Hubris
- The Great Enemy of the Experienced Investor
And
Unilever PLC
Cover of Ray Perman's book Hubris,
published in 2012
Excessively self-confident bank managers
wrecked half of the UK's banking sector in the financial crisis and left the
remainder nursing huge losses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day
declared he had ended the business cycle. An unusually long period of economic
growth and low inflation lured rational, experienced people into being blind
about their own limitations. Though the vastly expensive consequences of their
hubris are there to see, few of those responsible recognise their
responsibility.
Anthony Bolton was one of Britain's most
successful investors. For 28 years he managed Fidelity Special Situations
(FSS), which achieved an annual return of 6 percentage points more than the
FTSE All Share Index. An investor who bought 1,000 pounds of FSS
units in 1970 would have seen their value increase to 147,000 pounds by 2007. In December 2007, at the peak of the bull
market, Mr. Bolton retired as manager of the fund.
In April 2010 Mr. Bolton moved to Hong Kong and launched the Fidelity
Chinese Special Situations Investment Trust (FCSS). This was sold to UK investors, who put up
an astonishing 580 million pounds. They were lured by Mr. Bolton's reputation
and prodded on by financial intermediaries who were promised trail commissions
(not practiced by other investment trusts) by FCSS. With nearly 9
million pounds in annual fees, FCSS is a nice little earner for
Fidelity.
FCSS has
underperformed the MSCI China Index by 10%, but, from a UK investor's
viewpoint, what is far worse is its poor absolute performance (minus 13%) in a
period when the FTSE 100 has increased by 21%, including dividends. FCSS
offers a dividend yield of 0.9% compared to the FTSE's 3.5%. (Graph courtesy of
Yahoo, FCSS in blue, FTSE 100 excluding dividends in green, click
to enlarge).
In an interview with the Financial Times (14 December 2012), Mr. Bolton said, “I was quite unusual in
transferring from one region to another. It’s not something we normally do.”
But Mr. Bolton did make the transfer. He was suffering from hubris.
Consider the following:
1. As the Lead Investment Manager of the new Chinese
investment trust, Mr. Bolton had never lived in China, nor did he read, speak
or understand Mandarin. He had no experience of investing in Chinese companies
or of Chinese business practices.
2 The Prospectus stated, "Although there is no proven
relationship between GDP growth and investment performance, the Directors, as
advised by the Investment Manager, believe that the growth in China could be
rewarding for investors." In fact
the MSCI China Index is down by 3% over the last 3 years, while the
Chinese economy, in dollars, has grown by 64%.
3. FSCC borrowed up to the maximum permitted 25% of assets,
thereby amplifying the poor results from the portfolio.
4. FSCC lost money on companies run by fraudulent directors. This
lack of due diligence was the result of inexperience when dealing with Chinese
businessmen.
5. FSCC charged higher commissions than other, similar
investment trusts. J P Morgan Chinese Investment Trust charges a flat 1%,
and has performed better than FCSS. FCSS started by charging 1.5%
(reduced to 1.2% this April) plus a further 15% of any performance that was at
least 2% better than the index, up to a total of 1.5% of the fund. Potentially
triple the industry standard.
6. In the December 2012 FT interview, the reporter wrote, Bolton
seems to have few regrets about returning to front-line fund management, or
moving to Hong Kong. “It’s very vibrant. In fact, it’s all been good apart from
the stock market.”
A long, successful career as a UK investor blinded Mr Bolton to his
own limitations.
Experienced investors will recognise the symptoms of hubris. They would be wise to:
1. Think twice before branching into something new. And
always ask the opinion of a peer.
2. Stick to a proven methodology. This is not infallible, but
it will help to save the investor from losing money.
3. Be humble. There are a lot of things we do not know.
4. Learn from Sherlock Holmes - see the post on this blog at http://thejoyfulinvestor.blogspot.co.uk/2013_03_31_archive.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilever
PLC
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia
In the middle of the 19th century, 8,000 Chinese came to Arrowtown,
New Zealand to mine gold. The only Chinaman to become wealthy and establish his
family in the country was Choi Se Hoy. He was not a
miner. He sold provisions and mining equipment to the miners, and the sixth
generation of his family (he married a European) lives on in Dunedin. Sometimes the best business is to sell to new
markets rather than invest in them.
Similarily, British companies selling into growing, emerging markets (EM) are
often a better investment than those EM stock markets. Although the UK has its
fair share of crooks, they rarely make it to the boards of British domiciled
PLCs listed on the main market. And the London Stock Exchange is transparent,
unlike many EMs where cronyism and plain dishonesty can be common.
Unilever, thanks to its brands and its
experience of global marketing, is one of the LSE-listed companies that fit the
bill. In the last 10 years, sales to EMs (ex Latin America) have surged from
25% to 40% of the total. Including Latin America, EMs now account for 55% of
sales. The following graph, from the 2012 Annual Report, plots the change: Europe
is in green, the Americas is in mauve and Asia/Africa/ Middle East/
Turkey/Russia/Ukraine/Belarus is in blue (click to enlarge).
Almost half of Unilever's sales come from 14 super brands
each selling more than €1 billion. Since 2005, management has concentrated the
business on fewer brands in four main sectors, in the process divesting
marginal businesses, reducing staff, outsourcing admin functions, unifying the
twin-company structure, reducing the number of suppliers and driving into the
markets where growth – and profits – promise most. The financial results are
astounding: Net debt is down from €26bn in 2000 to €7.4bn in 2012; working
capital as a % of turnover is down from 10% to negative; spending on capital
expenditure is down, and has now stabilized around €1.5bn; net margin is
up from less than 5% to 13%. Asia now accounts for a larger volume of sales
than Europe .
Financial results are strong.
1. Earnings per share have increased by 11% pa from 2001-3 to
2010-12
2. Dividend per share has increased by 18% pa from 2001-2012.
3. Return on equity averages 31% on an historical basis, but
this has fallen to 15% on retained earnings.
4. Free cash flow of €27 billion in the past 5 years has paid
for capital expenditure and the dividend with €6 billion to spare.
5. Equity per share has increased by 7% pa since 2001.
6. Unilever has a long term credit rating of A+.
Between the defined benefit pension schemes and future health
benefits Unilever has booked a net deficit of €4.2 billion, which is
likely to increase with the changes to IAS19. This compares to a market value
of €93 billion and a post-tax profit of €4.9 billion.
At the current price of 2833p, Unilever shares are on a PE of
22 (19 prospective) and a dividend yield of 2.9% (3.1% prospective). 2
Directors made large share purchases in February, when the share price was
2564p.
The average valuation based on earnings (2605p), return on
equity (2486 p) and equity per share (2745p) for the 5 years 2013-2017 is
2612p. The shares are currently priced at 2833p and have seen a high of
2853p on 3 April 2013 and a low of 2001p 18 May 2012. The discount rate used is
10.8%, which includes a margin for error.
Cautious investors will note that:
1. Although sales volumes continue to grow, Unilever's growth in earnings
has slowed down these past 2 years. Against this, the consensus forecast for
2013 is for 15% earnings growth.
2. The gains from working capital management have mainly been
booked, and there is little room for further improvement.
3. The management have a large number of 'soft' objectives on social
and environmental issues that might distract them from profit making and cash
generation.
4. Although the company has changed the basis for its pension scheme
from final to average salary, pension and retiree health insurance costs are
likely to increase at a faster rate than net income. They could well become a
significant drag on profitability.