Archive for the ‘Investing Explained’ Category

A time for year-end reckonings

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / PAST RECOMMENDATIONS
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
A time for year-end reckonings
FABRICE TAYLOR
907 words
31 December 2009
GLOB
B7
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst. ftaylor@globeandmail.com

The Vox portfolio continues to thrive, although it is not – nor is it ever – without its blights.

In the fall of 2008 and again in March of this year we turned very bullish on big stocks. They have, of course, done well. The S&P/TSX composite index is up by more than 50 per cent since March, while the big U.S. indexes are also sitting on double-digit returns.

The analysis was complicated, technical and rigorous: Everyone is selling in a panic, so buy. How’s that for genius?

In the late spring and summer I figured the smaller stocks would have to start moving too, so I started to scan that landscape for cash. I found Mainstreet Equity, trading at $7. This real estate concern has a big footprint in commodity regions such as Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and is light in places like Ontario, where manufacturing is being decimated.

It also built up a war chest during the recession, largely by refinancing mortgages, and today has about $3 a share in cash. The stock is $11, so that was a great investment in June, up well over 50 per cent in about half a year.

I found two others, Seacliff Construction and Churchill Corp., both in the engineering and construction fields, with lots of cash and beat-up stock prices. They’re up 25 per cent and about 32 per cent, respectively, in four months so far.

Sometimes the market hands you a gift. I thought Aeroplan was one in June at $8 or so. Investors were worried about Air Canada and took it out on the frequent flyer program. Buyers of the shares at that time are up almost a third – not bad for six months of work.

My recommendation of Aastra Technologies was poorly timed if you took it right away, at around $29 a share in early May. The stock almost immediately sank to $20 (hopefully you waited a couple of weeks). That said, it’s $34 and change today so if you paid $29 and hung on – tough to do given the stock’s swoon, I know – you’re doing okay.

Ford was an eyebrow-raising recommendation in late April at $4 (U.S.), but I felt confident enough to buy some myself (after the column appeared of course). It’s $10 now, and I think the U.S. car makers are going to be way more competitive. I also think they’ll get a lot of help from governments, and Toyota and Honda et al. will pay the price.

My advice to avoid Gildan isn’t exactly aging well. It was $15 (Canadian) when I said so a year ago and it’s above $25 now. The math is clearly not working in my favour there. For what it’s worth I still don’t think it’s a great business but if you can make money on the stock then bully for you.

My call to avoid Yellow Pages Income Fund at around the same time fared better. Units were about $8 and are now $5.35. Not even a 15-per-cent yield skates you onside.

From what I’m reading I think there may be value in these sorts of companies eventually, but at lower prices and assuming they survive (they tend to have debt).

Where Vox really did well was on small caps. Wavefront Technology Solutions was 50 cents when I touted it. It’s $2.79 now, for a 450-ish per cent gain. The company’s technology, which allows oil producers to extract more from their reserves, is slowly gaining traction.

Landis Energy was another call. Trading at 40 cents at the time, the company, which has a gas storage play in Nova Scotia, has since put itself up for sale and is quoted at 75 cents.

Cyberplex was another small cap on my radar but I got to it late: It was worth $1.50 then, it’s now $1.14. But it’s still interesting and trades at seven times forward earnings (yes, it has earnings).

One of my few short recommendations appears to be starting to pay off: ZENN Motor Co., which wanted to build electric cars, was north of $4 when I cast suspicion on it at the end of April. It did go to $6 but is back below $4 now. I think it’s going a lot lower.

Bearish calls on Research In Motion, meanwhile, were looking good until it knocked out the lights in its latest quarter. On Oct. 9, I argued its best days were behind it (meaning the stock). It was quoted at $71 then, but very quickly sank to $60 before rebounding. Now, it’s back to $71.

I stand by my call, having recently upgraded some RIM software on my BlackBerry and found it way worse than the older version. Any company that allows inferior products – and I mean inferior to what it had before – to ship out the door is doomed.

Probably our most bullish call was on natural gas this past summer, when it hit its lows. So far that’s looking good, although the weather is helping. Long term it will prove itself. You heard it here first.

Document GLOB000020091231e5cv0001t

The tricks of tech; The potential rewards are huge, but so are the pitfalls

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
INVESTING
Report on Business Magazine
The tricks of tech; The potential rewards are huge, but so are the pitfalls
Fabrice Taylor
810 words
30 December 2009
GLOB
22
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

There’s nothing more fun in investing than technology stocks. Sadly, few sectors are as dangerous. The trouble with techs and biotechs isn’t just that many hot new companies never make money; it’s that even the ones that do often don’t create any value over the long term.

If you’re a computer buff, you may remember 3dfx Interactive, a dominant graphics-card maker in the 1990s. It went bankrupt, however, in 2002. It’s very hard to stay abreast of an industry that’s always changing, but some solid overall rules can help you.

The first rule is simple: If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. One good example: Research In Motion. RIM dominated the early years of the smart-phone market with its BlackBerry, which had some proprietary technology but wasn’t unique enough to keep out competitors.

One number to watch is return on equity (ROE). Companies that make a lot of money on each dollar they invest attract competitors. RIM’s ROE was a lofty 40% for its fiscal year ended last Feb. 28. But unless a competitive advantage is durable, a leader’s product often becomes commoditized, and its profit margins and ROE suffer.

That competitive advantage may not be a patent. It may be better to have a user base for your product or service that has little need to change providers (like Google’s) or that can’t switch, because of the high cost of changing (like Microsoft’s). Google and Microsoft may not survive forever, but they have a better shot at it than RIM.

A second rule is to look for profits and what’s done with them. A lot of tech companies can’t pay earnings back to their shareholders as dividends because they have to constantly reinvest so they won’t fall behind their competitors.

Take Open Text Corp.: In its past three fiscal years, the company has made about $130 million (U.S.) in profits, but it hasn’t paid any dividends or bought back stock. In fact, it has sold new shares to finance part of the more than $625 million (U.S.) of investments. The result? Not that impressive: Annual sales are up about $190 million (U.S.). If companies are reinvesting heavily with little to show for it, beware, even if the bottom line looks good.

Research and development is the basis of the third rule: Spend, spend, spend, but spend wisely. Look at total R&D spending as a percentage of revenues. It should stay somewhat constant, and it should produce results. Nortel spent $11 billion on R&D over the six years before it filed for bankruptcy protection last January, yet its revenues fell.

Finally, watch out for compression of share price multiples. Often when a tech company takes off, both its share price and its multiple climb–if its earnings, say, double, its price-earnings ratio may quadruple as growth investors bet on continued profit increases.

Unfortunately, the process can work in reverse. Edmonton’s CV Technologies (now Afexa Life Sciences) burst onto the scene with its Cold-fX remedy in 2003, and profits climbed to $10 million in 2005. Then competitors started making similar ginseng-based products that were inferior, but much cheaper. The company’s profits skidded to $640,000 in 2006, and a loss in 2007. As earnings fell, the price investors were willing to pay for each dollar of earnings also declined, and Afexa’s share price bottomed at 23 cents in December, 2008. That’s the kind of excitement you want to avoid.

Source thompson datastream

***

TIP SHEET

Value

15.3 Recent price-earnings ratio (trailing 12 months)

Aastra Technologies Ltd. Aastra makes olde schoole telephony gear, digital voice-network products, Internet protocol gear and the like for businesses. But there’s nothing tired about its profits. Cash flow from operations should swell to $87 million in 2010 from $77 million last year, says a National Bank Financial analysis. There’s even a chance it will exceed $100 million. The company’s recently announced quarterly dividend of 15 cents a share requires just $8 million in cash flow. Guess they could dial that up quickly.

Growth

15.2% Growth in rental revenue, first nine months of fiscal 2009 versus 2008

Mainstreet Equity Corp.

Calgary-based Mainstreet entered the recession with $8.5 million in cash.

It now has about $25 million. That’s a handsome war chest for an acquisitive residential rental real estate concern, especially when competitors are sucking wind, if they’re getting any air at all. Put that cash to use and, in time, profits will move up, dragging the share price with them.

Document GLOB000020091231e5cu0002i

Bullion may have raced ahead, but there’s still gas in the tank

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / GOLD
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Bullion may have raced ahead, but there’s still gas in the tank
FABRICE TAYLOR
918 words
14 December 2009
GLOB
B13
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

It’s easy to say gold is a bubble. It’s up more than 26 cent in the past six months, so it has to be right?

Maybe, but I doubt it, for both obvious and less-obvious reasons. Gold isn’t as attractive as it was when no one wanted to own it a few years ago. Back then it was a no-brainer, trading for less than the marginal production cost. Today, there’s hot money in bullion, making it susceptible to sharp corrections. But the rally has legs nonetheless.

Let’s start with the obvious: Gold is up, true, but put it in a longer perspective and you’ll find that gold is actually lagging other assets, and consumer prices. Since the start of the great bull market in 1980, gold is only up about 60 per cent. Inflation, officially anyway, is up roughly 175 per cent and stocks are up almost 900 per cent. U.S. money supply is up nearly 500 per cent. The price of something in a bubble tends to zoom ahead of everything. Gold has in the very short term but it’s only catching up to other assets.

Another hallmark of a bubble is exuberant investor interest. There’s some of that for sure, but are the masses really clamouring for gold? Yes, demand for bullion-based exchange-traded funds is brisk. They’ve grown to about $70-billion (U.S.) in market capitalization since the first one was launched about five years ago.

Bullion ETFs are the most important thing to happen to gold prices in decades, and have stoked demand and prices. But although they’ve grown quickly, they’re still small relative to the trillions of dollars of gold in the world. They have lots of room to grow.

And if gold is in a bubble, why are so many interesting junior gold shares trading below book value? Building a mine is a tough way to make a buck to be sure, but in a bubble, no one thinks about that. They think about getting rich fast and pay crazy prices for whatever mania might make that happen.

Institutional interest, meantime, doesn’t appear particularly high. Gold doesn’t feel like real estate or tech stocks, two bubbles I’ve live through.

The fundamental supply-and-demand equation argues for higher gold prices. Production hit its high in 2001. It’s been down ever since. Even with flat demand prices should justifiably be higher.

If peak oil makes sense, why not peak gold? Yes, there are of course, differences. Once extracted, oil is burned and can’t be used again, while mined gold never disappears. Recycling is not a factor in oil whereas it is a big one in gold. Nonetheless, the basic supply-demand theory stands.

Perhaps the most important factor is that central banks are buyers. India bought 200 tonnes from the IMF recently. Yet gold is still less than 10 per cent of its reserves. For China, which is sitting on a mountain of U.S. dollars, the figure is less than 2 per cent.

Maybe most telling, governments, the U.S. particularly, doesn’t seem to mind if gold rises any more. These are quotes from a letter written to then President Gerald Ford by the Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns in 1975, declassified a couple of years ago: “The broad question at issue is whether central banks and governments should be free to buy gold, from one another or from the free market, at market-related prices … The Federal Reserve is opposed.”

The letter also alludes to the IMF, saying that “the role of gold in the international monetary system would be gradually reduced.”

And finally, “I have a secret understanding in writing with the Bundesbank, that Germany will not buy gold, either from the market or from another government, at a price above the official price of $42.22 an ounce.”

To say that governments didn’t at least try to manipulate gold prices is clearly naive. To say they didn’t succeed is probably naive too.

Today, they may not care any more, and at any rate they’re losing the battle.

As mentioned earlier, there’s hot money in gold, but it’s not universally owned. It takes a long time to overcome three decades of contempt. The last word goes to John Hathaway, portfolio manager at Tocqueville Asset Management: “While it is no longer enough to observe that the metal is of interest based on universal apathy, it is safe to say that it has a long way to go before it becomes mainstream.”

******

Gold’s lagging indicators

Despite its latest rally, gold still lags behind the gains other assets and indicators have experienced since 1980.

……………………………………………………….Jan. ‘80……..Dec. ‘09…….% change

Total U.S. credit market debt*……………$4.40……….$52.50……….1,097%

S&P 500……………………………………………..111…………1,100………….892%

U.S. money supply*…………………………..$1.50…………$8.40………….462%

U.S. GDP*………………………………………..$2.70……….$14.30………….425%

U.S. Consumer Price Index……………………78…………215.8………….177%

WTI Crude Oil…………………………………$32.50……….$76.84………….136%

U.S. Producer Price Index…………………..85.2

Gold – weekly average, per ounce………$738……….$1,196………….105%

*$-trillions (U.S.)

THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: CENTRAL FUND OF CANADA

Document GLOB000020091214e5ce0001f

Investing is easy – if you lie to yourself

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / PORTFOLIO BUILDING
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Investing is easy – if you lie to yourself
FABRICE TAYLOR
688 words
9 December 2009
GLOB
B13
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

It’s Christmas party season, which means lots of standing around in kitchens surrounded by people looking for stock tips. Over the years I’ve noticed something curious about us retail investors: We’re all brilliant. None of us ever loses money; we all make healthy returns over time.

It’s not true, or course. Most retail investors lose money, and if not, they don’t keep up with the index. Investing is hard. One of the hardest parts is not falling for the sad tricks you can play on yourself in your mental accounting.

You know what I mean: That tendency to tell yourself that you’d be doing great if you had just ignored that one bomb. “I’d be up 14 per cent if I hadn’t bought General Electric for $40 and sold it for $6.”

If a company tried to tell investors it was profitable except for that huge loss, there’d be a lawsuit, yet we all do it to ourselves, let’s be honest. And here’s how the math works out: If you make 12 per cent one year, then 14, then 17, you’re up 50 per cent after three years, which is excellent. But if you get drunk on success and forget that stocks also go down and lose 40 per cent, you’re suddenly down. You’ve lost every cent you made and a 10th of your principal.

Here’s where it really hurts: You have to make 21 points in the next year just to get back to zero in real terms, i.e. to be flat including inflation (I used 2 per cent for the rate incidentally). Sadly, your simple average return is less than 1 per cent. Good luck with that.

So it’s easy to see why our minds try to protect us from this misery. It’s also easy to see why avoiding losses is quite literally more important than making money in the stock market. Losses are very difficult to recover from, yet they don’t seem insurmountable unless you really think about it in the cold sober light of day.

As to how to avoid losses, that’s pretty straightforward, and it’s not just about sticking to quality. Some of the biggest blowups in the market in the past year were blue chips, such as General Electric.

The answer is stick to what you know and understand. Barrick Gold’s annual report is 154 pages, much of it inscrutable. Wesdome Gold Mines, a Vox favourite and up 145 per cent since we recommended it 10 months ago, gives you 34 pages of reading (disclosure: I own the debentures). Leon’s Furniture’s annual report is also 34 pages. Bank of Montreal’s is 158 pages. It’s not just size of course, it’s how understandable it is. But generally, there’s a correlation between size and ease of use.

As for the fact that there aren’t too many easy-to-understand companies worth investing in, that’s the grim reality of the stock market. If they were all great companies, they wouldn’t need money from other investors would they?

This is useful to think about if you’re shopping for someone to manage your money. The truth is that there aren’t that many really good professional money managers in this country.

Even some of the publicity-shy investors with great long-term records have recently had fatal blowups.

But there are a few – they tend to get next to no publicity because they don’t want it – and I can assure you that the most striking thing about their returns is not that they’re eye-popping. It’s that they’re consistent. Eye-popping returns tend to be associated with blowups.

They avoid blowing up and they don’t think they’re brilliant because they’re on a run. They know better than that.

Document GLOB000020091209e5c90000p