Tag Archives: stocks

Innovation And Scotch Tape

Summary We think too many investors put too much stock into being “first movers.” We use research from HBR to show how calm waters and scotch tape can lay the foundation for solid portfolios. We prefer building a portfolio by investing in companies with large moats using a calm waters approach. In business and economics, a “first-mover advantage” is defined as the benefit accrued to a company whose product is the first to enter a market. These products often create or define an entirely new market opportunity that the world hadn’t known before. Some “first-mover” examples have created very attractive long-duration opportunities. eBAY (NASDAQ: EBAY ), a company we own in our portfolios, was the first online auction service. It has maintained leadership in that area for the last two decades. Kleenex (NYSE: KMB ) was a first mover in the facial tissues market, and has become so common that most people don’t know what a facial tissue is without saying the product name. A prime first-mover example is Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO ), which created the soda pop market in 1896 and continues to dominate it 120 years later. Examples like these give credence to the idea that the early bird indeed catches the worm. The notion has become more powerful as you consider the massive ego and financial benefits of being the next Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. The possibility of relatively immediate notoriety and wealth has not been lost on private equity investors. It is estimated that private equity firms sit on more than $1.2 trillion of cash that is waiting in the wings to find those kinds of attractive targets. When looking at the cash plus advantage that private equity firms can apply towards deal-making, it has never been higher than today. The private equity deals of today are done at very rich multiples. EBITDA and net income multiples of 6x and 21x higher than the S&P 500 are typical. All this sounds very exciting to us. It brings to mind something Warren Buffett says, “Investors should remember that excitement and expense are their enemies.” At Smead Capital Management, we like companies which have a long history of profitability and strong operating metrics. With very few exceptions, we will not consider a company for which we can’t find at least 7-10 years of history in the public markets. We like businesses that have very wide moats (defensible positions) around their products and services. We like products that are so ubiquitous that they are associated with categories or industries. We think Aflac (NYSE: AFL ), H&R Block (NYSE: HRB ), and Disney (NYSE: DIS ) are nearly inseparable to concepts like supplemental health insurance, taxes, and wholesome family entertainment. Creating brand identity and awareness of this sort translate to very strong and durational business value. We know this sounds substantially more boring than what goes through the blood of those who believe there’s “gold in them thar hills.” There may be gold, but most of the real-world stories told around the campfire of first movers are laden with pain and destruction. After all, was it really helpful to be the first mover in online search (AltaVista / Infoseek), videotape (Betamax), cellular phones (BlackBerry (NASDAQ: BBRY ) / Motorola (NYSE: MSI )), social networking (MySpace), new grocery delivery systems (Webvan), or new and innovative ways of transportation (Segway)? Especially in a world where most innovation efforts are geared towards the technology sector, an area that can be defined by disruptive innovation, we at Smead Capital Management don’t think so. What we find exciting is attempting to understand how our portfolio of companies may be able to leverage brands and products using newer technologies that will extend awareness and increase interaction. What kind of probability can we assign to the success of our companies gaining meaningful leverage from modern-day innovation? A Harvard Business Review article by Fernando Suarez and Gianvito Lanzolla gave us a very helpful framework to think about the concept of technological changes in relation to market development. Suarez and Lanzolla argue that maintaining a long-lasting dominant position is most probable if the market and technological evolution is slow and stable. They use Scotch Tape as an example of “calm waters,” where being first to market has a high likelihood of durability. For calm-water situations, even if technological innovation is attainable, the advantage is not large enough to disrupt or dislocate the core value proposition. The appeal and adoption of calm-water products is also very gradual, giving ample time to organize production, distribution, and branding. Scotch Tape was originally intended for industrial use, and as the product developed just prior to the Great Depression, became widely used by individuals looking to repair household items that might otherwise be discarded. Its parent company, 3M (NYSE: MMM ), had plenty of time to build a strong and wide moat before full market adoption. Nordstrom (NYSE: JWN ) began in 1901 as a humble shoe store, and began selling apparel in the early 1960s. Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX ) has been selling an addictive legal drug for over 40 years, and H&R Block began its campaign towards dominating the world of tax services just after WWII. Gannett (NYSE: GCI ) and News Corporation (NASDAQ: NWSA ) operate media franchises whose brands have been around for decades. Experts who are the most excited about the evolution of technology think these brands have far less relevance in an on-demand era driven by digitization. We think these are examples of calm-water situations. The moats are very large, and the products and services have been developed over many years. The possibilities for innovative disruption are real, but in our opinion, far less likely to interrupt the value proposition of the brands themselves. We think we can assign a reasonably high probability of success as these companies utilize innovation to extend brand awareness and reach. Nordstrom’s Direct (online) business has mushroomed from less than $500 million in 2006 to nearly $2 billion last year, but management speaks of this as just one important piece of the company’s larger omni-channel strategy. It’s very complimentary to the core proposition, and greatly leverages what Nordstrom has done extraordinarily well for years. Starbucks has greatly enhanced the experience of its customers through innovation as well. Gannett and News Corporation are dealing with the challenge of applying technology to its core content offerings, causing the stocks to trade at deep discounts to intrinsic value. We believe they are very well positioned to leverage their brands in the digital world. News Corporation, with waterfront property brands like the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s (whose subscriber bases continue to grow), has highlighted the success it is having with digital migration in recent earnings calls. Similarly, we believe the content Gannett provides with its 5,000+ journalists will be relevant for years to come, and is set up to extend the company’s brands digitally. Calm-water situations provide an essential buffer for a company to positively leverage the technological evolution, not be displaced by it. A wide moat affords a company the time necessary to properly assess the best strategy to position itself in new channels and venues. At Smead Capital Management, we don’t expect our companies to win every battle. We are very optimistic about how our companies are positioned to win wars even as evolutionary change presents itself. The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Tony Scherrer, CFA, Director of Research, wrote this article. It should not be assumed that investing in any securities mentioned above will or will not be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management within the past twelve month period is available upon request.

Demographics Will Drive Future Investment Decisions

Summary Society is getting older and will need more healthcare. Fewer younger people and they have different tastes. The wise investor should pay attention to these changing demographics. Bob Dylan sang “the times they are a-changin'” in 1964, and he couldn’t have been more right. Things are indeed changing. Society is aging, every day 10,000 more people turn 65, and fewer babies are being born, the average fertility rate is now less than 1.9, almost a 50% drop off from the peak in 1959. More older, and retired, people means more spending on healthcare and leisure activities and fewer younger people means less spending on homes, cars, and other big ticket items. And the young crowd has different tastes and are more health conscious regarding food than their parents or grandparents. Demographers are saying that these trends probably will be with us for a long time, likely out to the year 2050. How will this turn of events affect investors going forward? Hint: those holding shares of companies such as Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ), McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD ), and Universal Health Realty Income Trust (NYSE: UHT ) should pay attention. Older and wiser Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson supplies prescription drugs, consumer health items, and medical devices, which all should be in great demand for the foreseeable future. A well-performing management team has steered the company through both good and bad times by employing a successful acquisition strategy and top-notch R&D effort that has helped keep the drug pipeline stocked with a seemingly never ending supply. As of April, there were 15 different drugs in the late stage U.S. and E.U. approval phase. As soon as those patent-protected products head to market, investors can expect to start reaping the benefits, which will probably include more dividend hikes. The company, one of the few with a pristine AAA credit rating, has raised the dividend payout every year since 1963 and has been growing it at a 6.5% annual rate over the last half-decade. Shares currently yield about 2.9%, well above the rate on 5- and 10-year Treasury notes. There is plenty of room to keep the dividend flowing and growing. The payout ratio of less than 50% is modest. Johnson & Johnson will probably continue to generate consistent cash flow from operations, it was $14B last year alone, and has a low (0.2) long-term debt to equity ratio. Analysts project that earnings and cash flow will continue to increase. EPS has averaged a double-digit growth rate over the past three years, a time when many companies have struggled. Universal Health Realty Income Trust is a REIT that owns medical office buildings, urgent care facilities, and other healthcare-related properties. The company has been increasing revenue at a double-digit pace for the past half decade. Over the past year, UHT has assumed a minority interest in several other real estate firms and added four new buildings to its portfolio which should help continue the trend. Universal Health pays a quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share and the stock currently yields about 5.0%, double that of the average Dividend Aristocrat and well above what you can find in most investment-grade bonds. The company has traditionally generated adequate “funds from operations,” or FFO, a metric commonly used in the REIT industry, over the years. A recent quarterly filing indicated that adjusted FFO increased 3% to $0.72 per diluted share. The stock is not without risk. The current price/sales ratio of about 10.6 could mean that shares are a bit pricey right now. Changing tastes With fewer younger people around, companies that previously catered to this segment of the population probably will be impacted. Shareholders of retail outlets, home builders, and even auto manufacturers could see a lot of red over the next few decades. And the younger crowd has different tastes than the generations that came before them. For one thing, they want a healthier brand of fast food. This could impact old school companies, such as McDonald’s. The Oak Brook, IL-based burger giant has reported less foot traffic and lower same-store sales over the past few years. In a bid to reverse this trend, the company had to make radical changes to both its menu (for example, adding all-day breakfast and reducing the number of items) and to management (earlier this year a new CEO took over). I recently wrote an article that concluded that so far the improvements have helped stabilize things at least but will the company be able to withstand three decades of demographic headwinds? Conclusion Demographic trends indicate that up to the middle of the century things could be dicey for some companies like McDonald’s, as a smaller number of younger people spend their money in different ways than before. However, the aging of society might be a boon to the healthcare industry, which would make investors of Johnson & Johnson and Universal Healthcare Realty Trust happy.

Don’t Be This Guy

Take a look at this picture, which I took a few years ago, on a Friday afternoon, on a New York/New Jersey ferry. After a long and stressful work week (it was 2008), the gentleman in the photo was more than a little inebriated (i.e., could barely stand up), probably the victim of an early happy hour. Now, you should also know that these ferries are fast, and the winds on the river are strong – the wind is often strong enough to blow glasses off your face. This poor soul had urgent business that was unable to wait for the trip across the river, so he walked to the front of the ferry, unzipped, and relieved himself over the bow-directly into what was probably a 35-knot headwind. Though this happened a while ago, the lesson and the aftermath made a lasting impression (probably more so on the people who did not see it coming and did not step out of the spray). Though few of us might commit the Technicolor version of this error, financial commentators do it all the time, in other ways. I spent some time this weekend doing a lot of reading – everything from social media, “big” media, gurus and pundits, and paid research. It was interesting to see the commonalities across the group (a less kind assessment might be “groupthink”), but I saw one error repeatedly: Attempts to catch or call a trend turn with no justification. This error can be hazardous to your financial health, so let me share a few thoughts. Why we are always looking for the turn I think there are good reasons why traders are always looking for the end of the trend. Many of us who do this are competitive and contrary in the extreme. I joke with people that I could have a conversation like this: Me: “Look at the pretty blue sky.” You: “Yes, that really is a pretty color of blue.” Me (now concerned because I agree with someone else): “Well… is it really blue? Isn’t it more blue green? And we know it’s essentially an optical illusion anyway…” This tendency is natural and pretty common among traders. On one hand, it’s a very good thing – you will do your own work, be naturally distrustful of outside opinions and cynical about information, and will work to think critically about everything. But it’s also a weakness because it makes us naturally inclined to see any market movement and think that the crowd is wrong. The crowd is not always wrong; often, they are right and they are right for a very long time. I think this is a simple reason why so many of us are always looking for the turn – many traders (not all) are simply wired to be contrary and to think in a contrary way. We are different, and we want to stand apart from the crowd. For many of us, this is a part of our personality and we must learn to manage it, and to understand that it is the lens that can distort everything we see. Trading lessons and psychology Beyond this element of personality, there are also some trading and market related reasons why we are always looking for a turn. There’s a misguided idea that we have to catch the turn to make money. Decades of trend following returns (for example, the Turtles) have proven that you don’t have to catch the turn; it’s enough to take a chunk out of the middle. There’s also a natural inclination to be angry and distrustful of a move we missed – if we see a long, extended, multi-month trend in which we are not participating, it’s natural to be scornful of those who did participate and to look for reasons the trend might be ending. Many classical chart patterns are taught and used out of context. Any trend will always show multiple “head and shoulders” patterns, and inexperienced chartists will not hesitate to point these out. The problem with poorly defined chart patterns (out of context) is that you can see anything you wish to see in a chart – it’s always possible to justify being long, short, or flat a market, so it’s always possible to find evidence to support whatever you want to do, at least in the absence of clearly defined trading rules and objectives. Another problem is that many traders use tools that are supposed to somehow measure extremes. Overbought/oversold indicators, sentiment indicators, ratios, bands – the problem is that these all measure the same thing, in a different way. If I get an oversold signal from sentiment, RSI, and some Fibonacci extension, I do not have three signals – I only have one because the tools are so tightly correlated. This is important to understand – if we don’t understand this (the correlation of inputs into a trading decision), then we will have false confidence in our calls, and performance will suffer. Better to know you don’t know than to think you know more than you do. Commentators and asymmetrical payoffs If a trader places a trade, she makes money if the trade is profitable and loses money if it is not. This is simple, logical, and just. However, for a commentator (blog writer, research provider, TV personality, guru, etc.), the payoffs are very different – the public remembers the times we are right, and very quickly forgets the times we are wrong. The fact there even are permabears (people who have been bearish stocks for decades) who are called to be on TV and in the paper when the market goes down is proof of this fact. It’s possible to run a newsletter or blog business for years making outrageous claims that never come true such as “end of the financial world,” “the coming crash,” “how to protect your assets from the coming seizures,” etc. The crazier and more outlandish the forecast, the better: If someone says the S&P is going down 500 points tomorrow and he’s wrong, no one will long remember because it was a dumb call. If, however the S&P should, for some reason, go down 500 points, that person is, instantly and forever, the expert who “called the crash.” In fact, if that forecast doesn’t come true but there’s some mild decline in the next few months, creative PR can still tie the forecast in. Why does this matter? You can read blogs and listen to commentators, but read with skepticism. Realize that the person writing has a reason for calling ends of trends and turns. Your trading account, however, has a different standard: If you lose more on your losing trades than you make on the sum of your winners, that’s going to be a problem, in the long run. Finding ends of trends I’ve written about this before, so I will just point you to the relevant posts. One way I have found to avoid the situation where I’m going against the trend is to require some clear signal from the market that the trend might have ended. There are specific patterns that can help: (exhaustion, climax, three pushes, failure tests, price rejection), and then seeing the change of character (new momentum in the other direction) to set up a pullback in the possibly new trend is key. (Start reading here for ideas on evaluating and catching a possible turn.) In the absence of that sequence: 1) something to break the trend and 2) new counter-trend momentum and change of character, the best bet is to not try to fade the trend and to wait for clear signals. Let me leave you with a few charts of current markets, with only one question: What direction is the trend in each of these markets? Most of the time, that’s all the commentary we need. And that guy back at the top of this post? Yeah, don’t be that guy.