The Months of Historically Low Volatility Are Unlikely to Return Any Time Soon

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

The Months of Historically Low Volatility Are Unlikely to Return Any Time Soon
Wikimedia CommonsFoto: Spiff . Es poco probable que vuelvan pronto esos meses de volatilidad históricamente baja

The U.S. equity market closed slightly higher for April as corporate earnings continued to post strong first-quarter gains but in aggregate have so far been unrewarded with higher prices. The U.S economy is keeping the job market tight and both wages and inflation are starting to rise. Merger and acquisition activity spiked sharply higher on ‘Merger Monday’ on the last day of the month as well.

Volatility has receded from the early February high, though the months of historically low volatility that preceded it are unlikely to return any time soon. President Trump’s zigzag decision-making style has added a new variable of day-to-day investment uncertainty with agenda items ahead including the Iran nuclear weapons deal, NAFTA, highly complex tariffs, and North Korea. The U.S. Federal Reserve’s gradual liquidity reduction and rising rate policy have weighed on stock prices. The main drivers for rising stock prices, we believe, continue to be lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation, and U.S. economic growth.

There are many moving pieces for the market to digest in real-time, and thus many unanswered questions – whether the $150 billion-plus trade tariffs are simply negotiating tactics, how aggressive Congress will be on data privacy and business models, how quickly inflation will come back, and how aggressively the Federal Reserve will raise rates to stay ahead of it.  The most demanding question to be answered is how much trouble the markets can withstand at once?  In isolation, current headwinds seem manageable as long as fundamentals remain the priority.  Rising uncertainties may keep the stock market on edge, but corporate profit growth, aggressive corporate stock buybacks, and deals should provide a cushion for any selloffs.

Merger and acquisition activity in both the utility and energy sectors are standouts so far this year.  In the staid and highly regulated sub-sector niche of water utilities, an unusual four-way bidding war deal dynamic is developing as California Water Service Group (CWT) made an unsolicited takeover bid for water utility SJW Group. SJW had previously agreed to acquire Connecticut Water Service Inc. (CTWS). On April 19, in order to participate in this water-industry consolidation, Eversource Energy (ES) announced an unsolicited bid for Connecticut Water Service. Stay tuned for more intriguing investment opportunities as the Water War unpredictably unfolds in the weeks ahead.

More specifically in terms of merger arbitrage opportunities, deal activity remained strong. Below is an update on two deals that have been in the global news recently.

Sky agreed to be acquired by Twenty-First Century Fox or Comcast

Sky plc received a formalized acquisition proposal from Comcast at £12.50 cash per share, or about £30 billion. Twenty-First Century Fox has said it remains committed to buying Sky, and Sky’s share price reflects the expectation that Fox and Disney (who is in the process of acquiring most of Fox’s assets) will increase Fox’s bid for Sky, currently at £10.75. As a refresher, Sky received an initial offer of £10.75 cash per share in December of 2016 from Twenty-First Century Fox. Fox, which already owns about 40% of Sky, has been unable to close the acquisition due to British political scrutiny of the transaction, though regulatory approval could come in June 2018. The extended regulatory review left an opening for Comcast to make a bid for Sky, which Comcast has long viewed as having a premier position in European media. Twenty-First Century Fox is currently in the process of being acquired by Disney, which also believes Sky is a crown-jewel asset.

Monsanto agreed to be acquired by Bayer 

Going back, Monsanto agreed to be acquired by Bayer in May 2016 for $128 cash per share, or about $65 billion. In March, shares slumped after reports suggested that the Department of Justice was “months away” from completing its review and that Bayer may be required to sell additional assets. Bayer had already agreed to sell seed and agrochemical assets (with the recent addition of vegetable seeds) to BASF for $9 billion. In April, shares of Monsanto reacted positively as the company made progress towards gaining antitrust approval in the U.S., and Bayer reported they are having very good and constructive discussions with the DOJ. The last important remaining condition is receiving antitrust approval from the DoJ in the U.S., which could be granted in June, as the companies have offered significant concessions, including the divestment of Bayer’s digital agricultural business, which had been an area of focus. In addition, Bayer reiterated its expectation the deal will close in the second quarter of 2018. The companies have effectively created a fourth large competitor in the space through their divestments to BASF. BASF should be able to now compete against the other large agricultural companies, including Bayer/Monsanto, ChemChina/Syngenta, and DowDupont.

Column by Gabelli Funds, written by Michael Gabelli
 

To access our proprietary value investment methodology, and dedicated merger arbitrage portfolio we offer the following UCITS Funds in each discipline:

GAMCO MERGER ARBITRAGE

GAMCO Merger Arbitrage UCITS Fund, launched in October 2011, is an open-end fund incorporated in Luxembourg and compliant with UCITS regulation. The team, dedicated strategy, and record dates back to 1985. The objective of the GAMCO Merger Arbitrage Fund is to achieve long-term capital growth by investing primarily in announced equity merger and acquisition transactions while maintaining a diversified portfolio. The Fund utilizes a highly specialized investment approach designed principally to profit from the successful completion of proposed mergers, takeovers, tender offers, leveraged buyouts and other types of corporate reorganizations. Analyzes and continuously monitors each pending transaction for potential risk, including: regulatory, terms, financing, and shareholder approval.

Merger investments are a highly liquid, non-market correlated, proven and consistent alternative to traditional fixed income and equity securities. Merger returns are dependent on deal spreads. Deal spreads are a function of time, deal risk premium, and interest rates. Returns are thus correlated to interest rate changes over the medium term and not the broader equity market. The prospect of rising rates would imply higher returns on mergers as spreads widen to compensate arbitrageurs. As bond markets decline (interest rates rise), merger returns should improve as capital allocation decisions adjust to the changes in the costs of capital.

Broad Market volatility can lead to widening of spreads in merger positions, coupled with our well-researched merger portfolios, offer the potential for enhanced IRRs through dynamic position sizing. Daily price volatility fluctuations coupled with less proprietary capital (the Volcker rule) in the U.S. have contributed to improving merger spreads and thus, overall returns. Thus our fund is well positioned as a cash substitute or fixed income alternative.

Our objectives are to compound and preserve wealth over time, while remaining non-correlated to the broad global markets. We created our first dedicated merger fund 32 years ago. Since then, our merger performance has grown client assets at an annualized rate of  approximately 10.7% gross and 7.6% net since 1985. Today, we manage assets on behalf of institutional and high net worth clients globally in a variety of fund structures and mandates.

Class I USD – LU0687944552
Class I EUR – LU0687944396
Class A USD – LU0687943745
Class A EUR – LU0687943661
Class R USD – LU1453360825
Class R EUR – LU1453361476

GAMCO ALL CAP VALUE

The GAMCO All Cap Value UCITS Fund launched in May, 2015 utilizes Gabelli’s its proprietary PMV with a Catalyst™ investment methodology, which has been in place since 1977. The Fund seeks absolute returns through event driven value investing. Our methodology centers around fundamental, research-driven, value based investing with a focus on asset values, cash flows and identifiable catalysts to maximize returns independent of market direction. The fund draws on the experience of its global portfolio team and 35+ value research analysts.

GAMCO is an active, bottom-up, value investor, and seeks to achieve real capital appreciation (relative to inflation) over the long term regardless of market cycles. Our value-oriented stock selection process is based on the fundamental investment principles first articulated in 1934 by Graham and Dodd, the founders of modern security analysis, and further augmented by Mario Gabelli in 1977 with his introduction of the concepts of Private Market Value (PMV) with a Catalyst™ into equity analysis. PMV with a Catalyst™ is our unique research methodology that focuses on individual stock selection by identifying firms selling below intrinsic value with a reasonable probability of realizing their PMV’s which we define as the price a strategic or financial acquirer would be willing to pay for the entire enterprise.  The fundamental valuation factors utilized to evaluate securities prior to inclusion/exclusion into the portfolio, our research driven approach views fundamental analysis as a three pronged approach:  free cash flow (earnings before, interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, minus the capital expenditures necessary to grow/maintain the business); earnings per share trends; and private market value (PMV), which encompasses on and off balance sheet assets and liabilities. Our team arrives at a PMV valuation by a rigorous assessment of fundamentals from publicly available information and judgement gained from meeting management, covering all size companies globally and our comprehensive, accumulated knowledge of a variety of sectors. We then identify businesses for the portfolio possessing the proper margin of safety and research variables from our deep research universe.

Class I USD – LU1216601648
Class I EUR – LU1216601564
Class A USD – LU1216600913
Class A EUR – LU1216600673
Class R USD – LU1453359900
Class R EUR – LU1453360155

Disclaimer:
The information and any opinions have been obtained from or are based on sources believed to be reliable but accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No responsibility can be accepted for any consequential loss arising from the use of this information. The information is expressed at its date and is issued only to and directed only at those individuals who are permitted to receive such information in accordance with the applicable statutes. In some countries the distribution of this publication may be restricted. It is your responsibility to find out what those restrictions are and observe them.
 
Some of the statements in this presentation may contain or be based on forward looking statements, forecasts, estimates, projections, targets, or prognosis (“forward looking statements”), which reflect the manager’s current view of future events, economic developments and financial performance. Such forward looking statements are typically indicated by the use of words which express an estimate, expectation, belief, target or forecast. Such forward looking statements are based on an assessment of historical economic data, on the experience and current plans of the investment manager and/or certain advisors of the manager, and on the indicated sources. These forward looking statements contain no representation or warranty of whatever kind that such future events will occur or that they will occur as described herein, or that such results will be achieved by the fund or the investments of the fund, as the occurrence of these events and the results of the fund are subject to various risks and uncertainties. The actual portfolio, and thus results, of the fund may differ substantially from those assumed in the forward looking statements. The manager and its affiliates will not undertake to update or review the forward looking statements contained in this presentation, whether as result of new information or any future event or otherwise.
 

Above 3%. Is the Party Over?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Superado el 3%, ¿se terminó la fiesta?
Wikimedia CommonsCourtesy photo. Above 3%. Is the Party Over?

It has been a long time coming but we have finally been given a wake-up call: the 10-year US Treasury bond yield has gone above 3%. So, now what? Should we prepare our fixed income portfolios to hedge interest rates in case of further hikes? Or should we increase the duration to take advantage of potential corrections below 3%?

In a time before Central Banks routinely employed cash injections and mass bond purchasing, textbooks on macroeconomics traditionally taught that 10-year yields responded to a simple formula: expected growth + inflation expectations. So, if we consider just these two factors and we believe the consensus forecasts for the coming years are valid, we could conclude that we will soon be grazing the 5% mark for the 10-year US Treasury bond. The reality is not all that simple and recent years have served to cast doubt on some of the principles we learnt during our studies, as they reflect a new reality in the interrelationships among economic variables. For instance, after several years of unlimited liquidity, inflation is only now beginning to rise slightly or even though the Federal Reserve increased official rates and four hikes are expected for this year, the dollar has weakened.

Some official projections for US economy growth include: IMF: 2.9% for 2018 and 2.7% for 2019; and OECD: 2.9% for 2018 and 2.7% for 2019. Yes, the figures look good. No doubt about it. But they do not point to accelerated growth that could justify inflationary pressures and aggressive rate hikes and we cannot rule out the possibility that these forecasts will fall in the coming quarters. After 35 straight quarters of economic expansion in the US, we may beat the record of 39 quarters set in the 90s, which culminated in the technology bubble (“dotcom”). Let’s face it, until Trump’s fiscal stimulus peters out, the tailwind will continue to blow for consumption, investment expenditure and the real estate sector. However, we are not looking at an abrupt rally, but an ongoing slow and steady pace for growth. In other words, even if we stick to the traditional factors that we mentioned, which determine the 10-year yield, we are not anticipating an environment that justifies much higher rates than now. We might also add other “non-traditional” factors into the equation, such as the impact of the behaviour of some very influential players in the sovereign debt market like China (largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds), insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.

Nor are we convinced by those who predict an imminent recession and a return to yields below 2% for the 10-year US bond. One of the arguments that has become popular among proponents of this position relates to the yield curve inversion. That is to say, a lower interest rate for the 10-year than the 2-year bonds. Historically, the inverted yield curve has been one of the best indicators of recessions. In fact, all the recessions suffered by the US since the 1960s have been preceded by yield curve inversions. Recently, the slope has reduced, but there is still a 50-basis point spread between the 10-year and the 2-year bonds. And we believe that this reduction is due more to the non-traditional dynamics that we have mentioned, which are sustaining the 10-year yield level, than to signs of an imminent recession.

And what about the voices warning us of another consumer delinquency crisis caused by official rate hikes? The market is discounting a total of four rate hikes by the Federal Reserve for this year. Despite the rise in the short rates, which brings an increase in consumer credit costs, we are still not seeing alarming increases in the delinquency rate among the various classes of consumer loans. If rates continue to increase more aggressively, we could indeed see this but, for now, it is not our base case.

Even if we think that the rate hikes will not be sufficiently aggressive to rain on our parade, we do need to be prepared for unexpected summer downpours. We choose not to fully hedge interest rate risk, but we are carefully looking at the relative value and potential risks. With a spread of just 15 basis points between the 5 and 10-year US Treasury bond yields, can we justify assuming an additional 4 years of duration risk? We do not think so.

Column by Meritxell Pons, director of Asset Management at Beta Capital Wealth Management, Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research.

Merger Investing: Recent Volatility and News Around Top Deals

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Merger Investing: Recent Volatility and News Around Top Deals
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainFoto: Pxhere CC0. Invertir en fusiones: la reciente volatilidad y las noticias alrededor de las principales operaciones

Volatility in global equity markets has continued to accelerate. Dueling trade tariffs between the U.S. and China have increased tensions between the two countries. Merger arbitrage spreads have widened in reaction to these factors, and deal specifics have changed in many of the top positions held in event funds. Widening spreads on a mark-to-market basis, not necessarily broken deals, have been the culprit recently. Below are examples of three large deals making major headlines recently.

NXP Semiconductors agreed to be acquired by Qualcomm:

NXP Semiconductors agreed to be acquired by Qualcomm under improved terms ($127.50 vs. $110 previously) and is currently awaiting the final regulatory approval from Chinese MOFCOM. As the recent tensions with China have elevated, shares of NXP traded lower resulting in a wider deal spread.

The deal has been impacted by recent tensions between US and China as the companies need Chinese antitrust approval, and that approval is being withheld in retaliation vs the United States for (1) trade tariffs imposed by the US, (2) the rejection that certain Chinese tech deals have received in the US, and (3) punitive US measures against Chinese companies like ZTE and Huawei. We do not think there is a material antitrust issue (takeover has already been approved by all other global regulators). Even though antitrust is not problematic, China can use it as a reason to block the deal and may do so unless there is some thawing of US-China relations. Our view is that it is in China’s best interest to clear this deal and wring out concessions to the benefit of its own tech industry. Benefits that it may not get if it blocked the deal outright. But with the market price of the stock suggesting that the deal will not close, it brings us to:

If there is No Deal – where does the stock trade?

Though it is hard to say, the stock trades at around $104/shr, below the level at which we thought it would trade without a deal. We do not think there is any takeover premium in that price, but just an absence of buyers as arbitrage funds cut risk and sell their positions. 

At $104, NXP trades at approximately 12x 2019 EPS and 9.5x EBITDA, both of which are discounts to its closest comps – such as TXN, ADI, MCHP. I also note that those multiples give no credit for the approximately $5 a share termination fee that NXP would receive if the deal breaks.

So where does that leave us today with NXP? Qualcomm and NXP have offered attractive concessions that would seem to be deemed favorable for Chinese technology companies and should motivate MOFCOM to approve the transaction at some point. NXP has strong growth prospects in automotive and Internet of Things (IoT) applications, and the downside on NXP shares is limited from here. Though, it has been a tough couple of weeks with this investment, it is still a core position in many funds, and our base case is that the merger completes but we certainly acknowledge that the risk of a break is up substantially higher from just a few weeks ago. Finally, we think that in the event of a blocked deal, once the arbitrage selling is complete, the downside from here is somewhat limited by fundamentals.

Time Warner agreed to be acquired by AT&T:

As a refresher, Time Warner agreed to be acquired by AT&T in October 2016 for $107.50 – half in cash and half in shares of AT&T common stock. Time Warner is a media company that owns premier assets including HBO, Turner Cable networks and the Warner Brothers movie studio. We see limited downside in TWX shares in the absence of a deal, and there was a well-worn path to deal approval using the blueprint of the similar vertical merger between Comcast and NBC Universal in 2011. It was surprising that the DOJ filed suit to block the acquisition in November 2017 given that the deal is a vertical merger. Historically, vertical transactions are seen as pro-competitive: no competitor is removed from the market; and, customers benefit from lower prices and more innovative products. The government claims that AT&T and Time Warner could threaten to withhold content from cable distributors to extract higher fees, but AT&T have already committed to behavioral remedies – including no-blackout, baseball-style arbitration – that would eliminate that threat.

The trial commenced on March 19 and we have been actively examining the court proceedings. Witness testimony is expected to complete this week, with closing arguments on Monday. The key takeaway from the trial is that the government’s economic models that suggest prices will increase for consumers have been at least partly discredited. Also, the government-hired economists lowered the potential harm from the deal going through. A key point in the trial came during testimony from telecom company Charter Communications when Judge Leon asked the witness whether AT&T’s proposed style of arbitration could be restructured in a way that was more agreeable for competitors. The witness from Charter acknowledged he DID believe a restructured arbitration agreement could resolve their concerns. This could provide Judge Leon with a path to approve the deal, subject to a new style of arbitration that would reduce AT&T’s incentives and ability to raise the cost of Time Warner content.

The timeline forward from here after closing arguments and final briefs, Judge Leon has indicated it is likely to take him about 5 weeks to write his decision. That means the decision would come before the June 21st outside date of the merger agreement, as requested by the parties.

From our perspective, the current valuation of Time Warner’s shares at $95 is attractive even in the absence of a deal. Time Warner has executed at a very high level since the acquisition by AT&T was announced, posting strong operating results in each quarter. This has lifted Time Warner’s “stand alone” value were the DOJ successful in blocking the merger in court. Tax reform has helped bolster our view that TWX shares are an attractive investment as TWX’s EPS is expected to increase 25% resulting from a lower effective tax rate and bonus depreciation. A recent regulatory filing from the Disney/Fox transaction showed that there were multiple active suitors bidding in the process – including Verizon, which had previously been mum on its content acquisition strategy. We think this highlights the attractiveness of high-value content assets and believe Time Warner’s premier entertainment assets and content could potentially attract a new suitor, both within the traditional media industry and outside of it. Time Warner remains a core holding around for many event managers. We see the downside equaling  $7.50 EPS 2018 @ 12x (2x P/E discount to DIS) would get ~$90 per share.

AKRX Inc. agreed to be acquired by Fresenius SE & Co.:

Akorn Inc. agreed to be acquired by Fresenius SE & Co. Akorn develops and manufactures specialty generic pharmaceuticals. Under terms of the agreement Akorn shareholders would receive $34.00 cash per share, valuing the transaction at approximately $4.9 billion.

On Monday 4/23/18, Fresenius has attempted to terminate its acquisition of Akorn on the basis that Akorn has failed to fulfill several closing conditions, including a material breach of FDA data integrity requirements. Akorn has responded by filing suit in Delaware Court seeking Specific Performance to enforce the merger agreement.

The complaint has been filed confidentially and will be soon be made publicly available. It should give us more insight into Akorn’s investigation into the alleged data breach as well as a better understanding of the timeline. Additionally, Akorn management has confirmed to us that they have been voluntarily updating the FDA on their internal investigation and currently the FDA is not pursuing its own investigation.

At this time we don’t know exactly what Fresenius has found, but it should be noted that based on the merger agreement, the failure of a reps and warranties condition is qualified by a material adverse change (MAC). This is an extremely high threshold, which has never been found by a Delaware judge.

Given the strong merger agreement and support of legal precedent, we will continue to assess as we learn more about Fresenius’s findings. While at this point we still believe that the most likely outcome is a price cut and settlement, we are cognizant of the potential for significant downside in the event that there are material issues with the pipeline.

The street projects an approximately $11 per share stand-alone value with current market dynamics, but this projection has little basis in reality. If the deal with Fresenius closes, we’d expect it to be under a re-negotiated price in the mid-to-upper $20 range. Conversely, if the deal falls apart, it would likely mean that there is a material negative impact from the FDA data integrity that could compromise AKRX’s future business.

These deals have created much volatility in the event space and have had an adverse effect on short term performance in funds in the space. Much is not definitive but will need to be monitored, though we are being better compensated for the risk; the reward now has many hidden variables driven by the political tensions that seem to be multiplying globally. Discipline, intense research and continued diligence will be imperative in factoring out the winners and losers, and more importantly how to size and trade around positions. Our conservative approach remains a key aspect of our approach in the space. More to come…

Column by Gabelli Funds, written by Michael Gabelli


To access our proprietary value investment methodology, and dedicated merger arbitrage portfolio we offer the following UCITS Funds in each discipline:

GAMCO MERGER ARBITRAGE

GAMCO Merger Arbitrage UCITS Fund, launched in October 2011, is an open-end fund incorporated in Luxembourg and compliant with UCITS regulation. The team, dedicated strategy, and record dates back to 1985. The objective of the GAMCO Merger Arbitrage Fund is to achieve long-term capital growth by investing primarily in announced equity merger and acquisition transactions while maintaining a diversified portfolio. The Fund utilizes a highly specialized investment approach designed principally to profit from the successful completion of proposed mergers, takeovers, tender offers, leveraged buyouts and other types of corporate reorganizations. Analyzes and continuously monitors each pending transaction for potential risk, including: regulatory, terms, financing, and shareholder approval.

Merger investments are a highly liquid, non-market correlated, proven and consistent alternative to traditional fixed income and equity securities. Merger returns are dependent on deal spreads. Deal spreads are a function of time, deal risk premium, and interest rates. Returns are thus correlated to interest rate changes over the medium term and not the broader equity market. The prospect of rising rates would imply higher returns on mergers as spreads widen to compensate arbitrageurs. As bond markets decline (interest rates rise), merger returns should improve as capital allocation decisions adjust to the changes in the costs of capital.

Broad Market volatility can lead to widening of spreads in merger positions, coupled with our well-researched merger portfolios, offer the potential for enhanced IRRs through dynamic position sizing. Daily price volatility fluctuations coupled with less proprietary capital (the Volcker rule) in the U.S. have contributed to improving merger spreads and thus, overall returns. Thus our fund is well positioned as a cash substitute or fixed income alternative.

Our objectives are to compound and preserve wealth over time, while remaining non-correlated to the broad global markets. We created our first dedicated merger fund 32 years ago. Since then, our merger performance has grown client assets at an annualized rate of  approximately 10.7% gross and 7.6% net since 1985. Today, we manage assets on behalf of institutional and high net worth clients globally in a variety of fund structures and mandates.

Class I USD – LU0687944552
Class I EUR – LU0687944396
Class A USD – LU0687943745
Class A EUR – LU0687943661
Class R USD – LU1453360825
Class R EUR – LU1453361476

GAMCO ALL CAP VALUE

The GAMCO All Cap Value UCITS Fund launched in May, 2015 utilizes Gabelli’s its proprietary PMV with a Catalyst™ investment methodology, which has been in place since 1977. The Fund seeks absolute returns through event driven value investing. Our methodology centers around fundamental, research-driven, value based investing with a focus on asset values, cash flows and identifiable catalysts to maximize returns independent of market direction. The fund draws on the experience of its global portfolio team and 35+ value research analysts.

GAMCO is an active, bottom-up, value investor, and seeks to achieve real capital appreciation (relative to inflation) over the long term regardless of market cycles. Our value-oriented stock selection process is based on the fundamental investment principles first articulated in 1934 by Graham and Dodd, the founders of modern security analysis, and further augmented by Mario Gabelli in 1977 with his introduction of the concepts of Private Market Value (PMV) with a Catalyst™ into equity analysis. PMV with a Catalyst™ is our unique research methodology that focuses on individual stock selection by identifying firms selling below intrinsic value with a reasonable probability of realizing their PMV’s which we define as the price a strategic or financial acquirer would be willing to pay for the entire enterprise.  The fundamental valuation factors utilized to evaluate securities prior to inclusion/exclusion into the portfolio, our research driven approach views fundamental analysis as a three pronged approach:  free cash flow (earnings before, interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, minus the capital expenditures necessary to grow/maintain the business); earnings per share trends; and private market value (PMV), which encompasses on and off balance sheet assets and liabilities. Our team arrives at a PMV valuation by a rigorous assessment of fundamentals from publicly available information and judgement gained from meeting management, covering all size companies globally and our comprehensive, accumulated knowledge of a variety of sectors. We then identify businesses for the portfolio possessing the proper margin of safety and research variables from our deep research universe.

Class I USD – LU1216601648
Class I EUR – LU1216601564
Class A USD – LU1216600913
Class A EUR – LU1216600673
Class R USD – LU1453359900
Class R EUR – LU1453360155

Disclaimer:
The information and any opinions have been obtained from or are based on sources believed to be reliable but accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No responsibility can be accepted for any consequential loss arising from the use of this information. The information is expressed at its date and is issued only to and directed only at those individuals who are permitted to receive such information in accordance with the applicable statutes. In some countries the distribution of this publication may be restricted. It is your responsibility to find out what those restrictions are and observe them.
 
Some of the statements in this presentation may contain or be based on forward looking statements, forecasts, estimates, projections, targets, or prognosis (“forward looking statements”), which reflect the manager’s current view of future events, economic developments and financial performance. Such forward looking statements are typically indicated by the use of words which express an estimate, expectation, belief, target or forecast. Such forward looking statements are based on an assessment of historical economic data, on the experience and current plans of the investment manager and/or certain advisors of the manager, and on the indicated sources. These forward looking statements contain no representation or warranty of whatever kind that such future events will occur or that they will occur as described herein, or that such results will be achieved by the fund or the investments of the fund, as the occurrence of these events and the results of the fund are subject to various risks and uncertainties. The actual portfolio, and thus results, of the fund may differ substantially from those assumed in the forward looking statements. The manager and its affiliates will not undertake to update or review the forward looking statements contained in this presentation, whether as result of new information or any future event or otherwise.
 

Don’t Buy the Hype Just Yet

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

¿Qué pasó en la anterior guerra comercial iniciada por Estados Unidos?
Photo: Trump annopuncing new tariffs. Don’t Buy the Hype Just Yet

Judging by market reactions, talks of trade wars appear to be as dangerous as trade wars themselves. With only some initial tariffs being introduced and talks of many more global markets have seen their fair share of volatility over the last few weeks. While the trade war has been a war of words to this point, we’ve been jogging investor’s memories of the historical relevance tariffs have carried.

The protectionist policy concept is not new and GFG Capital believes that recent market behavior is a good indicator that investors have not forgotten what the last full blown trade war initiated by the U.S. brought us. The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 sent the global economy tumbling as reciprocal tariffs enacted by U.S. trade partners did nothing to lift economies from depression, but did just about everything in their power to exacerbate the problems. By 1933 U.S. imports dropped off by 66% while exports decreased by 61%. On a global scale, world trade declined by 66% in 5 years before the Trade Agreement Act in 1934. Clearly not something most investors will forget too easily. And it seems they have not, but now D.C. needs to refresh their memory.

We think the market entered the year knowing trade was going to be a focal point of the administration’s agenda. While many might have bucketed this as ‘geopolitical risks’, we don’t think geopolitical risks typically carry true impact to the market. Think about situations likes the Cold War or even as recent as North Korean tensions. What was at stake didn’t carry direct economic implications. What has made these cross border discussions, and tensions, different is the direct impact these discussions and issues have on the global economy.

To this point, these are still just implications. There is no shortage of noise in the last few years, unsolicited nonetheless. But this is the first bit of market noise that has truly garnered consumer attention.

GFG Capital believes that the parties at risk here are some of the key beneficiaries and drivers of the global growth story that has been pushed across headlines so much. So not only do we think these potential victims of initial tariffs posed by the U.S. do everything they can to avoid a repeat of 1930, but they have the leverage necessary to give the U.S. pause.

Most notably targeted has been China. What’s come from Beijing in response to this point has been a calculated, measured response in our eyes. President Xi has the firepower necessary to inflict as much pain necessary to the United States. Although this is not believed to be the MO. China’s initial tariff was much more surgical in nature than expected. Targeting such specific industries that carry direct implications to Trump’s domestic voter base is nothing short of savage. China’s move to create their own TPP deal was a big power move that will carry long term benefits for them as well. So, we’re not surprised to see the U.S. and China trying to hash it out, but we’re certainly relieved. We think China is all in on the long game, and anything that jeopardizes that is not in their interest.

Understanding the web of the trade debate is not an easy task either. The global supply chain is a deeply tangled web in which not all companies report geographical inputs and revenues. Of the 48% of companies in the S&P that do reveal this information, 43% of sales were generated abroad in 20162. The companies that do reveal more granular data indicated that Asia (not just China) accounted for 8.5% of foreign sales with Europe tallying 8.1%3. Energy, tech and materials are the three most globally exposed sectors within the index. If one thinks they are going to untangle this mess to find the few clear winners, good luck.

The trade war hype is the first time GFG is foreseeing a chance for a paper risk to materialize into something real. But they are not running for cover just yet.

This is why some of the tech selloff is being overdone. If it were not for this global tariff scare in the backdrop, then sector rotation would be stepping in a bit quicker. This volatility is what investors should be expecting, but healthy bull markets are carried along by sector rotation. Without it, markets stagnate and health comes into question.

Column by GFG Capital, written by Eduardo Gruener.

Direct Lending: A New Alternative For Private Investors

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Direct lending: una nueva alternativa para los inversores privados
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainCourtesy photo. Direct Lending: A New Alternative For Private Investors

Traditional asset classes have delivered robust returns over the last few years with exceptionally low volatilities. The outlook is less bright, however. The recent market turmoil is an indication that the high return/low volatility regime has most likely come to an end. This does not mean that the equity bull market has ended. The fundamental picture remains robust with strong earnings momentum and relatively low recession risks in major economies. Equities may well move higher in the next 2 years, but it is going to be a bumpy ride. Fixed income investors might even feel worse off. Rising yields from very low levels are putting downward pressure on prices of longer duration bonds. Credit spreads are very tight and should start to widen in the final stage of the economic expansion, driven by higher rates, rising default rates and increasing leverage.

The lack of value in fixed income assets and the rising volatility in equities has created renewed interest in alternative investments, which have become a key component of well-diversified investment portfolios. Initially, the asset class was mostly the realm of sophisticated investors, but it has developed into products now available to much smaller portfolios.

Nevertheless, private banking clients remain underexposed to alternatives. Despite the rising transparency and regulations, hedge funds continue to suffer from image problems due to some bad practices in the past. Private equity funds offer the most attractive risk/reward profile, but the lack of liquidity can be an obstacle for private investors that have uncertainties surrounding the adequate time horizon and risk profile. This is the main differentiator between private investors and big institutional investors such as endowments and sovereign wealth funds, which have a very consistent investment strategy based on long-term objectives. The most prominent example is the asset allocation of the Yale Endowment with 50% in illiquid assets and around 80% in alternatives overall, including liquid alternatives. Pension funds have also increased their exposure to alternatives from 5% in 1995 to around 25% now.

However, there are new segments in the alternatives space that could help to overcome the (sentimental) hurdles that discourage private investors from investing. For example, investors have recently begun to expand into providing debt to businesses, an area traditionally dominated by banks. The disintermediation process is part of a broader global trend known as shadow banking or shadow lending, whereby non-bank actors seek to provide credit to companies. The growth of private debt funds has been dramatic with very attractive risk-adjusted returns for investors. The trend is driven by three factors: Firstly, the post-crisis financial regulatory reforms have led banks to reduce their lending activities, particularly to small and medium-sized businesses. Secondly, the demand for credit from businesses has not fallen to the same degree, leading to unmet demand. And thirdly, the demand from institutional investors for debt that yields more than government debt remains robust. Historically, the private debt market consisted of specialized funds that provided mezzanine debt, which sits between equity and secured/senior debt in the capital structure, or distressed debt, which is owed by companies near bankruptcy. Following the financial crisis, a third type of fund emerged. Known as direct lending funds, these funds extend credit directly to businesses or acquire debt issued by banks with the express purpose of selling it to investors.

Leading alternative investors have all expanded their product offerings to include private debt funds.  They are joined by many specialized new firms. The strong demand by institutional investors has enabled these funds to expand rapidly in size. Collectively, more than 500 private equity style debt funds have been raised since 2009. The private debt industry has grown its assets three-fold in the last ten years, hitting a record last year of $638 billion despite increased distributions to investors, with 25% of that coming from direct lending funds.

Direct lending funds are highly suitable for private investors. There is a wide range of strategies such as real estate bridge loans, equipment leasing, trade finance, consumer loans, just to name a few. The generally offer high single digit returns with strong collaterals, low volatility and very low correlation to traditional asset classes. There are specialized funds that offer monthly or quarterly liquidity. However, these are also more complex and sophisticated, so an adequate analysis and good advice are presented as essential to make the right decisions and not take unnecessary risks.

Column by Pascal Rohner CFA®, CIO Banco Crèdit Andorrà (Panamá). Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research.

 

Corporate Profit Growth, Aggressive Corporate Stock Buy Backs, and Deals Should Provide a Cushion for Any Selloffs

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Corporate Profit Growth, Aggressive Corporate Stock Buy Backs, and Deals Should Provide a Cushion for Any Selloffs
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainJayMantri. El crecimiento de los beneficios corporativos, las agresivas recompras de acciones y las fusiones y adquisiciones deberían ser un amortiguador para la renta variable

The U.S. equity market rallied sharply in January but ended slightly lower for March and the first quarter after an overdue high-volatility spike selloff during early February and a recovery rally into mid-March, followed by a month-end dip with the S&P 500 Index closing nearly 10% off its 2018 highs.

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s gradual liquidity reduction and rising policy rate, plus the prospect for the same from the ECB, have weighed on stock prices. However, the U.S. Treasury yield curve flattened as note and bond yields declined toward the end of March while stocks retreated. The main drivers for rising stock prices continue to be lower corporate taxes and higher profits.

Global merger and acquisition activity accelerated to a record $1.2 trillion in the first quarter of this year following the passage of U.S. tax reform and a boost from the catalyst of shareholder activists.  CEOs are initiating major transactions sparked by excess cash and the goal of growing the top and bottom line. Industry consolidation deals are heating up as scarce targets ignite bidding wars. Uncertainty over Trump trade policy and regulatory hurdles are deal headwinds.

Duelling trade tariffs between the U.S. and China have increased tensions between the two countries. Widening spreads on a mark-to-market basis, not broken deals, were the culprit driving performance in March.  Merger arbitrage spreads widened in reaction to these factors, allowing us to deploy additional capital opportunistically.  These opportunities would lead us to expect to earn potentially higher returns when deals in the portfolio close.

We believe the recent widening of spreads and the increase in deal risk premiums present an attractive opportunity to add to and initiate positions with the potential to earn greater returns. We continue to find attractive opportunities investing in announced mergers and expect future deal activity will provide further prospects to generate returns non-correlated to the market. 

Play Ball! On the long only side The Atlanta Braves were founded in 1871 and are the oldest continuously operating professional sports franchise in America.  The Liberty Braves Group (BATRA) moved to the new 41.5K seat SunTrust Park, Cobb County from Atlanta in February 2017. Liberty Media Corporation recapitalized the Atlanta Braves as a tracking stock in April 2016 along with Liberty SiriusXM and Liberty Formula One. Assets include the Atlanta Braves Major League Baseball club and stadium and the Battery real estate project. The Battery Atlanta is a 46 acre mixed-use development with residential and commercial property that feeds off the stadium (16 acres) on 82 acres with initial completion in 2018 and 20 acres for further development. Sports franchise valuations continue to mature, the opportunity to be an owner is an expensive endeavor,  The Liberty Braves Group gives you an opportunity to part of the inner circle and own a piece of a MLB team at an attractive value.

Rising uncertainties may keep the stock market on edge but corporate profit growth, aggressive corporate stock buy backs, and deals should provide a cushion for any selloffs.

Column by Gabelli Funds, written by Michael Gabelli


To access our proprietary value investment methodology, and dedicated merger arbitrage portfolio we offer the following UCITS Funds in each discipline:

GAMCO MERGER ARBITRAGE

GAMCO Merger Arbitrage UCITS Fund, launched in October 2011, is an open-end fund incorporated in Luxembourg and compliant with UCITS regulation. The team, dedicated strategy, and record dates back to 1985. The objective of the GAMCO Merger Arbitrage Fund is to achieve long-term capital growth by investing primarily in announced equity merger and acquisition transactions while maintaining a diversified portfolio. The Fund utilizes a highly specialized investment approach designed principally to profit from the successful completion of proposed mergers, takeovers, tender offers, leveraged buyouts and other types of corporate reorganizations. Analyzes and continuously monitors each pending transaction for potential risk, including: regulatory, terms, financing, and shareholder approval.

Merger investments are a highly liquid, non-market correlated, proven and consistent alternative to traditional fixed income and equity securities. Merger returns are dependent on deal spreads. Deal spreads are a function of time, deal risk premium, and interest rates. Returns are thus correlated to interest rate changes over the medium term and not the broader equity market. The prospect of rising rates would imply higher returns on mergers as spreads widen to compensate arbitrageurs. As bond markets decline (interest rates rise), merger returns should improve as capital allocation decisions adjust to the changes in the costs of capital.

Broad Market volatility can lead to widening of spreads in merger positions, coupled with our well-researched merger portfolios, offer the potential for enhanced IRRs through dynamic position sizing. Daily price volatility fluctuations coupled with less proprietary capital (the Volcker rule) in the U.S. have contributed to improving merger spreads and thus, overall returns. Thus our fund is well positioned as a cash substitute or fixed income alternative.

Our objectives are to compound and preserve wealth over time, while remaining non-correlated to the broad global markets. We created our first dedicated merger fund 32 years ago. Since then, our merger performance has grown client assets at an annualized rate of  approximately 10.7% gross and 7.6% net since 1985. Today, we manage assets on behalf of institutional and high net worth clients globally in a variety of fund structures and mandates.

Class I USD – LU0687944552
Class I EUR – LU0687944396
Class A USD – LU0687943745
Class A EUR – LU0687943661
Class R USD – LU1453360825
Class R EUR – LU1453361476

GAMCO ALL CAP VALUE

The GAMCO All Cap Value UCITS Fund launched in May, 2015 utilizes Gabelli’s its proprietary PMV with a Catalyst™ investment methodology, which has been in place since 1977. The Fund seeks absolute returns through event driven value investing. Our methodology centers around fundamental, research-driven, value based investing with a focus on asset values, cash flows and identifiable catalysts to maximize returns independent of market direction. The fund draws on the experience of its global portfolio team and 35+ value research analysts.

GAMCO is an active, bottom-up, value investor, and seeks to achieve real capital appreciation (relative to inflation) over the long term regardless of market cycles. Our value-oriented stock selection process is based on the fundamental investment principles first articulated in 1934 by Graham and Dodd, the founders of modern security analysis, and further augmented by Mario Gabelli in 1977 with his introduction of the concepts of Private Market Value (PMV) with a Catalyst™ into equity analysis. PMV with a Catalyst™ is our unique research methodology that focuses on individual stock selection by identifying firms selling below intrinsic value with a reasonable probability of realizing their PMV’s which we define as the price a strategic or financial acquirer would be willing to pay for the entire enterprise.  The fundamental valuation factors utilized to evaluate securities prior to inclusion/exclusion into the portfolio, our research driven approach views fundamental analysis as a three pronged approach:  free cash flow (earnings before, interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, minus the capital expenditures necessary to grow/maintain the business); earnings per share trends; and private market value (PMV), which encompasses on and off balance sheet assets and liabilities. Our team arrives at a PMV valuation by a rigorous assessment of fundamentals from publicly available information and judgement gained from meeting management, covering all size companies globally and our comprehensive, accumulated knowledge of a variety of sectors. We then identify businesses for the portfolio possessing the proper margin of safety and research variables from our deep research universe.

Class I USD – LU1216601648
Class I EUR – LU1216601564
Class A USD – LU1216600913
Class A EUR – LU1216600673
Class R USD – LU1453359900
Class R EUR – LU1453360155

The Factor Box: A New Lens

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

La caja de factores, un nuevo lente para mirar el mercado
Photo: PXhere CC0. The Factor Box: A New Lens

Join us on May 1st at BlackRock’s Factors virtual conference to learn more about the new lens for investing. Register here!

Movies moved from black and white to color, showing the richness of the world in its true form. Shouldn’t the way we build portfolios and evaluate managers also evolve?

Casablanca. It’s a Wonderful Life. Citizen Kane. Rebecca. Roman Holiday.

I understand that these classics are beloved by many. But I have a different take. They’re in black and white and I prefer color. The world is in color, and I like my movies to reflect the full spectrum of color I see outside the movie theater.

Investments, like movies, also evolve with data and technology. Just as color and other technological developments revolutionized the movie experience, I believe the lens offered by the Factor Box can dramatically change how we construct and manage a portfolio of investments by offering a more complete picture of the underlying factors that affect a portfolio’s investment performance.

Lights! Setting the scene

In 1992, Morningstar introduced the style box, a simple and intuitive method for constructing a portfolio. The equity style box was a 3×3 grid dividing funds into nine boxes, using value and size factors — broad persistent drivers of returns—in today’s language of investing. The ease of choosing funds across styles in various boxes helped millions of investors to construct diversified equity portfolios, and provided an objective way to compare managers to their peers with similar investment styles.

The style box, circa 1992

Camera! Glaring style box limitations

While the style box has served investors well for almost 30 years, our knowledge about investments has significantly increased. We know that more factors than just size and value have been historically associated with long-run excess returns. A large body of academic work has shown that quality, momentum and minimum volatility also have empirically enhanced returns or reduced risk relative to market-capitalization index benchmarks.

The way we view investments should reflect the advances made in data and technology. With a new lens, we can make more informed investment decisions and more efficiently benchmark active managers.

Ready for a close-up: Introducing the Factor Box

The Factor Box transforms the style box concept, incorporating a more complete view of the dominant drivers of returns within equity markets. The Factor Box pushes from two factors to a full color array of factors. In my last article, I discussed how value, quality, momentum, size and low volatility have historically beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis and have strong economic intuition. The Factor Box also adds yield — a measurement of high and persistent dividend yields — because income considerations are important for many investors, especially for those in retirement.

The Factor Box shows exposures across six factors

The Factor Box displays the relative factor exposure of a stock or a group of stocks versus a comparative universe, such as the broad market. Factor exposures may change over time. For illustrative purposes only. The Factor Box should not be interpreted as a recommendation of any security or investment strategy.

Action! Using the Factor Box

We can use the Factor Box in a similar way to the style box, but with more depth and richness. We can:

  • Assess portfolio diversification. Do we have all, not just two, factors? If a portfolio lacks exposure to quality, for example, and has too much momentum, we can take appropriate action.
  • Evaluate fund exposures. Perhaps the factor exposures in a traditional actively managed fund can be obtained in a more efficient way with lower-cost, fully transparent, smart beta ETFs. The Factor Box can help find the most appropriate smart beta factor exposure.
  • Conduct due diligence. The Factor Box can analyze factor exposures for each security. This provides a transparent view of a fund’s actual exposures based on underlying holdings, not just the exposures the managers claim to be targeting. This can help when choosing between funds to fill an allocation.
  • Tilt dynamically. The snapshot provided by the Factor Box could help investors position factor exposures through the business cycle. Tactical investors who believe the economy is signaling for value to outperform, for example, could use the exposure insights of the Factor Box to reallocate within their existing holdings to implement a short-term tilt.

And … Cut!

We believe factors have the potential to revolutionize the investment landscape. Join us on May 1st at BlackRock’s Factors virtual conference to learn more about the new lens for investing. Register here!

Column by BlackRock, written by Andrew Ang


Carefully consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risk factors, and charges and expenses before investing. This and other information can be found in the Funds’ prospectuses or, if available, the summary prospectuses, which may be obtained by visiting the iShares Fund and BlackRock Fund prospectus pages. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

In Latin America and Iberia: this material is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice nor an offer or solicitation to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any shares of any Fund (nor shall any such shares be offered or sold to any person) in any jurisdiction in which an offer, solicitation, purchase or sale would be unlawful under the securities law of that jurisdiction. If any funds are mentioned or inferred to in this material, it is possible that some or all of the funds have not been registered with the securities regulator of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay or any other securities regulator in any Latin American country and thus might not be publicly offered within any such country. The securities regulators of such countries have not confirmed the accuracy of any information contained herein.

There can be no assurance that performance will be enhanced or risk will be reduced for funds that seek to provide exposure to certain quantitative investment characteristics (“factors”). Exposure to such investment factors may detract from performance in some market environments, perhaps for extended periods. In such circumstances, a fund may seek to maintain exposure to the targeted investment factors and not adjust to target different factors, which could result in losses.

The strategies discussed are strictly for illustrative and educational purposes and should not be construed as a recommendation to purchase or sell, or an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. There is no guarantee that any strategies discussed will be effective.

The examples presented do not take into consideration commissions, tax implications, or other transactions costs, which may significantly affect the economic consequences of a given strategy or investment decision.

This material represents an assessment of the market environment at a specific time and is not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results. This information should not be relied upon by the reader as research or investment advice regarding the funds or any security in particular.

This document contains general information only and does not take into account an individual’s financial circumstances. This information should not be relied upon as a primary basis for an investment decision. Rather, an assessment should be made as to whether the information is appropriate in individual circumstances and consideration should be given to talking to a financial advisor before making an investment decision.

The Funds are distributed by BlackRock Investments, LLC (together with its affiliates, “BlackRock”).

©2018 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK, BLACKROCK SOLUTIONS, BUILD ON BLACKROCK, ALADDIN, iSHARES, iBONDS, FACTORSELECT, iTHINKING, iSHARES CONNECT, FUND FRENZY, LIFEPATH, SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY, INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD, BUILT FOR THESE TIMES, the iShares Core Graphic, CoRI and the CoRI logo are registered and unregistered trademarks of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

406576

 

On Trump and Tariffs

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Trump y los aranceles
Courtesy photo. On Trump and Tariffs

In late February, President Trump promoted trade policy adviser Peter Navarro to assistant to the President. As a trade policy adviser, Mr. Navarro reported directly to White House Economic Adviser Gary Cohn. It is well known that Mr. Navarro (a Harvard-trained economist who wrote a book titled Death by China) has very protectionist ideals in regards to trade, while Mr. Cohn (the former President of Goldman Sachs) is a proponent of free trade. Effectively, Mr. Cohn served as a buffer between Mr. Navarro and President Trump. However, once Mr. Navarro was placed in a position where he could advise the President directly, we felt that some more extreme trade policies were on the horizon.  

In less than a month, Mr. Navarro’s influence on President Trump was plain for all to see. Furthermore, Mr. Cohn resigned from his position following his futile attempt to convince President Trump not to go through with the tariffs. The equity markets suffered an immediate pullback on the announcement of Mr. Cohn’s resignation due to fears that the US would become even more protectionist without the influence of his globalist views. Fortunately for the market, Mr. Cohn’s replacement is CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow. Before embarking on a television career, Mr. Kudlow had been the chief economist at Bear Stearns and is known for having a very globalist view on trade. We believe the market will draw comfort from the appointment of Mr. Kudlow as Economic Adviser rather than Mr. Navarro. 

This has happened before

In 2002, the administration of George W. Bush placed tariffs on steel products ranging from 15 to 30% in an effort to save the US steel industry. Back then, several steel producers had declared bankruptcy amidst a surge in steel imports. The government decided it needed to protect the companies of the steel industry for a period of three years to give time to restructure and emerge as more competitive players. Just like now, Canada and Mexico (thanks to NAFTA) were excluded from the tariffs of 2002.

Almost immediately, the European Union imposed tariffs and filed a case with the WTO. Several other countries filed similar cases and the WTO eventually ruled against the US. Following the international backlash and disappointing results for the economy, President Bush rescinded the tariffs only 18 months after their implementation.

“I don’t think it was smart policy to do it…The results were not what we anticipated in terms of its impact on the economy or jobs.”
Andrew Card Jr., White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush

Back in 2002, one of the actions considered by the EU was to place tariffs on oranges from Florida. For those not familiar with US regional politics, Florida is considered to be a swing state and President Bush won the state (and the overall election) by the narrowest of margins in 2000. The EU does not blindly select products on which to place tariffs; it wisely chooses products produced in politically sensitive states. 

This time around, the EU is targeting Harley Davidson, which has manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states that were important to Trump’s victory. Furthermore, Wisconsin is the home state of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Another product being targeted is Kentucky Bourbon which is made in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  
The immediate economic impact seems mild but might only be the tip of the iceberg.

To be fair, steel and aluminum represent less than 2% of the country’s imports. Considering solely these two products, the overall impact to global trade should be modest. Unfortunately, these tariffs are not occurring in a vacuum and they might only be the tip of the iceberg as we await the outcome of the pending Section 301 investigation.

The investigation is focused on determining whether China’s actions relating to intellectual property and the forced transfer of technology discriminate against the US. The White House has signaled that there could be an announcement in regards to the investigation within a few weeks. Media reports are already speculating that the White House is considering imposing several new tariffs on $60 billion of Chinese products due to disagreements on intellectual property rights. 

In fact, indirect actions against China may have already started. President Trump recently ordered Broadcom to “immediately and permanently abandon” the acquisition of Qualcomm for reasons of national security. The government did not disclose the details of why it is in the interest of national security for Qualcomm to stay independent, but Wall Street analysts are speculating that there was a fear that Broadcom would cut the R&D budget at Qualcomm, allowing Chinese telecommunication equipment company Huawei take the lead in the development of 5G wireless technology.  

Column by Charles Castillo, Senior Portfolio Manager at Beta Capital Wealth Management. Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research.

What if a Tourist Attraction Could Also be a Great Investment?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

¿Y si una atracción turística a parte de ofrecer ocio y diversión fuera una extraordinaria inversión?
Wikimedia CommonsPhoto: Straco corporation. What if a Tourist Attraction Could Also be a Great Investment?

One of the most frequent questions we are asked as Fund managers is from where we get our investment ideas.  While most of us will use a screening tool to filter down companies from the investable universe (up to 17,000 stocks across the globe from which to choose!) we also use other sources: direct observation, forums, webinars, and other fund manager’s portfolios, to name a few.  My latest investment idea came to me after remembering a recent exchange I had with a close group of friends.

For a number of years now, my friends and I make an effort and force ourselves to meet up for dinner every Thursday.  No matter the occasion, we use it as an excuse to stay in touch with one and other at least once every week.  A couple of months ago, it was one of the couple’s turn to host and; as always, we found ourselves hearing about their latest holiday to yet another exotic location.  They travel quite extensively and are never short of a story having visited Angel’s Fall in Venezuela, Indonesia and its Komodo Dragons, Bora Bora’s remote beaches in French Polynesia and the Gobi desert with a short stay in St Petersburg beforehand.  Their stories are generally told through videos.  This is not always by everyone’s choice but we can hardly say no to them once they begin playing them!  On this occasion, they were telling us about Singapore, the Marina Bay Sands Skypark, its botanical gardens and the city’s iconic Ferris wheel, the Singapore Flyer. I then began wondering who owned and managed such a unique tourist attraction and much like the iconic London Eye, Mickey’s Fun Wheel in the U.S., the Riesenrad in Vienna and the Zhengzhou Ferris wheel in China… were the companies behind them good investment opportunities?  A week later and after some additional research in the industry, I landed upon Straco Corporation.

Investment Idea- STRACO CORPORATION (STCO)

Straco Corp. is a leading leisure listed company that develops and manages tourism-related assets mainly in Singapore and China.  Their businesses include: the Singapore Flyer (SF), Shanghai Ocean Aquarium (SOA), Underwater World Xiamen (UWX), The Lixing Cable Service (LLC) in China, among others.  Straco was founded in 2002 and was listed in the Singapore stock exchange from February 2004.  The company’s market capitalization is EUR 453m, a share price of around SGD 0.86 and a total turnover close to SGD 130m (EUR 80m).  

What sets Straco Corporation apart and why does this company fall into Global Quality Edge Fund’s investment philosophy?

Straight-forward and easy-to-understand business – Almost all its revenue comes from ticket sales to their tourist attractions, while their costs are mainly those associated to upkeep and maintenance of their assets and their employee’s salary (35% of total costs)

Operating Leverage – Managing tourist-related assets will involve up to 80% of fixed costs of total costs, which translates into a high operating leverage and in turn, high margins and profitability.

Pricing power – Straco is able to increase prices to their tourist’s attractions by 10 to 15% every 2 to 3 years without having an impact on final demand. From Chart 1, we can how the operating gross margin has grown over the past few years (93% correlation), proving the company’s pricing power advantage.

Barriers to entry – The strategic geographic sites in Singapore and China plus the difficulty in obtaining licensing permissions to build and run tourist attractions at a very high cost are all good indicators of high entry barriers for would-be competitors.

Assets shielded from competition – Straco has built a lot of goodwill and strong relationships with the local authorities and governments in China and Singapore that have helped and advised the leisure company locate the ideal sites for its tourist attractions.  Straco’s business is highly regulated and any new ventures would be hard to deliver without these.  

Strong experience and knowledge in the business – Mr. Wu Hsioh Kwang is the current CEO of Straco since March 2003 and has worked in the business in China since 1980, allowing him to leverage all his experience, knowledge and relationships to successfully run the day to day business.

Mr. Wu is also is chairman of the culture, education and community affairs committee at the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and vice-chairman of tourism and leisure for the Chinese business group at the Singapore Business Federation.  As a philanthropist, he donated $2m to University of California, Berkeley to aide overseas Chinese students.

Interest alignment between company management and stockholders – About 55% of Straco stock is owned between Mr. Wu and his wife, proving a clear interest alignment between investors and senior management.  This investment is structured through Straco Holding PTE.

Efficient capital management – Due to the nature of the business, Straco has been generating enough cash flow allowing the company to steadily increase dividends across the years, as well as repurchase shares whenever senior management perceives its stock is being undervalued.

Strong solvency – Total gross debt is only SGD 103m, including all off-balance sheet operating leases which add up to about SGD 50m.  If we take the company’s SGD 185m in cash, Straco’s net cash flow totals SGD 86m. It was only in the first few years that the company had debt on its balance sheet to finance the initial constructions of its tourist attractions.

Strong organic growth and potential for inorganic growth – During the last 5 to 10 years, total sales have grown at an annual compound rate above 20% with only 1 inorganic growth element after the company acquired the Singapore Flyer in deal worth up to SGD 117m for a 90% stake in 2014, using cash and debt.  Straco’s strong cash position would allow it to purchase other tourist assets to take on debt up to 2x EBITDA (SGD 160m) without compromising its balance sheet.  Mr. Wu (CEO) recently said in their 2016 annual report that “We [Straco] remain on the lookout for good projects to build or acquire, and continue to assess potential tourism investments, but until we come across the rare opportunity that is a true step forward in terms of quality, scale and potential returns, we will remain prudent in matters of cash management”

Reinvesting profits and high ROIC – Pay-out dividend rate is below 50%, allowing the company to have a strong cash position to invest in new assets or repurchase shares.  Straco is therefore not capital intensive with a low CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) and null strain on cash.  The company is able to maintain high-levels of return on invested capital (ROIC) at a sustained rate above 30%.

Management compensation – Approximately 45% of the CEO’s salary is made up of variable compensation in the shape of bonus and stock options, tied to long term business performance.

Neutral or negative cash-cycle – Straco does not need to finance its cash flow needs, as most of its ticket sales are paid in cash and suppliers are paid off within 85 days.

Low analyst coverage – The leisure company is covered only by 4 local broker analysts which is the best way to obtain information about the company is by speaking directly to its management.

Low percentage of institutional investors – We like the fact that institutional investors only represent less than 10% ownership in the company, currently hovering around 6%.  This directly translates Straco into a not-so-well-known company and increases the chances of it trading at a discount due to the limited information that can be found on the company.

Strong and sustainable competitive advantages – Straco’s competitive advantage exists in the form of a unique and regulated (intangible) asset and the strategic sites where they were built. As mentioned previously, the company faces very few if not no challenging competitors, as a result of the company’s exclusive and iconic assets that are difficult to replicate. The initial investment for a new tourist attraction would be incredibly high and pre-approval from local authorities and the government would be needed in order to operate a new project under the appropriate licenses.

The sites where the tourist attractions are located are also exclusive, offering unparalleled views of Singapore and Chinese cities in central locations making them the perfect place for first-time sightseers to visit.  This naturally protects and guarantees the company’s on-going ticket sales.

If a new site were to open, like Disneyland Shanghai did in June 2016, we do see this being a matter of concern and direct competition for Straco’s Shanghai Ocean Aquarium, as it would present itself as an opportunity to bring even more tourists to the city.

Share repurchasing announcement – On 28th April 2017, Straco announced a new share repurchase programme, authorizing a share buyback worth up to a maximum of 86.03m shares, equivalent to 10% of all shares outstanding.  Until 14th December 2017, the company had had only repurchased 0.1% of the total amount, leading us to believe that share repurchasing is a strong support for the company’s equity listing.

How do we value Straco Corporation?

The main business drivers of this leisure company can be narrowed down to 2: 1) Strong tourist traffic and 2) High consumer spending.  Stats from the China National Tourist office reveal that local tourism has been growing at 10% in the last five years accounting for almost 70% of 

China’s total tourism.  This industry makes up for 10% of China’s GDP while consumer spending is 65%, when measured for the first nine months of 2017.

A study called “Discover China’s Emerging Middle class” claims the sprawling urban middle class in China is set to reach 365m people by 2020 which widely supports the local positive trend seen in domestic tourism.  The China National Tourist office also sees a rise from international visitors that would reach 137.1million travelers by 2020 if current growth rates remain high.  In Singapore, the Singapore Tourism Board foresees a 1-3% growth in tourists coming from abroad to not only visit the island city-state but also from tourism drawn in by Indonesia and China that continue to register double digit rise in the number of visits.

Straco’s annual report breaks down the number of tourists they register each year at all their attractions:

In Chart 2, we can see how stable the business is and how almost every year it’s been able to increase the number of visitors to their sites.  Even during the last financial crisis, Straco maintained a net influx of tourists and its compound annual growth rate for the last 10 years has been above 10%.

In terms of reporting, Straco divides up its business in 3 segments: 1) Aquariums, 2) Giant Observation Wheels 3) others.  The aquariums represent approximately 70% of Total Sales and 82% of their Operating Income, while the Observation Wheels account for 29% and 16%, respectively.

Shanghai Ocean Aquarium and Underwater World Xiamen are among the Aquarium assets of the company.   Even though food and drink are sold at the parks, these do not make up as much of the Total Sales compared to the entry ticket sales.  This average at CNY 160 (EUR 20) for the Shanghai aquarium, CNY 130 (EUR 17) for Xiamen and CNY 200 (EUR 25) for the Singapore Flyer. 

To breakdown Straco total turnover worth SGD 130m, we assume an average ticket price of CNY 170 which will incorporate already a 25% discount rate (for either children, pensioners, disabled visitors, etc.) and multiply the average price by the number of visitors that were recorded until September last year: 5.05 visits.   The slight drop in 2016 which is then maintained and carried over to 2017 was owed to the lower number of tourists at Underwater World Xiamen (UWX) due to newly imposed tourism restrictions by local authorities.  We do not see this as a threat to the aquarium’s business as the company recently announced it was planning to off-set the drop in numbers by extending the hours in which the park remained open.

By now, you may know that Global Quality Edge Fund does not rely on consensus estimates as part of the investment decision process.  What we do is calculate a normalized operating margin with sufficient enough history that encompasses a full economic cycle.  In Straco’s case, we arrived at a 45% normalized operating margin, under our conservative view, which contrasts from the 52.2% actual reported by the company.   If we apply a 30% fiscal rate, our NOPAT (Net Operating Profit After Tax would result in SGD 40m over the last twelve month sales of SGD 127m.  We then move on to the Free Cash Flow and remind ourselves that the cash position of the company is neutral or negative, investments represent around 2.5% of Total Sales and the company allocates around 1.5% of Total Sales to stock option payments. From our view point, it’s an expense and therefore we subtract it.  This leaves us with a final normalized Free Cash Flow of SGD 52m, meaning the cash conversion rate is greater than 100%. Remarkable!

If we continue with our assumptions and calculate Straco’s Total Net Cash at SGD 86m, the total number of shares outstanding is SGD 865m (4m convertible shares due to stock options) and applying a last twelve month price to earnings multiple (PE) of 15x, our intrinsic value for Straco’s share price is SGD 0.96/share, 12% higher than its current price.  It is important to note that this intrinsic value of SGD 0.96 does not assume any future growth, nor does it take into account price increases or a premium on top of its multiple due to the high quality business they run.   If we were to adjust our calculation and incorporate our previous observations on growth, pricing power and premium, our theoretical value would be of SGD 126, with a safety margin of almost 50% of today’s current price of SGD 0.86.  Our floor value in the event of an economic recession (unlikely under the current conditions in the far east but still possible) is of SGD 0.65, in other words, a 25% drop from current levels, at which point we would increase our stake and allocation in our fund. 

Which are Straco’s main risks?

A more relaxed stance in their pricing power in future years, exposure to terror attacks, competing companies building more tourist attractions in surrounding areas, unexpected maintenance costs that could lead to disruptions in service or technical faults that could put guests at risk.

Are there any red flags?

We have not found any relevant accounting red flag.  We only have to bear in mind that tourist attractions have a strong seasonal component to them, especially around the 3rd quarter of the year where more than half of Total Sales are booked.

How was the company’s last quarterly result 3Q17?

Mr Wu told investors in his last earnings call for the 3rd quarter of 2017, “We are satisfied with the overall performance for the year-to-date as our attractions, other than UWX, registered positive growth. UWX’s performance had been impacted by falling visitor numbers, which dropped more than 30% in 3Q due to the further restriction on visitor 2 numbers to Gulangyu by the local authorities, as well as tight traffic control in Xiamen city in view of the 2017 BRICS Summit held in September”.

In conclusion, we see Straco Corporation as an extraordinary company with clear and sustainable competitive advantages, a unique set of assets, sound capital management, experienced Senior management, committed to their investors and trading at a discount 15x below profits or 8x EBITDA.

Column by Quim Abril, founder and portfolio manager of Global Quality Edge Fund

 

PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S NOTE: I wrote this report by myself and expressed only my opinion. This report is not a recommendation to buy or sell. Directly or indirectly, the portfolio manager has a position in the assets mentioned here.

 

Global Debt

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

La deuda global
Courtesy photo. Global Debt

On 9 February, President Trump signed a two-year budget deal that funds the US federal government up to 23 March and suspends the debt ceiling for one year. The agreement averts another government shutdown, which has now happened nine times since 1990. The solution has been a boost to spending that adds to the growing deficit in order to finance operations and governmental agencies.

The above is just an example of how debt is increasing. In January 2018, the Institute of International Finance (IIF) calculated that in the third quarter of 2017, the debt of households, businesses, banks and governments all over the world soared to a record total of €193.3 trillion. With this figure, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 318%. Broken down by economies, 74% of the debt corresponds to developed countries and the remaining 26% belongs to emerging economies. And in terms of sectors, the distribution is as follows: Households 18.70%; non-financial corporates 29.53%; financial sector 24.82%; and governments 26.95%.

There is a growing trend over the last few years, and the expansive monetary policies of the main central banks (that have brought interest rates down to zero or lower) has a lot to do with it. It has allowed for cheap financing, which has been exploited mainly by businesses, and investors, in the context of excess liquidity and a low default rate, have taken on these new issues, which have generally been very oversubscribed.

As for the public deficit, how can it be reduced? Let us examine some of the main options:

  1. Increase revenue through increased taxes and reduced spending. For example, by eliminating benefits. Governments do not like the sound of this option due to the political cost involved. Some countries may have room to manoeuvre when it comes to implementing expansive fiscal policies, as is the case in the US, but these policies mean added pressure on the debt and the sustainability of public finances.
  2. Reduce interest rates which reduce financial cost. Up until now, this has been the case, but it could come to an end, because it seems that several of the main central banks are currently moving in synch towards toughening monetary policies. An increase in interest rates could hinder the solvency of those more indebted governments. For example, in China, where there a high level of debt with regards to the real estate sector and shadow banking and there is a risk that it will end up affecting sovereign solvency. Or Japan, with a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 223.8% (estimated total debt is 400%). With 10-year rates below 0.10% and savers who are continuously repurchasing the maturities, Japan so far does not seem to be causing too much concern.
  3. Generate inflation. Central banks’ prime objective. Even if it remains low, the chance of surprise increased inflation is higher than in previous years, particularly within the context of more dynamic economic expansion that influences an acceleration in salary growth.
  4. Economic growth is the most desirable scenario. Without a doubt, this is the healthiest option, which allows for an increase in tax revenue and, therefore, a reduction in debt and an increase in financial sustainability. In this regard, the positive outlook of international institutions like the IMF and the OECD, or the early data from business confidence indicators, which are often at all-time highs, allows us to believe that economic growth will contribute to this necessary debt reduction.
  5. But if everything fails, in the event that we are unable to meet obligations, we are faced with the dreaded default, but we hope that debt is used prudently and that it does not reach this extreme.

It has taken us almost a decade to get over the last financial crisis caused by excessive leveraging. The combined action of the main central banks has played a fundamental role in restoring normality to economic activity. However, if history repeats itself, will they have enough margin to apply the same policies? Investors must be very aware of the indebtedness variable when selecting investments and demanding adequate return on each risk they assume.

At the time of writing, global public debt according to https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/ is at $69,623,405,723,931. I suggest you visit the website and check the current figure.
 
Column by Josep Maria Pon of Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research.