Investment Sharing 1

Never depend on single income. Make investment to create a second source.-Warren Buffet

Investment Sharing 2

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.-Benjamin Franklin

Investment Sharing 3

Anyone who is not investing now is missing a tremendous opportunity.-Carlos Sim

Investment Sharing 4

In short run, the market is a voting machine, but in long run it is a weighing machine.-Benjamin Graham

Investment Sharing 5

Dont look for needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack.-Jack Bogle

Wednesday 25 December 2013

The Most Successful Dividend Investors of all time

Dividend investing is as sexy as watching paint dry on the wall. Defining an entry criteria that selects quality dividend stocks with rising dividends over time and then patiently reinvesting these dividends while sitting on your hands is not exciting. While active traders have a plethora of hedge fund managers on the covers of Forbes magazine there are not many well-publicized successful dividend investors. Even value investing has its own superstars – Ben Graham and Warren Buffett.


I did some research and uncovered several successful dividend investors, whose stories provide reassurance that the traits of successful dividend investing I outlined in a previous post are indeed accurate.

The first investor is Anne Scheiber, who turned a $5,000 investment in 1944 into $22 million by the time of her death at the age of 101 in 1995. Anne Scheiber worked as an IRS auditor for 23 years, never earning more than $3150/year. The one important lesson she learned auditing tax returns was that the surest way to become rich in America is by accumulating stocks. She accumulated stocks in brand name companies she understood and then reinvested dividends for decades. She never sold, in order to avoid paying taxes and commissions. She also never sold even during the 1972-1974 bear market as well as the 1987 market crash because she had high conviction in her stocks picks. She also held a diversified portfolio of almost 100 individual securities in brand names such as Coca-Cola (KO), PepsiCo (PEP), Bristol-Myers (BMY), Schering Plough (acquired by Pfizer in 2009). She read annual reports with the same inquisitive mind she audited tax returns during her tenure at the IRS and also attended annual shareholders meetings. Anne Scheiber did her own research on stocks, and was focusing her attention on strong franchises which have the opportunity to increase earnings and pay higher dividends over time.

In her later years she reinvested her dividends into tax free municipal bonds, which is why her portfolio had a 30% allocation to fixed income at the time of her death. At the time of her death, her portfolio was throwing off $750,000 in dividend and interest income annually. She donated her whole fortune to Yeshiva University, even though she never attended it herself.

The second investor is Grace Groner, who turned a small $180 investment in 1935 into $7 million by the time of her death in 2010. Ms Groner, who worked as a secretary at Abbott Laboratories for 43 years invested $180 in 3 shares of Abbott Laboratories (ABT) in 1935. She then simply reinvested the dividends for the next 75 years. She never sold, but just held on to her shares.

She was frugal, having grown up in the depression era, and was the classical millionaire next door type of person who was not interested in keeping up with the Joneses. Grace Groner left her entire fortune to her Alma Mater. Her $7 million donation is generating approximately $250,000 in annual dividend income.

The reason why dividend investors are not highly publicized is because dividend investing is not sexy enough to be featured in the financial mainstream media. In addition to that, it is not profitable for Wall Street to sell you into the idea that ordinary investors can invest on their own. Compare this to mutual funds, annuities and other products which generate billions in commissions for Wall Street, despite the fact that they might not be in the best interest of small investors.

The third dividend investor is Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha himself. In a previous article I have outlined the reasoning behind my belief that Buffett is a closet dividend investor. He explicitly noted in his 2009 letter that "the best businesses by far for owners continue to be those that have high returns on capital and that require little incremental investment to grow". His investment in See's Candy is the best example of that.

Some of Buffett's best companies/stock that he has owned such as Geico, Coca Cola , See's Candy are exactly the types of investments mentioned above. He has mentioned that at Berkshire he tries to stick with businesses whose profit picture for decades to come seems reasonably predictable. Per Buffett the best businesses by far for owners continue to be those that have high returns on capital and that require little incremental investment to grow. In addition, his 2011 letter discussed his dividend income from all of Berkshire Hathaway investments, including his prediction that Coca Cola dividends will keep on increasing, based on the pattern of historical dividend increases.

In this article I outlined three dividend investors, who managed to turn small investments into cash machines that generated large amounts of dividends. They were able to accomplish this through identifying quality dividend growth companies at attractive valuations, patiently reinvesting distributions and in two out of three cases maintaining a diversified portfolio of stocks. These are the lessons that all investors could profit from.

Saturday 14 December 2013

Most valuations (even good ones) are wrong

Now this can be shocking to you if you spend a lot of time arriving at that magical number (intrinsic value) that helps you ascertain whether you must buy a stock or not.
Damodaran talks about three kinds of errors that cause most valuations – even the ones “meticulously” calculated – to go wrong:
  1. Estimation error…that occurs while converting raw information into forecasts.
  2. Firm-specific uncertainty…as the firm may do much better or worse than you expected it to perform, resulting in earnings and cash flows to be quite different from your estimates.
  3. Macro uncertainty…which can be a result of drastic shifts in the macro-economic conditions that can also impact your company.
The year 2008 is one classic example when most valuations – even the good ones – went horribly wrong owing to the last two factors – firm-specific and macro uncertainties.
As Damodaran writes…
While precision is a good measure of process in mathematics or physics, it is a poor measure of quality in valuation.
So, to value or not value?
Knowing that your valuation could be wrong (and in most cases, it would be) despite any kind of precision you employ in your calculations, it should not lead you to a refusal to value a business at all.
This makes no sense, since everyone else looking at the business faces the same uncertainty.
Instead what you must do to increase the probability of getting your valuations right is…
  1. Stay within your circle of competence and study businesses you understand. Simply exclude everything that you can’t understand in 30 minutes.
  2. Write down your initial view on the business – what you like and not like about it – even before you start your analysis. This should help you in dealing with the “I love this company” bias.
  3. Run your analysis through your investment checklist. A checklist saves life…during surgery and in investing.
  4. Avoid “analysis paralysis”. If you are looking for a lot of reasons to support your argument for the company, you are anyways suffering from the bias mentioned above.
  5. Calculate your intrinsic values using simple models, and avoid using too many input variables. In fact, use the simplest model that you can while valuing a stock. If you can value a stock with three inputs, don’t use five. Remember, less is more.
  6. Use the most important concept in value investing – ‘margin of safety’. Without this, any valuation calculation you perform will be useless.
At the end of it, Damodaran writes…
Will you be wrong sometimes? Of course, but so will everyone else. Success in investing comes not from being right but from being wrong less often than everyone else.
So don’t justify the purchase of a company just because it fits your valuation. Don’t fool yourself into believing that every cheap stock will yield good returns. A bad company is a bad investment no matter what price it is.
Charlie Munger explains that – “a piece of turd in a bowl of raisins is still a piece of turd”…and…“there is no greater fool than yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
So, get going on valuing stocks…but when you find that the business is bad, exercise your options.
Not a call or a put option, but a “No” option.
Have you ever avoided buying a stock you “loved” because its valuations were not right? 

http://www.safalniveshak.com/avoid-2-bitter-truths-of-stock-valuations/

2 Bitter Truths of Stock Valuation

1. All valuations are biased
2. Most valuations (even good ones) are wrong

Tuesday 10 December 2013

Pay for Retirement with a Cup of Coffee and an Egg McMuffin

Pay for Retirement with a Cup of Coffee and an Egg McMuffin
$3 a Day Can Add Up to a Serious Nest Egg

By Joshua Kennon

How many times have you swung by McDonalds on your way to work for a cup of coffee and an Egg McMuffin? It may seem like small change, but the $3 a day it is costing you to buy your breakfast can fund your retirement. Don't believe it? Let's take a look at the numbers.

The stock market has historically averaged a return of around twelve percent. If you began investing $3 a day at twenty five years old and earned the same rate of return, by the day you reached sixty-five, you would have saved a total of $381,437 before taxes. That's a pretty substantial nest egg by anyone's standards. The results are even more spectacular if you start younger (a sixteen year old would save $789,896 pretax by retirement).

Why such the drastic difference between the 16 and the 25 year old? Compounding. When you invest or save, your money earns more money in the form of interest or dividends. If you reinvest these, you earn interest on your interest. Here's how it works: You put $100 in a savings account that earns 4% annually. At the end of the first year, you earn $4 in interest. Let's say you keep that $4 in the savings account. At the end of the second year, you would earn 4% on the $104 (instead of the original $100). This would result in your interest payments higher each subsequent year as you kept reinvesting your interest.

For those of you who are thinking, "Well, I'm 30, 40, 50, or 60+ years old. What can I do?", don't worry! No matter when you start, if you are diligent and intelligent in your investing, you will end up with more money than you would have had otherwise. A fifty year old could still put aside more than $36,013 by following the three-dollar-a-day plan.

The next time you bite into that sausage egg and cheese breakfast sandwich, keep in mind you may be eating your retirement.

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/retirementcenter/a/040302a.htm

Monday 9 December 2013

Looking at Inari to understand Insas(Revised)

Anyone who puts in money in Insas over the last 4 - 5 months would have made decent sum - increase from RM0.50 to now RM0.94, which coincidentally was about the period which I wrote about the company. In this particular article, I wanted to know what makes the sudden rise in the stock price whereas it has been in trading in the RM0.40 to RM0.60 for a long time.

I wanted to know what type of character are behind the owners. As in my previous article, again not much can be known except that it is led by a careful investor, Datuk Thong. To do this, I would like to take a look again at Inari. Inari is a hugely successful invested company made by Insas and I would deem it to be successfully managed by the group of management. Insas has about 36.6% of Inari and on top of that it has about 16% of its warrants. Those holdings in Inari alone is worth about RM292 million according to Inari's price todate.

Inari Amertron is involved in EMS business. Just for knowledge, the largest EMS company in the world is Foxconn or Honhai which many people know manufactures for Apple and many other companies. To provide a simple analogy, EMS is something which some technology companies do not want to deal with as many of these companies largely concentrate on the technology aspects, hence phasing out some of the work to specialised companies like Hon Hai (for Apple). Inari is such for a company called Avago.

Avago, a spin offs from the old HP company and is hugely successful in having a large penetration supplying power amplifier chips and other technologies to most of the smartphones and tablets companies. As smart phones' penetration continues to grow, Avago as expected flies. Similarly, Inari riding on that wave as a contract manufacturer for Avago is enjoying that as well to the extent that its share price becomes one of the most successful IPO of recent times.

Inari's price chart since IPO

I know that Inari is doing well. But I wanted to probe further as I also wanted to know is there any action taken to take advantage of the over-exuberance towards the company. While Avago and Inari are performing, it is a business which I am not able to gather my thoughts or foresee over the next 5 years for example. It is a business which is largely dependent on orders and contracts. Apple's iphone and ipad, and Samsung's Galaxy or HTC's line of products may be using Avago's technology now. This things, as we know can change, which is why over the longer term it is important for Inari to not be overly dependent on Avago although it has been a very good partner.

A look at its financials can be done to sometimes ascertain that.
Based on the above numbers, it is pretty solid with good revenue and PAT growth. Against its free cash flow however, Inari does not seem to be doing that strong. I can partly understand however as one will need to invest quite substantially for it to grow as a EMS player. This I believe is warranted.
PAT and GP margin for last 9 quarters

It mentioned that its margin improved substantially due to economies of scale as provided below.
Would Inari be a good buy for the future and how about Insas? As mentioned before, Insas has some intrinsic value where as a investment company, it is doing decently well. To how much would the shareholder be providing value to its investor, that very much remains to be seen.

Inari, on the other hand would still be very dependent on Avago while Avago would be dependent on its technology for the smart phones and tablet industries. That is a lot of "IFs" I would say and looking at its share price todate, if one is to still jump in - I just have too many questions still. It is now priced at close to Globetronics market capitalisation and how it achieved this is just too strong for a EMS player.

Nevertheless, if it is able to achieve that momentum, the current traded price is still attractive.




Monday 2 December 2013

Why Padini is the leading Malaysian fashion retailer

There is no doubt that I like retail business and I like the leading player best. Hence there is no doubt that I have bought and sold some of them - like in buying into Bonia and Wing Tai.

The thing about retailing business is that I personally felt that Malaysia is doing extremely well. I in fact like Malaysian retailing than Singapore or Bangkok or Jakarta for that matter. In Asia, besides Hong Kong, there has been some positive work done by Malaysian retailing industry and I would in fact commend the good work partly due to the government's policies for retailers.

The one player targeting the middle income group which I do get attracted to and continue to do so is Padini, so much so that I am selling Bonia and buying more Padini this time around. The latest portfolio can be found here.
Why am I calling it the leader among the Malaysian retailers? It has executed well where the other Malaysian companies have yet to really achieve. The reporting season for the quarter ended Sep 2013 is just over and although I do not want to dwell too much on the results, Padini to me has been consistently performing. It is in fact the only one which has modelled and able to achieve the hugely successful model among players like Zara, Gap, H&M, Uniqlo etc. It is successful in selling its products through its own outlet and that to me is very important as relying too heavily on retailers like AEON and Parkson would have limited its growth.

In accounts, I am just as concerned about the assets as much as the liabilities. To me, cash where how fast the business can generate cash is very important and that goes with the receivables. Through its own outlets, it is almost cash business (for credit cards transactions). The most challenging part though would be the turnover i.e. how fast is it turning the inventories to cash. Over the last 8 quarters or more, I have noticed that Padini is able to achieve that consistency, which means that it has probably been very comfortable with its strategies of maintaining a certain level of inventory while able to bring in the sales. One way of looking at that is its inventory and receivables against sales. If a company is able to find that consistencies, that's amazing.

What has been successful for Padini is however a bit of concern for Parkson as shoppers nowadays seem to get to the idea of buying from a specialized retail shop. That means, traffic is getting away from retailers such as Isetan and Parkson. That seems to happen to Parkson in its last few quarters results although I am not so sure of Isetan. AEON is slightly different though.

What about DKSH and Malaysia Airport? Malaysia's strength in the retailing business seems to benefit them as well - as there are more people transacting and more people moving around, perhaps to shop i.e. between KL, Penang or KK and any other cities. That's definitely good for those 2 companies.

My money into Keuro? Really long term thingy, and it does not seem that the West Coast Expressway project is dropping. With that, I still feel that its current price is way too low for a highway concessionaire.