30 Mar 2018

In my report on Q4, I wrote that “for the third successive quarter, the markets were mysteriously calm.” The calm was disrupted in Q1 for sure: the main UK indexes fell by between 6% and 8%. The German DAX was -6.3%. Supported by a falling dollar, the US markets, though volatile, did better with the DJIA -2.5%. I hinted before that the stock markets might be vulnerable to rising interest rates or, more specifically, rising bond yields. In February it started to look as if this was happening; the US 10 year treasury yield had risen from 2.40% to 2.94%; but by the end of the quarter it was back to 2.74%. A similar pattern played out elsewhere. The 10 year gilt yield rose from 1.20% to 1.69% but ended the quarter back at 1.34%. It would seem that the wait for inflation goes on. Aside from the usual nonsensical white noise about “uncertainty” it is hard to escape the conclusion that the stock market is truly concerned about the ability of large corporations that feature in our lives daily to invest capital, service debt and pay dividends. Here is your day described in terms of dividend yields: you are woken by the ringing of the house phone (BT: 6.8%) and switch on the light (National Grid: 5.6%); you turn up the central heating (Centrica: 8.5%) and clean your teeth (Glaxo: 5.7%); you decide to go into town but your car has no petrol (BP: 6.0%, Royal Dutch Shell: 5.8%) and needs a new rear light (Halfords: 5.4%) so you decide to take the bus (Stagecoach: 9.0%, Go-Ahead: 5.8%); you do some shopping in Currys PC World (Dixons Carphone: 6.0%, Vodafone: 6.7%) and M&S (Marks & Spencer: 6.9%) before treating yourself to a pub lunch (Marstons: 7.4%, Greene King: 7.0%). Is it the end of the world as we know it? Yet, against this rather sinister background something quite different has been happening. Companies who want to buy each other seem to like these prices very much. On 22 December GVC announced its intention to buy Ladbrokes plc. On 17 January, Melrose bid for GKN; on 30 January UBM agreed to be taken over;...

7 Jan 2014

The FTSE 100 rose by 4.4% in the quarter for a full year gain of 13.9%. The FTSE 250 (that’s companies from 101 to 350) performed twice as well in 2013, rising by 28.8%. There are never truly hard factual reasons why share prices move but it generally remains the case that smaller companies’ share prices are relative beneficiaries of improving confidence. Large blue chips do better when investors are seeking protection. It is also probably the case that smaller companies are less well known and consequently deliver more surprises. Note that in bad times they typically deliver more bad surprises which point takes us back to why large stocks do better when investors are nervous. It is reasonable to conclude that confidence improved in 2013. The mood implied by the yields offered by government bonds rose from clinically depressed to merely grumpy – in the case of the UK this was from 2.0% in January 2013 to 3.0% now. In the US the rise was slightly sharper, from 1.8% to 3.0%, but it was much the same story. The bond markets are suggesting that we are looking at a fairly gentle, low inflation recovery. Analysts sometimes name this “Goldilocks” (not too hot, not too cold) and it feels like a very comfortable investment environment. Comfort eventually causes complacency and this is exactly why it is wrong to commit one’s investment strategy to an opinion about the future, no matter how tempting. Investment is always about how probability is priced. Consensus rarely offers compelling value. I am pleased though not surprised to say that my satellite index of companies with female executives quite dramatically extended its outperformance against the FTSE 250. After the first nine months of 2013, the FTSE 250 was +25% but the 27 companies with female executives had risen by 35%. After the full twelve months, those numbers were +29% and +46% respectively. As for the shares that I recommended this year, in Q3 I wrote that I was surprised that Enterprise Inns rose by 40% in Q3. In Q4 it was much quieter, rising by 6.5%. I am not attracted by the value of the company now and I don’t...

2 Oct 2013

The FTSE rose by 3.9% in the quarter (Q1 +8.7%, Q2 -3.0%) meaning that year-to-date it is +9.2%. I didn’t recommend a single new share in the quarter. This is partly because I was away in France, but is also because no compelling new ideas turned up. City analysts are expected to come up with recommendations (usually ‘Buy’s) regularly but real people don’t have to. To some extent, this reflects my current view of the stock market. The most likeable companies are generally priced accordingly. As I mention repeatedly, value is always relative and shares must always be compared to other asset classes. On that basis, there is not so much to worry about. UK house prices are creeping higher from unaffordable levels, encouraged by the government’s reckless Help to Buy scheme. (I heard the PM complain that the average income is unable to buy the average house. You might think that the solution is to raise the average income or lower the average house price or preferably both, but the answer from our government is to play “let’s pretend” and to forward the problem into the future, as usual). With growing numbers of people hooked up to the life support of the 0.5% Bank Rate, the chance of regular savings accounts bidding for your money are also about 0.5%. The only practical rival to equities in Q3 was, surprisingly, government bonds. On 10 September I recommended one. UNITED KINGDOM 1 3/4% TREASURY GILT 22 was trading at 92 then. This is an investment to tuck away for the long term but in the short term it has risen to 93.78, which, for a gilt, is pretty exciting. Shortly before the end of Q2 (12 June), I suggested a yield portfolio of twelve shares. From that date, they have returned 6.1% (including dividends) against 2.3% for the FTSE. So my implied caution has worked out quite well. The only stinker was Ladbrokes, thanks to a profit warning derived from its concerning failure to manage its online business. That having been said, its cash flow remains good and it has pledged to maintain the dividend. Today (167p) it yields more than 5% so I am,...

5 Jul 2013

The FTSE fell by 3% in the quarter meaning, obviously, that the easy wins of Q1 (+8.7%) were unavailable. My Q1 recommendations of Enterprise Inns and Go-Ahead trod water. Home Retail Group fell after its last trading update, apparently on the basis that the rain kept people away from Homebase. Such absurdities provide buying opportunities for investors and would-be barbecue chefs. At 138p it has a historic FCF yield of 29% (admittedly 2012 was an exceptionally good year for its free cash flow.) In May, I updated on ICAP which was still at 327p. The volatility of this share can be unnerving but right now it is 15% higher at 378p and it has maintained and paid its large dividend. In May I wrote that I would not be buying FirstGroup at its ex-rights price of 111p. At today’s price of 97p I am still not buying but I’m still watching. I also offered a list of twelve yield stocks. So far, so good. Ten are essentially unchanged or higher compared to a slight (0.8%) fall in the FTSE. Only UBM and Royal Dutch are down (I don’t know why). For anyone fretting about my worst ever investment (in Taylor Wimpey), it just released a positive trading statement and is trading at just over 100p – and yes, I have sold some. In April I wrote dismissing gold as an investment after it fell below $1400 an ounce. It is now $1242 and as unappealing as ever, in my opinion. My view on QE, available here and there, is that it probably does nothing to stimulate economic growth but that it will continue to be favoured by the Treasury which influences the Bank of England decisively. Yesterday the MPC under its new Governor Carney stated that: “..the implied rise in the expected future path of Bank Rate was not warranted by the recent developments in the domestic economy.” In other words, the Bank Rate is going nowhere from its 0.5% base and QE is safe in their hands. The stock market duly rose 3% in...

12 Jun 2013

Investment is betting on probabilities, not on outcomes. How can we judge if the probability of an event is over-priced or under-priced? Do not try to guess the probability of an outcome with a view to pricing it. Do ask when the price is telling you about the probability – then ask yourself if this is reasonable. For obvious reasons, investors are now very interested in dividend yield but they also have reasons to be worried about the stock market. Commentators seem to be evenly split between those who are looking down and suffering vertigo and those who say that equities continue to offer attractive value compared to what else is on offer. According to my own investment rules, you will find me in the second camp for as long as that proposition continues to be true. Dividend yields are as reliable a measure as any for judging what the market thinks of a company. Then, as the quotation from my fourth investment rule (Probability) says, we can ask ourselves whether this is reasonable. Below is a table of current dividend yields from shares that I follow. There is a wide range which, if the market is efficient, should tell us that we can choose between relatively safe companies with relatively low yields and relatively risky with commensurately high returns. Before I discuss any individual stocks, I will characterise what these various yields imply.     Price Yield BG 1165 1.4% Fuller Smith & Turner 925 1.5% Domino’s Pizza 670 1.5% Travis Perkins 1520 1.6% Experian 1175 1.9% Regus 165.00 1.9% Home Retail Group 152 2.0% Diageo 19.15 2.2% Interconti Hotels 1835 2.2% Smith & Nephew 755 2.3% Rentokil 88 2.4% Millennium 549 2.5% Cranswick 1120 2.7% Stage Coach 287 2.7% Kingfisher 344 2.8% Hays 90 2.8% BT 312 2.8% Synthomer 194 2.8% Sage 348 3.0% Rexam 505 3.0% Micro Focus 659 3.1% Unilever (€) 31.4 3.1% Reed 736.0 3.1% Tate & Lyle 811 3.2% Greencore 130.00 3.3% St Ives 160 3.3% Greene King 750 3.4% Debenhams 92 3.6% Morgan Crucible 277 3.6% M&S 448 3.8% Pearson 1173.0 3.8% UBM 690.00 3.9% Mitie 253 4.1% Costain 254 4.2% Tesco 343 4.3% Marstons 142 4.4%...

14 May 2013

ICAP released its 2012 results today. They were agreeably dull after a number of blows to the share price coming from stories about regulatory investigations including reports that it was being linked to the Libor scandal. At first sight, the statement from CEO Spencer suggests a pretty bad year: This has been an extraordinarily tough year in the wholesale financial markets. Trading activity across all asset classes was negatively affected by a combination of cyclical and structural factors including the depressed global economy, a low interest rate environment and lack of clarity around some aspects of regulatory reform. ICAP’s financial performance reflects these extremely challenging conditions. So how bad were the numbers? The answer is that compared to the mood of that statement (“extraordinarily tough year…..extremely challenging conditions”) they were delightful. Operating cash flow was down from 25% of revenues in 2011 to 24% i.e. it was high by the standards of most businesses. The dividend is maintained (for a yield of >7% at yesterday’s close) and after the payment of dividends, capex and restructuring charges, net debt fell by £100m (ICAP now has a net cash position). ICAP is treated by the stock market as if it is a cyclical business (and Michael Spencer does not seem to discourage this view) but its numbers say that it is practically a utility company. A conventional utility company also produces reliable operating cash flow but is burdened with much higher capex requirements. National Grid makes a somewhat higher operating cash flow margin (33%) but invests a formidable 25% of its revenues in capex. Centrica, which is highly regulated (and regularly grilled on the Today programme,) makes an operating cash flow margin of just 13% and will generally invest 5% of its revenues in capex. ICAP spends 3-4% of its revenues on capex but therefore retains much more of its 24% operating cash flow margin for other purposes (shareholders). Moreover, the ICAP capex is directed at electronic trading platforms which, other things being equal, continue to raise group operating margins. Every time I write about ICAP it is trading at around 327p though it has ranged from 280p to 355p this year. I am in the...

26 Mar 2013

I will review the success of my own advice every quarter because it looks like a good discipline and it feels like the chance to brag or whine, both of which could be satisfying. First, the share tips. My first ever post in November suggested that Enterprise Inns was probably worth more than 67p and suggested 120p as a possibility. Today’s price of 109p (+63%) is a nice slice of beginner’s luck. Then I suggested that Marks & Spencer could not justify a share price of 400p unless it was a takeover play. The takeover talk faded and the shares fell. Then the takeover talk restarted and it popped up to 400p again. My opinion is that it is too messy to be a plausible target but never say “never”.  In January I recommended ICAP at 327p. It had a decent jump on news of slightly better trading but then fell back when it was linked with the Libor “scandal”. So it is basically unchanged and still appears to yield 7%, albeit now with a “known unknown” risk. Then I tipped Home Retail Group, which jumped while I was writing about it. I’m chuffed to say that it has jumped again. It was 122p when I started writing about it, 140p when I published and is above 155p now. So far, so good: I expect it to go further.  Then in February I recommended Go-Ahead at 1367p. That has also lived up to its name and has risen by 8% including its half-year dividend. Obviously these triumphs are not unconnected to the fact that the FTSE rose by c.8% in the quarter. Now, the other posts. The student sub-prime loans are designed to blow up in 20 years, which is when my “model” student will start to reduce his outstanding debt. The guilty should be out of sight by then. Interestingly, RPI (now 3.2%), which is the driver for the increase in interest on the loans that students took for the first time this year (RPI +3%), will no longer be designated as a national statistic” according to the United Kingdom Statistics Authority. When I say “interestingly”, what I really mean is that I...

10 Jan 2013

At first glance, ICAP looks like the kind of company that I don’t like to invest in. It is a financial service business whose employees are well rewarded for success. The normal problem with such companies is an implicit conflict of interest in that the shareholders find themselves in competition with the employees for a share of the added value. Shareholders of investment banks in recent years will be well acquainted with this idea. A key fact about ICAP is that the CEO is the largest shareholder and, understandably, he appears to like dividends. Michael Spencer owns 16.7% of the company. The dividend for last year paid him 108 million lots of 22p. That’s £23.8 million on top of his executive remuneration of £5.5 million. This man’s appetite for dosh is huge by most standards but he is greedy on behalf of all shareholders: and it helps to know that ICAP’s annual charity day has now raised a total of £100 million. ICAP is a large interdealer broker that matches professional buyers and sellers of all kinds of financial products (interest rate products, foreign exchange, bonds, commodities etc). It charges tiny commissions on huge transactional volumes. ICAP does not take positions. It is a pure broker that will know on a daily basis what its income is and what its costs are. Since the financial crisis hit, volumes have fallen and the company has been quick to cut costs. There are two ways in which costs are cut; first, by reducing headcount among the traditional broking staff; and secondly, by increasing the penetration of electronic trading (where profit margins are 40%). The increased use of electronic trading is a strategic goal that should improve underlying margins. ICAP is a business with strong cash generation. Operating cash flow over the financial year is typically 20% of revenues. This funds the dividends. The full year dividend over the five years of the financial crisis has risen from 15.65p per share to 22p. In the first half of the current financial year (to March 2013) it was raised again, despite Michael Spencer reporting that “this has been one of the toughest periods in my 36 year career...