Archive for the ‘Value Investing’ Category

Labrador Iron Ore on rebound from a rocky bottom

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / ROYALTIES
Report on Business Column
Labrador Iron Ore on rebound from a rocky bottom
FABRICE TAYLOR
741 words
24 December 2009
GLOB
B7
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

Royalties are hot commodities these days. Look at Franco Nevada. Look at the oil patch, where feeble gas producers are selling a pound of their flesh in the form of an overriding royalty.

Most notably, look at the Labrador Iron Ore Royalty Income Fund. It’s doubled since hitting a rocky bottom 12 months ago. With dividends, it has done even better. And it’s still going up.

This is a little baffling at first glance. For an income fund, the stated yield looks low at less than 5 per cent. On top of that, the fund couldn’t cover its distributions from cash flow in the past year; it had to dip into its cash pile.

And finally, the high dollar has to hurt where it counts.

But scratch beneath the surface and you can make a case for owning this thing.

First, an explanation of the assets: Labrador owns a 7-per-cent gross overriding royalty on the production of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, whose claim to fame may be that it was once run by Brian Mulroney. But I’m digressing.

Royalties are wonderful things. You get paid before anyone else: before the workers, before the bond holders, before the tax man and before the shareholders. You don’t worry about expenses, in other words, because as far as you’re concerned there are none. You only worry about volumes and prices.

And worry you did in the past year, as Iron Ore didn’t operate at full capacity and didn’t earn great prices for its iron, hence the need for distributions from cash.

The fund also owns a 15-per-cent equity stake in IOC and earns a small amount of commissions – 10 cents a tonne – on what IOC sells.

There’s no leverage in a royalty stream, yet the swings in Labrador’s revenue are breathtaking. In 2007, Labrador earned royalties of $53-million (after paying a 20-per-cent tax to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador). In 2008, it soared to $129-million. On 32 million units out, that’s a big move.

And the value of the equity stake, which is affected by leverage (meaning that because of fixed costs a change in revenue leads to a much bigger change in profits), would have soared in similar fashion. Indeed, IOC paid dividends to shareholders.

This year’s recession brought the opposite effect. Royalty income in the first nine months of the year fell by more than half and adjusted cash flow per unit was a mere third of what it was the year before. Even royalty owners get burned by drastic price swings.

It looks like the old pendulum is moving the other way now though. Demand is back. IOC was back to full production in the third quarter – and spot prices are firming up. India, one of the biggest producers in the world, will import iron this year. Although some say that’s temporary as it fires up supply, it’s still a sign of rising demand.

Steel demand historically peaks at about 1000 kilograms per capita in industrializing nations. Neither China nor India are close to that yet. With about two billion people between them, that’s a lot of demand. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it takes a while for new supply to come on stream.

The hair in the soup is the Canadian dollar. Part of the drop in Labrador’s financials, mentioned above, is because of volumes and pricing, but a good part is also from foreign exchange. Some pundits see the dollar going to par with the greenback. That’s only another nickel or so but it would hurt.

Iron ore prices are, for the most part, set annually early in the year by producers and consumers. Given the rise in price of exchange traded commodities like copper, negotiated iron prices will likely be a lot higher next year than this.

Labrador units have done well, but they once changed hands for $60 before being interrupted by an inconvenient financial catastrophe.

In 2008, the distribution was almost $5 per unit.

That could happen again if the dollar behaves as it should. And don’t forget that stocks that do well tend to keep doing well.

Document GLOB000020091224e5co00026

Ma Bell: Safe, modest gains that ring true

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / DIVIDENDS
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Ma Bell: Safe, modest gains that ring true
FABRICE TAYLOR
788 words
18 December 2009
GLOB
B11
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

BCE Inc. seems a lot less worried than investors about the telecom sector, raising its dividend and volunteering to finance pension costs. What is the company thinking? Hasn’t it heard of Globalive?

A better question might be what are investors thinking. BCE shares yield more than 6 per cent. Ten-year government bonds yield half that. If you include earnings, not only dividends, BCE shares “yield” more than 9 per cent. Are they really so risky as to deserve that kind of premium? Research In Motion, in my view much riskier, yields 7.5 per cent (on earnings) and pays no dividend. I know, I know: RIM’s earnings are growing more quickly – at least for now. Who knows what’s going to happen in that hypercompetitive industry? BCE’s earnings are far easier to predict and, in my view, Bell has a moat around its business, RIM does not.

BCE’s earnings don’t rise much, but rise they do. From 2006 to 2008, revenues were basically flat but earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization were up 3 per cent. That’s not much, granted. It’s hard to lose a million highly profitable land lines – more than 10 per cent of your total – and watch your profits surge.

But things are getting better. RBC Dominion Securities estimates BCE profit at $2.47 per share this year and $2.63 in 2011.

Again, not exactly jaw-dropping but more reliable than potash or copper or technology earnings.

Investors liked BCE’s move yesterday, and for good reason. It suggests that earnings might be higher next year than consensus. The deductible pension payment saves $135-million in taxes.

And, all together, these moves add to free cash flow and earnings per share when all is said and done.

The psychological signs are probably more important. The board, and management, are obviously confident that the company will be able to compete and contend just fine.

And investors should be happy because BCE is breaking with history and putting cash to good uses instead of squandering it, as it did for so many decades. This is BCE’s second buyback announcement and third dividend increase since privatization plans fell apart last year.

And there’s probably more to come – modest gains, yes, but safe gains, and I stress safe. Investors have been fretting about competition in telecoms for the past decade. The worry waxes and wanes, but it’s always there. Analysts slice and dice the numbers to make the case for or against investment, but it’s usually not a particularly convincing case.

I think the analysis is simpler. First, the amount of money we spend on telecommunications is going up. Look at your cellphone bill. Look at your Internet bill, your cable bill. You like high-definition TV? You’ll pay for it. Long-distance calling is basically free now if you know how to get it, but so what? Bell’s cash flow still goes up.

The telecom business as a whole is growing and while new entrants are always a threat, they don’t exactly grow on trees. It’s not easy to break into the business.

I’ve met Globalive CEO Tony Lacavera and talked with him about his plans. He struck me as a bright guy with a plan. He has deep-pocketed backers too. But believe me, he’s not in this to lower your cellphone bill. He’s in this to make money. He sees Bell’s and Rogers’ and Telus’s fat mobility profit margins and he wants some.

And he’ll get some, but not with a raging price war. He can’t afford that. Will pricing suffer? It will have to, a little, but that’s hardly a secret. It’s priced in.

Will incumbent margins suffer? Yes, a little, but that’s priced in too. What might not be is the extent to which phone companies can find ways to save money, cutting costs, sharing infrastructure and so on. They already are.

BCE has not done well compared with the stock market over the past five years. The market has a 24-percentage-point advantage over that period. But if you look only at the return from dividends, BCE has been a better investment. Dividends are far less volatile than capital gains (i.e. the price of a stock) and that has made BCE a safer bet.

That’s not likely to change moving forward. Lower returns, less risk. There’s room for that in a portfolio.

Document GLOB000020091218e5ci0000a

EnWave technology a potential game changer

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

VOX / TECHNOLOGY / FOOD

Report on Business: Globe Investor Column

EnWave technology a potential game changer

FABRICE TAYLOR

4 December 2009

The Globe and Mail

Sometimes you get lucky with acronyms. EnWave Corp., developer of the “radiant energy vacuum,” certainly did with REV.

But it’s got a lot more than a catchy nickname. It has a potentially game-changing technology that will create a lot of wealth and value if successful.

The story starts with food – drying it more precisely.

For decades, people have been using freeze dryers to do it, which involves, as the name implies, lowering the temperature and sublimating the moisture out of food.

It works fine, but the radiant energy vacuum appears to work much better. Developed by food scientist Dr. Tim Durance while at the University of British Columbia (EnWave is basically a spinoff of the school), REV technology uses microwaves and a vacuum to do what a freezer does.

But it does it far more cheaply, in terms of both equipment and operating expenses, and with better results.

EnWave says capital costs are about a sixth of freeze drying while energy costs are about a third. It’s far faster and, because it’s continuous rather than done in huge batches à la freeze drying, it’s more convenient and cheaper still.

The food is comparable in nutritional value and taste and in some cases looks better, the company says.

To test those claims, I found an ideal source: a customer. EnWave sold its first nutraREV machine to a B.C. company earlier this year, privately held Cal-San Enterprises, a blueberry grower and wine maker. They confirm what EnWave says.

Cal-San has been tinkering with various drying technologies for a decade. It chose EnWave’s because it found that the capital and operating costs were substantially lower. The science and the UBC pedigree also helped in terms of credibility.

What’s more interesting is that the product is better; the berries look more like fresh or frozen ones than dried.

Cal-San, which has territorial exclusivity agreements with EnWave, told me that this is opening up big opportunities. Food companies, from bakeries to snack food and cereal makers, are clamouring for product. And given the improvements over freeze dried, they should fetch a premium on top of having lower costs.

Cal-San wouldn’t say what returns it might earn on this investment other than to describe them as “healthy.” It is planning on buying another machine in the new year to ramp up production.

This is obviously promising for EnWave and its shareholders. First, it’s a validation of the technology. Second, it’s a lead order and they usually make subsequent ones easier. Finally, EnWave has an interesting strategy for earning revenue. It charges for the machines, but also wants to earn a small royalty on the sale of products the machines make.

EnWave’s technologies go beyond food though. They’re also being tested and developed for vaccines, probiotics, enzymes and other things. There are encouraging test results and impressive alliances with respect to these businesses. EnWave, for example, is testing the use of its technology on bacterial cultures and probiotics with global food giant Danisco.

I interrogated co-CEO John McNicol for this column, and he held up well. He’s focused, to the point, and has an impressive track record of creating value.

As for numbers, the market for freeze-drying equipment is $1.8-billion (U.S.). Carving out a piece of that should produce profits.

The real juice is in the royalties. The company says the addressable market of applicable products (dried foods, antibodies, vaccines etc.) will be $120-billion in about a decade using current growth rates. (I couldn’t verify those numbers, but can say that the market is huge.) Getting just 2 per cent of that market and earning a 2-per-cent royalty on it would yield income of almost $50-million – and keep in mind there are no costs against that income other than taxes and royalties payable to UBC. On top of that there are manufacturing profits. If things keep going as they have, though, EnWave will likely be bought before then.

There are the usual small-cap risks to the story of course, but on the positive side EnWave isn’t reinventing the wheel; demand for what it wants to sell exists already and, for what it’s worth, I’d say the rewards do seem to compensate for the risks.

***

EnWave’s potential

Looking out to 2018, there are several potentially lucrative markets for EnWave. The two scenarios below estimate how much the company could potentially earn.

2018 estimates

Addressable              Size in U.S. $

Market                   Billions

Food                     $5

Probiotics               $5

Enzymes                  $9

Vaccines                 $39

Antibodies               $62

Total                    About $120

Scenario A Scenario B

Assumed penetration rate 2%         5%

Assumed royalty          2%         5%

Gross royalties          $48M       $300M

Source: EnWave

Weston’s a buy; Loblaw’s not

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Weston’s a buy; Loblaw’s not
FABRICE TAYLOR
824 words
25 November 2009
GLOB
B20
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

If you want to know whether Loblaw is worth buying or not, don’t turn to the analysts. I read half a dozen opinions and they didn’t make a convincing case either way, although I am certain that no detail is too minute for analysts.

Almost two years ago, when the stock was $31 (it’s $32 now), I called it a value trap, and indeed it was. That wasn’t a tough call frankly. Now? It’s a tougher call, which in my view means don’t bother. But there’s a better idea, one that lets you own Loblaw on the cheap: Buy the parent, George Weston. It’s far more interesting and it makes it easier to sleep at night.

First, let me argue against buying Loblaw now. The company put out a surprisingly good quarter recently, but when you dissect the numbers, you realize it wasn’t so great after all. The good news is that the turnaround is going reasonably well, and there’s more to come on that front. The bad news is that the big trends, which management can’t control – food price inflation, competition – are not friendly.

The general consensus, which basically comes straight from management, is that the next few quarters are going to be tough. No, we don’t buy blue-chip stocks based on six-month returns, but we also hate to buy them and watch things get worse.

Buying the stock seems like a bet that the price-to-earnings multiple will expand. If true, fine: one point gives you an almost 8-per-cent return, all else equal. But it’s unlikely to go beyond 15 times, and it’s around 13 and a half now. An expanding multiple depends on big investors becoming more comfortable – they seem to be – but do you want to bank on it?

Here’s the better idea in my view: invest in George Weston. Weston owns 62 per cent of Loblaw. Each Weston share includes 1.32 Loblaw shares (Weston owns more Loblaw shares than it has shares outstanding). Today, that’s worth about $43 bucks. Weston shares are quoted at $59, so after Loblaw you get the rest of the Weston business – bakery, food and a lot of cash – for $16. The cash is worth about $10 a share, meaning you get the other operating businesses for about $6.

That’s cheap. The bakery business is probably worth at least twice that.

Then why is it cheap? It’s the holding company discount of course: investors like pure plays. They’d rather own Loblaw outright than Weston. This means, of course, that the discount is likely to persist.

Maybe, maybe not – more on that in a second. First, though, assuming it does, you still get to play Loblaw through Weston, whose shares respond to Loblaw’s share price movements. You also get a little bit of diversification. All good.

But you have to assume that something is going to happen at Weston given all that cash. They’re not going to let it just sit there.

There are a few options: management could buy back shares or pay a special dividend. It could also pay down debt. These options might create value for shareholders.

Another possibility is an acquisition – or more than one. There might be some good buys out there, especially if the recession keeps going. And there are some privately owned bakeries. Buying one or more of these might be interesting in that Weston could wring out some savings and get a valuation lift (I assume a private deal is done at a lower multiple or price than an identical public company would fetch.)

Finally, as an outlier, Weston could either take Loblaw private or the family could take Weston private. The former doesn’t seem likely: it looks hard to do in a way that’s accretive for Weston.

The latter? Maybe. The family has 60 per cent of the stock now, and access to a lot of cash to help finance the purchase.

And while they won’t rush to decide how to put that cash to use, eventually, I think, investors will start to close the discount. It’s a lot bigger than it should be.

*******

Weston’s numbers

By buying Weston, it appears that investors are getting a deal on Weston’s bakery business and its stake in Loblaws.

Weston market cap:                    $7.6-billion
Loblaw market cap:                    $8.9-billion
Weston's Loblaw stake:                62%
Value:                                $5.5-billion
Weston cash:                          $3.7-billion
Weston debt and preferred shares:     -$2.4-billion
Net value:                            $6.9-billion
Implied value of non-Loblaw business: $755-million
EBITDA of non-Loblaw business:        $200-million
Value to EBITDA:                      4 times

Document GLOB000020091125e5bp0001u