Spectrum Brands Holdings: 2 Hard Catalysts In Process To Unlock Value

My last article on Seeking Alpha goes back to December 2021. Seeking Alpha is running a contest, Top Stock With A Catalyst, so I decided to throw my hat in the ring. It’s the first time I participate to one of their contest. Let’s see how it goes.

As for the article. I kept it shorter and more to the point this time. I was criticized in the past for having articles that were too long. And they are right. Part of me wants to look at every angle of a company and write everything down. I don’t want to leave anything out because I think it’s important. I always have to chop and chop and chop. But there’s way of doing that without going on and on. So it’s a work in progress.

This time I wrote about Spectrum Brands Holdings (SBP). It’s a big consumer product company. They used to be Rayovac a long time ago and they are not in the battery business anymore. Today’s Spectrum Brands is going throw a transformation and the market is pricing it. There are many reasons for that and I go in details in the article.

Seeking Alpha owns the rights to the article. So I can only share a little bit. But you can read the whole thing on their site. In terms of access, the article may or not be free, or free for a while. SA changes their terms often so I don’t know.


Spectrum Brands Holdings: 2 Hard Catalysts In Process To Unlock Value

@Seeking Alpha by Brian Langis

Summary

  • Spectrum Brands has 2 hard catalysts in process to unlock value.
  • 1 – SPB is in the process of selling their Hardware & Home Improvement business for a 14x FY21 Adjusted EBITDA. That’s a rich price. The transaction will create value.
  • 2 – SPB talks about spinning-off or another transaction of their Home Personal Care business.
  • SPB is cheap. The market is not recognizing the full value of the steps management is taking to transform the business. A SOTP approach suggests that is undervalued.
  • SPB will go from a net debt to a gross cash position. SPB will be a more focused, leaner, and simpler business. A better business warrants a higher valuation.

My submission for the contest is Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc (NYSE:SPB). Spectrum Brands Holdings is a leading global branded consumer products and home essentials company. In other words, they sell stuff you need or use at home. Their slogan is “We Make Living Better at Home”. They sell everything from kitchen faucets to indoor grills and curling irons.

The name Spectrum Brands probably doesn’t mean much to you (former Rayovac) but you probably used some of their products. You are most likely familiar with some of their brands such as: Kwikset, Baldwin, Pfister, Weiser, Black Flag, Hot Shot, Spectracide, Remington, George Foreman (the grill), Black + Decker, PowerXL… and there are many more. I just listed some of the ones I recognized.

SPB operates as a holding company and is basically four businesses:

  • Global Pet Care (GPC)
  • Home & Garden (H&G)
  • Home & Personal Care (HPC) – now called “Empower Brands”
  • Hardware & Home Improvement (HHI)

Here’s a snapshot of SPB’s capitalization summary:

Click here for the rest.

Warner Bros. Discovery: A Streaming Giant In The Making

The full article is available on Seeking Alpha. This is just a preview. I’ve written about Discovery in the past. Here are the previous posts if you are catching up Part IIIIIIIVVVI.

Summary

  • A conservative valuation points to some upside.
  • This is an investment for the patient investor.
  • Do not underestimate the creator of the 90 Day Fiancé.
  • WarnerMedia and Discovery have some of the best assets in its class.
  • The future company will be a juggernaut in the DTC streaming space.

I bought Discovery Inc. (NASDAQ:DISCA) back on March 29 at $41.50 following the Archegos meltdown. For a stock that was once trading at $77 back in March, it felt like I was getting a bargain. When somebody, in this case Archegos, is dumping shares of a good company at bargain prices, I’m a buyer. When somebody is in a desperate situation, and needs to sell, the buyer is in a good position. I’ve been following the company for years and an opportunity presented itself. There was “blood on the street” as we say and I moved in. But short-term noise took over the narrative. DISCA fell, and fell, came back for a bit, and then fell off a cliff. At this moment DISCA is trading around $25 despite being a good company.

Chart: DISCA 2021 YTD Performance

Discovery is my worst investment in a long time. Of course nobody bats 1.000. They can’t all be winners. I bought companies in the past that fell 10% after I bought them. It happens and it mostly works out. DISCA sticks out like a sore thumb. I’m down 38% in almost seven months. Simple arithmetic says that’s a big hole to come back from. Losing money hurts. It double hurts when everything else I could have bought is going up. It triple hurts when you are public about the purchase (previously documented on the blog). You don’t want people to lose money. But again let me reiterate that this is not investment advice and you should do your own research.

The languishing stock price warrants some reviewing. Why is it that I do my best research after a stock is down a lot? I need to ask questions and to be honest with myself. Was this a mistake? Am I trying to make the story work? If so, when is the story going to work? Do I sell? If this is truly a bargain, should I buy more? If I liked it at $41, wouldn’t I love it at $25?

What do investors see?

I can’t predict the future, but I can try predicting the present. So what do investors see?

  • The turning point seems to be the WarnerMedia merger. After the Archegos selloff, DISCA bounced back near my break-even point of $41.50. But following the merger announcement, the market reacted negatively. A lot of debt, deal complexity, and uncertainty clouds the story.
  • DISCA is getting kicked around. Sentiment is negative. Sometimes the reason for a lower stock price is a low stock price.
  • A complex deal to buy WarnerMedia weighs heavily. We still don’t know how it’s going to be structured. Is the Reverse Morris trust structure going to be a dividend or an exchange offer for AT&T holders? Details remain scarce.
  • We don’t know how the streaming services will be rolled out and priced. Well they know but won’t tell us. This is a nightmare if you are a Wall-Street analyst that needs key numbers to plug in the financial model.
  • Discovery has three classes of shares trading at three different levels. It’s not efficient.
  • The overhang from AT&T shareholders selling post the deal close. Most T shareholders are in for the dividend. Warner Bros. Discovery (Newco) won’t distribute a dividend.
  • Cable TV is bleeding subscribers. There’s a lot of FCF in that segment but there’s no growth and Wall-Street cares about growth.
  • A crowded streaming space that’s getting more crowded. Growth in streaming is slowing.
  • The deal won’t close until mid-2022 or later, if they get the regulatory green light. That’s another ~nine months? That’s an eternity for today’s investment timeframe.
  • Warner Bros. Discovery will have a lot of debt, ~$55b.
  • HBO is the best, but they have made missteps under AT&T ownership.
  • Some are doubtful that Discovery can achieve $3b a year in synergies. That’s a big number. That’s $30b in value at 10x multiple. Great if they achieve it but remains to be seen.

Purgatory

Combine all of this and you have dead money. This means DISCA won’t likely significantly move until we have better visibility, more certainty on the deal. However, having said that, I had success with stocks in “purgatory”. It’s the place stocks go when they fall out of an orbit. They are in the “nobody cares about them” bucket. They stay in that zone for a while until some event push brings them back. This is where Discovery is. You can value Discovery as a stand-alone business, but we lack crucial details on the merging entity. A stock in “purgatory” can present an opportunity. It’s an uncrowded fishing pond. This means you can take advantage of this opportunity to build a position. If you have an investment horizon a little longer than the average investor you can do well in that space.

The full article is available on Seeking Alpha.

Thoughts on the AT&T – Discovery Deal

Since the Archegos fallout I’ve written two posts about about Discovery. Part 1 and Part 2. I initiated a position in the Class A shares at ~$41, which is now down 19% in six weeks since DISCA is trading at $33 at the moment. The current price provides a great entry point and I’m considering adding more at these prices.

Despite a good Q1-2021, the downward pressure seems attributed to things outside the business. The market has cooled off a bit due to rates and inflation concerns, Credit Suisse wasn’t done dumping massive bloc of shares to cover a bad loan and yesterday’s announcement of the AT&T-Discovery led to a pre-market price pop of 17%, $2 from break-even, and then the price pop popped. DISKCA dropped. Meanwhile Class B and Class are both higher. This is due to share “triage”, a reshuffling of different share classes. The NewCo will have one class of shares with one vote. Discovery has three classes of shares with different rights and a convertible pref. Let’s just say the NewCo capital structure will be easier and cleaner to understand.

You can see the presentation of the deal here. Below are some of my notes and thoughts on the deal. The new business is unnamed at the moment, so it’s going under NewCo for this post.

AT&T

  • AT&T shareholders will own 71% of NewCo. It supposed to be a tax-free spin-off of WarnerMedia assets.
  • What is Warner Media: Mainly CNN, TNT, HBO, Warner Bros studio, D.C. Entertainment, but there’s more.
  • AT&T will get $43b cash, debt securities and WarnerMedia’s retention of certain debt. This will help reduces its $169b of net debt. That amount of debt does not leave much financial flexibility when you have massive investments to make in 5G and content. Will need billions to match Verizon and T-Mobile.
  • AT&T will readjust the dividend after spin-off. The future dividend will be around $8b-$8.6b based on 40% of anticipated FCF of $20b. AT&T currently pays $15b/year and froze it last December after 30 years of increases.
  • Future yield should be around 3%-4% range.
  • NewCo will spend $20b a year in content. That’s more than Netflix’s $17b and Disney is around there.
  • Originally, the DirecTV deal and Time Warner was supposed to challenge Comcast in the pay-TV business, steal digital-advertising dollars from Google, and mount a challenge to Netflix Inc. in streaming. It accomplished none of that. Now it’s going back to its roots: Wireless and broadband.
  • Why the deal? #1: The market was never sold on AT&T multiprong strategy of trying to be the king of connectivity/broadband/distribution and king of content. In the direction they are going they are the king of neither. Marrying media content and distribution is a tough game. Verizon tried to be a digital media powerhouse and back-off $10b in and poor results (AOL + Yahoo, come on, how much did you paid a consultant for that genius idea).
  • Why? #2: AT&T has a lot of debt, mostly from two massive deals (DirecTV $49b + Time Warner $81b). Net debt is $160b. The largest for a non-financial company.
  • Why? #3: AT&T will need a lot of money to invest in 5G and connectivity to be able to stay in the game.
  • Why? #4: AT&T realized that WarnerMedia is a different beast that needs a different kind of attention, and will need billions of dollar annually. They are short $2b on committed programming.
  • Why? #5: Never a smooth marriage. There was conflicts after the purchase. A clash of culture. A couple rounds of layoffs, and just bad headlines. Hollywood didn’t like it. Moral was low. A lot of key people left. Talent relation is strained due in part to decisions regarding the distribution of theatrical movies.
  • Why? #6: A lot of pressure to perform. They took on massive debt on two massive deals and the results aren’t there. DirecTV was a flop. Sold 40% for $1.3b. The verdict is still out on Time Warner but early results are not up to expectations.
  • I don’t get AT&T. Isn’t this like the 3rd reorganization, or reshuffle, or reset in the last few years? They bought DirecTV at the peak of pay-TV (2015), then fought the government for two years to approve the Time Warner deal (2018) and now the U-turn?!
  • NewCo will be a better home for WarnerMedia. A company purely focus on creating content.
  • I never understood HBO’s strategy. It’s confusing. HBO, HBO Go, HBO Now, HBO Max, then they had a 3-tier paying system, then one. Consumers want one HBO.
  • Credit to CEO John Stankey for admitting that this wasn’t working instead and looking for solutions. It’s not easy to step back and re-evaluate.

Discovery

  • The deal is good for both parties. AT&T can attribute resources to what they now and NewCo will have more content to compete.
  • The two most successful players in direct-to-consumer streaming video, Netflix and Disney are almost entirely focused on entertainment, and don’t own cable systems or broadband businesses.
  • I like Discovery CEO David Zaslav. He’s a media guy. He knowns what he’s doing. He understands content.
  • Zaslav is a deal maker. He’s been acquiring content for the last couple years.
  • NewCo will have one share class with one vote.
  • NewCo will hold $55b of debt.
  • I like the disclosed around Discovery+. They have 15m consumers in five months and provide a good breakdown of the data/key metrics.
  • They disclosed that engagement is approximately 3 hours per day per viewing subscriber. 3hr!!!! This is the kind of stuff that you disclosed only if it’s positive. Nobody says they watch the 90 Day Fiancé for 3hrs, they say they watch The Crown, but we know the true.
  • In contrasts, AT&T said that HBO has a 44m subscribers without breaking it down. It believed that most of them are HBO-only customers. No numbers on HBO Max, the center piece of the strategy.
  • Discovery+ retention is strong and monthly churn is trending towards low single digits.
  • According to Zaslav, an hour of non-scripted content cost ~$400k compared with ~$5m for a scripted show.

Despite the stocks being down from my initial purchase, I’m still bullish on Discovery/NewCo. Right stock is getting kicked around for short-term events and market noises. The stock is undervalued. It’s kicking ~$3b in free cash flow. Discovery+ is turning into a success story. Eventually the narrative will change from “declining TV business” to streaming behemoth, just like Disney was able to rebrand itself from an “ESPN” story to Disney+.

So I tried TikTok

I had to figure out what TikTok was. What is it that required the full weight of the Presidency of the United States? Why do the US and other countries want to ban it? Why are the news paying so much attention to it? Why does TikTok even matter? And why Microsoft (MSFT) and Twitter (TWTR) sniffing around?


Before downloading the app I knew that TikTok was a Chinese video-sharing social media app with short videos mostly about music and dancing. ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, has 60,000 employees in 126 cities. Beside TikTok they have a bunch of other apps that I never heard of. It goes without saying that TikTok is one of the most popular social media app, especially among young people. Despite its rapid rise, there are still plenty of people — often, older people — who aren’t quite sure what TikTok is, including me until recently. It’s kinda of my job to know these things even if I don’t use them. And I’m a parent of two young guys, so maybe I should be concerned with what’s coming.


To give some background, I often create “ghost” accounts just to check things out and I notice that the same patterns recurring. First I don’t get it. I didn’t get Twitter at first and it took like five years before I started using it. I didn’t get Snapchap (SNAP) and still don’t. I didn’t get Reddit and now it’s awesome. I didn’t get Instagram and now I like it better than Facebook (FB). My thinking at first was “why use Instagram when you have Facebook?” Why use WhatsApp when you have Skype? Why have another app that does almost exactly the same thing as the other one? It takes me a while to understand these Internet trends. Now I use WhatsApp and keep Skype for my mom because the hassle and of getting her a new video conference app is not worth it. I use Twitter, Instagram, Reddit and dislike Facebook. And what they hell happened to Facebook? When I got it around 2006 it was just to post drunk pics. Now Facebook is a giant cluttered monster that decides elections results. You can also see FB’s influence on Instagram where they are starting to clutter the whole thing. So yeah social media is the toilet of the Internet and I’m stuck in it.

Continue reading “So I tried TikTok”

Alimentation Couche-Tard And Circle K – Invest In One Of The Best Retailers In The World

I finally got around writing a new article for Seeking Alpha. I can’t believe it has been eleven months since my last one. In this latest article I made the case for investing in Alimentation Couche-Tard, better known for operating the convenience store Circle K. It’s a great business with great management. It’s simple, predictive, and generates tons of free cash flow. The company is undervalued. The market discounts potential acquisitions and growth opportunities.


Summary

  • ATD is an excellent retail operator. ATD has demonstrated a record of consistency and profitability few businesses can match.
  • M&A is the bread and butter of ATD. They are pros at buying, integrating, extracting synergies and operating.
  • ATD’s best opportunities have come after a difficult period.
  • Excellent balance sheet. Low leverage. Great cash flow.
  • ATD’s culture contributes to its success.

Note: Alimentation Couche-Tard use US$ as their reporting currency unless mentioned otherwise. USD-CAD 1.35, Price of 1 USD in CAD.

Alimentation Couche-Tard (TSX: ATD.A, ATD.B, OTCPK: ANCUF) is primarily traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker ATD.B.

Alimentation Couche-Tard (ATD) is a CAD$47 billion Canadian convenience store and gas operator juggernaut that’s flying under the radar. ATD is the second biggest convenience store and gas station operator in the world after 7-Eleven with 14,880 locations and 133,000 employees in 26 countries. For those readers that want to polish their French,‘Alimentation’ stands for food and a ‘couche-tard’ is a night owl, a person that stays up late. The night-owl also reflects the company’s personality: patient, quiet, keeping an eye on things, and when the right opportunity presents itself it is ready to strike like a predator.

Continue reading “Alimentation Couche-Tard And Circle K – Invest In One Of The Best Retailers In The World”

SNC-Lavalin: Buy A Highway, Get The E&C For Cheap

This is my most recent research piece on SNC-Lavalin Group published on Seeking Alpha: SNC-Lavalin: Buy A Highway, Get The E&C For Cheap.

Unfortunately the publication of my article corresponded with a significant press release from SNC and a public statement from the CDPQ . On the news the stock went from $25 to $21 per share. That’s my timing for you.

Of course nobody wants to see bad news but I believe this is the news that we were looking for. I see the recent announcements as positives.  It’s like a doctor telling you that you are getting brain surgery to remove a tumor. It’s not good news but that’s what needed. Short-term pain for a better future.

In the article I said that I wouldn’t be surprised that the new CEO takes the quarter as an opportunity to ditch guidance and dump more bad news and that’s exactly what happened. SNC took a $1.9b impairment charge link to its oil and gas division, Kentz. They already took a $1.2b impairment charge back in February. SNC bought Kentz for $2.1b back in 2014. The CDPQ, the largest shareholder with 19.9%, publicly came out against the deterioration of SNC performance. Back in the spring the CDPQ said they will “be a rock” for SNC, I guess they are losing patience like everyone else.

SNC is facing many headwinds, operationally, financially, politically, reputationally…let’s quickly address them:

  • SNC has been having operational issues. SNC some good assets and bad assets. The recent restructure announced will have SNC focus on its strong points. SNC is still in business. They are still winning contracts. SNC is walking away from Turnkey lump sump projects, the key source of its problems. Exit: O&G, mining, and construction which are its least profitable activities.They will focus on design, nuclear, engineering services “EDPM”.  They will be less risky and more cash-flow predictable. More details on the new strategy is expected in the fall. The future SNC might look like more of a WSP Global or Stantec.
  • Finance: SNC took on a lot of debt for its WS Atkins acquisition of $3.6b in 2017. Despite paying a big price for Atkins, it’s one of the strong points of SNC today. To deal with the debt SNC is selling part of their private highway, cut the dividend, and is engaged on a cost cutting program. Once the sale is completed SNC debt’s level should be back to their historical norm of low debt. SNC also has $13.87 (post-H407 sale) of net assets in their Capital Investment Portfolio.
  • Politics: Unfortunately SNC was in the middle of a political scandal for the Trudeau’s Liberal government. SNC was also a victim of a diplomatic spat between Saudi Arabia and Canada. There’s not much in SNC’s control at the moment. Hopefully after the election the government will finally find a solution to SNC’s legal problems.
  • Reputation: SNC didn’t murder anybody but you would think they did. Their reputation is not good. It’s affecting employee morale and departures. The public perception of the company is toxic. SNC is managing a PR crisis. SNC, a 100+ year old company, has its brand; a once valued intangible asset is now in the garbage bin. You can change a reputation. Merck’s Vioxx is responsible for the death of 38,000 people and the company is still around. With SNC it will take time. I don’t expect anything before the Canadian Federal election in October. Plus they have to Libya bribery court case they have to deal with. It will take a lot of time, a string of good news/quarters, and communications to deal its reputation.

With the recent announcements, SNC has a market cap of $3.6 billion, the same price they bought WS Atkins in 2017. Atkins is one of the most respected planning and project management firm in the world. The stock is cheap and very attractive for a competitor looking to expand. The CDPQ has ~20% and RBC recently built a 16.6%. I understand this is a difficult stock to hold or even buy. It’s not supposed to be easy. I believe SNC will eventually emerged a better company.

I suggest to read the article for a more in-depth analysis.

Berkshire Hathaway 2018 Shareholder Letter and Interview

*Update: I fixed the link to the podcast.

I reviewed the Berkshire Hathaway (BRK)’s 2018 letter and listened to CNBC interview that followed. I also share my comments on The Intelligent Investing Podcast with Eric Schleien from Granite State Capital Management.

My Take

During Warren Buffett’s career of over sixty plus years, whatever needed to be said about investing has been said. You are not going to get a shocking change of opinion from an 87 year old man. The latest letter doesn’t contain any surprises and he was notoriously sphinxlike during the three interview on CNBC. Buffett can talk for hours but rarely said anything that you could use.

There are things that never change. The letter contains what you would expect, including the classic hits; “I’m younger than Charlie”, “stocks are better than gold”, and “invest in an index fund” among others.

Warren used his shareholder letter to talk to his shareholders and to educate them. Now he probably feels like he’s writing the letter for everybody to read. It gets picked up in the media and is quoted everywhere. If you are an investor looking for more technical content, the Warren Buffet Partnership letters are great.

Warren Buffett is a household name. When you think of the greatest golfer of all time, Tiger Woods comes to mind. When you think of the greatest investor of all time, you think Warren Buffett.  When you achieve this level of fame you have an outsize audience. The new investors, students, people with savings, professional, and non-investors are turning to you for advice. Warren realizes that he has to be careful with what his words.

However I will mostly remember this letter for what’s wasn’t being said.

  • In the letter Buffett talked about “diseased trees”, companies that will not be around in 10 years. No details on that out of respect for the workers there. But I think as a shareholder I would like a little bit more clarity.
  • I wish there was a deeper look at industrial businesses.
  • No comments on Apple, which is now the 2nd biggest position on his equity portfolio.
  • It would be fun to hear from the investment managers Ted Weschler and Tom Combs, and from Greg Abel and Ajit Jain. Maybe they can write a letter too?
  • No details on his Fintech investments, Paytm and StoneCo.
  • No details on his healthcare venture with JPMorgan and Jeff Bezos.

In the letter Buffett talks about focusing on the forest and not the trees (the companies), and he divides his trees into five groves to simplify things. I appreciate anything that simplify life. But as an investor in the company, I should know more about BRK’s investments. I like to learn about bushiness. I would like to learn more about the companies inside BRK, not just the 4-5 big ones. I don’t need a full 10k of details. For example: It would be fun to learn about what is Brooks working on? What’s their vision of the shoe of the future? Where do they see the company in five or ten years? How’s Dairy Queen doing?  It could be a paragraph or two. I understand there are like two hundred companies. Since BRK decentralized everything, the manager of these companies can write a separate report. Brookfield Asset Management, another company with many moving parts, does a good job talking about their various investments without getting immersed or entangled in details or complexities.

For Berkshire Hathaway, I see three possible paths forward.

  • Return cash. Accept that BRK must be less ambitious but will likely not go down that path.
  • More takeover but expensive. That’s Buffett preferred route.
  • Wait for a crash and load up on stocks.

The Letter

I reviewed Berkshire Hathaway (BRK)’s 2018 letter and listened to the CNBC interview that followed.

Here are some notes:

BRK outperformed the S&P 500 for the third year in a row, 4 out of the last 5 years, and 7 out of the last 10 years (2009-2018). The shares increased at a 17.3% (11.5%) CAGR during 2013-17 (2014-18), compared with a 15.8% (8.5%) average annual return for the S&P 500.

It’s worth noting that BRK’s returns are after-tax and the S&P are pre-tax with dividends included.

2018 Returns:

  • Per-share change: 2.8%
  • Book value per share: 0.4%
  • S&P: -4.4%

Compounded Annual Gain per share from 1965-2018: 20.5% vs 9.7% for the S&P 500 (dividends included). Over the past 54 years, book value has increased from $19 to $348,703.

It’s amazing that BRK can still outperform at its current size ($500b market cap). For the longest time, Buffett and Munger remind us year after year that they do not expect to outperform the S&P but they still do. BRK is the 7th largest most-valuable publicly traded company. The other 6 are tech companies. I do not expect Berkshire to be able to consistently increase its book value per share at a double-digit rate going forward–a feat the firm achieved six times during 2009-18.

Regular readers of the annual letter probably noticed that Buffett diminished the annual change in BRK’s book value because over time that number has become out of touch with BRK’s economic reality. What really counts of course is per-share intrinsic value. But that’s a subjective figure and book value was a useful tracking indicator when book value and intrinsic value were much closer. For the large majority of its existence BRK’s assets were then largely securities whose assets were continuously restated to reflect their current market price.

Today BRK has shifted in a major way to owning and operating large businesses and many are worth far more than their cost-based carrying value.  That number is never revalued upward. Consequently the gap between BRK’s book value and intrinsic value has material increased. That’s why BRK has introduced the historical record of BRK’s stock price to the performance table.

In the letter Buffett cited three main reasons for that:

  • BRK’s value is now mostly derived for the operating businesses that it owns. It used to be derived from its massive stock portfolio
  • Accounting rules dictates that equity holdings are marked-to-market (market prices) and operating companies at their cost-based carrying value, which is below their current value and not reflected in the financial statements.
  • BRK will likely buy more if its shares over time above book value but below intrinsic value. If you do it right, each transaction will make per-share intrinsic value go up, while per-share book value will go down.

BRK’s intrinsic value far exceeds book value, that’s why it made sense to repurchase shares at 120% book value made sense. Now that policy has been dropped and BRK now repurchase shares when it feels it below intrinsic value.

2018 Earnings

BRK earned $4 billion in 2018 and how we arrived at that number is broken down below.

Buffett 1

Because of the new mark-to-market rule, the last item brings wild swings to the bottom line. BRK has an equity portfolio of $173 billion. So a 1% change is either a 1.7% accounting gain or loss. The $20.6b loss was no actually triggered.  It’s a change in value. It’s an accounting number that distort the true economic value of the company. That’s why it’s important to focus on the operating earnings. Operating earnings is a better performance metric than net income, since the latter is subject to numerous accounting rule. Continue reading “Berkshire Hathaway 2018 Shareholder Letter and Interview”

Getting Into The Weeds

My latest article, Getting Into the Weeds, hit #1 on Seeking Alpha! It’s an extension of The Intelligent Investing Podcast I did with Eric Schleien (GSCM). Eric’s podcast is doing very well and about to break the top #100 in the investment space.  In the article I take the time to dig deeper into specific sector of the marijuana industry.  With the legalization in Canada coming tomorrow (October 17) it’s good to have a sense of the buzz surrounding the space.

Just to be clear, I’m not an investor in the space. I’m also not recommending investing in the space. While on the sidelines, I know a lot of people making plenty of easy money on cannabis stock. We have seen Canopy Growth (WEED) go from $2 to $75 in a very short-time. Tilray, a company with just $20 million in first-half revenue, was briefly worth $30 billion. That’s more than Twitter, CBS, Harley-Davidson, Fitbit and American Airlines. At its height Tilray’s enterprise value surpassed 85x bullish estimates for its 2020-year sales and 340x that year’s estimated cash flows. Fast easy money is tempting and contagious. I’m happy for them but I believe the party is not going to last. We have seen this story repeat itself in the past.

To me the investor’s high on the marijuana sector is a red flag, and signaled that a sobering up may be imminent. The speculative craze is fueling a future crisis. This is the same story that repeats itself over and over. The tech bubble that ended in 2000, the pre-crisis U.S. housing craze, and the cryptocurrency bubble are some of the most recent examples of speculative manias. In each case, a defensible investment thesis – that technology will eventually dominate the economy, American housing prices could only move in one direction, and the blockchain was going to revolutionize everything – was extrapolated to a form of ridiculousness where no price was too much to pay for related investments.

There are some serious questions about just how profitable these companies can become under legalization. I think most investors do not understand what the space looks like, how competitive it is, what the margins look like. Distribution costs, advertising and sales taxes will further erode profit margins and cause price compression, possibly squeezing companies whose production costs are too high out of the market. Some of the companies that have gone public suffer from weak management, and investors need to be ready for a fall in marijuana prices because too many suppliers have entered the market. I see the valuations being attributed to places that have virtually no production, virtually no off-take agreements, which don’t operate in multiple countries and have a very limited R&D.

I’m not a market timer, I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t what’s going to happen. But I know that a company without profits can’t survive in the long-run. Right now these stocks are being valued like junior mining companies. They are valued in the “promised” of future riches. Eventually, once they start producing (legal sales in our case) they are valued based on their fundamentals (cost, margins, distributions, market, profits etc.). This is similar to a junior mining company transitioning from exploring to producing.

It’s a space that I suggest proper judgement.

Article: Getting Into The Weeds

Podcast: #36: Getting into the weeds on marijuana stocks (we aren’t so high on them) + Update on BAM & TSLA ItunesGoogle. First 23 minutes is a recap on Brookfield Asset Management and Tesla. Weed talk at the 23 minute mark.

Enjoy!

Brian


Getting Into The Weeds

By Brian Langis

  • Canada is legalizing marijuana for recreational use on October 17, 2018.
  • The changes that are underway closely mirror the process that alcohol went through after prohibition ended in the 1920s: liquor regained social acceptance and the product proliferated.
  • Investors need to figure out what something is worth and try to buy it for less. Investing in the marijuana industry is not different in that regard.
  • Most investors do not understand what the space looks like, how competitive it is, what the margins look like. There are questions about just how profitable these companies can become.
  • The long-term prospects for marijuana are very positive. The question is how much are you willing to pay for it?

The cannabis sector has been on a two-year high. Cannabis related stocks are trading at sky-high valuation. “The sky is the limit” as the saying goes. Since August, the segment has surged to a new level of hysteria on a wave of announcements. The sector got a boost when Constellation Brands (STZ), the brewer of Corona and Modelo, agreed to add $4 billion to its investment in Canada’s lead weed company Canopy Growth (CGCWEED). The hysteria got a new boost when Coca-Cola (KOconfirmed an interest in spiking sports drinks with cannabidiol (NYSE:CBD), the non-psychoactive ingredient of marijuana. And thanks to the DEA approving Tilray’s (TLRY) plan to import pot from Canada, a company with just $20 million in first-half revenue was briefly worth $30 billion. Continue reading “Getting Into The Weeds”

Tesla: Bulls Vs. Bears

My article on Tesla was published on Seeking Alpha two weeks ago and since I was away on  vacation I didn’t have time to publish it on the blog. This article can be seen as a companion to the podcast I did, The Intelligent Investing Podcast with Eric Schleien.

We talked about the most hated or loved stock in America: Tesla. Elon Musk and Tesla are a very polarizing topic. The most hardcore short-sellers believe that Tesla is a fraud, Elon Musk is a conman, and the stock is worth less than zero. Fanboys believe in Elon Musk’s mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy and will have become one of the most valuable and successful companies in the world. Both camps are deeply entrenched in their position and it’s very interesting to see them go at it. I also published a companion to the podcast on Seeking Alpha; Tesla: Bulls vs. Bears.

The podcast was recorded three weeks ago. When Tesla is the subject matter, a lot can happen in two weeks. Tesla, the drama filled company that gets TMZ style coverage, is one of the main reasons why I stay away from the stock. Even though the shorts have a very compelling investment thesis, the market seems to think otherwise. Tesla currently trades at $375 a share. When the article and podcast was published Tesla traded at $300. Seemingly out of the blue, Elon Musk proclaimed that he might pull his money-losing Tesla off the market for $420 a share! He also claimed that he has funding secured.  This story is not over.

Here’s the SA Article. The full article is available on Seeking Alpha.


Tesla: Bulls Vs. Bears

By Brian Langis

Summary

  • Elon Musk and Tesla are a very polarizing topic. Tesla may be the most hated or loved stock in America.
  • Tesla comes with a lot of noise and buzz. Facts, figures, and claims are exaggerated, spun, and manipulated to one’s interest or to simply distract from the real issue.
  • I have front row seats to a good heavyweight fight between Tesla bulls and bears.
  • It’s not the first time Tesla faces an existential crisis.

I had the pleasure to be back on The Intelligent Investing Podcast with Eric Schleien to have an in-depth conversation on Tesla (TSLA). If you are even reading this, you are fully aware that Tesla has turned into a full blown soap opera. The podcast and this following article try to make sense of the Tesla drama.

Since Tesla is a very polarizing topic, let’s start off with the disclosures regarding Tesla:

I’m not a shareholder and never was. I’m not a short-seller and never was. I don’t have an agenda. I don’t have a horse between the short-sellers and the bulls. I’m not a “hater” or a “fanboy”. I don’t have a secret source inside Tesla’s factories. I didn’t pay anybody for information. I don’t own a Tesla. I find the debate between the Tesla bulls and bears very interesting.

Bloomberg Headline ( Link)

I long hesitated writing an article on Tesla. I wrote short one back in January 2014. Tesla is one of the most popular (or unpopular) stocks on Seeking Alpha and the media. There are a couple of pieces published every day and it wasn’t clear at first how I could add value to the debate. It’s has all the ingredients for a juicy story. The combination of a very colorful CEO on a mission to save the world, a flashy company that is disrupting the auto and energy industry, and with billions of dollars at play makes this stock very emotionally divisive. Musk and Tesla comes with a lot of noise and buzz. Facts, figures, and claims are exaggerated, spun, and manipulated to one’s interest or to simply distract from the real issue. And I think this is where the opportunity is. With so much being said, it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. We need to take a step back and get a little perspective. I will write about the good and the bad. While the goal of this article is to provide clarity, I’m aware that this article won’t change people’s mind since folks with money on the line are deeply entrenched in their position. I haven’t seen a bull turned bear on Tesla or vice versa.

I have front row seats to a good heavyweight fight between Tesla bulls and bears. These two opponents have very opposite points of view. In one corner, we have the bulls, aka the fanboys. The fanboys are “believers”. They believe in Musk and that Tesla will achieved its mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy and will have become one of the most valuable and successful companies in the world. The legacy car companies like GM and Toyota are dinosaurs that won’t be able to compete with Tesla because of its EV head start and superior technology. Musk has also talked about turning humans into an interplanetary species. He makes you dream. In the other corner, we have the bears, aka the “haters”. The extreme version of the bear thesis is that Musk is a straight up fraud and Tesla is going to bankrupt. The milder version of the bear thesis is that Tesla is overvalued and a correction is due.

I try hard to look at Tesla from a rational and objective point of view and this is a difficult task. I also suffer from my own biases. From the outset I’m a fan of Elon Musk but skeptical about investing with him. I’m a fan for what Elon has accomplished and tries to accomplish. I’m a skeptic because I’m not into fairy tale stories and I understand basic high school math. But whether you like Elon or not, his journey from his youth to present day is very interesting and inspiring. Ashlee Vance’s biography of Elon Musk is an excellent book that covers his journey. Of course Musk is a flawed individual. He has personal foibles and challenges as everyone else.

Let’s try to cut to through the clutter and noise.

Continue reading “Tesla: Bulls Vs. Bears”

A Primer On Brookfield Asset Management

My latest article on Seeking Alpha. This article can be seen as a companion for The Intelligent Podcasting with Eric Schleien. It took a while to get it published and it’s worth the wait. The topic is Brookfield Asset Management. The summary of the article is below. The full version is available here.


A Primer On Brookfield Asset Management

Summary

  • Brookfield (BAM), an under-the-radar company, is one of the largest alternative asset managers in the world.
  • Its CEO, Bruce Flatt, also low profile, is a value investor who has delivered tremendous value to investors over the past 16 years.
  • Brookfield finds opportunities that everyone else deems as uneconomic. If there’s a dearth of capital, expect Brookfield to be sniffing around. A crisis is a good time to find value.
  • Management is a key part in investing in Brookfield. They hold 20% of the company.
  • It is reasonable to assume that BAM will continue to increase the amount of assets with harvestable cash flow. Assets Under Management is also expected to significantly increase.

*Brookfield Asset Management’s Class A Limited Voting Shares are co-listed on the NYSE under the symbol (BAM) the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol (BAM.A)and Euronext under the symbol (BAMA.) I will be referring to the American symbol for the article. Dollar amounts are in USD$ unless mentioned otherwise. BAM currently trades for ~$40 with a market cap of $40 billion. It’s currently trading down from its all-time high of ~$44.

I had the privilege to be a guest on The Intelligent Investing Podcast with Eric Schleien. We mainly talked about Brookfield Asset Management but we barely scratched the surface. Since I wanted to elaborate on some points, I wrote this primer on Brookfield as a companion guide to the podcast. I have no affiliation with The Intelligent Investing podcast whatsoever, but I am a fan of his work.

Brookfield Asset Management (BAMBAM.A) is one of the most under-rated, under the radar, low profile company in the world. Brookfield doesn’t make headlines. For those of you that are in the investment business, you are most likely familiar with the global value investor Brookfield, its CEO Bruce Flatt, and the tremendous success the company had under his leadership. For the folks that are not in the investment industry, you wouldn’t know that Brookfield owns a large chunk of the arteries and pipelines essential to how global economy functions. BAM owns some of most prized real estate in the world, such as Manhattan’s prestigious World Financial Center. In Berlin, it owns Potsdamer Platz and, in London, Canary Wharf. And that’s just the real estate. In Ireland it supplies Facebook with electricity. A good part of Chicago is powered by Brookfield. It owns 36 ports in the UK, North America, Australia and Europe, and in India and South America it manages 3,600 kilometres of toll roads.

Brookfield Place “World Financial Center. Source: therealdeal.com

Brookfield is a global alternative asset manager with $285 billion in assets. They employ a value investing style, where they shop around the world for bargains, with a penchant for distressed assets. BAM has the distinction of being an owner-operator of their assets. BAM’s modus operandi is to buy the asset on the cheap, fix it, improve the cash flow and value of the assets, sell it at maturity, and efficiently redeploy capital back into new development opportunities. A quick Google search of Brookfield Asset Management would freak out most investors. Among the results, you will links to Jared Kushner’s infamous 666 Fifth Ave. deal, mall operator General Growth Properties (GGP),Brazil, and Canada’s controversial Trans Mountain pipeline; basically deals that contribute to lack of sleep. But isn’t it odd that Brookfield finds opportunities that everyone else deems as uneconomic? All these moves have an anti-herd contrarian mentality. If there’s a dearth of capital, expect Brookfield to be sniffing around. A crisis is a good time to find value. It seems to have worked out well for the company. Brookfield’s formula for making contrarian investments by going where capital is most needed and in the shortest supply has worked well for Flatt in his 16 years as CEO.

Chart: Yahoo! Finance.

Under Flatt’s leadership, from February 1, 2002, to May 1 2018, BAM returned 1110%, or 11x your money, compared to 1.4x for the S&P 500. This doesn’t include dividends.

BAM, known for its low profile, is not afraid to display their great performance in their latest annual report (pdf). BAM mentions that they target returns of 12% to 15%. These numbers under estimate their real returns. The figures below include dividends:

Source: BAM 2017 Annual Report. Page 8.

BAM is a global alternative asset manager. What are alternatives assets? Well traditional assets are stocks and bonds (equity and debt). Alternative assets can be real estate, infrastructure (ports, pipelines, toll roads etc…), renewable energy and private equity among other things. Alternative assets are a little bit of a misnomer because all assets are composed of equity and debt.

Brookfield loves “real” assets. The emphasis is on “real” because we currently live in a world where investors highly value intangible assets. Some of the top companies by market capitalization barely have any tangible assets. For example, Facebook (FB) and Alphabet (GOOGL) are highly valued for their intangibles/intellectual properties, and sometimes that can be hard to value (e.g. network effects). Brookfield is the exact opposite; they love these tangible hard assets with a nice cash stable cash flow that can grow in value over time.

Brookfield likes to focus on long-life, high quality real assets. “Long-life” because BAM invests in assets like a hydroelectric dam that can last over a hundred years. “High-quality” because these assets are considered critical to the economy, scarce, and have a high barrier to entry. They also come with a 15 to 20 years contract with clauses for yearly price escalation and inflation. For example, one of BAM’s publicly listed partnerships, Brookfield Renewable Partners (BEP), sells the majority of its power under long-term, inflation-linked contracts that allow them to capture increases in power prices over time. This provides stable cash flows for a very long period.

Who also likes the investment profile of “alternative assets”? Pension funds, institutions, insurance companies, university endowment funds, sovereign wealth funds among others. Over the last twenty years, there has been an increase to their portfolio allocation to alternatives, and the shift seems to gather pace. Why is that? Pension funds have long-term obligations and in a world of low interest rates, they seek return outside the stock market with less volatility.

Institutions’ thirst for alternative assets provides Brookfield with the type of capital they need, which is a lot and patient. BAM is typically one of the largest investors in their funds. This provides an alignment of interest with their investors. Below is a list of BAM’s publicly listed partnerships (L.Ps) and their equity ownership interest. BAM also manages over 40 private funds.

Brookfield Property Partners (BPY) – 64% – Operations include the ownership, operation and development of core office, core retail, opportunistic and other properties. BPY consists of 147 properties totaling 100 million square feet of office space. BPY also has a portfolio of regional and urban malls (mostly GGP). Brookfield Renewable Partners (BEP) – 60% (*Wrote about here). – Operations include the ownership, operation and development of hydroelectric, wind, solar, storage and other power generating facilities. BEP consists of 217hydroelectric stations, 76 wind facilities, 537 solar facilities and storage.Brookfield Infrastructure Partners (BIP) – 30% – Operations include the ownership, operation and development of utilities, transport, energy, communications and sustainable resource assets. BIP’s main assets are ~2,000 km of natural gas pipelines, ~12,000 km of transmission lines, and ~3,500 km of greenfield electricity transmission developments, ~10,300 km of railroad tracks, 4,000 km of toll roads, 37 port terminals, and BIP also owns ~15,000 km of natural gas transmission pipelines, primarily in the U.S., and 600 billion cubic feet of natural gas storage in the U.S. and Canada. Brookfield Business Partners (BBU) – 68% – Operations include a broad range of industries, and are mostly focused on construction, other business services, energy, and industrial operations.

Long before Brookfield was an asset manager, BAM invested its own capital to develop, own, and operate assets. It’s in the early 2000s that BAM began other private investors to partner with them. As an owner-operator, BAM works to increase the value of the assets within their operating businesses and the cash flows they produce. They do this through their operating expertise, development capabilities and effective financing. This is significant because if it’s done properly, this is how Brookfield achieves superior returns. BAM has over delivered on their target of 12% to 15%. Once the asset has achieved targeted returns and cash flow has “matured”, BAM sells the asset to a buyer looking to achieve a yield of 5% to 7%. Most institutions are fine with that kind of return since the asset has been “fixed” and “de-risked”. Below in the article I provide a real example on how BAM operates.

 

Full article here.