Sunday, October 26, 2014

The Folly of JC Penney

Buy Price -- $27 and $19; Sell Price $9. 

The security had most of the hallmarks of a good investment. A legendary investor was buying the security, he was bringing in fresh management to take out the excess he had painstakingly identified by comparing the company in question with its peers. The company had a huge margin of safety through the real estate assets it owned over decades (which were recognized on the balance sheet at historical cost). The investor was bringing in a realty firm specialized in spinning off the real estate assets. The new management's strategy was as tantalizing as it was bold. The new retail store design was as original as the new Apple stores and it was designed by the same man. We made an investment in what we thought was a sound security.

How did it play out?

Approximately 24 months later, the legendary investor had resigned from the board and had sold the shares. The CEO was fired, the new strategy was in shambles, the company was raising capital in the markets and drawing on revolvers, the realty firm had sold the shares and left the board, the old CEO was bought back and we had lost 65% of the original investment.

The company in question was JC Penney and we had followed Bill Ackman into the common shares on terms almost similar to the ones made by him. Ackman had bought in Ron Johnson from Apple to run the company with a bold new strategy. Johnson made a $50M investment in the company's common shares that he could not sell for the next few years; his incentives were aligned with the shareholders. He also ringed in Vornado Realty to the board and they invested in the common shares as well. Along with these changes, a vision of 'Store within a Store' was announced, which was as innovative and as disruptive as the original Apple stores. All brands would have their own stores inside the JC Penney stores; a bold vision.

The original thesis of the investment had a lot of merit. It is the un-examined risks that came back to bite us later. We had forgotten the old adage that turnarounds rarely turn. The story was so compelling that we forgot to evaluate what would happen if the real estate could not be sold and if the new strategy did not work out. In short, we had not tried to kill the company.

The value of the real estate of JC Penney was worth quite a bit more than the market cap of the company indicated. However, as long as JCP was an operational company, it had next to no value. It had a lot of value in bankruptcy. While it was clear that  the leftover for the common after all the employees and the bond holders had gorged their share of the carcass was probably more than the value of the common,  to get access to that margin of safety, one had ensure years of operational losses and misery as the company convinced itself that it was better off in bankruptcy than in operations. What was the several $s over 27 worth 10 years down the line? A closer examination of our margin of safety would have revealed serious holes in our original thesis.

Furthermore, the store within a store concept required customers to change behavior (which is a red flag) and a cynic would have pointed out that it was like Wal-mart trying to act like Tiffanys. The typical customer for JC Penney lived on the discount coupons that the company regularly sent out to them and convincing themselves that they got a great bargain shopping at JC Penney. Convincing these customers on what might look like  a great strategy for Apple should have been a red flag.

What happened over the next 24 months was what can be plainly explained as a butchery of execution. Overnight, the company abandoned the pricing policy that had been in place for decades and in doing so alienated most of the consumers. Without a pilot, they tried to roll out the store within a store concept nationally. Overlaying all this, the management was trying to convince customers that they had got it all wrong and the company was built for greater heights. The management kept building sand castles to the investors while the key operational metrics like SSS nose dived and consumers started leaving the stores in droves never to return back.

Not one thing went right with JCP in these 24 months. Ron Johnson was fired, the previous CEO was bought in, credit lines were drawn, Vornado threw in the towel, Bill Ackman left the board and the strategy was buried deep in the sand it was unearthed from.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Fairfax and Base Effect


In the previous post, we had spoken about 5, 10 and 15 year record of Fairfax.

So, why do we hold Fairfax?

a. Since 2008, Fairfax has publically had a different equity strategy compared to Berkshire and Markel.

b. If we consider 2009 to 2013 as base effect issues because they have taken a fairly different strategy as against the market.

c. Let us look at 1998 to 2008 and 2003 to 2008 and 2008:

Fairfax

1998 to 2008 9.3%
2003 to 2008 10.9%

Berkshire

1998 to 2008 6.4%
2003 to 2008 6.9%

Markel

1998 to 2008 11.2%
2003 to 2008 9.6%

Fairfax and Thomas Cook

When Fairfax financial invested into Thomas Cook, every Tom, Dick and Harry went out and bought Thomas Cook in India as they thought they were buying into the 'Warren Buffett of Canada'. The 20% compounder, value investor supreme.

So, we decided to look at Fairfax financials - the actual parent company - and look at their performance versus Berkshire and Markel and see how the numbers stack up. The table below explains itself.

While this is not representative of what Thomas Cook will do, one must look carefully at how Prem has performed in the last 10 to 15 years. Please note that the annual change is Book Value change, there is no point in tracking the stock performance.

If you take out the first few years of Fairfax, it is a very different story.

FairFax Financials
100 $ Invested
Annual Change
100
1998
130.0
30
1999
179.4
38
2000
170.4
-5
2001
134.6
-21
2002
144.1
7
2003
188.7
31
2004
186.8
-1
2005
156.9
-16
2006
171.1
9
2007
261.7
53
2008
316.7
21
2009
421.2
33
2010
429.6
2
2011
416.7
-3
2012
433.4
4
2013
390.1
-10
1998 to 2013
9.5%
2003 to 2013
7.5%
2008 to 2013
4.3%
Berkshire Hathaway 100 $ Invested Annual Change
100
1998 148.3 48.3
1999 149.0 0.5
2000 158.7 6.5
2001 148.9 -6.2
2002 163.8 10
2003 198.2 21
2004 219.0 10.5
2005 233.0 6.4
2006 275.9 18.4
2007 306.2 11
2008 276.8 -9.6
2009 331.6 19.8
2010 374.7 13
2011 392.0 4.6
2012 448.4 14.4
2013 530.0 18.2
1998 to 2013 11.8%
2003 to 2013 10.3%
2008 to 2013 13.9%
Markel
100 $ Invested
Annual Change
100
1998
118.4
18.4
1999
105.2
-11.2
2000
157.5
49.7
2001
169.5
7.7
2002
180.9
6.7
2003
215.4
19.1
2004
258.1
19.8
2005
267.0
3.4
2006
352.6
32.1
2007
407.0
15.4
2008
340.9
-16.2
2009
433.6
27.2
2010
500.8
15.5
2011
540.2
7.9
2012
619.7
14.7
2013
732.1
18.1
1998 to 2013
14.2%
2003 to 2013
13.0%
2008 to 2013
16.5%



Disclosure: Long Fairfax for a very strange reason and a small portion of the portfolio. No position in Thomas Cook

Monday, March 31, 2014

Correlation and Concentration!!!

Beware of the contents in this post!!!!

One of the cardinal rules in investing has been diversification to prevent concentration and correlation of risk!! Currently, I am in serious violation of the rule in a significant portion of the US portfolio on the rule and I am NOT losing any sleep over it.

Will my volatility be higher? The answer is yes. Will there be significantly higher volatility than the rest of the market? The answer is absolutely yes.

But in my book, volatility and risk are not the same. My correlation and concentration are between companies that I consider Fort Knox's of the world and while we may a terrible year because the all the stocks in the sector might go down in a particular year, we are not worried.

Our position derives from our significant exposure to the insurance businesses in the US. A significant piece of our US portfolio rests with four US insurers -- Berkshire Hathaway, Fairfax financials, Markel and AIG.

We expect all these companies to exist 25 years from now playing with their services still being required in the economy. While there might be a year or two, where due to natural catastrophes or bad year in the stock market or regulatory headwinds, we might see a significantly bad years but overall we do not intend to sell any of these four anytime in the near future and are willing to ride through volatility.

We were lucky to buy the companies that were well in discount to their intrinsic value. We bought Berkshire on two occasions when WEB gave a singing endorsement by buying back stock. (We are happy to buy with the same terms as WEB though his cost of capital is lower) We bought Markel at book value right after the Alterra acquisition and Fairfax at discount to book value a couple of years ago. AIG was acquired at 0.5 times book. All were purchased with a margin of safety and run by top capital allocators who will do a tremendous job in a downturn in deploying cash,

We are very comfortable with the management all these four companies and expect them to do very well over the course of the next ten years.

Intensifying Reseach

At Beowulf, despite the decent results we have been cornering, we have decided it is time to step up the game and we will be intensifying the amount of research that we are doing and to post it on the blog.

Our AUM is growing at a very healthy pace and our returns while not spectacular has been compounding steadily and been giving fitful sleep at night.

We are not neither worried, bothered or irritated by the market going up so much. While the opportunities are not plentiful as they were several months ago, we are finding decent opportunities and are happy sitting on an ever growing big pile of cash.

It is a first class problem to have.

Our concentrated book in India is now with five names only. We are highly dependent on the underlying business performance of these companies over the next five to ten years in order to make a decent killing over the market. We are not worried what the everyday stock price is doing but it does not bother when they go up too much too quickly.

We are not good sellers of the stock....

Instead, we have decided that our hurdle rate and the standards have to go up in times like this when our cash pile goes up so quickly and that is precisely the reason why we are planning to intensify the research that we are doing at Beowulf.

Any new idea must be a killer one to get us interested!!!!

Flash Boys

I had the chance to read through Flash Boys. It was an intriguing read about dark pools and how HFT have rigged the price of the stock market and chiselled money from the small investor.

As WEB and CM call it, it is legalized front running. Lewis again does a masterful job of capturing the story the only way he can.

A definite read.

My take on it --- as it stands now, it is like a tax on trading that all small investors and big investors have to bear with.

Another reason to minimize the trading activities. Such practices have existed for as long as wall street has existed. It is nothing new. I was surprised to the extent that the practice has spread but nothing about wall street will really surprises me anymore.

The only predictable thing in the book was the involvement of GS (of which we are long) The vampire squid has been involved in every single scandal of the 20th century and is unlikely to break the trend in the 21st century.

I will not be surprised to see outrage on HFT's but very little action. There will be probably more regulations and more ways to circumvent them......

Sunday, March 2, 2014

The disparity between the underlying business results and stock prices

What does Berkshire, Markel, AIG, Piramal, Shriram Transport Finance, Shriram City Union Finance, Yes Bank, Fairfax all have in Common?


All these stocks are in my portfolio and in the last 12 months despite a strong operational result, all these stocks are trading a good fair discount to their intrinsic value. While one might dispute with the Indian NBFC's whether the results can be called strong, it is undeniable that a good growth in book value backed by  conservative accounting and management will deliver long term returns in the market. One must also consider how the NPA rules for NBFC's have changed in the last 12 months. This makes the NBFC provisioning even more conservative...

Patience and the ability to ignore the crowd is definitely an advantage in this market.....

Piramal Glass

Piramal Glass ---

We were caught dead wrong about how we had anticipated Piramal Glass would pay out. A couple of days after the delisting offer was made, we decided that if the scrip continued to trade below INR 80, we would buy a stake in it.

On Monday morning, it was trading at about INR 92. We thought the price was too high and sucked some more wind. Tuesday morning, it was INR 110 and has been hovering around the INR 103 mark.

At Beowulf, we had been sucking our thumbs since the early 70's without any decision and it costs us quite a few bucks....

Well, can't win them all.

Berkshire Hathaway Annual Letter

The awaited Berkshire Hathaway Annual letter came in last night. It was a little pale by most standards but the performance of the company continues to be very strong . 

The company generated about $20B of profits for the entire year of 2013. The book value at the end of 2013 was about $135K per share... On the two occasions that we have purchased the stock the book value was $100K and $115K in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The juggernaut continues to roll on.

It is clear from the letter that both Warren and Charlie are looking for more acquisitions in the future. There is also an indication that the 2014 might be a better year than 2013. Insurance business and regulated utilities are firing on all cylinders and all the acquisitions are performing fine.

Based on last Friday's closing of $172K per share of Berkshire -- it still looks like a steal. Warren would want to buy Berkshire at 1.2 times book. The stock is trading at 1.27 times book. 

It will interesting to watch the performance on Monday morning. If the price hangs around where it is now (which we highly doubt)  -- we might make some additional purchases to supplement our already large positions. 

Disclosure -- Berkshire is the second largest holding in our portfolio.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Wockhardt -- Another Update



We had posted that the pain might be over for Wockhardt last summer. Looks like the stock is down in the dumps at this point.

Management ethics and governance is almost everything in India...

On the other hand, Lupin is still steady... After careful review last July and August, we decided to do nothing at this point on the Lupin stock...