: GOOG ), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ), International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM ), Waters Corporation (NYSE: WAT ), Admiral Group ( OTCPK:AMIGY ), Hiscox Ltd. ( OTC:HCXLY ), Verisk Analytics (NASDAQ: VRSK ), Costco Wholesale (NASDAQ: COST ), Tiffany & Co. (NYSE: TIF ), TJX Companies (NYSE: TJX ), Walmart (NYSE: WMT ), Croda International ( OTCPK:COIHY ), Cabela’s (NYSE: CAB ), and Idexx Laboratories (NASDAQ: IDXX ) saw no changes from the second quarter of 2015 to third quarter of 2015. Here’s a snapshot of the activity from the second quarter of 2015 to the third quarter of 2015: (click to enlarge) Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

5 More Dividend ETFs For Your Consideration

Summary These five dividend ETFs have similar expense ratios but very different yields. Sector analysis shows that the portfolios have some very material differences. SPHD, SDY, and NOBL all work for investors that want to handle their investing in the technology sector on their own. The one that catches my eye for high yield and utility allocations that may go on sale during December is SPHD. One of the areas I frequently cover is ETFs. I’ve been a large proponent of investors holding the core of their portfolio in high quality ETFs with very low expense ratios. The same argument can be made for passive mutual funds with very low expense ratios, though there are fewer of those. In this argument I’m doing a quick comparison of several of the ETFs I have covered and explaining what I like and don’t like about each in the current environment. The Five ETFs Ticker Name Index DLN WisdomTree LargeCap Dividend ETF WisdomTree LargeCap Dividend Index DGRW WisdomTree U.S. Dividend Growth ETF WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index SPHD PowerShares S&P 500 High Dividend Portfolio ETF S&P 500® Low Volatility High Dividend Index SDY SDPR Dividend ETF S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats Index NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Index By covering several of these ETFs in the same article I hope to provide some clarity on the relative attractiveness of the ETFs. One reason investors may struggle to reconcile positions is that investments must be compared on a relative basis and the market is constantly changing which will increase and decrease the relative attractiveness. For investors that want to see precisely which assets I’m holding, I opened my portfolio earlier in November. Dividend Yields I charted the dividend yields from Yahoo Finance for each portfolio. You may notice that despite each of these portfolios being named for dividends, the yields on the ETFs are significantly different. Expense Ratios These funds are all very comparable on expense ratios which is nice for creating a more direct comparison. (click to enlarge) Sector Assuming your decision isn’t based strictly on yields, the next area to look into is the sector allocations. There were clearly no big differences in expense ratios, so this race should really come down to getting a strong enough yield and getting a great sector allocation. I built a fairly nice table for comparing the sector allocations across dividend ETFs to make it substantially easier to get a quick feel for the risk factors: (click to enlarge) First Glance The first thing I would expect investors to notice is that there are a few areas where one or two of the ETFs have vastly different allocations from their peers. The most obvious standouts in this regard are NOBL allocating nearly 28% to the consumer defensive sector and SPHD allocating over 24% to the utility sector. NOBL Since I see a fairly expensive market, I find the heavier allocation to the consumer defensive sector to be appealing. If the market undergoes a severe correction then I would want to be more aggressive with the portfolio when it appeared the worst had passed. In the later stages of a bull market or entering a bear market I’d rather focus on the consumer defensive sector. It is interesting to note that the technology allocation here is zero. If investors feel very confident in analyzing technology companies, it could make NOBL a great fit for them since the lack of technology companies within the fund would work out well for an investor that was managing their own investments in the sector. SPHD SPHD uses a very heavy allocation to utilities. For investors that already build their own utility positions in their portfolio, this wouldn’t be a great fit since it would double up on the exposure. On the other hand, for the investor that does not have utility exposure in their portfolio, the ETF could be a great fit. The utility sector often demonstrates some correlation with bonds because investors treat it as an alternative source of income. This may be a fairly volatile sector going into December because investors are expecting the Federal Reserve to raise rates and if a rate increase is confirmed it could send bond yields higher and utility stocks would be expected to fall at the same time so that the dividend yields would increase. For investors willing to take the exposure on utilities if the stocks go on sale, the middle of December could bring Christmas a little early with sales in the sector. SPHD also offers the highest yield which may be very attractive for investors seeking to grow more income immediately. Similar to NOBL, SPHD has a very low weight for the technology sector. The combination of high yield, utility exposure, and no technology makes it ideal for the dividend growth investor that focuses their research time on technology. What do You Think? Which dividend ETF makes the most sense for you? Do you want to overweight consumer staples for more safety in a downturn or would you rather have more upside in a prolonged bull market? Do you want to own the oil companies, or do you foresee gas as being in a long term downtrend that makes the business model much weaker?

Best And Worst Q4’15: Small Cap Value ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

Summary The Small Cap Value style ranks tenth in Q4’15. . Based on an aggregation of ratings of 16 ETFs and 255 mutual funds. . VBR is our top-rated Small Cap Value style ETF and RVFIX is our top-rated Small Cap Value Style mutual fund.. The Small Cap Value style ranks tenth out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our Q4’15 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Small Cap Value style ranked tenth as well. It gets our Dangerous rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 16 ETFs and 255 mutual funds in the Small Cap Value style. See a recap of our Q3’15 Style Ratings here. Figure 1 ranks from best to worst the ten Small-Cap Value ETFs that meet our liquidity standards and Figure 2 shows the five best and worst-rated Small-Cap Value mutual funds. Not all Small Cap Value style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 12 to 1502). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Small Cap Value style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Direxion Value Line Small- and Mid-Cap High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: VLSM ) and the First Trust Mid Cap Value AlphaDEX ETF (NYSEARCA: FNK ) and are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (NYSEARCA: VBR ) is the top-rated Small Cap Value ETF and the Royce Small-Cap Value Fund (MUTF: RVFIX ) is the top-rated Small Cap Value mutual fund. DBR earns a Neutral rating and RVFIX earns an Attractive rating. The PowerShares Fundamental Pure Small Value Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PXSV ) is the worst-rated Small Cap Value ETF and the Aston/River Road Independent Value Fund (MUTF: ARIVX ) is the worst-rated Small Cap Value mutual fund. PXSV earns a Dangerous rating and ARIVX earns a Very Dangerous rating. The Buckle, Inc. (NYSE: BKE ) is one of our favorite stocks held by Small Cap Value ETFs and mutual funds and earns our Very Attractive rating. For the past decade, the company has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 13% compounded annually. Not only has the company posted strong profit growth, but Buckle has improved its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from 18% to a top quintile 30% during the same time frame. Concerns over the retail industry have led shares of this fundamentally sound company to be significantly undervalued. At its current price of $32/share, Buckle has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.6. This ratio means that the market expects Buckle’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 40%. If Buckle can grow NOPAT by 5% compounded annually for the next five years , the company is worth $69/share today – a 115% upside. Dean Foods (NYSE: DF ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by Small Cap Value ETFs and mutual funds and earns our Dangerous rating. Dean Foods was also placed in the Danger Zone back in December 2012. Since 2010, Dean Foods’ NOPAT has declined by an alarming 48% compounded annually. The company’s ROIC has fallen from 4% in 2010 to a bottom quintile 1% on a trailing-twelve-month basis. Despite the deterioration of business operations, Dean Foods remains priced for significant profit growth. To justify its current price of $19/share, Dean Foods must grow NOPAT by 19% compounded annually for the next 17 years . This expectation seems optimistic given that Dean Foods’ profits have steadily declined since 2010. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Small Cap Value ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Thaxston McKee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.