13 Dec 2016

Imagine that your morning post contains an envelope that has your name and address written by hand in block capitals. Inside is a note, written by the same unknown hand that says, “YOU ARE SMELLY”. What do you make of that? For a moment you will regret having two helpings of chilli con carne last night and you will think back to last Thursday when you had a shower. But then you will start wondering about who could have sent such a note. What kind of strange person would bother to take the trouble to deliver such childish (and doubtless unjustified) abuse. What kind of sinister creep does that? Is this the start of something that could escalate? Will it end with a chalk line on your floor marking the position of your dead body when it was discovered?   Much of what passes for “social media” on the internet is effectively a worldwide digital version of an anonymous “YOU ARE SMELLY” note. And once you have asked yourself what sort of person spends time commenting, usually negatively, on anything that takes their fancy, with their ignorance protected with the cloak of anonymity, you must then come to a more awkward question: who in their right mind takes any notice of this stuff? It is certainly the case that corporations and politicians manage their Twitter and Facebook (and doubtless many other apps that I’ve never heard of) identities carefully. They employ people to try to ensure that their public face is shiny and smiley. Television channels read out texts and tweets to give the impression that someone sitting at home sending messages to the TV is not sad at all but is really a member of an upbeat community. Everyone is frightened of provoking a Twitterstorm, defined on Wikipedia as “a sudden spike in activity surrounding a certain topic on the Twitter social media site”. Sadly, Twitterstorms are frequently responses to someone questioning orthodox or just populist opinion. We pretend to revere people who challenge consensus but in practice they are fair game for mob anger. (I appreciate that Donald Trump is the exception to the above: he is far from anonymous, he does not...

25 Jan 2016

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was a (now repealed) US official policy that insisted that gays serving in the military must take part in a cover-up. On the grounds that they kept their sexual preferences a secret they were excused from being openly bullied, discriminated against and dismissed. Something that everyone knew to be untrue (the idea that the US military was staffed entirely by patriotic heterosexuals) was sanctioned in a big game of “let’s pretend”. If everyone acted as if it were true it would be just as if it were actually true. But DADT turned out to be too convenient a device to be confined to such a narrow issue. It was perfect for the treatment of subprime mortgages! It was clear to many insiders that people who had no realistic chance of repaying were being granted loans to buy properties that had to rise in value to bail out the borrower, that these debts were being insured on terms that didn’t come close to reflecting their risk and that the loans were being repackaged and sold on, backed by credit agency ratings that were uninformed and irresponsible at best. Yet even when the crisis was unfolding at speed, banks and other financial institutions were saying publicly that everything with which they had been stuffed was AAA quality. Check out The Big Short for a great explanation of the story. The trouble with DADT is that it is like a Ponzi scheme. Once you have started to pretend, you have to keep going. The morons working at the soon-to-be rescued banks did not mean to buy toxic junk. But once the mistake was made the easier option was to keep playing along. Like a trader who hides loss-making positions in the bottom drawer (or a secret computer file), the final thing you can try to buy is time. You literally decide to wait for a miracle.    Something like this is going on with Quantitative Easing (QE = DADT). As I have pointed out elsewhere, the truth that QE was a device for inflating asset prices in order to save the banks from marking them to market was spun into an officially...

24 Dec 2015

This seems to be a time in which people have a touching faith in the idea that progress can be achieved through international negotiations. Certainly, the mutual back-slapping following the Conference Of Parties (COP21) in Paris implied that a new era of cooperation has arrived. COP21 had 25,000 official delegates and an estimated further 25,000 fellow travellers (doubtless all busily offsetting their air miles). The direct aim of this conference was to agree to a temperature target for the earth in the year 2100. With nearly 200 nations represented, it is understandable that everyone was pleased and relieved that everyone agreed that something had probably been achieved. The obvious problem is that in 85 years (2100) almost none of the 50,000 attendees will be alive. COP21 is a group-hug endorsement of the contemporary notion that everything that is hard to face now can be flipped into the future. The tendency to defer tough decisions is arguably human nature (though there must be some humans out there somewhere who prefer to face up to difficulties – where are they?) Certainly, putting off the evil hour has dominated central bank policy for nearly ten years to the point that markets were effectively begging Janet Yellen  to pull the trigger on the first rate rise of what might turn into the new current cycle. Avoiding short-term unpleasantness has resulted in a massive build-up in off-balance sheet liabilities for future UK taxpayers through an expensive policy known as PFI. It has allowed students to be obliged to fund their own education on penal terms, using teaser rates to distract attention from the financial burden that will dog them in years ahead. The probable widespread default that will hit the Student Loans Company will be underwritten by all taxpayers in the future. While much political capital is made out of trying to deny benefits to immigrants, nobody seems inclined to address the monumental unfunded liability that arises from the need to pay pensions to and healthcare costs for our dramatically aging population. We’re probably going to need a large number of working age, tax paying immigrants to help us out at some point. The inevitable car crash that will...

9 Jun 2015

Scepticism is essential to successful investment. At its simplest, it implies recognising the possibility that anything the market prices as certain or very likely, might turn out to be false. This practical application of scepticism should feature in all investment decisions. Given the priceless value of scepticism, it seems wrong and somewhat suspicious that the word has acquired pejorative connotations. In Britain, “eurosceptics” are taken to be anti-Europe and specifically against the UK’s membership of the European Union. There are plenty of such people, but they seem to me to have made up their minds. If you are decided on a matter you are not sceptical. It may be that people against Europe like being called sceptics because it makes them seem more open minded. But this use of the word has started to turn it into a term of abuse, specifically in relation to the belief in climate change. Climate change deniers are referred to in language that implies them to be corrupt criminals or merely idiots and they are rarely if ever distinguished from those who choose to treat all arguments about climate change with scepticism. Here is Kofi Annan talking to the Guardian last month. “We seriously have to question the motivation of those people referred to as climate change sceptics, who are denying the evidence of human-caused climate change and preventing us from moving forward by spreading disinformation and supporting unchecked carbon pollution.” Climate change believers frequently state that 97% of all climate scientists agree that the consensus view – that global warming is caused by human activity – is true. As an investor, this assertion discomforts me. It makes me think of packages of securitised junk mortgage loans being given AAA+ scores by ratings agencies. If everyone thought or more precisely said that they thought they were OK, what could possibly go wrong? Ratings agencies were, it would seem, paid to award high ratings to rubbish. Whether climate scientists have a financial incentive to swim with the dolphins in the warm waters of the consensus I don’t know. But it is clear that on numerical grounds alone, publicly expressing scepticism will make you stand out a bit.   It...

6 May 2015

IT’S NOT ABOUT HOMES, IT’S ABOUT HOUSE PRICES Politicians, journalists and sundry do-gooders seem, against the odds, to have discovered one fact on which they all agree. It seems that Britain has a housing shortage and, to paraphrase the late Vivian Nicholson, we must build, build, build. Whenever an opinion, no matter how compellingly simple, is presented as a fact with which no one could disagree it is wise and even compulsory to question it. I bought a dead tree copy of the Times last week (28 April 2015) and there was an opinion piece about housing that contained this sentence: “It’s reckoned that we need about 250,000 new homes a year”. It didn’t add who reckons that or why. But once you start googling “250000 new homes” you quickly light upon a report written in 2003 by Kate Barker, a one-time stalwart of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. It is reckoned, as they say, that this report demanded 250,000 new homes a year and eleven years on that has not been achieved once. It would appear that the nation has accumulated a bit of a backlog: to be more precise, a backlog of 845,000, that being the difference between the actual number of completions and 2.750,000 (11x 250,000). So what did the esteemed Kate (now Dame) Barker actually say in her report? Did she really demand that 250,000 new homes should be built every year? (Spoiler: no). The first line of the report is this: “The UK has experienced a long-term upward trend in real house prices.” And there’s a clue. I think it is fair to say that the primary motivation of this report is to make housing more affordable by increasing the supply in order to restrain prices. Here is the section that deals directly with the question of how many new houses are desirable: “Looked at purely from the perspective of the UK economy, more housing would be beneficial. Different approaches to measuring the shortfall, produce a range of estimates: • projections of population growth and changing patterns of household formation (a proxy for future demand), compared to current build rates implies there is a current shortfall of...

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...

20 Nov 2012

Enterprise Inns released its fiscal 2012 results today. It is a pub operator that expanded too enthusiastically and became dangerously indebted. Leasing pubs to landlords who want to run them is fundamentally a very profitable business. Enterprise makes operating margins of 47% which is about as good as it gets (Apple’s operating margin is 36.5%, for instance.) To the banks, Enterprise must have looked like a cash generating machine that was close to a licenced printer of money. Probably the Enterprise management felt the same way. Consequently the business borrowed and borrowed and expanded its pub empire. Naturally, when recession hit and pub customers and landlords started to suffer, Enterprise was left with a declining business trying to support a balance sheet designed for growth. At such times such as this, financial creditors, who always have one motivation only – to be repaid – become very worried and will foreclose – probably making the equity worthless – if it suits their purpose. Enterprise is crawling up the road to recovery but it’s a long road. In the last four years it has reduced its debt by >£1bn, which is around 25%. Yet it remains a very indebted company. At today’s share price (67p) the enterprise value of Enterprise Inns is c.£3.07bn of which net debt is £2.74bn and equity (the market capitalisation) just £335m. So the enterprise value is 9 parts debt to 1 part equity. If the value of the business falls by 10% and the debt remains constant, the shares will be effectively worthless. That is the risk of investing in Enterprise Inns now and the potential penalty if the progress along the road to recovery falters. But let’s skip quickly to the upside. Let us say that the business marks time but further progress is made in reducing debt through cash flow and, perhaps, some disposal of zombie assets. The enterprise value of the company sticks at £3.07bn but net debt is cut by another 10% to £2.47bn. In this case, the value of the equity rises from £335m to £600m. That makes 120p per share or a rise of 79% without the overall value of the business having changed. All...