Category Archives: Business Services

Weekly Commentary 10/31/2016-11/6/2016

Weekly Commentary 10/31/2016-11/6/2016

We are starting a weekly commentary to provide more consistent updates.  It will contain the news from the companies we cover, random investment thoughts, and the top articles of the week.  Let us know what you think.

 

Company News

 

On November 2, 2016, Zensar Technologies announced the acquisition of Foolproof. Foolproof is one of Europe’s leading experience design agencies, headquartered in London with other offices in Norwich and Singapore. The company helps global brands design better digital products and services for customers based on a deep understanding of consumer behavior, their clients’ business and new technology. It has many Global500 firms amongst its clients. LTM revenue = GBP8.5 million with a mid-single digit GBP million EBITDA with expectations for continued growth rate of 10-15% post acquisition. Zensar’s digital revenue now is 30% of total revenue.

 

From a strategic standpoint, the Foolproof acquisition makes sense. Foolproof adds knowledge in a fast growing industry strengthening Zensar’s digital services business. It strengthens Zensar’s client list adding relationship with a number of Global 500 allowing Zensar to cross-sell other services. It is also a smaller bolt on acquisition making it easier to integrate into existing operations. Unfortunately, the lack of price disclosure eliminates the ability to evaluate the transaction fully.

 

We will maintain Zensar’s current 3.5% position in our model portfolio. The company is trading at roughly 6% NOPAT yield with expected growth between 5-15% over the next five years. It continues to generate strong profitability and its executing on its strategy to increase revenue from digital services. It continues to win larger and larger contracts allowing for greater profitability. Zensar’s top 60-65 clients have had a business relationship with company on average over 6 years pointing to a quality product and/or some switching costs. Most smart customers will have multiple vendors allowing the customer to eliminate bargaining power of the suppliers and eliminating their pricing power with it as multiple vendors allows for continuity in case of switching suppliers. The Indian IT services sector is based on low cost labor or price competition. There is no sustainably differentiation on knowledge as employees hold the knowledge of the organization and employees can take this knowledge to another company.

 

Why are we maintaining Zensar Technologies 3.5% position size while decreasing PC Jeweller’s position size to 2.0%? Zensar and PC Jeweller’s both offer a NOPAT yield of roughly 6.0% and both offer growth between 5-15% over the next five years. Zensar’s business seems slightly better to us. Both industry have significant competition, but Zensar’s industry generates much higher average returns on invested capital than PC Jeweller’s, due to the asset light nature of the business. The jewelry business is very working capital intensive. Additionally, Zensar has a long history of steady growth while PC Jeweller has grown rapidly; it is in a much more cyclical industry.

 

On November 3, 2016, Miko International announced the resignation of Mr. Zhu Wenxin, an Independent Director at the company with Mr. Chan Wai Wong replacing him. The resignation is the latest in a series of director resignations. Below is a list of previous resignations.

  • On June 30, 2016, Gu Jishi resigned as Executive Director being replaced by Ms. Ding Lizhen, a member of the founder’s family.
  • On March 14, 2016, Mr. Wong Heng Choon resigned as Independent Director less than a month after being appointed.
  • On February 19, 2016, Mr. Leung Wai Yip resigned as Independent Director.
  • On September 8, 2016, Mr. Ng Cheuk Him resigned as Chief Financial Officer.

 

All the resignations follow the resignation of KPMG on April 21, 2016 and appointment of HLB Hodgson Impey Cheng Limited, an auditor of last resort for many Chinese frauds. The signs of fraud are piling up.

 

On November 4, 2016, Miko announced it signed a Memorandum of Understanding to set up a Joint Venture in the factoring business, an industry far removed from the current operations, which does not make much sense. We are already in the process of selling our position in Miko International.

 

On November 4, 2016, Credit Analysis and Research (CARE) reported first half results. Revenues grew 9% and operating profit grew 20%. The company also grew its client base by 8.5% from June 2016. It also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start a credit rating agency in Nepal. The company also designated the first “SMART CITY” credit rating. Overall, the earnings report does nothing to move the needle either way. CARE is trading on a NOPAT yield of 3.0% but it is the most profitable company in an oligopolistic industry with significant barriers to entry and a very long runway for growth requiring no capital to grow. We entered with a 2.0% position in hopes that we could increase our position size at a cheaper price. We will maintain the current position given the barriers to entry in the industry, the runway for growth, and the lack of capital required to grow.

 

 

Random Thoughts

 

A recent FT Alphaville article discussed Sanford Berstein’s shift away from valuing companies by discounting cash flows. Bernstein argued in a zero rate world the risk free rate and the over weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is so low the importance of distant cash flows in the intrinsic value is much higher. Given an inability of analysts to forecast cash flows in the distant future, this increasing importance of the terminal value places a significant weight on highly uncertain cash flows. The following exhibits from the FT article illustrate the importance of the terminal value in Berstein’s estimation. Bernstein uses a discounted cash flow model with a five-year forecast period followed by a fade to a terminal value in year 10. Bernstein’s first charts assume a 10% growth rate for the next five years followed by a fade to a terminal growth rate of 3.5% in year 10. The second chart assumes a 5% growth rate for the five-year forecast period followed by a fade to a similar terminal growth rate.

importance-of-terminal-value-ft

 

Under the scenarios mentioned, Bernstein estimates the terminal value accounts for 55% at a 10% WACC increasing to 99% for a 3.6% WACC. WACC or discount rate is one of the many factors determining the importance of terminal value in a discounted cash flow valuation. We believe Bernstein, like many other market participants, is overlooking many other crucial factors in determining the importance of terminal value. We will discuss our view on the discount rate as well as other factors overlooked by Bernstein. We will also discuss another valuation method to overcome the shortfall of increased importance of terminal values in the discounted cash flow valuation. Whenever we value companies at Reperio, we use a similar discounted cash flow model with a five-year forecast period fading to terminal assumptions in year 10.

 

In the article, Bernstein’s main concern was lower interest rates lead to a lower discount rate leading to a lower WACC. Given the value of a corporation is driven by cash flows well into the future, the main assumption in lowering a company’s WACC is interest rates will remain low for a very long period of time. The chart below is the yield on a US 1 year treasury rate since 1953 illustrating the current rate of interest is the lowest on record.

1-yr-treasury-rate

We are bottom up investors but to assume market participants will accept 64 basis points forever in compensation for lending the US government money for one year seems aggressive, particularly, when one-year interest rates were over 1600 basis points in the early 1980s.  .

 

The treasury rate is a key input into the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) used by Bernstein and many other investors in determining a company’s WACC or discount rate. CAPM like many models in economics and finance is built with assumptions completely detached from reality. The biggest flaw in the CAPM is price equals risk. When calculating the cost of equity to determine the cost of equity, beta is multiplied by the equity risk premium. Beta is the volatility in a stock relative to a stocks benchmark meaning if a company’s share price is more volatile than its benchmark, it is assumed to be a more risky investment and therefore have a higher cost of capital. Putting aside the potential errors in measure a stock beta, a volatile stock does not equate to risk for the investor. This logic would lead you to believe a private business with the exact same characteristics of a public company listed on a stock exchange is a much safer investment, as there is not daily price volatility associated with being listed. At Reperio Capital, we view permanent loss of capital as the true risk of any investment. Permanent loss of capital comes from three risks: business risk, financial risk, and valuation risk. Business risk is the permanent loss of capital due to a permanent impairment of cash flows from competition or mismanagement. Valuation risk comes from overpaying for a security. Financial risk is when a company is has significant financial leverage that may lead to bankruptcy.

 

Another significant problem with CAPM is measuring a stock’s beta. The measurement of beta lends to significant estimation errors. Using Zensar Technologies as an example, if you calculate the company’s beta on a weekly basis since its listed in July 2002, its beta is relative to the SENSEX is -1.19. If you change the time period used in calculating beta to the last 10 years, Zenar’s beta changes to 0.77 illustrating the potential issues calculating beta.

 

Instead of calculating the weighted average cost of capital, we have used a constant discount rate as we assume there is an opportunity cost associated with making any investment. We are increasing our discount rate to 12.5% discount rate (from 10%) for all companies, roughly the average annualized return generated by the MSCI Emerging Market Index since inception and slightly more than the S&P 500 average annualized return is 9.5% since inception. If we can generate 12.5% annual return elsewhere then cash flows from any potential investment should discounted at that particular rate regardless of what the cost of capital is for each individual company. A constant discount rate also eliminates some of the subjectivity in valuation.

 

Other than lower interest rates and faulty measures of risk, Bernstein’s assumptions seem very optimistic. The FT article only mentioned growth and discount rate assumptions meaning the other important value drivers of operating margin and capital efficiency must have remained constant assuming no competitive pressures over the life of the company. The vast majority of companies succumb to competitive pressures leading to a fall in profitability and/or capital efficiency eliminating any excess returns. If excess returns are eliminated, growth does not add value making it an irrelevant discounted cash flow assumption. A small number of companies can hold off competitive pressures making profitability and capital efficiency irrelevant assumptions. The FT has a great free equity screener. In its universe, there are 13,799 stocks with a market capitalization above USD100 million and a 5-year average return on investment. Of the 13,799 stocks, only 2,001 stocks or 14.5% of the universe averaged a 15% return on investment over the past five years, which a very, very crude approximation of a company with a competitive advantage illustrating the difficulty in fending off competitive pressures and maintaining excess returns. Given the vast majority of companies face competitive pressures the assumption of constant operating margin and capital efficiency and any growth in terminal cash flows is very optimistic. An example is PC Jeweller, the company is operating efficiently generating excess returns but jewelry retailing is a fiercely competitive industry with thousands of competitors with little ability to sustain differentiation. We assume a 10% growth over the first five-year forecast period with growth fading to 0% in year 10 and competition eliminating excess profits.

1-scenario-terminal-value-total-value

 

As illustrated, at a 5% discount rate, the cash flows in the terminal value account for 51.0% total value. At a 15% discount rate, cash flows in the terminal value account for 31.6%. At a 5.0% WACC, Bernstein estimated 91% of a firm’ value is in the terminal value, while our estimate is much lower at 51.0% as we are more conservative on our assumptions for the vast majority of companies. The failure to account for competition makes terminal value a much larger percentage of total value.

 

Changing our initial assumptions to view PC Jeweller as competitive advantaged with sustainable margins and capital efficiency but with no growth in the terminal value, at a 5% discount rate, the cash flows in the terminal value account for 73.6% total firm value. At a 15% discount rate cash flows in the terminal value account for 39.1% of the total firm value still well below Bernstein’s estimates.

3-scenario-terminal-value-total-value

 

Being competitively advantaged and adding terminal value growth of 3.5% similar to Bernstein’s calculations further increases the importance of the terminal value assumptions. Again, growth in the terminal value is aggressive, as the vast majority of companies do not generate excess returns. Assuming a competitive advantage and 3.5% terminal growth, at a 5% discount rate the importance of cash flows in the terminal value increases to 90.5% of total firm value, while at a 15% discount rate 46.1% of the of the total firm value is derived from the cash flows in the terminal value.

 

The assumption of permanent low interest rates, no competitive pressures, and perpetual growth are all flaws in Bernstein’s assumptions that increase the importance of terminal value in a discounted cash flow valuation and probably are over aggressive. Like Bernstein, many investors make the same mistakes in their discount cash flow assumptions, which leads to the question why? The biggest reason is institutional constraints and the focus on asset gathering rather than performance making the vast majority of investors short term oriented and trying to outperform every quarter and every year. This short-term orientation leads to focus on next quarter’s earnings and whether a company will beat earnings estimates rather than focusing on a company’s competitive environment, management, financial health and valuation. The charts below from Andrew Haldane’s Patience and Finance illustrate the short-term orientation of market participants with the average holding period of a stock on the many different stock exchanges decreasing.

nyse-lse-holding-period

other-exchange-holding-periods

 

In the US, the average holding period of equities dropped from 7 years in 1940 to 7 months in 2007. In the UK, the average holding period of equities dropped from 5 years in the mid-1960s to 7.5 months in 2007. Looking at stock exchanges around the world the average holding period of equities has dropped to under 1 year on all exchanges with the exception of the Toronto Stock Exchange and Euronext. It seems evident that equity investors have a shorter and shorter investment horizon leading to focusing on the next few quarters making the discounted cash flow a useless tool for many investors. For long-term investors, a discounted cash flow with conservative assumptions it is still very useful. Another use for a discounted cash flow is to reverse engineer the market’s expectations of key value drivers, which eliminates the need for forecasting and makes judgment of the assumptions of key value drivers, the main determinant of the margin of safety associated with an investment.

 

If the use of a discounted cash flow still concerns you, a residual income model provides the same valuation while eliminating the importance of cash flow forecasts in the distant future. At Reperio Capital Research, we also use a residual income model with a five-year forecast period followed by a fade to the terminal value in year 10, with the current invested capital as the book value and return on invested capital and the discount rate as other key inputs. Residual income = (ROIC – discount rate) * invested capital. The residual income stream is then discounted back and added to the beginning of the year’s invested capital. The theory is every company has an asset base to generated returns. The asset base comes with an opportunity cost as the money invested in the asset base can be allocated elsewhere. If the company cannot generate its discount rate, it is destroying value and the company will be valued at less than its asset base. If the company generates excess profit, it will be valued above its asset base. Revisiting PC Jeweller using a residual income valuation and the same three scenarios illustrated above, we can see the residual income valuation method relies less on the discounted cash flows from the terminal. Under a scenario of no competitive advantage, no excess returns are generated in the terminal value assumptions therefore; the terminal value adds no value. Under the scenario of a competitive advantage but no growth, at a 5% discount rate, the terminal value accounted for 57.1% of the total firm value while a 15% discount rate 14.6% of the total firm value is derived from the terminal value. Finally, under the scenario of competitive advantage and terminal value growth, at a 5% discount rate, the terminal value accounts 83.4% of the terminal value and 21.0% of the total value at a 15% discount rate.

residual-income-terminal-value

 

The residual income method does a much better job at decreasing the reliance on terminal value calculations, but provides the same valuation outcome.

 

Discounting cash flows to value companies is still a valuable for any investor with a long-term orientation. Unfortunately, a model is only as good as its inputs. In a world with increasing short term thinking, garbage in will lead to garbage out.

 

 

Other Interesting Links

 

Jim Chanos’ and Kyle Bass’ views on China (link)

 

Mittleman Brothers Q3 Letter on Valuewalk (link)

  • They talk about a potentially interesting idea within the Emerging Market Small Cap space: ABS CBN in the Philippines.
  • They also discuss other ideas First Pacific Holdings in Hong Kong and Rallye SA in France. Both are based on management track records.

 

Apple Should Buy Netflix (link)

A very interesting post at Stratechery discussing the media value chain.

 

Competitive Advantage of Owner Operators (link)

Base Hit Investing goes into detail into the advantages of owner operators.

 

Missionaries over Mercenaries (link)

Somewhat related to the previous link on owner operators.

 

Value Investing using Enterprise Multiples — Is the Premium Due to Risk and/or Mispricing? (link)

The Alpha Architect discusses the outperformance of Enterprise Multiples.

 

Update of Measuring the Moat (link)

An excellent essay on the analysis of barriers to entry

 

 

Zensar FY2016 Results Review June 8, 2016

Zensar FY2016 Review June 8, 2016

We are decreasing our position size in Zensar Technologies to 4.0%.  Zensar Technologies continue to performing well with revenues growing by 12.8%, gross margin expanding by 170 basis points and operating profit increasing by 18.4%. The company has been a very consistent in its growth with revenue growing by 21.1% per year over the past five years and 21.3% per annum over the past ten years. Operating income has increased by 20.6% per year over the past five years and 25.3% over the past ten years.

 

The company is shifting its business model from traditional IT services to a digital strategy to drive further growth. Zensar is executing the shift with digital revenues at 27% of total revenues in FY2016 up from only 5% three year ago.  Digitial revenues are expected to continue to grow at over 20% for the next few years.  The company also continues to increase deal size with the number of large deals over 64 clients over USD1 million in FY2016 up from 51 in FY2013.  It also won USD130 million in contracts in FY2016 with expectations for a much higher number in FY2017.

 

Zensar expects margin expansion from increasing significance of digital and decreasing significance of product and license revenue. The company also is decreasing the number of low margin, low revenue accounts with the total number of accounts decreasing from 211 to 194.   Unfortunately, the industry suffers from an inability to grow margins drastically as more business requires more employees.  There are low barriers to entry leading to significant fragmentation within the industry as illustrated by the industry fragmentation.  Zensar’s top 60-65 clients have had a business relationship with company on average over 6 years pointing to a quality product and some switching costs.  Most smart customers will have multiple vendors allowing the customer to eliminate bargaining power of the suppliers and eliminating their pricing power with it as multiple vendors allows for continuity in case of switching suppliers.

 

Our initial investment was due to very cheap valuations along with strong profitability, strong growth, execution, and a strong culture.  The company continues to execute on all fronts but valuations are no longer extremely cheap and therefore we will be taking our profits and nearly halving our position size to around 4.0%.  The company is trading on an NOPAT yield of 6.6% and conservative growth of 10% over the next few years. While the company expected return is over 15%, the lack of barriers to entry leading to fragmentation within the industry and eliminating pricing power increases the risk to earnings.