Latest stories

A Few thoughts on indian retail industry

A

I was going through a report on the Retail industry specifically the Lifestyle / Garment (Non – Food sector).

Key points and my thoughts

· There are about three main publicly listed companies – Pantaloon, Trent, and Shopper’s stop
· All companies showing rapid growth (50 %+) and expected to show it for the next 2-3 (or more) years due to new stores being opened and share of organized retail rising ( current 3-4 % may go up to 7-8 %)
· All companies have raised debt or equity to fund expansion . In addition all the three do not have excessive debt and should be able to grow easily

· Margins are competitive ( 7-10 % OPM) and Net margins in the 3-4 %. For companies which have higher % of in-store brand , the margins are higher.
· New formats coming up such as central from Pantaloon ( A form of Superstore), Big bazaar (For groceries etc ) which have been fairly successful. Other companies in the space are also expanding through similar formats ( Trent has launched its hypermarket – Star India bazaar )

Positives

Strong growth in the sector due demographic changes in India ( Young middle class is now shopping more in such places)
A few successful formats are coming up which are driving growth
Development of organized retail will improve / streamline supply chain and help in developing the sector further

Negatives

· Competitive advantages depend on economies of scale / Brand and location advantages. Companies like Pantaloon if they can achieve scale would be able derive these advantages and face foreign competition. Companies which do not scale up or develop a niche will have a tough time facing foreign competition

· Foreign competition – Walmart / Carrefour are expected to enter the market. Their huge expertise and deep pockets cannot be matched by Indian players. Also reliance and other large industrial houses may enter the sector (Will the existing players get wiped out or relegated to niches ?)

· Valuation – Currently all the companies are trading at PE of 40-50 which reflect the opportunities ahead. But somehow the market is not considering the risks to these companies from expected competition

An important sector to follow, but not worth investing now as there is no margin of safety in the valuations (which reflect great times ahead, but no risks at all)

A Go/No Go decision

A

I was reading an interview (or maybe annual meeting transcript) of warren buffet sometime back and he was asked about the discount rate he uses in the DCF (discounted cash flow) calculations.

He indicated that he uses the long term treasury risk free rate. In addition, for him a decision to buy is really a go/No go decision. If he can understand the company, its economics and predict its future for 10 years or more, and if the value is screaming at him, he goes ahead. Otherwise he passes.

I have changed my decision process after reading the above comment because it makes sense for a small investor like me. If I can understand the economics of a company (which rules out a huge number as my circle of competence is small) and if the decision is a slam dunk , I go ahead and commit my money. Else I pass. Now that has resulted in my leaving a lot of companies which were close and later did very well in terms of stock price. But in the end I would rather be sure of my decision than tweak my DCF model, fiddle with my discount rate and build hypothetical assumptions of good growth and at the first downward blip , not have the confidence to hold on to the stock.

The above go/No go approach has resulted in my leaving out pharma companies, a lot of commodity companies etc. But then for a retail investor like me who needs a few good ideas a year and does not have to show a quarterly performance like a fund manager, why take the risk and the heart burn ?

Cannot find much to invest in these days

C

Cannot find much to invest !! I typically run screens provided by icicidirect. Most of the companies being thrown up below a PE of 10-11 (I keep a cutoff at 10-11 as I think that would be the approximate value of a company with no growth and returns at cost of capital. So any company having growth and a ROC of greater than Cost of capital would be worth more).

Sample of some companies which came up

– EID parry: In commodity industry (sugar etc) and selling at 16 times peak earning (the screen was wrong and did not consider the 1:5 split.
– Banks: Several banks like Karnataka bank etc came up. Need to check if any banks would have value
– Tata steel, Essar steel, Gujarat ambuja cements – Commodity companies selling in low teens of Peak earnings. Would not be looking at investing at peak / uptrend of business cycle. Also PE is generally a poor indicator for cyclical companies. Generally during downtrends these companies would sport a high PE on depressed earnings and that could be a good time to invest.
– UB holding – A Loss making holding company selling at a CAP of 1100 crores. Tangible assets appear in the range of 300-400 crores. They could have some undervalued assets on balance sheet such as land holdings at cost, Investments in subsidiary companies. Looks unlikely to be worth more than 800-900 crores. I will need to look closely.

Any good ideas ??

How VOIP could impact telecom industry – part 2

H

I recently posted my take on an article published in the economist about how VOIP could disrupt the traditional telecom model.

A few days later e-bay bought out skype (a VOIP service which allows users to make calls from their computers to any one in the world for free – and also to regular phone , but for free).

There is a great article on this deal in the economistThe meaning of free speech .

A snippet from the article below

His vision for Skype, by contrast, is to become the world’s biggest and best platform for all communications—text, voice or video—from any internet-connected device, whether a computer or a mobile phone.
This is every bit as audacious as it sounds. Mr Zennstrom, in general, is a modest man. But his company is only three years old, will probably make only $60m in revenues this year, and will certainly not turn a profit. So it is the fact that his ambition is not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds that should make incumbent telecoms firms everywhere break out in a cold sweat.
That is because Skype can add 150,000 users a day (its current rate) without spending anything on new equipment (users “bring” their own computers and internet connections) or marketing (users invite each other). With no marginal cost, Skype can thus afford to maximise the number of its users, knowing that if only some of them start buying its fee-based services—such as SkypeOut, SkypeIn and voicemail—Skype will make money. This adds up to a very unusual business plan.


“We want to make as little money as possible per user,” says Mr Zennstrom, because “we don’t have any cost per user, but we want a lot of them.” This is the exact opposite of the traditional business model in the telecoms industry, which is based on maximising the average revenue per user, or ARPU. And that has only one logical consequence. According to Rich Tehrani, the founder of Internet Telephony, a magazine devoted to the subject, Skype and services like it are leading inexorably to a future in which all voice communication, near or far, will be free.


And more –

Even before VOIP makes 100% of telephone calls in the world completely free (which may take many years), it utterly ruins the pricing models of the telecoms industry. Factors such as the distance between the callers or the duration of a call, the key determinants of cost today, are simply irrelevant with VOIP. Vonage already lets its customers choose telephone numbers in San Francisco, New York or London, no matter where they live. A Londoner calling the London number is making a “local” call, even if the Vonage subscriber is picking up the phone in Shanghai. As when checking e-mail on, say, Hotmail, the only thing needed is a broadband-internet connection, but it can be anywhere in the world. Sooner or later, people will discard their unwieldy phone numbers altogether and use names, just as they do with their e-mail addresses, predicts Mr Zennstrom.

Call duration is also becoming irrelevant. “A lot of people open a Skype audio channel and keep it open,” says Mr Zennstrom. After all, it costs nothing. Many people with Apple computers are already accustomed to this. They open an application called iChat, which is a video and voice link, and stay connected to their loved ones far away. Increasingly, members of a family or a business team can stay online throughout the day, escalating from unobtrusive instant-messaging (“Can you talk?”) to a conference call, a video call and back to a little icon on their screen.
It is thus altogether wrong to call this phenomenon the end, or death, of telephony. “Calling it the death of telephony suggests people aren’t going to make calls, but they are,” says Sam Paltridge, a telecoms guru at the OECD. “It’s just the death of the traditional pricing models.” In short, all this is great news for consumers and awful news for telecoms operators. “VOIP will destroy voice revenues faster than most analysts’ models predict,” says Cyrus Mewawalla, an analyst at Westhall Capital. “Voice will very rapidly cease to become a major revenue generator for all telecoms operators, fixed and mobile.”


This is likely to hit the indian telecom providers hard. Somehow the valuation of these companies does not seem to be reflecting that. Its possible that it is early days for this technology in india ( we barely have phones , much less internet and broadband ). But i think it will eventually hit the indian telecom providers too ( maybe starting with the international calls where the margins are higher ).

Subscription

Enter your email address if you would like to be notified when a new post is posted:

I agree to be emailed to confirm my subscription to this list

Recent Posts

Select category to filter posts

Archives