Since we last warned about credit conditions at JCP……….

Updated report now available. Price $125,000.

Share on Facebook

In the News

I have been reading a number of articles lately on the subject of share buybacks, the works of both highly placed academics and practitioners. Yet, in no analysis have I seen the authors adjust for (1) an upward shift to cost of capital resulting from the equity impact including increased leverage and impaired credit, (2) superior utilization of that cash which could improve return on capital (3) excess tax benefits[1] resulting from share based compensation listed under financing activities in the statement of cash flows that should be moved to operating activities and (4) reduction in financial flexibility.  I have written previously that while buybacks may improve upon GAAP numbers such as return on equity it does not change return on invested capital as it neither improves free cash flow nor adds to capital.

Regarding the trillion or so dollars held by US corporations overseas, an analyst should not assume this cash is available for share buybacks as most of it won’t see the light of day in the US, even given a drop to a 28% tax rate put forward by the administration this week and other credits which could bring the rate down even further. Such cash is, most often,  better used for overseas expansion where the taxes have already been paid and could raise the firms’ return on capital by being deployed in faster growing economies or new acquisitions.

Lastly, Detroit proved that pension liabilities still matter. Even for strong firms, the liability impacts fair value. This month, portfolio holding Lockheed-Martin reported a very strong quarter, and would have reported considerably further strength if their cash contribution was level with last year. Unfortunately, the firm, although not mentioned in its press release, most likely has at least seven such years of stepped-up contributions ahead of them, given the enormity of their unfunded liability. Nonetheless, its shares are trading very near to its all-time high.

Domtar

In these reports, it is important I comment on a position that has lagged the benchmarks. Several of the holdings of prior comment have been acquired, and almost all have had very strong runs in excess of the benchmarks, such as Google, EBay and Nu Skin (latter two since sold) as well as the entire insurance space.

In March, I illustrated a cash flow worksheet on Bed, Bath and Beyond, which at the time was being heavily sold by investors after reporting a weaker than anticipated quarter. In reality, a single quarter has a quite minimal impact on the actual valuation for most firms with a long history of  generating normalized and adjusted free cash flows with low cost of capital. BBBY shares now trade near its all-time high.

And so, on July 12^th, when Domtar (UFS) announced weaker than expected results its shares fell to a 52 week low, and have only modestly rebounded since, down 16.8% for the year.

UFS, under a purchase (accounting) with no retroactive subsequent adjustments and $300MM in goodwill (subsequently written off), acquired the Weyerhaeuser fine paper business in 2006 with shares and debt assumption ($1.6bn), becoming the largest integrated manufacturer and marketer of uncoated paper in North America and the second largest in the world. They own or license 16MM acres.

Table 1 shows why UFS shares have declined, yet even so, continues to produce acceptable free cash over two, three and four year periods. Its free cash flow stability index (shown as its standard deviation/average) of .6 is above average but not unacceptable. For example, International Paper’s free cash flows have a stability index of .41.

Exhibit 1          Stability of Free Cash Flows-Three Year Average

EXHIBITS SHOWN IN CLIENT REPORT ONLY

As shown in exhibit 2, there is a strong association between UFS’s 3 year average free cash flows and market value. Free cash flows in the table are not adjusted for tax subsidies related to alternative fuel credits, which biased 2010 results.  In that year UFS received a $368MM cash refund, the impact of which has been somewhat minimized in both the three and four year averages. An additional credit of $198MM remains for 2009 which could be released this year pending audit. No credits were claimed for 2012. SG&A has been influenced by stock based compensation which is adjusted into our models.

For our positive thesis to hold we would need to see a continuation of the growing three year average free cash flow, which will not occur on an adjusted basis until sales begin to improve. The firm could, however, adjust discretionary spending to mitigate further erosion in sales until economic strength reconvenes. Yet, to delay equity investment in a strong credit cyclical firm like UFS until a positive turn is underway when the market value is long term attractive is a common error most responsible for missing the greatest jump in share price.

Exhibit 2           Three Year Average Free Cash Flows versus Market Value

EXHIBITS SHOWN IN CLEINT REPORT ONLY

Debt

As shown by Exhibits 1 and 3, UFS is unlikely to struggle servicing its debt, with very strong fixed charge cover. Maturity structure is well spread out. Total debt (including leases) has increased just 3 of the past 10 years. Our cost of capital model penalizes firms which require frequent trips to raise capital either to maintain or grow free cash flows.

Funding improvement to pension plans, its one significant credit issue, is taking place despite reporting a $96MM increase in non-funded status. This comes about from the firm’s more realistic actuarial assumptions and $666MM in company contributions over the past 5 years; its discount rate has dropped to 4.8%  (from 6.3% two years earlier), with plan assets growing to $1.7 billion. The 2012 actual return on the plans ($182MM) plus company and employee contributions ($93MM) exceeded actual paid benefits of $97MM. With 41% of their plans in equities and 59% in debt, funding status could, however, be further strained if interest rates continue to rise and equities markets fell. If UFS were to close out part (or all) of its plans, a logical step, it would lower cost of capital by up to 40 basis points in our model. In any event, given the stronger funding status, firm cash flow should be boosted. This year UFS expects to contribute considerably less than last year (again hoping for aid from financial markets) versus the past 5 years average of $133MM; the contribution is being swayed by the lower production volumes.

They are a member of 7 multiemployer plans with unknown member financial status for at least one of the plans. As contributions into these plans have been small ($6MM/year), I presume the risk is not significant in relation to its cash. One of the plans, however, is in Red (less than 65% funded) Status, yet their contribution to that plan was just $3MM last year. Of late, unions in general have been working with employers to improve funding, including the reduction of benefits.

UFS uses derivatives almost primarily as hedges in currency and natural gas (no losses shown in AOCI).

Their rate of increase in healthcare expenses is moderating although the post-retirement liability rose 9.7% to $124MM over 2011.  Remaining litigation risk relates to various actions on hazardous waste clean-up stemming from 1999, having settled one large suit the past quarter. They continue to take remedial action ($32MM in asset retirement obligations) and I believe the 25 basis add-on to cost of capital recognizes the liability. Relations with unions have been generally satisfactory, although testy at times, including strike votes.

Exhibit 3       Debt Summary

UFS has had an unstable tax rate, not uncommon given the cyclicality of the industry. In four of the past 10 years the cash rate has changed by over 10% from the prior year. Stock based compensation has been minimal, including tax benefits.

Capital spending has more than doubled ($106MM to $236MM) over the past 4 years despite flat sales. Resultantly, our worksheet picks up some of the excess as the firm could reduce this budget while maintaining similar sales, especially with their plants running below normal capacity. The last two year step up in capital spending, acquisitions and joint ventures ($974MM) less disposals ($93MM) has been financed by cash from operations and a debt raise, with only minor balance sheet management. Share repurchases, which have totaled $650MM the past two years, has been a poor choice by its Board, given the needed debt raise, lack of sales growth and cloudy near term expectation.

Other metrics which have caused cost of capital to rise include adjusted cash flow from operations which have benefited from the tax refund, growth rate in free cash flows, inventory accumulation, economic profit/sales LFY of 1.9%, capital spending in relation to sales growth, deterioration of working capital to total debt, stability of cash tax rate (average cash payment of $46MM past 6 years), and productivity. Negative metrics point to the needed reduction in headcount.

Despite the above flags, normalizing UFS’s metrics underlie our faith in its shares. Over the past 3, 5 and 8 years, its normalized return on capital has remained in the high teens with strong, although declining, free cash flows. It easily earns its cost of capital for which there is substantial room for improvement in spite of the current sales stagnation.  If and when the world’s economies perk up, its shares should outperform all benchmarks by a very substantial margin due to significant operating leverage. Other large winning positions in the account have come from similarly depressed conditions and playing “the waiting game.”  I believe the risks are known and accounted for.

A buyout is certainly within the realm of possibility given how several other large paper manufacturers shares have held up which could finance a deal.

Kenneth S. Hackel, CFA

Share on Facebook

Very few investors, including apparently major fund managers truly understand the profound changes that have taken place at JCP over the course of the past year, led by a drastically altered credit. This new landscape has been, and will continue to play out……

THIS DETAILED ANALYSIS IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR $250,000.

Share on Facebook

Netease

Last  month we purchased our first company based in China, coming after greater than normal research and investigation, lasting several years.

Netease (NTES), one of the leading providers of internet services within China, derives 87% of its revenues from online gaming, 10% from online advertising and 3% from email services, the country’s largest with 550 million, and growing, users. Their success with email and gaming is now allowing them to branch out to other services. Total firm revenues are US $1.3 billion with $685MM in adjusted free cash flow against a $7.5 billion market value of equity (36% in cash).  Compared to the US, internet penetration in China is low, estimated at just 42% of the populace.  The firm’s various websites are, according to independent firms, among the most visited in China, if not the world.

The lengthy review time was needed as the company is not audited by a US firm nor is any inspection of its books evaluated by a US firm, although two Board members are CPA’s. Cost of equity capital was raised by 1% due to lack of well-known oversight, reducing fair value by 16%. While the SEC has brought action against five accounting firms in China, NTES is not involved in such proceedings, but may be ultimately impacted if the case against the auditors is lost. It is conceivable, though quite doubtful, they could lose NASDAQ listing, although its shares would continue to trade and be active. I am hopeful an agreement signed last week allowing the US Accounting Oversight Board permission to review Chinese audit records will develop into full scale cooperation, quell the regulatory riff, lift any conceivable financial veil, and bring down the firm’s cost of capital. It appears this is what the Chinese desire given various scam companies and resulting publicity that have taken place. Also, slower growth in China alongside strong need for credit on local levels will require such action.

China has seen its sovereign risk rise over the recent month according to our models, reflecting its economic slowdown. Its  5 year CDS spread over similarly dated US Treasury bonds also rose this month, going from 29 to 58 basis points, and equity cost of capital is raised by this latter  amount over the US risk free rate, still at an historically low 2.15% When all risks are considered, the cost of equity capital hurdle (7.7%)for NTES  is high for a firm with its credit, however has been overcome as a result of products, time in business, independent proofs, lack of significant litigation, stock ownership, joint ventures, as well as the financial metrics.

Their auditor is registered in China. Chinese company law is modeled after that of the UK, yet the firm follows international accounting standards. While foreign exchange rules in China are controlled, the Renminbi is freely convertible for current account items including dividend payments, interest and trade transactions.

On the metrics side, NTES sells at a 9.1% free cash flow yield, a 24.5% return on invested capital, economic profit/sales[1] of 27.2% (GOOG is 18.5%, and AAPL is 21.3%) and has zero bank debt or bonds. Operating leases are for rent, server custody and office machines which are modest in relation to cash, operating cash flows and equity. Their share repurchase program is minor.

Over the past 7 years, free cash flow has grown by 356% and revenues by 475%. The stock is volatile and subject to those risks inherent in any technology firm.  Given its valuation, however, like portfolio holding Google, which I was forced to write on last fall when its shares fell by $100, only to recently rise to all-time highs, NTES appears to offer strong risk-adjusted long-term prospects, taking into account its cost of capital.

Share on Facebook

There is plenty about BBBY  investors do not understand or account for in their valuation of the firm

Our report is available for the introductory price of $2500. If you are interested, please contact CT Capital LLC

Share on Facebook

Free Cash Flow- Must adjust for misclassifications, extraordinary and one-time items and other expenses and events not properly accounted for in either the income statement, statement of cash flows, or footnotes. Examples would be pension over (underfunding), interest, taxes, payment to non-controlling interests, capital leases, moral obligations and overspending in discretionary areas.

If you are unsure how to accomplish this, buy the text to your right

Share on Facebook

Sorry, the full version is sent to clients of CT Capital LLC. For information, please see www.ctcapllc.com

February 2013 Monthly Review-General Distribution

Share on Facebook

CLICK LINK BELOW-THIS IS AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE FULL REPORT SENT TO CLIENTS OF CT CAPITAL LLC.

PDF Jan 2013 reivew=credittrends site

Share on Facebook

Shares in Nu Skin Enterprises (NUS) rallied strongly after reporting an excellent quarter and upwardly revised record outlook for the upcoming year. Just 2 days later its shares tumbled after a well-known publicity seeking hedge fund operator attacked another firm in their sector which also uses a direct selling approach[1]. This hedge fund operator last year urged investor’s short Green Mountain (GMCR) in the low $20’s, helping knock its shares to the teens—GMCR now stands in the $40’s and his hedge fund is up just 6% this year after being down last year, which some are saying may have propelled his latest rampage, including petitioning the FTC and hiring, according to his own words “two of the top law firms in the country” to investigate the firm.  God only knows what he is really paying these law firms to do, and why he felt compelled to take such action if his analysis was correct.

One brokerage analyst dropped coverage of his short position, saying for the foreseeable future its shares will not follow fundamentals, while at the same time calling the hedge fund’s case as “light.” Again, he did not short NUS, but it did have a strong associative impact which purged its shares by almost 20% this month.  Nu Skin’s Board is extremely strong in direct selling as are its senior management and the firm has earned high cash returns on capital every year over at least the past decade. Its auditor has been PWC throughout and the firm has a high cash tax rate (33.3% last year). Although I am not immune to the risks of a large direct sales workforce working solely on commission, I believe it is fully captured by the higher cost of capital for this firm.

Hedge funds are becoming a frustrating part of this business as they often sway investors, including beseeching financial intermediaries and legislators, often with misleading information and then taking their trumped-up cases to institutional funds. This selling often begets more selling by day traders and high frequency trading houses. The shorted stock in the cited case traded over 110% of its outstanding shares in 3 days.

While not one to often promote added legislation, I believe congress and the SEC should take a closer look at the tactics used by hedge funds, especially how they influence the confidence and integrity of the financial markets.

Share on Facebook

Investors have been focusing on the wrong financial metrics in their analysis of  Google equity securities.. Cost per click and other such highfalutin tech analyst measures are naiive indicators of a firm……..

THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR $50,000 FOR  NON CLIENTS OF CT CAPITAL LLC CLIENTS

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Imagine if surgeons used same methods as 50 years ago-Crazy, right?

Then why are investors using same tools to analyze risk, given superior methods are available?-see http://amzn.to/T4x71d

Sales, cost of sales, SG&A and tax rate stability. Free cash flows and operating cash flows with the making of proper adjustments. Self-insurance. Litigation. Credit. Derivatives. Yield Spreads, etc, etc. If you are not doing this as part of your risk analysis and much much more, you don’t know how to analyze and quantify risk. Your are using the wrong discount rate ( cost of equity) in concluding the fair valuation of the enterprise and share price.

I show you how.

Stop using the same tools as investors who continually dole out poor advise.

Order Security Valuation and Risk Analysis. After all, it took 40 years of my experience in this business to write

Share on Facebook

We feel the stocks listed below carry significant risk.

While their valuations have held, it is due to an unsustainable dividend being financed by equity investors in search of yield, rather than the inherent ability of these firms to generate consistent free cash flows.

In addition, as will be pointed out, each of these firms have a questionable financial structure as well as carry risk to prospective free cash flows.

REPORT AVAILABLE FOR $250,000

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Apple share have now declined on the order of 12% from its highs set just couple of weeks ago.

Meanwhile, the much anticipated share buyback and dividend has not helped–and for good reason. It is not the dividend or buyback that creates value.

If, however, Apple’s Board is desirous of changing the downward momentum while bringing in value investors, there is a solution, one which will certainly raise the multiple on its shares.

While I am certainly not privy to what Apple may announce this evening during its earnings release, if I were advising the company-and their Board is now intent on distributing cash-the most logical approach would be to hold on to its current cash hoard of about $100 billion, and distribute 75% of prospective free cash flows, quarterly. A distribution of the current balance would not be expected to aid the share price any more than it helped Microsoft some years back-for good reason-a stock is worth the present value of prospective free cash flows. The current small dividend is not sufficient to bring in a new class of investors.

Maintaining the current cash, with its pristine balance sheet while continuing to hold 25% of prospective free cash flows would permit the firm to pursue even the most aggressive of acquisition, partnership and expansion strategies. Giving shareholders 75% of future free cash flows equates to a dividend of about 4.5%, given estimated growth,  and almost certainly propel the stock.

Share on Facebook

IBM announced a generally positive bag of results last night. We have several concerns, from the commitment of nearly 100% of their cash flow from operations toward dividends and share buybacks to other metrics discussed below. AOCI was also used to boost the current quarter, as explained.

As we’ve been pointing out, their foreign pension plan liabilities have only recently begun to be seriously addressed, a process that will eat up free cash flows for years to come.  Execution, on the other hand has continued to improve as top executives and managers have done an excellent job directing cash………………….

THE BALANCE OF THE REPORT AVAILABLE ONLY TO CLIENTS OF CT CAPITAL

Share on Facebook

The cost of this report is $125,000

Share on Facebook

Post open only to paid subscribers

Cost of this report is $75,000

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

• Decapitalization Impairs Prospective Growth
• Is IBM Vulnerable?

(full tables and charts available to CT Capital clients only)

Let me begin by clearing up a common misperception perpetuated by CFO’s during company conference calls:  share buybacks do not reward shareholders, only higher valuations and dividends do that. And because they do zilch to improve ROIC, they routinely force multiple contraction despite improved GAAP metrics, such as return on equity and per share metrics, including earnings and book value.

The logic is irrefutable: long-term shareholder value takes place through increases in free cash flows, with risk remaining at appropriate levels. This occurs via proper investments in assets, projects, and research, the polar opposite of what many firms are doing today in an appeasement to institutional shareholders.

Share repurchases are often construed as acquisitions identical to the assets of the firm.  This line of thought is incorrect for several reasons, not the least of which is the negative repercussion to cost of capital.

It can be easily proven that if an entity was able to purchase another firm having identical free cash flows, cost of capital, and normalized safe positive spread among the two, presuming its post-acquisition cost of capital remains unchanged, it should purchase the outside asset rather than its own stock, for by expanding its capital base, its prospective free cash flows, return on invested capital and economic profit would also grow, thus enhancing shareholder wealth. Likewise, if the free cash flows were used to reduce cost of capital, fair value would be enhanced. This is true almost regardless of the free cash flow yield of the acquired entity.

Berkshire Hathaway, during the period it was disengaged from share repurchases as it was expanding its capital base, saw its shares widely outperform the general equity markets, while, after announcing it was prepared to inwardly direct its free cash flows, has seen its stock underperform.

If a material[1] level of resources results in value-adding activities, shareholder value is enhanced. If invested capital or other opportunities were limited due to de-capitalization measures, investors will ultimately pay the price, as free cash flow growth is unstable and unpredictable for many periods along the business cycle; firms which engage in share buybacks with cash on hand also find their cost of capital ( and share price volatility) rise for the same reason.

If leverage is required to aid share buybacks, cost of capital rises and financial flexibility declines even more so. This may occur for reasons other than the attrition of the cash cushion, including workforce reductions, credit rating downgrade, incapacity to hold onto market share, instability of financial metrics and reduction in interest charge cover.

In furtherance of my argument, for firms like Apple, which have high (free cash flow) in relation to its capital base, share repurchases mean little in terms of enhancing shareholder value, even though the return on a large cash hoard is close to zero. In Apple’s case, economic profit is driving results, which, aside from product acceptance, is exceptionally high due to a very effective supply chain, including parts, technology services and assembly.

A leading indicator of management and Board effectiveness is the direction of the firm’s capital. Entities that have opportunities to deploy capital at rates consistently and safely above their cost have the opportunity to enhance shareholder value.  Unfortunately, most firms, as shown in the text box, rely on a surrogate cost of capital (stock beta) instead of metrics reflecting all known and possible risks to prospective free cash flows. For more information on this, see Security Valuation and Risk Analysis.

In acquisition analysis, the reliance on beta to depict cost of capital, managers and investors may be using inappropriate hurdle rates, thus unknowingly engaging in value destroying acquisitions.

Then there is the gray area, where, in fact most acquisitions fall. Such purchases may in fact be properly evaluated on the ROIC side but may raise cost of capital due to equity depletion, such that the firm is now constrained from engaging in prospective activities which may have added significant value relative to the recent material acquisition. This comment is of direct significance for entities engaging in excessive share buybacks, meaning the Board has approved the impairment to the financial structure.

It is to this latter point the balance of this article is directed, given my deep concern capital depletion will undoubtedly lead to subdued economic growth.  Believing the hype fed upon them by fear and greed, it is not uncommon to see firms commit a significant percentage of their free cash flows toward share buybacks, dividends and executive compensation (total direct compensation), instead of worthwhile projects and opportunities.

Firms such as Berkshire, Regal Beloit and P&G, have had long periods of successful acquisition programs due to their understanding of products, people, cash flows and risk, and by such virtue, have been rewarding shareholders. Former “high flyers’ often succumb to the falling stock price syndrome in the form of massive buybacks.

In this regard, technology firms could learn a lot from the manufacturing sector, which is not to say manufacturers have not made grievous errors, including the likes of GM, Exxon, and GE.

The Impact on Shareholders’ Equity

As a consequence of share buybacks, shareholders’ equity has, for many firms, including Sears, The Gap, and Wendy’s, fallen quite considerably from peak levels, despite strong cash flows and GAAP based earnings.  For firms in general, shareholders’ equity has risen just 17% for the S&P Industrials (see chart) from the March 2009 bottom.

For some well-known firms, the decline in shareholders’ equity has been dramatic, even  excluding material off-balance sheet liabilities such as pension plans and other benefits, operating leases and market value adjustments.

IBM-A Case in Point

IBM saw its shareholders’ equity peak in its September 2006 quarter at $34.3 billion.  Due to share repurchases it has been on a continual decline, currently standing (FYE 2011) at $20.2 billion, or 41% lower. IBM has placed the majority of its free cash flows into repurchases, boosting its GAAP metrics while its free cash flow growth since 2008 has been sub-par. If IBM’s economic return were to slow from its current level, its share price would fall greater than currently perceived due to the removal of its safety cushion. Would not IBM’s shareholders have benefitted more greatly if the company had not, over the past three years, spent two and a half times the value of acquisitions on share buybacks?  Sooner or later, IBM management must also come to grips with the underfunding of its foreign pension plans. Balance sheet pension (which is understated by at least 20%) liabilities grew by 11% during its past year and now accounts for over 90% the amount of shareholders equity. Investors have yet to focus on the liability for which, I am sure, IBM’s CEO is thankful. Although the company spent $33.4 billion on stock repurchases over the past three years, shares outstanding declined just 12% through September (2012 10-K not yet filed).

Invested Capital Steady Despite Fall in Equity

If IBM achieved 9% cash based ROIC return on the cash used for share buybacks, even allowing for the increase in shares resulting from issuance, its share price fair valuation would have increased by 23%, and, when the next downfall comes, its shares will have declined less.  Even if IBM had taken half the buyback to cut its pension liability, cost of capital would have declined by half a percent, adding about 12% to its shares fair value.

This point is illustrated as while IBM’s shareholders’ equity fell almost 13% from its year end 2010, its invested capital fell slightly for the year, $44.98 billion versus $ 45.45 billion. While IBM’s invested capital dropped from the 2006 level of $54.45 billion, such was due to the company’s shrewd exit from the PC business, and into software and consulting services. Over the past 5 years, IBM has altered its financial structure, now needing less of a financial cushion from the new business mix and other efficiencies. I believe, however, IBM, in its attempt to reach $20 per share in GAAP earnings, as it promised security analysts, it is taking on excessive risk while compromising worthwhile prospects, as is seen by its limited acquisition program. Meanwhile, its R&D budget has been flat for 5 years.

While supply chain and other streamlining aid cash flows, playing with equity as a means to reward shareholders is illogical. Shrinking equity will harm corporations as a whole, and, as such should be a concern to investors, analysts, creditors and lawmakers who may be considering following the IBM model. Recall only a few years ago to the worldwide financial crisis how important equity was to many institutions.

Perhaps Boeing shareholders would not have seen its stock price fall to below $30 in 2009 had the company not repurchased almost $3 billion of its shares during 2008, destroying equity. Boeing, which also has large liabilities not reflected in its financial statements, has yet to see its old highs. Its shares started recovering as its share repurchase program was halted and equity was rebuilt. Cyclical firms should almost always avoid share repurchases except for normalized free cash flow producers with low cost of capital wishing to offset share based compensation. Analysts must deduct those tax based effects listed under financing activities in the statement of cash flows in their cash flow models, such that the real impact of stock-based compensation is reflected, including tax affects.

I look forward to the day I hear investors grill companies on their misuse of capital. Today, revenue growth is the most desired metric.  Although product acceptance is of utmost concern, one must recognize it takes assets and capital to have that come about, something that is destroyed through capital depletion.

Kenneth S. Hackel, CFA

Share on Facebook

I just heard an analyst from a leading firm state one of his primary metrics is return on equity.

Return on equity is important is important only as it provides a reflection of the firm’s return on capital.

For an obvious case, look at Apple, whose ROE pales compared to its ROIC as the firm is extremely adept at deploying cash as well as using other firms assets. In fact its equity is mostly cash.

If two firms have similar ROE, yet one has a higher ROIC, almost always go for the firm with the higher ROIC, as deploying cash into productive assets will yield higher free cash flows.  Its cost of capital is also important, especially as it reflects its financial structure.

In today’s investment marketplace, where many firms are overflowing with cash, the ability to redeploy cash having a low after-tax tax yield into projects and assets having a high return on capital will, in most cases be value-adding opportunities. If the firm is unaware of, shy regarding acquisitions, has a high cost of capital, or whose opportunities are currently producing low ROIC,  deploying cash into new projects may be questionable. Mere accounting manipulation-such as an asset write-down-will improve ROE, as will a share buyback, yet both activities will not improve  ROIC.

It is for this reason why investors and analysts should measure and prefer the cash on cash return in their acquisition analysis, to which ROE has a back seat. Income from cash is not included in the return on invested capital (ROIC) metric.

Example UPS

To calculate UPS’s return on invested capital, I employ the definition espoused in Chapter 5  of my book Security Valuation and Risk Analysis, and the information contained in is 10K.

ROIC =Free cash flow – Net Interest Income/Invested Capital (Equity +Total Interest Bearing Debt +PV of Operating Leases-Cash +Marketable Securities).

UPS had produced normalized $2.9 billion in free cash flow from which we

exclude its $100MM in net interest income as we are seeking its return on capital

employed.

=2.9 -0.1/6.78+ 9.87 +1.1-1.05

=2.8/16.7

=16.8% excluding loss in comprehensive income

=12.5% including loss on comprehensive income

Incorporating operating leases into the denominator lowers UPS’s ROIC by about

6 percent. If the loss on comprehensive income (or part of it) were added back to

shareholders’ equity, the difference would have been meaningful. The

company’s ROIC is sufficiently above their weighted-average cost of capital

(8.35 percent) to state that UPS most likely has many value-adding investments

it could make.

This would not be as apparent by merely looking at its ROE.

Kenneth Hackel, CFA

CT Capital LLC

www.ctcapllc.com

Share on Facebook

Password……………..

ID……………………

available only for clients of CT Capital LLC

Share on Facebook

November Summary

While the past week’s rally was certainly gratifying, recent large price swings represent investors’ admission they are uncomfortable in their ability to assess the current level of credit risk.  Access to capital at a reasonable price is vital to our economic well-being and weighted accordingly in our valuation models. Even for firms having strong credits, their suppliers or customers may be at the mercy of lending institutions.

I remain slightly concerned the coming bank stress testing, in spite of today’s actions by the Fed, ECB and other central banks, could further constrain the supply of capital, placing the industrialized economies in greater jeopardy than need be. We are already seeing banks restructure balance sheets to provide regulatory Tier 1 capital, and in the process, limiting lending to mid-scale businesses.  If these concerns are not realized, fully expect to see equity markets undergo valuation multiple expansion as the cost of capital should fall from its current 9.1% down to the 8.6% range. This alone could fuel a 25% rally in valuations.

While raising permanent equity is appreciated by creditors, greatest efficiency occurs when capital is at an optimal point—excessive capital is not always the solution and can harm valuation multiples while increasing cost of equity as it lowers prospective return metrics.

Credit concerns began in August, almost coincident with the fall in stocks. In the chart appearing below, measured is the interest rate being charged by London banks, in US dollars, for loans to other banks having a 3 month maturity. While this and other real-time metrics, including credit default swaps, have become an important component in the setting of cost of capital, they do not rule the roost—longer-term free cash flow, return on capital, cost of capital and valuation do.

The balance of the report is available for clients of CT Capital LLC

Share on Facebook

Portfolio Review- October 31, 2011

Summary

Despite a sour windup to the month, free cash flow multiples expanded from the cruel levels in September. The portfolio is showing out-performance against both the Russell 1000 value and Russell Midcap since inception of the account this year.  That said, investors would be prudent to expect a prolonged period of slow worldwide growth, the kind of environment which is beneficial to our invested firms-those with sound financial structure and ability to earn superior returns on capital.

Devoting lots of time reviewing our firms almost weekly acquisitions, it was nice to have it go the other way with Healthspring receiving an offer close to fair value, and as a result the position was sold. Other portfolio firms have, by and large, reported free cash flows and either return on capital or economic profit, and financial structures, in line with model requirements.

I am devoting this month’s letter to one position (Regal-Beloit-RBC) which in many ways, epitomizes the portfolio—an industrial manufacturer which has seen its stock decline resulting from the current and likely to continue,  economic malaise, typical following deep credit crisis.

In the following example, our models, which include the alteration to RBC’s financial structure as a result of its most recent, and large acquisition[1], indicate an undervalued cash flow stream available to the equity holders. This is also evident on a historical basis by the chart at the end of the report, showing RBC’s historical three-year average free cash flows and market values. The chart shows investors have always responded favorably, although it often took an ensuing economic expansion, to respond to the firm’s improvement in operations resulting from its operating and financial decision-making.

Regal-Beloit Corporation (RBC, market capitalization $1.7 billion)

A firm with a normalized consistency of metrics for a cyclical business, a history of value-adding acquisitions, and a free cash flow yield which over the cycle is safely above its cost of capital, Regal Beloit shares, despite above-market volatility, should continue to provide above normal return to shareholders.  The firm’s shares, since inception of the account, have been underperforming the benchmark. Over the long-term, its superior metrics have resulted in outperformance, and in fact, was a position I owned for clients over 20 years ago. Management has continued to employ and promote executives who believe in the time-tested and economically proven philosophy of acquiring firms which exceed its cost of capital within one year. Smaller acquisitions, it appears, have taken longer to become value-adding, although financial details are sketchy at best with such deals.

As organizations strive to improve energy efficiency, and with RBC enjoying a pre-eminent position in motors, generators, and electrical manufacturing, benefits should accrue continue to both equity and credit holders.  Prospective results should also be bolstered by the recent AO Smith electrical products division acquisition, which has a stronger presence in faster growing markets.  RBC has leading positions in Asia and North America and is attempting to be 50% non-US in total sales.

Management has kept to its knitting in their “bolt-on” acquisitions (14 in the past 36 months) in which the firm has a knowledge base whereby it can be a better owner than the seller, meaning, it can improve upon the financial metrics at the time of acquisition. It also has a history of making good fits, culture wise, always and an important yet somehow underappreciated consideration in merger analysis. Their larger acquisitions tend to be those which RBC has a long history of competing and has deep familiarity in both product and people.

RBC funded the AO Smith purchase with cash, equity, borrowings under their credit facility and additional debt. The size of the acquisition (41% of its market value, amounting to $700MM in cash and 2.8MM shares of stock) and the impact to the financial structure caused us to raise cost of equity by half a percentage point. Of the $700MM, $500MM of long-term debt is at 4.74% with a $100MM revolver at 2%. RBC expects large cross selling opportunities, which is often overlooked in these type of mergers, as analysts prefer to concentrate on cost synergies, which RBC estimates at over $35MM over 4 years.  I believe RBC will be able to pay down the added leverage rather quickly given data from the seller’s 10-K’s and RBC’s ability to improve upon existing, as well as internal, cash flows.

Total debt as a percentage of total capital, due to the acquisition, is at the company’s historic high range, even when bringing the debt to present value.

RBC claims they will, despite the current economic climate, continue to be active acquirers; I view this as a positive as most well financed companies shy away from acquisitions during slowdowns. If however, any upcoming deal is not immediately value-adding or brings the financial structure out of line with normalized free cash flows, or brings its cost of capital above acceptable levels, our positive position will be re-accessed.

RBC is comfortably within all loan covenants. Capital spending, despite its acquisitions, is higher than normalized, in part due to the requirement of the Chinese Government to relocate 2 of its plants while funding a manufacturing facility that was previously leased. Our worksheets (see table-excess capital spending) reflect these expenditures. Litigation is normal and derivatives within fair hedges. Pension liability adds 16% to total debt, and operating leases about 8%. Purchase and other commitments, including outstanding letters of credit are normal. Although the tax effective rate has remained in a 30%-35% band the past 7 years, its cash rate has been more erratic, owing to credits and other normal factors. NOL benefits are minimal. Unremitted US earnings are $131 MM.

The free cash flow worksheet shown below (and attached for larger print reading) is for the six months ended June, as the current quarter results are not to be released until November 2. One would expect a below average performance given the macroeconomic factors, results from other cyclical firms, and acquisition related expenses. As you have seen, yearly worksheets are more detailed and reliable, given firms’ estimation procedures and the incorporation of additional data.

As the half year worksheet illustrates, RBC has been able to continue to show the ability to produce superior free cash flows, resulting in a cash yield above that for the median S&P industrial entity, a fact being currently overlooked by investors focusing on the general economic slowdown and the European debt crisis, rather than the gathering of the firm’s operating leverage, which I believe will become quite evident as those problems unwind. RBC, as with other firms doing business in Asia, is seeing a noticeable slowdown in China; they are not overly exposed in Europe.

Included in free cash flows is part of last quarter’s $28MM charge from the addition to their warranty cost provision due to a defect, shown in cost of goods sold, and with the total charge to be paid over upcoming current quarters.

The models also added minor free cash flows due to higher than normalized input costs reflected in COGS, which grew to 77.8%, due to higher commodity and other expense. The models added other free cash flows to operating expenses (SG&A) which were high relative to historic levels. As sales grow, new acquisitions absorbed, the supply chain continuing to be squeezed, and acquisition related improvements placed, I expect these expenses to normalize. Given general economic weakness, however,   it might take a while longer than management currently believes. Regardless, employment cuts should be expected which could free up cash not fully reflected in our models which partially pick up a percentage (between 15%-20%) of the excess expenditures. Other discretionary expenses are within normal limits.

Half of RBC’s employees are covered by defined benefits plans which were frozen in 2009; foreign employees are covered by government sponsored plans.  As stated, we added 16% to total debt to account for current market rates based on RBC’s somewhat high 8.25% investment assumption (72% in equities) and 6% discount rate assumption. We have also penalized cash flow from operations based on the announced $2.2MM contribution this fiscal year and cash payments running slightly under $5MM. Most US employees participate in their savings plan.

The following chart shows the relationship between Regal Beloit’s three year average free cash flows, as defined, and its corresponding market values. We also show trend lines for each series. As is not unexpected for cyclical manufacturers, the lines are somewhat jagged; the trends however are unmistakably close and positive, which has resulted in strong performance for the patient investor.

The free cash flow worksheet shows higher free cash flows than the company has, in its presentation slides, been reporting to shareholders.  The reasons are twofold. First, we adjust for normalized expenditures, including commodity costs, which have impaired the results of RBC. The model also picks up and includes as overspending, excess expenditures, and since RBC has been an active acquirer, the model accounts for some reductions in labor and other cost redundancies. In fact, during its most recent conference calls the company admitted it is diligently working to reduce expenses from acquisitions.

We recognize firms like RBC will always be impacted by economic forces, as will be seen again this coming week. However, once an expansion takes hold, however slight, and as energy becomes costlier, and the benefits of its most recent acquisitions return cash to reduce leverage (and cost of capital), investors will begin to appreciate the superior normalized yield.

Please call me with your investment questions.

Ken

Share on Facebook