Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Value Investment’ Category

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management has opened up an 11% stake in Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE:FO). The 13D filed 4 October doesn’t disclose much about the position, but the NYTimes has a great REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS article Fortune’s Links discussing the position:

After a round of golf with his Titleist clubs, a guy pops into the clubhouse for a Maker’s Mark neat before rinsing off under a Moen showerhead. That’s about the closest Fortune Brands comes to synergies. No wonder the conglomerate makes such a tempting target for an activist investor.

Shareholders won’t be alone rooting for Bill Ackman, whose Pershing Square Capital Management hedge fund revealed an 11 percent stake last week, to break Fortune up. Diageo, the big alcohol company, may one day toast him. The company has long wanted a major bourbon brand. Fortune has two: Maker’s Mark and Jim Beam.

Hypothetical examples aside, Fortune’s three main divisions — spirits, golf equipment and home products — don’t hang together naturally. And there are potentially better, more motivated owners for them. But drinks, accounting for some two-thirds of Fortune’s profit, deserves the primary focus.

The group — which also sells Hornitos tequila, Courvoisier Cognac and Canadian Club whisky — is expected to generate earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, a business measure known as Ebitda, of $635 million this year, according to Longbow Research. At 15 times — less than the 20 times Pernod Ricard paid for Sweden’s Absolut vodka — Diageo’s price tag could come to about $9.5 billion.

Subtract that from Fortune’s enterprise value of $12 billion (an $8.4 billion market cap plus $3.6 billion of debt) and the remaining two divisions would be trading at around four times Ebitda, as estimated by Longbow. Citigroup notes that the sporting goods maker Adidas and home products manufacturers like Masco fetch valuations of eight to nine times Ebitda.

Diageo would scramble to pay a top-shelf price for a portfolio that includes some less attractive brands, a few in categories it already dominates. But a handful of smaller players like Gruppo Campari have shown an interest in what insiders call “tail brands.” That would allow Diageo to finance part of a deal with divestitures.

It’s too soon to say for sure whether Mr. Ackman wants to carve up Fortune. But with a thirsty buyer waiting, and a corporate strategy best exemplified by a tipsy golfer in need of a shower, the odds are good.

No position.

Read Full Post »

LCV Capital Management and Raging Capital Management are running an activist campaign against ModusLink Global Solutions(TM) Inc (NASDAQ:MLNK) calling on MLNK to immediately implement a $50 to $75M share repurchase program and align executive compensation with performance. The two fund managers, calling themselves “The ModusLink Full Value Committee,” say that the full potential of MLNK is not being realized due to shortcomings in MLNK’s “operational and capital market strategies” and has “concerns regarding the Company’s corporate governance practices.”  The committee has nominated a slate of three independent director nominees for election to the board at MLNK’s upcoming annual meeting of shareholders.

The full text of the letter follows:

THE MODUSLINK FULL VALUE COMMITTEE
Raging Capital Management, LLC254 Witherspoon Street

Princeton, New Jersey 08542

LCV Capital Management, LLCFifteen Churchill Road, Suite 1000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235

October 7, 2010

The Board of Directors

ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.

1100 Winter Street

Waltham, MA 02451

To the Board of Directors of ModusLink:

The ModusLink Full Value Committee (“The Committee”) owns approximately 5.5% of the outstanding shares of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. (“ModusLink” or the “Company”).  We are well informed, long-term investors who have met with senior management and several board members on numerous occasions since representatives of The Committee began investing in ModusLink in 2008.

As we have communicated to you, we believe that the full potential of the Company is not being realized due to shortcomings in the Company’s operational and capital markets strategies.  We are concerned about the Company’s strategic direction, approach to capital allocation, and weak governance oversight.  In our opinion, these factors are key contributors to ModusLink’s lackluster stock price performance over the past several years.

Our view is that ModusLink has a tremendous opportunity to unlock and drive substantial shareholder value.  The Company’s $174 million in cash and investments are equal to approximately $4.00 per share, and working capital on hand exceeds $220 million, or 80% of the Company’s current market capitalization.  Yet the Company’s enterprise value totals just $120 million, or less than three times its Fiscal 2010 EBITDA of $46 million.  Unfortunately, the Company will likely continue as a chronic underperformer in the marketplace until change is implemented.

IMPROVE CAPITAL ALLOCATION AND OPERATING FOCUS; DIVEST NON-CORE ASSETS

Shareholder value has been destroyed via a series of poorly timed and poorly executed business acquisitions by ModusLink.  Since 2004, ModusLink has spent more than $315 million on acquisitions, including $87 million on three separate businesses acquired since 2008.  The Company has since taken material goodwill impairment charges on the bulk of these acquisitions in the last two years.  With a current enterprise value of $120 million, it’s fair to say that the return on deployed acquisition capital over the past six years has been abysmal.

Instead of making additional acquisitions, we believe the Company should focus on optimizing and streamlining existing operations, while divesting underperforming and non-core assets.  We believe a simpler, more transparent business would be easier for management to operate and for investors to comprehend and support, thus leading to improved operating results and shareholder returns.

Furthermore, given the relative stability of the cash flows of the Company’s core business, the significant discount to intrinsic/replacement value that the stock currently trades at, and the strength of the balance sheet, we believe ModusLink should immediately implement a $50 to $75 million share repurchase program.  This would be highly accretive to shareholders and magnify the potential upside of any improvement in the Company’s operating results.

INSUFFICIENT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND INSIDER OWNERSHIP

We have also communicated to you our serious suggestions to improve ModusLink’s corporate governance shortcomings. While many publicly traded companies have prudently separated the respective roles of Chairman and CEO, ModusLink continues to operate under an archaic structure where the Chairman also holds the position of CEO and President.  This structure fails to provide the appropriate checks and balances needed between the Board and management and engenders a harmful and value-destroying perception by the market of a general lack of accountability.

We are also deeply concerned that this Board has failed to align executive compensation with performance.  According to the Company’s 2009 proxy statement, ModusLink paid out more than $13.8 million to its top three senior executives over a period of three years while Company’s market value declined by hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not acceptable to us as active and concerned shareholders.  It is noteworthy that we are not alone in our opinion on this matter: At last year’s annual meeting, one of the leading corporate governance and proxy advisory firms recommended that shareholders withhold their vote against the election of the chairman of the compensation committee because of the Company’s propensity to overcompensate management for an underperforming stock.  We firmly believe that, in accordance with its fiduciary obligation to shareholders, it is imperative that the Board aligns compensation with the enhancement of shareholder value, since shareholders are the true owners of the Company.

We propose that part of the failure to align compensation with performance can be traced to the low level of stock ownership held by senior management and the Board.  In fact, excluding ModusLink’s Chairman & CEO, the other six members of the board own approximately 35,000 shares in total, or less than one tenth of one percent of the Company.

NEW SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES ARE NEEDED TO UNLOCK VALUE

As significant shareholders, our objective is to see the full value of our shares and the shares of all other owners of this Company be recognized in the marketplace.  We are committed to working on behalf of all shareholders to ensure that shareholders’ interests are represented in the boardroom.

As you know, we have nominated three individuals to fill the director positions up for election at the Company’s next annual meeting.  All three of our nominees have the appropriate skills and fortitude to implement the significant changes necessary to benefit all ModusLink shareholders and we believe they will be valuable additions to the Board.

We continue to welcome an open dialogue with you but to date we have been unable to reach an understanding with the Company that will result in the Company immediately taking the necessary steps to unlock shareholder value.  Our sincere hope is that this Board will take a fresh look at the opinions we have outlined above and take immediate action to embrace change rather than engage in a protracted and costly proxy contest in an effort to preserve the status quo.

We remain open to speaking with you at any time.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lodovico C. de Visconti

_____________________________

Lodovico de Visconti

Managing Member, LCV Capital Management, LLC

/s/ William C. Martin

_____________________________

William C. Martin

Managing Member, Raging Capital Management, LLC

The company responded in a press release yesterday:

WALTHAM, Mass.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– ModusLink Global Solutions(TM), Inc. (NASDAQ:MLNK), today issued the following statement in response to the public letter from dissident hedge funds, LCV Capital Management, LLC, Raging Capital Management, LLC and certain of their affiliates:

ModusLink values the opinions of all stockholders and strives to maintain an open dialogue with them. To that end, members of ModusLink’s senior management have met with LCV and Raging Capital representatives on numerous occasions, and throughout the discussions the Company gave these dissidents every indication that their concerns could be resolved in a manner that would be beneficial to all stockholders.

ModusLink’s directors, six of seven of whom are independent, are all highly qualified and committed to represent the best interests of all ModusLink stockholders. Consistent with their fiduciary duties, members of the Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee have interviewed each one of the dissident nominees and are in the process of evaluating their qualifications.

ModusLink recommends that stockholders defer making any determination with respect to the letter from LCV and Raging Capital, which distorts the Company’s record on a number of matters, until they have been advised of the Board’s evaluation of the dissident’s nominees and proposals.

ModusLink remains firmly committed to creating value for all its stockholders through the successful execution of the Company’s strategy. The Company’s Board and management have taken actions to improve the financial and operational performance of the Company and create value for stockholders, including:

  • Investing $55.3 million to repurchase shares since early fiscal 2008. In total the Company has purchased 5.6 million shares, which represents 12% of the fully diluted outstanding share count at the time the program was first announced.
  • Effectively managing through a very difficult economic environment, taking decisive actions to reduce expenses and maintain a strong balance sheet.
  • Focusing on maximizing profitability, resulting in record free cash flow from operations in fiscal 2010.

It’s an interesting situation worth watching. The record date is next Friday, so stock buying will have to be complete by Tuesday for trades to clear in time for votes to count at the annual meeting.

No position yet.

Read Full Post »

Fortune has an article asking whether VCs can be value investors:

After all, the philosophy of value investing, in theory, should cut across all asset classes and managers. The precepts and principals therefore should apply to the venture capital business as well.

Sadly, they don’t.

Jeffrey Bussgang, the author, identifies the problem as an inability to invest with a margin of safety:

Klarman writes: “Investing in bargain-priced securities provides a “margin of safety” — room for error, imprecision, bad luck, or the vicissitudes of the economy and stock market.”

Unfortunately, VCs don’t operate with a margin of safety, even if they are able to find and negotiate good deals. Later stage investors may have downside protection if they buy smart, but early-stage VCs do not. If a portfolio company goes bad, there is typically barely any salvage value.

I don’t know that venture capital investing necessarily means investing without a margin of safety, but I agree that many early stage investments lack a margin of safety.

An estimate of intrinsic value is key to determining a margin of safety. Early stage businesses by definition lack a track record, and – BYD aside – not even Buffett can value a business without a track record. It is more difficult when the business has promise, but is burning cash, if only because the blue sky makes it easier to ignore the ugly financial statements.

Confronted with this state of affairs – no track record, no ability to see the future – most value investors would do as Buffett suggests and simply refuse to swing. This is one of the nice things about value investing. You don’t have to know everything about everything, or even much about anything. All you have to know is what you do know, and what you don’t know, and the location of the line separating the two.

Venture capitalists, however, must know stuff about the future, and must be able to “see around corners” (seriously?). To the extent that venture capitalists undertake any sort of valuation that a value investor might recognize, they must extrapolate revenue growth from non-existent revenue, hope that some of it eventually falls to the bottom line, and then into the hands of shareholders, and plug it into a model with the Gordon Growth Model (GGM) at its heart. (As an aside, I could barely type with a straight face that part about venture capitalists waiting for the dividends. I know they “exit” in a trade sale or IPO, which I guess is a euphemism for “sell to a greater fool.”)

Every value investor knows that big growth assumptions in the GGM – even those based on a historical track record – are a recipe for disaster. Why? Simply because the growth is always going to be so astronomical as to overwhelm the discount rate portion of the model, leading to a “Choose your own value” output. To wit:

Value = D / R – G

Where D is next year’s dividend, R is your discount rate and  G is the perpetuity growth rate

If R is say 10-12%, any G over 9-11% gives a value that is more than 100x dividends, which is pricey. I doubt there are any VCs getting out of bed for 10% growth assumptions, so I assume they crank up their discount rates, but the result is the same. As G approaches R, value approaches infinity, and, in some instances, beyond. The solution to this problem is obviously to assume a short period of supernormal growth and then a perpetuity of GDP (or some other, lower) growth figure. This just creates another problem, which, for mine, is too many assumptions, and too many moving parts to get a meaningful valuation.

In this vein, I had a chat with a friend who is a value guy about Facebook’s “valuation”. He says:

Originally thought that the $33b Facebook valuation was ridiculous but am beginning to breathe the fumes. It is taking over the world. Set me straight please!

I responded:

Sounds pretty crazy to me. Might be based on a Gordon Growth Model-type valuation which #Refs out once the assumed growth exceeds the discount rate (which it almost assuredly would for Facebook). That said, these crazies don’t seem to think it’s so crazy.

Says he:

One of the commenters on that site has set me straight:

“Google provides a relevant service. FB is a spam hole. No one is going to pay for spam unless it’s from the guy at the other end of the ad stealing your credit card #. FB is worthless. And of that 1 billion (doubt it), they still owe around 150 million for financing servers and other things. If they had the funds, don;t you think they’d be smart enough to pay CASH, instead of paying interest on a LOAN?”

Insightful stuff. Shame on me.

So the answer for VCs is simple. The valuation is too hard so ignore it, but buy a portfolio of interesting businesses and hope that you get a few home runs. Oh, also sell some of your early shares in Facebook at that $33B valuation because you never know what lurks around the corner.

Read Full Post »

Longterm Investing has a series of posts examining several scenarios in Seahawk (HAWK) following the recent conference call (see my post archive for the background). In particular, Neil has examined the effect of CEO Randy Stilley’s proposal to take on debt to buy rigs, rather than buyback stock. Here’s the analysis:

It’s important to understand how the risk-reward profile of HAWK is modified as they take on debt. In their quarterly call they indicated a strong preference for adding debt and adding rigs.

I’ve considered three scenarios.

1. HAWK retains their current leverage and uses asset sales to pay for operations. These asset sales will be at scrap values, around $7M per rig.

2. HAWK takes on 110M of debt and 50M of new assets. These new assets are 3M cash flow positive each quarter after interest. All of HAWKs rigs, new and old are security for this debt. It replaces the existing credit line. This amount of debt is below the scrap value of existing rigs + new asset value.

3. Hawk takes on $150M of debt and 50M of new assets. Similarly,  these new assets are 3M cash flow positive each quarter after interest. All of HAWKs rigs, new and old are security for this debt. It replaces the existing credit line. This amount of debt is about the liquidation value of current rigs and new rigs, net of liabilities.

The “good case” is where HAWK continues their current cash burn, as modified in the scenarios above, until a point in time when rig market values return to December 2008 levels.

The company values under each scenario are shown below assuming a return to December 2008 values in that period. The value added and subtracted by debt are shown along with the 40M residual value under case 2.

image

See the post.

Long HAWK.

Read Full Post »

Harry Long of Contrarian Industries has a great guest post on SureWest Communications (SURW). Harry is the Managing Partner of Contrarian Industries, LLC and can be reached at info@contrarianindustries.com (mailto:info@contrarianindustries.com):

SureWest Communications (SURW) is a fascinating study in capital allocation, which is the most important strategic imperative in an industry with stagnant growth. For the past 3 years, SureWest has averaged a little over $60 million in cash flow from operations, yet amazingly, trades at a $91 million market cap, giving it a Price to Cash flow ratio of less than 1.50X.

Why is the stock so cheap? The answer is simple. The company does not pay a dividend, and cash flow has been pretty steady for many years. In addition, SureWest has plowed back much of its cash flow into capital expenditures, upgrading its network to compete in the broadband space, as traditional phone service revenue has declined.

I would argue that even though broadband revenue growth has kept overall revenue and cash flows stable, that now is the time to reward stockholders. At the beginning of 2000, SureWest’s stock sold at $32.88 a share. On September 27th, the stock closed at $6.54 a share. Over a decade, shareholders have been clobbered. They deserve the very best form of shareholder value after such punishment and such a long wait—a dividend check in the mail every quarter!

On September 27th, I spoke to SureWest CEO Steven Oldham. He was clear that maintenance capex, calculated conservatively, was $15 million per year. In my opinion, that means SureWest could comfortably dividend out almost $45 million a share per year, which would equate to a dividend of $3.20 per share annually.

Dividend yields on telecommunications companies top out at around 10%. If SureWest instituted a $0.80 per share dividend paid quarterly, I believe its stock would quickly shoot to $32.00, giving it a 10% yield, which would be comparable to the upper end of the dividend yield range for other Telcos.

On September 23rd, SureWest announced that the board increased its share repurchase authorization, “which increases the total amount previously available for repurchase under the program from approximately 253,000 shares to approximately 1,253,000 shares.”

Since then, the stock has jumped. This is a fair start to build on. However, it is not nearly enough. The best increase in shareholder value comes from a dividend check in the mail. A repurchase authorization is just that—an authorization. It does not force the company to buy back stock. The type of dramatic increase in shareholder value, which shareholders deserve after suffering heavily for over a decade, is a fat dividend of $3.20 per share annually.

The reality is that fiber-based telcos have not grown quickly for years. Competition in the telecommunications industry is intense. Pricing competition is intense. You can be a brilliant operator, but competitors are likely to match any move to either lower pricing, or offer more services. Hence, the customer benefits, but shareholders rarely earn substantial returns without scale. The Comcasts of the world have scale, and some moderate advantages. They can squeeze a smaller competitor. They can afford to spend more. SureWest cannot, in my opinion, outspend a large competitor. Therefore, they need to dividend out their cash flow, improve shareholder value, and/or negotiate a sale to a larger competitor.

Executives, as fiduciaries, are stewards of capital. It is very tempting to have the mentality that the job of a Telco executive is to grow the company, even if vast amounts of capital have to be sunk into it at very low returns on capital. However, growth at low returns on capital can be destructive to shareholder value, because the capital could best be deployed elsewhere. The real test of character is whether executives love the business of buying vast amounts of equipment which earn low returns on capital, or whether they love their shareholders. If SureWest executives truly want to behave as first-class fiduciaries, I would argue that their duty is to shovel money back to shareholders, who can find better returns in other industries on their own.

As Warren Buffett said, “When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.” Recognizing that truth is imperative for SureWest’s executives, even if they have brilliant plans that they believe will allow the company to grow. For a reality check, revenue at SureWest last quarter decreased by almost 1% from a year ago. When it comes to growth, “show” means much more than “tell.”

CEOs are intensely competitive and do not lack in confidence. As such, they systematically over-estimate their ability to extract shareholder value from intensely competitive industries. They often truly delude themselves in to thinking that they will be special, that they will not suffer the fate of the other small players in the industry. But they are almost invariably wrong.

We do not need to be prophets to reasonably predict what will happen if all cash flows are continually sunk back into the company. We need to look at the past. In 2000, SureWest’s stock sold at $32.88 a share. Since then, hundreds of millions have been sunk into capex. On September 27th, SureWest’s stock sold at $6.54 per share. Most Telco mangers are human. They love running and growing Telcos. It is more an engineer’s perspective than a business perspective. SureWest shareholders, however, have suffered from this perspective, in my opinion, with a very cheap stock price and decimated shareholder value. Shareholders deserve a radical change in strategy.

Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett have often pointed out that the best managers are excellent capital allocators. SureWest is at a classic capital allocation fork in the road. I predict that if SureWest does not change their capital allocation strategy, that shrewd acquirers and activists will become involved. They will either see the company as a great potential vehicle, like the original Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), or will turn the company into a dividend machine themselves, if management refuses to.

Even if activists or financial acquirers do not make a run at the company, SureWest would be in a far better negotiating position with a potential strategic acquirer, such as Comcast, with a higher stock price. A stock price of $32 per share would be a great touchstone for negotiations. In every mature industry, management often says a version of “Trust us. Next year will be better. If we just plow a little more money into it, we’ll see a return.”

As Charlie Munger has pointed out, people are easy to fool, and the easiest people to fool are ourselves. Confirmation bias rules the day. Any dis-confirming evidence is likely to be ignored. For years, the auto industry said the same thing to shareholders. We all know how that ended. As Buffett has often pointed out, “A girl in a convertible is worth five in the phonebook.” Shareholders can have dividends today which will increase shareholder value if they are declared by the board now. Dividends today are far more valuable than promises of rosier days ahead for Telcos.

In 2009, CEO Steven Oldham received $1,361,140 in total compensation. I do not begrudge him such compensation, so long as he does not begrudge stockholders a large dividend. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly—especially shareholders. Shareholders need to be put first—capex should be at the back of the line.

SureWest would make a fantastic vehicle. Cash flow could be redeployed to many other industries, to great advantage. Buffett and Munger have seen this playbook before. After all, they wrote it!

If CEO Steven Oldham sees the light and starts supporting huge dividends, he will become a hero to shareholders in this industry. However, if he does not, the board should replace him with someone who wants to reward shareholders now. After all, shareholders have waited for the rewards of ownership for 10 years. They should not have to wait any longer.

Disclosure: Author is long SURW

Read Full Post »

NYmag.com has a great profile on David Tepper, whose talk at the Ira Sohn investment conference some are crediting with the run up on Friday. The profile is the standard form hagiography for someone coming off a big win, but there is some interesting discussion of the positions Tepper was taking in March 2009:

Last year, when the market effectively crapped itself, Tepper’s firm, Appaloosa Management, made a fortune rolling around in it. In February and March 2009, when consensus had coalesced among market watchers that certain financial institutions were insolvent and would have to be nationalized, triggering a massive sell-off that drove shares of companies like Citigroup and Bank of America into the single digits, Tepper decided to tune out the chatter. After all, the Treasury Department had said it would hold up the banks—why wouldn’t they keep their promise? He directed deputies at his firm to purchase billions of dollars’ worth of bonds and stocks in those and other financial institutions. Then they waited.

At the time, taking such a position was like swimming into the ocean as a tsunami approaches: It looked crazy. But actually it was the right thing to do. When the government intervened as promised, the value of the shares shot back up. Appaloosa made over $7.5 billion. Not bad for a tiny fund from New Jersey.

There’s also some interesting back story on the formation of Appaloosa, his first fund:

In 1993, with a few big scores under his belt and an investment from Jack Walton, a fellow Goldman junk-bond trader who agreed to become a partner (he has since retired), he started up Appaloosa. Since then, the fund has grown in adolescent fits and starts. Distressed investing is a tricky area: When you’re purchasing the garbage of a troubled company, hoping to find something valuable you can pawn, it’s “feast or famine,” as one investor puts it. Year to year, Appaloosa’s rate of return is wildly uneven. In 1998, Tepper bought a bunch of Russian debt on the assumption that the Russian government wouldn’t default. When it did and the ruble collapsed, it cost his fund hundreds of millions of dollars. But even as the market tanked, Tepper kept buying the ever-cheaper bonds, and a few months later, his tenacity paid off: The fund went up 60 percent.

A similar situation occurred in 2002, when the junk-bond market collapsed for a second time. Tepper lost 25 percent, but made up for it the following year, when bonds he’d purchased in bankrupt companies went up 150 percent. He took home $500 million, at the time a personal best, and the following year made his donation to Carnegie Mellon.

And the story of how he got some brass balls on his wall:

Tepper has a pair of brass testicles.

The balls were a gift to Tepper from a former employee—Alan Fournier, who now runs his own fund, Pennant Capital Management—in the wake of Tepper’s big score in 2003. Tepper had purchased the distressed debt of the three then-largest bankruptcies in corporate history: Enron, WorldCom, and insurance giant Conseco. When they emerged from bankruptcy and the debt appreciated, Appaloosa went up a whopping 148 percent.

Read the article.

Read Full Post »

The NYTimes.com Business Day Media & Advertising section had a story last week about Randall D. Smith, a “pioneer in the hard knocks business of vulture investing” and his current focus on the newspaper industry:

Mr. Smith puts money into risky investments that few others will touch — and these days, that includes many newspaper and radio companies.

For the better part of a year, Mr. Smith has been quietly building a fledgling media empire. He has invested millions of dollars in small and midsize newspaper chains, as well several radio broadcasters.

His exact ambitions are unclear. But industry executives and analysts say Mr. Smith — who made money investing in troubled companies after the junk-bond market collapsed in the 1980s — is clearly betting that he can eke out profits despite the industry’s running troubles.

Smith is not the only investor interested in newspapers:

Mr. Smith is not the only vulture investor watching the media industry. A handful of hedge funds, as well as some big banks, are vying for ownership or have already gained controlling interests in newspapers across the country, including The Los Angeles Times, The Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Chicago Tribune.

Hedge funds have even grabbed stakes in supermarket tabloids like The National Enquirer and Star Magazine, as those companies have undergone rounds of restructurings.

Funds also gained the upper hand for the television broadcasting company Ion Media Network and the publishing and educational materials company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Smith’s m.o. is deep value:

Vulture investors like Mr. Smith often buy up the debt of weak companies for pennies on the dollar, hoping to turn a profit when the companies go through bankruptcy or restructure their businesses. Often they hope to swap the debt for equity. But some analysts wonder how, or whether, the vultures can steer some of these companies through the unprecedented upheaval in the industry.

“These people have been bottom feeders, and they figure what they’re getting is still a valuable, though diminished, franchise and they’re willing to pay bottom dollar for it,” John Morton, a newspaper industry analyst, said of these investors. “But it’s unclear that this industry is going to get a whole lot better.”

Nonetheless, some big vulture investors seem to be betting that the industry’s worst days are over, or that, at the least, that further cost cutting or consolidation can slow the bleeding, analysts said.

Smith has a great track record:

But analysts and industry executives are keeping a particularly close eye on Mr. Smith. He has been one of savviest and stealthiest investors in the media realm in the past year and a half, they say.

Mr. Smith started his own brokerage firm, R.D. Smith & Company, in 1985, after spending years climbing the ranks of Bear Stearns. For the past decade or so, he has quietly tended to running money for himself and his family.

But in late 2008, he opened a new fund which surged an astonishing 187 percent last year. This year, however, the fund was up only 2.9 percent this year through the end of July, according to Absolute Return + Alpha, an industry magazine.

In a letter to investors in April, the firm said the fund held significant positions in 15 companies and that two of the current themes were distressed financials and media companies.

In recent months, Mr. Smith has built up a significant stake in MediaNews Group, a publishing company that owns The Denver Post and San Jose Mercury News, as well as The Journal Register, which controls 170 titles, including The New Haven Register and The Trentonian.

Read the article.

Read Full Post »

The Street has an article Companies That Serve as Buyout Targets advocating a Darwin’s Darlings / Endangered Species-type strategy for buying stock:

When evaluating small-cap stocks, individual investors would do well to emulate private-equity professionals.

Focusing on balance sheets and private-market valuations of small companies cuts through the noise sounded by volatile stock markets like today’s. After all, price isn’t always indicative of value. The difference between the two can mean big profits for discerning investors, says Mark Travis, chief executive officer of Intrepid Capital Funds.

Travis uses such a strategy to determine the price that a rational buyer, paying cash, would offer for a company. Many companies he follows are growing fast and generating a lot of cash, but retail investors know very little about them because they fly under Wall Street’s radar.

Travis says companies that generate cash consistently attract suitors, either larger companies in their industry or private-equity firms. If neither comes forward, Travis is happy knowing the investment will continue to grow as the company’s cash builds up.

Stable businesses with little debt tend to be winners, Travis says.

“That makes them durable when you go through some of the bumps we’ve been through in the last three to five years,” he says. “We’re not trying to front-run Steve Schwarzman at Blackstone (BX). We just happen to like the characteristics of cash generators.”

Three of the companies on Travis’s list are as follows:

  • Tekelec (TKLC):

Travis’ Take: “This is an off-the-radar pick. It’s an example of a company that has a really beautiful balance sheet and a share price trading at a low multiple. This trades at 12 times earnings. There’s no debt and there’s $226 million in cash. Almost a quarter of the market cap is in cash. You’re able to buy it at a little over five times pretax cash flow. We think those shares are worth in the high teens.”

  • Aaron’s (AAN)

Travis’ Take: “People don’t realize with the financial-regulation bill that credit won’t be more available; it’ll be less available. This company has 1,700 stores with about 1,000 of those franchised and about 700 corporately owned. At $16, it has a 12 multiple and a beautiful balance sheet. It has $54 million in debt but $85 million in cash, so they have net cash on their books. It’s a good business and could trade in the mid-20s.”

  • Tidewater (TDW)

Travis’ Take: “They service offshore oil rigs, which certainly have gotten a lot of negative press. But they have a clean balance sheet, with $300 million in debt and cash of $122 million. Less than 10% of revenue comes from servicing rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. It trades at less than 10 times earnings and you get a dividend of 2.4%. We think the shares are probably worth $53 or $54.”

Read the rest of the article.

Long TDW.

Read Full Post »

In a post in late November last year, Testing the performance of price-to-book value, I set up a hypothetical equally-weighted portfolio of the cheapest price-to-book stocks with a positive P/E ratio discovered using the Google Screener, which I called the “Greenbackd Contrarian Value Portfolio”.

The hypothetical portfolio is based on Josef Lakonishok, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny’s (“LSV”) Two-Dimensional Classification from their landmark Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation and Risk paper.

The portfolio has been operating for a little over 3 quarters, so I thought I’d check in and see how it’s going.

Here is the Tickerspy portfolio tracker for the Greenbackd Contrarian Value Portfolio showing how each individual stock is performing:

And the chart showing the performance of the portfolio against the S&P500:

The portfolio is up about 22.4% in total and 20.9% against the index. It’s volatile, but I’ll take volatility for a ~20% gain in an essentially flat market. The results are tracking approximately in line with the results one might expect from LSV’s research.

[Full Disclosure:  No positions. This is neither a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. All information provided believed to be reliable and presented for information purposes only. Do your own research before investing in any security.]

Read Full Post »

Warren Buffett has long eschewed any ability to foresee the path of the markets or the economy, but according to this BusinessWeek article, he’s resolute that the economy will not slide back into recession:

Warren Buffett ruled out a second recession in the U.S. and said businesses owned by his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. are growing.

“I am a huge bull on this country,” Buffett, Berkshire’s chief executive officer, said today in remarks to the Montana Economic Development Summit. “We will not have a double-dip recession at all. I see our businesses coming back almost across the board.”

Berkshire bought railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. for $27 billion in February in a deal that Buffett, 80, called a bet on the U.S. economy. The billionaire’s outlook contrasts with the views of economists such as New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini and Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein, who have said the odds of another recession may be one in three or higher.

Now that the great man has prognosticated on the state of the economy, I have to ask, “Are we all macro investors now?”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »