Monday, January 26, 2009

Corporate Job Losses Mounting:

Job losses are never desired by employees, but necessary for investors.

This is a quote from one of my university professors that I still have highlighted in my strategic management notes which I read from time to time to reacquaint myself with certain concepts.

The media, almost daily, has been heard announcing significant job losses at all sized corporations across the world as companies attempt to better position themselves for the deteriorating economic environment. In the past week Microsoft (MSFT) announced 5,000 job cuts, Rio Tinto (RTP) 1,000 (total of 14,000 during the past month), BHP Billiton (BHP) 6,000 and BCE (BCE) announced early retirement incentives for 1,500 of their employees.

While publicly and internally this looks negatively upon the management of companies who are announcing these layoffs investors need to realize that fixed costs should be a focus of management. Why?

As an investor you own a stake in the operations of the business and it’s important to understand that all companies have two types of costs: fixed & variable. Salaries are considered a fixed cost because each month, regardless of sales, this cost needs to be paid out by the company. Variable costs include items such as raw materials and energy to produce a product and are scaled to production of goods or services.

In a depressed economic environment the majority of companies will always find it difficult to grow revenues because consumers and businesses are consuming less. The focus of many fiscally responsible companies will be to look away from revenues if they become stagnant and look instead to decreasing fixed costs to maintain their existing margins.

Companies often struggle when faced with making difficult decisions on jobs, but have to realize that fixed costs are often the quickest method of maintaining your established margins. Employees not directly involved in production of goods or supply of services (non-revenue incurring) are disposable in a recession because their contribution to the bottom line of the company is reduced.

A caution to investors is observing the flurry of job cuts being announced now versus companies who began positioning themselves six months ago by concentrating on cost reductions as the storm clouds began brewing. An evaluation of management is important because as an investor you want to ensure that management has their pulse on the heartbeat of the business. A reactionary reduction in fixed costs now due to a decrease in quarterly profits doesn’t usually sit well with me as an investor. I would much rather a company be proactive on cost reductions than reactive for the simple fact that management should be able to evaluate their market conditions and respond accordingly.

Disclosure: I own shares of MSFT indirectly via my investment in XLK


Click here to join the RSS of Triaging My Way To Financial Success

Friday, January 23, 2009

What is a RSS?

A reader writes,

Brad great site. I visit here every day at work to make sure I’m not missing out on any new content you post and had a question. I’ve noticed that almost every blog has an orange speaker icon that they refer to as an RSS and encourage people to subscribe to. I’m not a computer whiz, but what is this, should I be using it and how can it help me learn to invest? Do you subscribe to the RSS of other sites?

What is RSS?

RSS stands for Real Simple Syndication and is used to deliver content found on internet sites that publish news, posts or other frequently updated information. Basically it’s a format to display information that allows authors (like myself) to send content to readers (like you) through email or a reader platform (Google Reader, My Yahoo, etc) so that you don’t need to visit a large collection of sites daily in order to see what new content is being published.

Benefits/Uses:

Let’s walk through an example. I’m an Associate Member of The DIV-Net which is a collection of authors who publish content on value and dividend investing. There are currently 16 authors and visiting each of those sites on a daily basis would be very time consuming. An RSS reader allows a frequent visitor of each site to subscribe to the rich site summary (RSS) and organizes updated information automatically so it’s much easier to navigate and read.

Each time an author publishes a post the RSS reader updates that information and the post appears in full or summary form for you to read.

How can RSS feeds help investors?

Assume for a moment that you read anywhere from 20-30 websites or blogs that publish content on investing. Using a RSS reader would allow you to keep track of updates on each site in one organized location rather than visiting each site daily at different times. You can access the content for comments or further reading now or later and browse topics quickly to decide what new content is worth reading now or what content you might want to read later at your own convenience.

If you have a Google Account setting up RSS feeds is quick & simple. Go to http://www.google.com/reader and log in. There are abundant readers you can use and each one has different features. I use Google Reader because I have a concentrated list of content I track.

Once logged in all you need to do is click “Add a subscription” and enter either the web address of the site you want to track, the url of the RSS feed or search a subject like “dividend investing”. Nearly all popular sites now have RSS as a feature so adding content is very quick and easy.

Ten popular sites whose feeds I subscribe to:
  • Barel Karsan
  • Canadian Capitalist
  • Dividend Growth Investor
  • Dividends4Life
  • Million Dollar Journey
  • Old School Value
  • Quest For Four Pillars
  • The Dividend Guy Blog
  • the moneygardener
  • Thicken My Wallet

Click here to join the RSS of Triaging My Way To Financial Success

Monday, January 19, 2009

Mail Bag: Stryker (SYK)

An Anonymous reader asked in a comment the following question,

Since you're in health care what do you think of Stryker…not a dividend monster by any means but maybe some upside soon?

I actually talked a little about this company in some previous comments, but I can republish them here and go into a little more detail.

For those new to this stock Stryker (SYK) is a healthcare company that develops & manufactures specialty surgical and medical products. Specifically the company’s products are used for orthopaedic implants, bone cement, bone repair related to trauma, powered surgical instruments, endoscopic systems, craniomaxillofacial (jaw) fixation devices and they also provides some outpatient physical and occupational rehabilitation services.

It is a company I'm familiar with both professionally and as a prospective investor, but a stock that I have never owned.

The attraction of late towards this stock by some investors has been three-fold:
  • The valuation of the company has fallen in the current market from $70 per share to $40
  • The company has a strong history of raising dividends on a regular basis
  • It has an established track record of growth in operations, product development & financial strength.
Recently the company has provided their earnings guidance for 2009 which I feel is a little on the ambitious side for a few reasons. I highlighted this as an area of caution in my public comments on the FWF and while I still expect the company to report a profitable 2009 growth is likely to be nearly stagnant considering the economic environment.

A big component of their earnings comes from orthopaedic products and in difficult economic times I look to this segment of the healthcare market as economically sensitive. Orthopedic surgeries are required if life threatening, but the majority are considered elective (non-urgent) and are either paid as out of pocket expenses or through insurance in the US.

A company that you could compare Stryker to in this current market environment might be National Dentex (NADX) which has experienced a more significant fall of their share price. NADX is a much different company since they provide denture products/services to patients as an elective product are not seen as an essential in an environment where budgets are tight. Individual patients who pay out of pocket for their surgery or pay sizeable deductibles may prolong their surgeries due to difficult times. A bad knee, despite the discomfort, may be financial unviable for someone who is on fairly stable financial ground, but is watching their investment portfolio, home value and job stability falling precipitously the past 24 months.

I don’t foresee a massive contraction in sales, but likely sales growth will slow considerably from what the company has achieved during the past 3-5 years. Medical supply/device companies I feel are in a much stronger position would be GE, JNJ, BAX & BDX. With BAX & BDX specifically an investor is getting a lot more secure revenue stream from sales in a depressed market because their products are most often single use items (IV's, catheters, tubing) and used in significantly higher volumes. The valuations of the companies are not as cheap as other medical supply companies, but their products have what I consider to be perpetual demand in a market where few smaller firms have gained much traction. Elective surgeries, in my opinion, are something I anticipate people putting off for 6-18 months and this has the potential to negatively impact smaller medical device/supply companies over the interim. Stryker has a market capitalization far above smaller companies in its field so there is also the potential for consolidation in the industry as prices of firms with prized intellectual property or developing product streams remain at depressed levels. If you’re an investor who has a long investing horizon (5-10 years) Stryker has an excellent track record of performance, dividend growth and is situated with a market demographic that clearly will have increased demand in the future. I expect sales growth will be in the low single digits rather than the guidance provided by the company of 6-9%.

For almost any healthcare company I own or might consider owning I have a strict requirement: it has to pass a litmus test on the consumer. What I’ve found in my own research and experience is that healthcare companies exposed to markets with uncertain demand can get into a lot of trouble when you least expect it. Companies with a diversified portfolio of products that allow them to meet changing economic conditions are best suited when demand for elective category procedures dries up.

It does appear as if the company is building a base technically at its current valuation, but for the short-term investor I would likely steer clear of the company until the economic environment of 2009/2010 is clearer. I anticipate Stryker’s weaker competitors will come under increasing pressures over the next six months in both sales and costs. While this may impact the earnings of the industry Stryker is the best situated to tread water for the next year or so. There are other ortho-based healthcare companies an investor may want to look at that are more diversified in the elective care space, but the risk reward profile of a company in this market is much higher than I would assign to a larger, more diversified medical supply/device company.

One additional threat that has recently surfaced is the proposed legal action being taken against Stryker and a number of co-defendants.

As always an investor should perform their due diligence. As part of a diversified portfolio of healthcare companies I feel Stryker is a worthwhile addition, but my preference would remain on the larger companies in the space that have more stable access to patient care than expensive elective procedures.

Disclosure: I hold shares in GE, JNJ, BAX & BDX


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you

Friday, January 16, 2009

Are You A De-Value Investor?

December was a busy month for myself and many readers and I wanted to take a moment to promote guest posts I had the pleasure of conducting at two of Canada's Premier Personal Finance sites: Million Dollar Journey and Canadian Capitalist.


Frugal Recipe: Protein Packed Chili
A favourite recipe from my personal stash that is loaded with cost-effective protein and easily modified for anyone's personal tastes!
If you enjoyed this recipe be sure to vote for my Protein Packed Brownies.

Are You A De-Value Investor?
A post about value investing the easy way, the hard way and the SMART way with insights into a number of personal finance tips that can save you money!


If you're not a regular reader of these two sites I highly recommend them for learning about all sorts of topics on investing, personal finance and achieving financial independence.


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you

Monday, January 12, 2009

Taking Stock in Coca-Cola (KO):

When you first examine Coca-Cola (KO) there is an immediate emotional response many individuals have to their product(s). Love it or hate it; the products of this company are consumed on a daily basis globally to the tune of nearly 1.5 billion times. To put this in some perspective that’s the equivalent of 25% of the global population consuming a minimum of one product sold by the Coca-Cola Company each and every day.

This is the brand power on a massive scale with a strong domestic history in North America dating back to 1886. Globally Coca-Cola products are sold in over 200 countries and the company is the “largest manufacturer, distributor and marketer of non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups in the world.” The company sells four of the top five carbonated brands around the world (Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Sprite & Fanta), owns or licenses an additional 450 brands and possesses the largest beverage distribution system on the planet.

Coca-Cola operates in distinct global structures currently organized in the following regions:
  • Africa
  • Eurasia
  • EU
  • Latin America
  • North America
  • Pacific
  • Bottling Investments
  • Corporate
Global sales (non-North American) accounted for 76% of total revenues for the company in 2007 and provided 10% of total worldwide sales of all non-alcoholic beverages. 10% may seem small upon initial examination, but when you consider competition from PepsiCo, Nestle, Cadbury Schweppes, Groupe DANONE, Kraft Foods, Unilever and non-alcoholic products sold by global breweries the truly dominant presence of this company can be easily grasped.

The company in the face of such global competition has done an excellent job of concentrating on my Value Rule of doing what you do best. The company has not expanded operations into food or alternative products instead deciding to focus nearly exclusively on sparking and still beverages. This concentration on beverages and syrups for drink consumption allows the company to operate from a much lower cost structure which I will touch on later in depth.

From a quality control perspective the company holds ownership in 75% of all production, bottling and distribution operations in their global supply chain representing equity positions in 46 of its unconsolidated bottling operators. This is a significant strength for the company as it enables management to maintain tight control of operations, quality control, efficiencies in production & distribution and prevents operating risks from various disruptive elements. When you manage so many brands globally worth billions of dollars your focus on control should always be very high and sustained. It would cost too much for KO to operate independently in so many global markets and partners (majority or minority owned) allow the company to maintain oversight on important aspects of their business while not absorbing the entirety of costs. Specifically any equity investment in production and distribution operations ensures the company maintains control and protects its intellectual property such as product recipes or product development research.

The global economy has shown clear evidence of contraction coming out of 2008 and any global business can anticipate a slowing of growth in a number of markets. Concerns for KO exist currently in North America, Great Britain, Germany, India, Japan and Philippines for various economic or logistical reasons. Competitive factors always need to be accurately addressed when analyzing a company and there certainly is no shortage of global or domestic competition for the market share of Coca-Cola products. Competitive factors play a very important role in how the company executes pricing, advertising, sales, promotional programs, product innovation, production efficiencies, packaging technology, vending equipment, brand development and trademark protection.

KO has direct exposure to bottling and distribution operations of its products because of equity stakes in these businesses that are responsible for bringing their products to market. One major concern of late has been the increasing material costs and energy in the production and bottling process. The largest core cost for the company is nutritive & non-nutritive sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin and sucrolose. These products are found in high concentrations in Coca-Cola products and recent high corn prices, while down in recent months, and have led to increased costs in raw materials required for production. Energy is needed not only to ship product to market but a large amount of heat is needed in the production process to appropriately dissolve the large amounts of sweeteners placed into the company’s syrup products.

A significant threat to the company is the extent to which Coca-Cola operates globally in over 200 countries. In each country the company operates within there are abundant government regulations or restrictions on product safety, product composition and competition. Governments, regardless of their composition, tend to be unpredictable in making rational decisions at times and this can adversely affect a business that has plans for expansion but is met by political resistance. It would not be uncommon for any government (local or regional) to adjust current laws or regulations to better protect national interests or competitive issues relating to their own domestic brands. The recent issue taken by The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on Coca-Cola’s new Diet Coke Plus demonstrates the oversight and resistance that the company can encounter when attempting to develop and market new products.Availability of key infrastructure is a current concern of mine, most specifically in India, where production, distribution and energy requirements are providing barriers to growth of the company’s operations. In order for the company to meet food and safety, operating standards and distribution schedules in various markets the company requires the proper infrastructure in order to deliver market demand. Building domestic infrastructure is beyond the financial capacity of Coca-Cola in these markets so product either needs to be shipped farther distances into new markets or not offered due to complications of such limited logistics. With such a concentrated focus on the Chinese market I feel many investors have missed the clear barriers to entry that KO faces in many other emerging economies.

Coca-Cola battles this lack of available infrastructure with a focus on brand development in emerging consumer markets and establishing a very strong emotional response to their products. They sponsor large sports events, become integrated in communities through charitable events and spend large amounts of money on effective advertising. Once the brand has been successfully entrenched into a market domestic competition and governments have found it very difficult to place restrictions on their growth or to motivate change in consumer perceptions.

In recent years public initiatives have been created to restrict the sale and distribution of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products within schools citing the concern for the recent and significant increases in obesity of young children. Some municipalities, school boards or governments have successfully implemented bans on dispensing machines in schools, but others have found strong resistance from school boards who receive lucrative donations to their sports teams, social programs or for new equipment as part of a negotiated partnership with one of the large corporations. The focus here, ethics aside, for the companies is their clear interest in funding social programs for brand development with the initiative to create lifelong loyalty to their brands and products by impressionable youth and create habit forming behaviours.

There are also a high number of serious economic, technological and social threats to the growth and profitability of KO. Each of the following items I’ve cited as a major concern for the company and are being handled adequately using a variety of methods by management:
  • The increasing trends in health awareness are here to stay and KO has been proactive with increased product development and advertising of brands such as Diet Coke and Fanta as well as the recent successful launch of their Zero products (Coke Zero, Sprite Zero).
  • Fresh water continues to be a concern as availability; prices and resources come under increased pressure in developing economies and markets. The health of consumers is a top concern of the company when they examine a market and spend considerable expense securing and treating water used in their products either directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process.
  • With the global economy likely to contract into 2009 growth and expansion into emerging markets may be more difficult than the company had previously targeted. This may put pressure on marketing budgets, but will likely lead to consolidation in the industry as smaller companies with high quality brands don’t have access to credit/financing or aren’t able to service high levels of internal debt.
  • Foreign currency and interest rates are major factors in the profitability of the company. Management balances the risk of operating in so many countries by hedging their exposure with derivatives. KO hedges operations up to 36 months in advance with most derivative instruments expiring within 24 months or less of their creation. While financial derivatives have been a toxic element to many businesses in the recent credit environment hedges held by the company help buffer cashflow from international operations from the significant volatility in the valuation of foreign currencies.
  • Unions and collective bargaining agreements (CBA) will always be a concern in any unionized environment. With 75% of sales outside of North America the company is well positioned to balance disruptions to operations in domestic markets. One part of owning equity stakes in bottling operations is to ensure that KO has a vested interest in how employees are treated to avoid such conflicts.
In May of 2007 Coca-Cola successfully acquired Energy Brands (Glaceau) for $4.1B in cash to increase its product portfolio of enhanced water drinks adding vitamin water to its list of health conscious brands. On September 3rd of 2008 Coca-Cola announced another strategic offer to purchase China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited for $2.4B in cash. KO has operated in China since 1979 and was a major sponsor of the recent summer Olympic Games held in Beijing. Still beverages have been a focus in the Chinese market in recent years and the acquisition of the Huiyuan Juice brands diversifies the product portfolio of KO in China. One strategic element that comes from this acquisition is the proposed expansion of their distribution network within the country. Costs and operations can be now streamlined with sales, distribution, manufacturing, product development and marketing benefiting from the merger of the two companies.

While we think of juice in North America as a product not associated with large-scale sales; juice products in China are an established and fast growing segment of the beverage market. Juice is actually a more profitable product from a margin perspective and the Minute Maid brand is a key complimentary product to the established Huiyuan brands in the Chinese market. KO has been looking for growth vehicles to support stronger domestic growth in China and local bottling partners between the two companies make a strategic fit. The deal is anticipated to close in early 2009 and be accretive to earnings within three years. The obvious threat to this deal is that it is conditional of Chinese regulatory approval but currently no problems with that process have been publicized or speculated upon.

While conducting additional research on the company I found a Virtual Vending Machine that was fun to gain a sense of the Coca-Cola brands offered globally by the company. With a supply chain valued at over $50B US it’s easy to gain a sense of just how global this company is in all aspects of their businesses.

One key concern I always maintain with any company is a keen evaluation of their management. Executives are not only responsible for the daily operations of a company, but also establishing the corporate culture and expectations of how an organization expects to do business. No company grows to the size and scale of operations that Coca-Cola has without an extraordinary vision of where the company is going, how it will get there and a group of effective leaders to pave the way. In my evaluation of management, which I encourage all investors to do on their own, I’ve found very clear objectives and strategic priorities from management on where they expect the business to grow, operate and execute. The core competencies of the company are defined as consumer marketing, commercial leadership and franchise leadership which is clearly evident when you evaluate the company from a number of perspectives.

There was a recent transition in leadership at the company when Neville Isdell stepped down as CEO and Muhtar Kent assumed the role as new CEO. Muhtar Kent has been with the company since 1978, comes from a strong background in marketing and has a strong history of participating in the global operations of the company in many capacities. The transition between the two managers was smooth and without incidence which is something I always carry as a litmus test for preserving corporate culture and maintaining a pulse on the business.

In the spreadsheets provided I’ve listed the past five years of critical data for the company

(Data since 1988 made available via SAML or with full analysis purchase below).


Whenever I look through the operating numbers of a company I’m looking to evaluate three main items:
  • A consistent theme of performance
  • Conservative fiscal management
  • Emerging trends that hold the potential to influence the company either positively or negatively in the future
A portion of my analysis always focuses on vital criteria such as EPS, dividends, cashflows, debt/equity ratios, book value growth and other important metrics but running a successful business is more than just keeping those numbers in check. Your business has to be sustainable, flexible to meet global challenges and adaptive to changes in the consumer environment

I’ve accumulated various data on Coca-Cola and organized it in a spreadsheet very similar to my presentation of Taking Stock in COST. While each companies spreadsheet in my SA data will differ slightly based on their unique industry my focus will often concentrate on margins, return on equity, debt levels, book value growth, increases in costs and dividends. Remember that as a prospective owner in the business I want to investigate information that directly impacts my returns, my financial stake in the business and potential for future returns.

First on the list for examination are revenues and cost of goods sold (COGS). Revenue is income that the company receives from the sale of a good or service and COGS is the direct cost of producing that product or service.

Coca-Cola has successfully reported a profit over the past twenty years, but I want to evaluate the relationship and trend between revenues and COGS. This is important because I want to identify if one side of the equation is changing in any drastic manner relative to the other. The 20-year average for increases in revenues has been 7.12% and the increase in COGS has been 6.45%. This is positive in my view because I can see an established trend where overall revenues are increasing at a faster rate than overall costs. If these numbers were reversed (6.45% for revenues & 7.12% for COGS) I would be very concerned because it demonstrates that costs are increasing at a faster rate than revenues and that is not sustainable for any business. These trends affect the profit growth of a company and as a shareholder I may be concerned that management isn’t doing a good enough job of managing their cost structure. Taking the past five years (a smaller snapshot) I get an average increase in revenues of 8.42% and average increase in costs of 8.36%. The margin between the two is smaller, but the trend remains intact.

Margins are one of the first calculations I ever determine when I’ve decided to look at a company in greater depth. There are two types of margins I want to identify and examine: gross margins and profit margins.

When we examine gross margins for KO we see a very healthy average of 63.85% on a historical basis. This means for every $1.00 the company receives in revenue they retain nearly $0.64 after direct production costs. Profit margins for KO are 17.46% and for every dollar the company receives in revenue they retain a profit of over $0.17.

This is a much higher gross & profit margin than many other businesses and is a direct effect of the type of business Coca-Cola conducts. They sell higher margin products around the world and do so because their costs are relatively low and brand loyalty is very high. We can clearly see variations in each margin category through different time periods where profit and gross margins fluctuated in relation to different economic periods. One thing to notice is whenever they dropped relative to the historical average they subsequently rebounded shortly after with increases in the margins.

SGAE as % of net sales is another category I always focus on that provides insights into how management is managing their own spending and not just that of the corporation. SGAE stands for “Selling, General and Administrative Expenses” and tracks the spending of non-core expenses that aren’t linked to the production or operating process. Management may be great at minimizing costs and boasting a fat gross margin, but I want to focus on the question: Can they control the spending that directly impacts the profit margins their company achieves?

Readers will notice a stark contrast in SGAE versus my previous stock analyses with KO reporting its average SGAE as % of net sales of over 40%. This means that non-core production costs are 40% of total revenues! Normally this should be an alarm bell going off for any prospective investor, but we first need to put this number into the proper context. We can see that the historical trend has fallen over the past few years, but 38% is still a relatively high number in 2007.

We first need to identify that Coca-Cola’s business is much different than other businesses. Although they have low production costs and significant gross margins, they spend a lot of money on advertising promoting their products around the world. KO didn’t become the biggest and wealthiest brand in the world by restricting spending on promotion of their products and this commitment to effective advertising has led to sales increasing globally for the past twenty years. KO also operates in a variety of challenging markets where they may be focusing on conservation of market share for mature products and heavy spending for promoting new innovative products that are fuelling future sales growth.

To really put this into the proper perspective we need to compare margins to a company in the same industry: PepsiCo (PEP)

(Margin Analysis, Valuation Model & Dividend Discount Cashflow Calculator available via SAML or with full analysis purchase below).

Coca-Cola has a simple business model to understand and this benefits an individual investor who wants to focus on fundamentals. They sell carbonated & still beverages and syrups for consumption around the world, have a dominant brand image in hundreds of products, own stakes in nearly all their bottling operations, possess strong brand loyalty, are expanding into new markets with conservative acquisitions and focus on doing what they do best.

The company is profitable and by a large margin because they keep costs low and focus on maintaining very high margins. Despite slower sales growth than their main competitor (PEP) their growth of expenses has been lower resulting in revenue growth outpacing expense growth and this too is by a wider margin than PEP.

The company has made accretive acquisitions by not overpaying and continues to focus on growth of products domestically (Coke Zero) and abroad (Huiyuan Juice Group Limited). Although they’ve had a change of management the new CEO steps into a role that the company has adequately prepared him for as seen by his past leadership roles.

I’ve found that there are times when focusing on the simplest facts of a business result in some of the best businesses to invest in over the long-term. An individual who drinks one Coca-Cola product today is likely to drink another one tomorrow and again in the near future. A Coke tastes the same at 9am in the morning as it does at 5pm in the evening regardless of if those two drinks are consumed in opposite parts of the world and this creates the perpetual demand that the company has enjoyed for so many decades.

One of the most distinct and sustainable competitive advantages held in the world today is possessed by Coca-Cola. It’s not a patent, a manufacturing process or real estate; it’s the products, brands and operating structure that allow Coca-Cola to operate at a much more cost effective position than their global competition.

I don’t want to discount that there are significant long-term threats due to an increase in health awareness and the short-term global economic dynamics. Management has done an admirable job diversifying their product portfolio to more health conscious brands and the one wonderful thing about a lower cost structure and significantly higher margins is that as a company you are well protected to weather any significant storm. While I never advocate that a company compete on price higher margins provide Coca-Cola with an adequate buffer to cushion any economic volatility so that the bottom line of the business is minimally affected.


Disclosure: I own shares of Coca-Cola (KO), Kraft Food (KFT) and IGM Financial (IGM) at the time of this post.


Read more about The Stock Analysis Mailing List (SAML) including format, pricing, delivery method and disclaimer.

Purchase your individual copy of Taking Stock in Coca-Cola (KO)
Each 14 page PDF includes:
- Extensive Situational Analysis
- Management Analysis
- Examination of Operating Results
- Critical Analysis of Main Competitor
- DCF Valuation with Target Price
- The Big Picture
- 20 years of Organized Financial Data (excel)






Craving more? Visit the TMWTFS Stock Analysis & Reviews page for a full list of stocks I have covered and comments written by my peers.


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you

Friday, January 9, 2009

Investing Opportunities from Tax-Loss Selling:

With 2008 in the rear-view mirror I thought readers might be interested in my December investing activities during the perennial tax-loss selling period.


What is Tax-Loss Selling?

Tax-loss selling (or tax gain/loss harvesting) is a very important tool an investor can use in a taxable investment account to reduce the tax burden (taxes you pay) now and in the future. Because capital gains are taxed, in Canada, at half your marginal tax rate (MTR) there is an incentive for many investors to sell investments at a loss prior to year end in order to crystallize those losses.

Say I were to invest equally in two stocks: ABC Inc. & MNO Ltd.

During the year the share price of ABC Inc appreciates 50% and I sell all my shares to lock in a gain. MNO Ltd’s share price falls 60% and now I am looking at a big negative in the loss column of my investment portfolio for this stock. Instead of paying tax on my 50% gain from ABC at tax time next year I can sell MNO to offset an amount of capital gains for this year. If I made $1,000 on ABC and had lost $1,200 on MNO I can sell MNO now and carry forward a tax-loss of $200.

If I still like the investing prospects of MNO in the future I can buy back the stock in 30 days and still retain the tax-loss that I’ve crystallized. The $200 loss can be carried forward indefinitely or applied to any previous capital gains I may have had in the past three tax years.


Strategy:

It’s no mystery that November and December each year are opportunities for investors to conduct some much needed housecleaning. This often includes rebalancing of portfolios, a re-concentration on asset allocation and selling investments in taxable portfolios for tax-loss selling purposes.

As a value investor I recognize that many taxable investors conduct tax-loss selling not because they believe the prospects of a specific company are poor, but because it helps them achieve a more tax-neutral position from gains they’ve achieved that year. Selling pressure pulls down the prices of equities that have experienced significant losses during the year and may present opportunities for a long-term investor such as myself to wade into the market and take shares off the hands of those seeking liquidity. While many investors are focused on selling losing stocks for tax purposes I’m keen on looking for opportunities to strengthen my portfolio on this market activity.


Purchases:

Much of my investing activity in Q4 of 2008 focused on the anticipation of significant tax-loss selling in the final 60 days of the year due to the need for so many investors to unload the significant losses incurred over the past year. Because of the extent of gains over the past three years I knew that losses could be applied from this year against previous years lifting the tax burden investors experienced in 2007 & 2006.

I first began this selective buying with a series of purchases in six preferred shares series in October & November during the steep market declines. I then followed with new purchases of TMX Group (X) in December and added to my existing positions in Cominar REIT (CUF.UN), Calloway REIT (CWT.UN), Russel Metals (RUS), Newalta (NAL.UN) and TD Bank (TD).

As a long-term investor I was able to add to existing positions and initiate new ones because of my selective targeting of high quality investments that were selling significantly under any meaningful measure of fair market value (FMV). Even in the event of a dividend cut in one or two of my holdings my dividend income for the year is up substantially and as previously mentioned now matches my intended yearly contribution from savings to my Dividend Growth portfolio. Over the long-term this additional income is used to buy additional shares in companies and compound my returns at an accelerated rate over the next twenty years.

It wasn't easy or stress-less to wade into the market knowing the extent of losses experienced this year, but discipline and focus were my twin towers in providing a foundation for those purchases.


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you

Monday, January 5, 2009

Investment Review - 2008:

In one of my concluding posts for 2007 I used the line Cash is King to describe my thoughts on investment opportunities for 2008. What I didn’t know at that time was the accuracy of the prediction that cash would play throughout parts of the year for equity and debt markets.

The past twelve months have seen a flurry of activity as I collapsed my Value Portfolio, concentrated on increasing investment cashflow and decided to utilize a line of credit for investment purposes. Each substantially helped me to avoid the critical losses that many other investors have experienced and while I would like to attribute my stock selection skills and portfolio construction for my ability to avoid significant downside I remain humble in how fortunate I was to make it fairly unscathed. One dominant theme played out in the market during this past year that very few could have predicted…everything got hit.

Nearly every stock, every asset class and every economy was hit with a wave of fear, panic and uncertainty that lead to global markets posting losses that went well over what previous bear markets have brought. Some stocks or asset classes held up better than others, but for the majority of investors it appeared for a time that the rules of investing fundamentals was turned upside down and don’t currently appear to matter over the short-term.

Lessons Learnt:

While global diversification might have been useless as markets around the world followed each other into the dark abyss sector diversification, for my portfolios, helped considerably to protect from critical losses. Consumer stocks such as Metro (MRU.A), Empire (EMP.A), Kraft (KFT), Colgate-Palmolive (CL), Smuckers (SJM), Saputo (SAP) and Shoppers Drug Mart (SC) held up relatively well in the face of severe pessimism in equity markets. My healthcare holdings in Sanofi-Aventis (SNY), Baxter (BAX) & Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) buffered the storm from a defensive position and a venture in preferred shares has added some additional cashflow to my Canadian dividend-growth portfolio despite my initial hesitations about this asset class. The big disappointments this year came from the performances of General Electric (GE), Exelon (EXC), Banco Bilbao (BBV), Manulife Financial (MFC) and my core positions in three Canadian Banks (RY, TD & BNS). I decided in July as oil prices and the Canadian dollar began their initial slide that I would hedge my US positions with DTO (double short oil ETF) with the high correlation between oil prices and our loonie in order to protect from the short-term downside I anticipated from a bursting commodity bubble. I’ve maintained that hedge after trimming my position by half and still believe it to be a worthwhile activity despite the long-term holding period of this portfolio. While a gain of over 540% may seem incredible the hedge was only a small portion of my portfolio and the value of my RSP, in Canadian currency, has remained virtually the same.

Looking back on the performance of various equities I hold I realize that not having all my investments in one category helped to provide gains when others were lagging. Exposure to industrials, utilities, financials, consumer stocks and energy helped to buffer the losses that I could have experienced if I were exposed to one more than another and demonstrates to me the importance of sector diversification as much as asset or global diversification.

Dividends make a big difference and while I’ve advocated for the importance of dividends in an investment portfolio 2008 showed you why you want to get paid as an investor. There are a lot of investors jumping onto the Dividend Express in recent years and I have to admit that while I favour dividends over pure gains my two portfolios (DivG & RSP) currently yield very respectable cashflow that has helped to fuel new purchases of shares I might not have had access to otherwise. In an environment where capital comes at a premium I think investors need to expect a form of compensation for the equity they provide to a public corporation. Attention needs to be paid to a company’s payout in the event that it’s not sustainable but there is a clear case to be made that companies need to offer investors an incentive to continue to hold their equity in times such as these. Investors need to realize that equity is used by companies to make loans, buy equipment and conduct their business. When the cost of capital is at such high levels and if markets trade sideways for a prolonged period of time I want to ensure that I have the resources available to me as an investor to continue buying companies at depressed prices. The current amount of dividends paid out from DivG nearly matches my targeted annual contributions from savings I intend to contribute to that portfolio for 2009. Essentially the dividends act as an equal partner in growing my portfolios over the long-term by doubling what I can invest through savings left from my income over the next twelve months. This acts as a second or third earner in my household and contributes meaningfully now and over the long-term in the future cashflow I create from my investments.

Part of being a young investor is the continued struggle to stay grounded in your outlook on investments. For some time I’ve felt I had a good grasp of how far an individual equity could fall based on a valuation of the company that was reflected in the intrinsic value of the business. Essentially I felt there would always be a floor on the market price of an investment based on rational fundamentals of the business. In 2008 I learnt that equities, bonds and preferred shares can fall much further than any long-term fundamentals may dictate regardless of how deeply I found them to be discounted. Some stocks initially resisted the abundant negativity of the market and were range bound in their valuations, but I quickly witnessed that selling pressure can act as an avalanche which left me in awe. In my assessment of some of my bluest blue chip stocks I witnessed valuations and yields of astounding levels and valuations that knocked on the door of book value that I never envisioned seeing.

I like to attribute the equity and credit markets of 2008 to walking into a trauma in the emergency department twenty minutes late and expected to jump into the middle of things without knowing much about what might be going on. There’s always anxiety as you attempt to make sense of your surroundings but experience teaches you that patients, just as markets, still need the basic fundamentals to survive. Just as each of us need oxygen to breathe and energy to fuel our metabolism; a company needs access to capital, products or services in demand by markets, a margin of safety in its operations to weather a significant storm and leadership to provide direction when the ride gets rough. Staying composed and able to think critically in the midst of a meltdown offers some intriguing perspective that can assist any investor. When the markets become dysfunctional the basic principles of business take over.

2008 provided the perfect environment for an investor to realize the importance of having a plan. Whether you had simple goals or a specific investor policy statement (IPS) 2008 was the environment where you needed the discipline to stick with a well designed investing strategy regardless of how far investments fell. If your goal was capital preservation and you leaned towards a higher risk tolerance in recent years with the allure and promise of commodities and globalization than likely you’ve learnt an important and expensive lesson. A plan helps to take out the emotions that always seem to plague investors and lead them to market timing mistakes. If you invest in an indexed investment strategy and were fearful to commit your regular monthly contributions you may have saved some money on the downside, but might end up regretting those decisions through this period for accumulation prospects if the markets recover 20-30% from these levels. Although many pundits are advocating that old investing strategies are worthless in this market environment I still believe that a well executed plan will serve an investor well over the long-term.

Volatility was nasty in 2008 and you had to stay focused to capitalize on opportunities. Whether investors were jettisoning investments because of fear, margin calls, preservation or capitulation a keen investor could do well by placing orders below the bid/ask and of an investment and securing that company when others rushed in to sell.

My short-term plan, a ten part series I published in the fall, was likely a better investment tool than I had noticed at the time and helped me avoid some very serious losses that I could have experienced if I hadn’t revisited that short-list of criteria on a weekly basis. While this list might not have been the only factor in helping my portfolios from weathering this storm it did help me on multiple occasions to avoid investments that failed those criteria and fell precipitately from where I had originally looked at them.

My final two lessons don’t offer any new insights but provide some very important lessons for investors: 1.) Debt kills companies & 2.) Traditional sources of safety can no longer be blindly held as safe without further investigation.


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Investor Education at Toron:

In my first post under the label Value Insight I introduced some investor resources on the Toron Investment Management website.

With the recent chaos and irrational behaviour in the financial markets I've been fielding a lot of questions surrounding investing fundamentals, what investors should or shouldn't do and how to best make sense of what has been going on.

Specifically I'll highlight the following content that I feel is helpful for new investors:

(I was not compensated or solicited for any portion of this post)


Click here to see how future posts can be delivered directly to you