So Why Not Buy Apple..?!

Tags

$AAPL, AAPL:US, Apple, circle of competence, deferred taxes, disruption, economic moat, growth investing, growth vs. value, innovation, Margin of Safety, Philip Fisher, Steve Jobs, technology, value investing, Warren Buffett

We all know the type: Born-again value investors who still have that new car smell. No longer clueless, but the market hasn’t beaten adequate sense (or humility) into them just yet, so they’re still insanely over-confident. Which we tolerate – after all, we were like them once – then they start expounding their new & improved value investing philosophy, and it all goes downhill. I recall one encounter, some years back, where I struggled to get a word in, let alone offer some kind of reality check. Finally, my new guru was forced to pause & finally breathe, so I did the only sensible thing. I lobbed this hand grenade:

So why not buy Apple..?!

All I got was a puzzled look. Repeating the question, I then pummeled him with a veritable laundry list of Apple (AAPL:US) fundamentals & ratios. If he was such a value expert, surely Apple was a screaming value buy?! Needless to say, I never got much of a reply, but it stopped him in his tracks & scared him off…job well done! But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a valid question for other investors (& even me…). And a question to be asked in a spirit of honest inquiry. I mean, let’s look at Apple’s numbers today:

• Net sales have reached $216 billion (as of FY-2016).
• Net sales increased 99% & over 1,000% in last 5 & 10 years, respectively.
• Gross margin increased to 39% ($84 billion) in last 10 yrs.
• Op profit margin more than doubled to 28% ($60 billion) in last 10 yrs.
• Net income increased 76% & almost 2,200% in last 5 & 10 yrs.
• EPS compounded by 16% pa & 38% pa in last 5 & 10 yrs.
• Net cash/investments inc’d almost 1,400% to $151 billion in last 10 yrs.

• Current share price (as of cob Feb-7th):  $131.53
• Current market cap:  $690 billion
• Current P/S ratio:  3.2 times
• Ex-net cash/investments P/S ratio:  2.4 times
• Current P/E ratio:  15.7 times
• Ex-net cash/investments P/E ratio:  12.1 times
• Current FCF ratio:  13.2 times
• Ex-net cash/investments FCF ratio:  10.1 times

OK, just take a moment & marvel…even with the share price now approaching all-time highs again, surely Apple’s still a screaming value buy?

So why not buy Apple..?!

Advertisement

Stock Picking…Art, or Science?!

Tags

art vs. science, growth vs. value, stock picking, stock selection, stock valuation, TGISVP, Warren Buffett

Gather some investors together, mix liberally with beer, garnish with some grub, lose track of time, and there’s a question which inevitably bubbles to the surface:

So, stock picking…is it bloody art, or is it science?!

If you’re a regular reader, you might recall my Why I Read (I, II & III) series & this more recent piece (Investing Haiku), and assume I’d argue stock picking is ultimately art. That’s understandable – and if you buy me enough drinks, I’m sure I’d be more than happy to expound on that very argument! [And yeah, maybe I can talk even more than I can write. 😉 But only v occasionally… 🙂 ] But in the hard light of day, I’d be far more reluctant – not because of the argument itself, but because of how it tends to be abused…

First, we have the experts who never really share/explain their actual investment process. Who knows if they’re afraid to share their secret sauce, if they’re looking to add some mystery & glamour (and a following), or if they’ve simply succumbed to false modesty? Intentional or not, they persuade investors their stock picking is ultimately art – so you can invest with them, slavishly copy their stock picks, or you can simply give up…because you can never hope to emulate them!

[I mean, look at Warren Buffett – here we are, 60 years into his career, still slavering over any attempt to reverse-engineer the keys to his investment process & success. Whilst lauding a schizophrenic media that likes to preach why you should invest like Buffett, and why you can’t invest like Buffett! Before he dies, Alice Schroeder needs to perform the ultimate public service – lock herself in a room with Buffett, and only come out when she’s fully documented the real nuts & bolts, facts & figures, and dollars & cents of his major stock picking successes!]

Mea Culpa (II)…

Tags

blogging, diversification, fear and greed, Margin of Safety, portfolio allocation, size effect, value investing, Warren Buffett

Continued from here.

vii) ‘Sorry, I don’t have any sure-fire winners’

Do I feel confident about my portfolio? Yes, I do…

But with an important caveat:  I feel long-term confident. I’d even dare to say I expect to out-perform my benchmark indices. [Well, another caveat: That’s really not my objective – I’m more focused on absolute returns & generally improving my risk-reward ratio].

But do I feel confident about my individual stock picks? No, not necessarily…

Unfortunately, this is a reality we all face as investors. No matter how diligent your research, no matter how rigorous your quantitative & qualitative analysis – all too often, individual stocks feel just like a roll of the dice. Most obviously, the insidious effects of fear & greed are to blame – but no matter how hard you stamp these out, you’re still subject to the tender mercies of Lady Luck. And there’s no escaping her. [Though it helps if she looks like this…] As any good boxer will tell you:  If you box, you will get hit… The sooner you resign  yourself to rolling with the punches, the better – but don’t forget, the best boxer (usually) wins in the end.

And over time, investing skill & experience will inevitably beat luck, while diversification is also your ultimate secret weapon. Sure, I confirm my portfolio allocation for each stock I write-up – and that’s a great indicator of my confidence level – but the real lesson I preach is diversification, not concentration. Imposing relatively mechanical limits within your portfolio (see Well, Are You The Right Size?) is a great way to remove emotion from the equation. [Over the years, I’ve homed in on 3-7.5% as an optimal allocation for a single stock, in a portfolio of 15-20 (core) holdings]. As any smart investor will tell you, they’re usually confounded by their portfolio winners & losers in any one performance period. And trying to predict (or buy) just a few top picks is a fool’s game. So, no matter how confident you are, you still need to spread your bets…

viii) ‘I’m sorry it’s a micro-cap, and you hate the price & spread’

Well, really, I’m not…

So, Growth…or Value?

Tags

Benjamin Graham, buy and hold, catalyst, growth investing, growth vs. value, investment theme, Joel Greenblatt, multi-bagger, Philip Fisher, reading, survivorship bias, value investing, Warren Buffett

Ah yes, the great investing debate & divide…

At one extreme, we have the wild-eyed growth investor foaming at the mouth over a great story. A silky-tongued CEO’s painted unicorns & castles in the air, and our reckless plunger’s itching to dance the magic rainbow. No price is too high, no management too sleazy, no risk too great, to deter him from the boundless opportunity he now sees stretched out in front of him… His investing idol’s Philip Fisher, of ‘Common Stocks & Uncommon Profits’ – which I had the misfortune of re-reading recently. How this book was ever nominated a bloody investment classic, I don’t know!? OK, let’s grant some credit. Yes, I’m sure Fisher was a gifted investor, but he was also in the right place at the right time – in California, at the dawn of the electronic (& venture capital) ages.

So, who’s ever sat down & really studied his book, and actually figured out how to bloody implement his 15 Points? Who among us has the time, the means, the resources, or the determination to practice 95% of what Fisher preaches? And where in the book is the real secret exposed – the foresight to pick a 100 or even a 1000–bagger? That’s the problem people forget with growth investing – survivorship bias. Consider a buy & hold investor seeding his portfolio with a selection of promising growth stocks – some die off quickly, most turn out so-so, but maybe one (or two) actually grow & grow to dominate his entire portfolio. Of course, the losers are long forgotten, and he’ll nod wisely & tell you he always knew the real winners! Or how about the chancer who bought a single long-shot stock…and ended up making a friggin’ fortune?! Well yes, he’s obviously a media darling now. But where are the stories about his fellow slobs who bet the ranch & lost everything? Well, like I said, the losers are long forgotten…

Not to mention the fact share prices of even the biggest winners usually suffer some pretty sickening plunges along the way. Of course, every growth investor’s confident he won’t be the sucker shaken out of his wonder-stock’s long-term parabolic trajectory by a mere trading blip. Learn from Black Monday ’87, he savvily reminds you – it’s a mere blip on the charts now! Yeah, but the average investor wasn’t calling it a blip then – he was too bloody busy selling…

Total Produce – A Fresh Perspective

Tags

activist investors, Balmoral International Land Holdings, Carl McCann, empire-building, Fyffes, Greencore Group, intrinsic value, Irish shares, Irish value investing, private equity funds, share buyback, TOT, Total Produce, Warren Buffett

…

Total Produce (TOT:ID, TOT:LN) was one of my very first blog write-ups, back in Nov-2011 at EUR 0.39. [And I’ve written about it a number of times since]. Less than two years later, we’ve enjoyed a nice double on the stock – which is now trading within spitting distance of my original EUR 0.882 fair value target. This warrants a fresh perspective… But looking back, now I remember – even then, I offered up a very specific perspective:

So we’re talking a business that really runs itself, just what I like! Particularly as I don’t have great respect for management (except if you compare them say to Greencore Group (GNC:ID) management – whose shareholders may finally be put out of their misery with a potential bid, rumoured to be coming from Dubilier Clayton & Rice). Carl McCann is Chairman, while his brother David’s in the Chairman seat over at TOT’s ‘sister’ company Fyffes (FFY:ID), and neither is really a patch on their father Neil McCann (I was sad to hear he passed away recently) who joined Fyffes in 1948. I think of the crazy worldoffruit.com online effort in the v late 90s (which ‘…received a very positive reaction from within the produce industry and looks set to dramatically change the way in which fresh fruit and vegetables are traded across the globe…’), the lack of earnings growth in the past few years, the ludicrous de-merger of Fyffes, Total Produce & Blackrock (now Balmoral Int’l Land Holdings, whose shares subsequently collapsed & are now delisted), etc.

I also look at the excessive B/S Cash of EUR 89.6 mio, and I’m bemused (and slightly alarmed) to remember a colleague telling me many years ago his impression that having large amounts of Cash on hand appeared to give management the warm and fuzzies, and they appeared to enjoy playing the banks off against each other for deposits (and perhaps even some jolly currency switching). All very well, I confess I’ve been through all that myself professionally, but always felt frustrated at having giant hoards of Cash on hand to invest – in an ideal world, I knew the best thing for shareholders and Return on Equity was to have zero Cash and just come in each day and draw down/pay down on a Debt/CP facility. With TOT, of course, the obvious answer to this Cash is frequent execution of small/medium sized acquisitions across Europe (similar to what DCC (DCC:LN) has done for years in its Energy business) – considering the nature/scope of potential business acquisitions, I think there’s a marvelous opportunity here to hoover up cos and double their operating margins v quickly through cost elimination and economies of scale.

Then of course there’s the silent but deadly fart in the room…finally figuring out it’s time to swallow their pride and reverse the Total Produce/Fyffes break-up – a nil-premium merger is the obvious way to achieve this and I imagine could easily yield 2-3 years of decent EPS growth even if the underlying business remained unchanged. But kudos to management for the 22 mio share buyback last year…! I was impressed, can you please repeat?

Why I Read (Part III)…

Tags

activist investors, autodidactism, books, Bruce Kovner, consensus, contrarianism, fear and greed, Howard Marks, investing, Isaiah Berlin, latticework of mental models, literature, Magic Eye, mosaic theory, Nosce Te Ipsum, reading, Warren Buffett

OK, back in June & July, I covered two key benefits of reading:

Knowledge, Experience & Inspiration – a constant & wide-ranging diet of non-fiction reading’s essential for any investor, and something you’ll find all the great investors practice & recommend. 

Nosce Te Ipsum – I believe reading literature’s equally important, it’s one of the few ways you can truly know thyself (& other people). And painful self-awareness & examination offer the best hope of avoiding the potentially devastating impact of fear & greed on your portfolio.

It’s been a long time coming – let’s tackle the final benefit of reading, which I call:  Magic Eye. It’s definitely the most exciting – I guess I’d classify it as offensive, versus the rather defensive nature of the other benefits. But some context would be useful – let’s first talk a little about how I actually read:

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve always found it incredible how the entire world (even multiple worlds) can be encapsulated in a single book. And there’s almost never-ending mountains of them, just waiting to be discovered! In fact, they really are never-ending: In the UK, for example, 150,000 new titles are published each year! Faced with those kinds of numbers, I’ve always felt an overwhelming sense of urgency – how can I ever bloody read quickly & widely enough to ever make a dent in such a mountain?!

Why I Read (Part II)…

Tags

fear and greed, investing advice, literature, Nosce Te Ipsum, portfolio performance, readers, reading, South Sea Bubble, Warren Buffett

Continued from here.

I encouraged you to ‘Read, read, read & then read some more (’til you puke..!)’, and in return I promised you’d gain:

i) Knowledge, Experience & Inspiration

Readers appeared to enjoy the post, but perhaps it was a bit of a cop-out… ‘Cos there’s plenty of great investors who’ve already highlighted how much you need to read if you aspire to be a great investor too. That’s obviously excellent advice, and I probably didn’t add very much to it. But perhaps I can offer something valuable here – I believe there are two far more important benefits to reading. I should warn you, I’ll be writing about these from a far more personal perspective – so there’s definitely a chance they may not appeal to, work for, or even make sense to you (as an investor). That being said, it’s always worth remembering investing is ultimately ‘an art, not a science’:

ii) Nosce Te Ipsum

How often do you encounter people who are formidable experts in dispensing advice…but appear incapable of following their own advice? Dare I ask, maybe you’re one of those people?! But honestly, we all do it sometimes – when it comes to other people’s problems we have the wisdom of Buddha, but in our own lives we all too often make poor decisions, we deceive ourselves, we procrastinate, we trip ourselves up, etc.

The Activist Investor

Tags

activist investors, catalyst, Charlie Munger, growth investing, Howard Marks, intrinsic value, latticework of mental models, mosaic theory, recapitalization, second-level thinking, shareholder activism, value investing, Warren Buffett

I’m obviously not averse to some growth – well, if I can buy it bloody cheap, or free – but I don’t think anybody would dream of calling me a growth investor!? But you may be surprised to hear I don’t consider myself a classic value investor either. Ideally (at least in relation to some investments), I like to think of myself as an activist investor.

In this instance, let me hasten to re-define activist in the v broadest sense: Activist investing isn’t necessarily about public engagement with a company’s management – far from it, in many cases. I believe the essence of activist investing actually lies in the investment analysis & the investment itself – not the investor (as many would presume). An activist looks at a company and, on that rare occasion, sees a v different enterprise vs. the company (most) other investors currently see…

– Perhaps he sees a company that’s genuinely worth more dead than alive. Or one that would be far more valuable in the arms of a larger rival. Or a company that has a jewel in the crown that’s obscured by other/inferior divisions, central costs, etc.

– Maybe it’s a company that has under-utilized assets that can be sold to reduce/eliminate excessive debt. Or a company that could execute a recapitalization, and transform its financial metrics & shareholder value.

– Perhaps it’s simply misunderstood – investors may simply not grasp a company’s management/business/strategy have changed in a major way, or they under/over-estimate the potential impact (for example) of some litigation or regulatory action.

A Game of Chicken

Tags

adjusted earnings, annual reports, blind stock valuation, bloggers, chickens, exceptionals, gypsies, intrinsic value, P/E ratio, Warren Buffett

OK, perhaps it’s time I jump on the blind stock valuation bandwagon – there’s been some good posts/responses out there recently in that vein. I’ve noticed some issues, though, with this challenge approach:  First, a blind stock valuation where nobody turns out to own the stock seems like a v sterile exercise to me. Let me just tell you now: I do own this stock, it’s v bloody interesting, and I promise I’ll be telling you more about it soon..!

So please make sure to post/email your valuation/comments asap – all great encouragement for me to get on with a write-up!

Second, reading some of the challenges, I feel like there’s been some (understandable) confusion, on all sides. Some readers state, for example, a stock’s worth $20 but they wouldn’t pay more than $10 for it. Others peg the value of another stock at $40, but highlight the market would probably pay $80. Others give a range of values. And so on… All these seem a little off-base to me – particularly in the context of a blind stock valuation.

Good Show, Chaps!

Tags

All the Devils Are Here, Altman Z-score, Bethany McLean, catalyst, Clinton Cards, How to Make Money in Value Stocks, Luddites, Margin of Safety, Oddball Stocks, Pink Floyd, Piotroski, stock screener, Stockopedia, Total Produce, value investing, value investing bloggers, Warren Buffett

I’m way behind a couple of other bloggers on this..! Stockopedia sent me a free copy of their new book, ‘How to Make Money in Value Stocks’, and invited me to look at their new website upgrades.

How could I resist taking a look when the book mentions Wexboy twice?! Maybe it will divert attention from my last book reference(s)… OK, Jeez, I’m kidding! At least I think so, bit hazy on some adventures! 😉 Quoting a Pink Floyd lyric was nice too – somewhat cancelled out by following up with a 50 Cent (sorry, Fiddy Cent) quote…