Latest stories

Annual review 2010 – Balmer lawrie ltd

A

Balmer lawrie is a decent size holding for me and hence I make it a point to review the annual performance in detail. The annual report for the company was published recently and I have been looking at it. Following are my thoughts on the performance of the company –

I have written about the company
here earlier. The company has been doing fairly well and the management has been moving the company in the right direction. The changes are not obvious from the overall results, but if one analyses the individual businesses of the company, the picture turns out to be much better.

Let me list some statistics (for last 6 years) of each of the SBU of the company and then give my thoughts on it
Industrial packaging (steel drums/ barrels etc) – Revenue growth per annum: 14%, Profit growth: 29%, Average ROCE: 18%+
Greases and lubes – Revenue growth per annum: 19%, Profit growth: 26%, Average ROCE: 15%+
Logistics (the largest division in terms of bottom line) – Revenue growth per annum: 8%, Profit growth: 19%, Average ROCE: 150%+
Tours and travels – Revenue growth per annum: 11%, Profit growth: 14%, Average ROCE: 30%+
Others (tea, leather chemicals etc) – Revenue growth per annum: -5%, Profit growth: negative, Average ROCE: negative
Overall company – Revenue growth per annum: 11%, Profit growth: 30%+, ROCE: 25%+

A few key points stand out
– The management is moving the company out of the unprofitable lines and investing into profitable businesses. They could move faster, but I still appreciate the performance as they are operating in a PSU environment with unionized labor.
– The management has improved the Return on capital for the good businesses too in the last 5-6 years. For example – logistics, travel etc have seen improvement in capital returns
– The management has paid off all the debt and has surplus cash of almost 300 crs on the balance sheet
– The management has raised dividend rapidly in the last 5 years and the current dividend is almost 4% of the CMP.

I personally think that the management has done a fairly good job of delivering good performance in tough business segments.

A few more points –
– The company has a few JVs (joint ventures) also. One of the JV (TSL) had a fraud and misreported the results for the last few years . As a result Balmer lawrie has prudently written off the investment in the JV. This has depressed the company’s profit for the year.
– The company is investing in the logistics business by opening new CFS. In addition the company has exited most of its unprofitable tea business in UK and hopefully will do so in india too.

The company should be able to make a net profit in the range of 130-140 crores for the year (including JVs). I think a conservative estimate of fair value for the company is around 1300 Rs/ share.

Perception driven investing
There is a lot of perception driven investing in the market. A lot of investors, including me, make decisions based on certain pre-conceived notions. A few of these notions are true, but some are just assumptions which have never been validated.
– PSUs do not make good investments: The assumption is that the PSU label means a poorly run government company which is always losing money. This is however always not true . There are several profitable and well run PSU such as Concor, BHEL etc.
– MNC are attractive investment: The assumption is that the MNC subsidiaries are run by well educated and professional managers. Hence they are good investments. The reality is that these companies are fairly well run, but not for the benefit of the minority shareholders. There have been a lot of instances where the top management has stiffed the minority shareholder to benefit the parent company
– Small and mid caps are risky: All stocks are risky if you don’t know what you are doing. Even walking in the house is risky, if you close your eyes when doing so.
– Rohit is smart, handsome and good looking: This is not a perception, but absolute truth 🙂 even if no one including my wife refuse to agree with it.


Balmer lawrie has suffered from a PSU discount and has always sold below fair value. At the same time it has given 35%+ returns per annum (including dividends) to shareholders who have been diligent enough to evaluate the company beyond the labels and patient to hold on to it for the long term.

I think it is important to check one’s assumptions and perceptions before making a decision. You may be surprised by what you find – that is other than the last point about me, which I can assure you is not a perception but absolute reality 🙂

Ignore the index – clearing some confusion

I

As expected, my previous post got a lot of good comments and emails questioning my logic (and sanity 🙂 ) . Most of the comments highlighted a lot of valid points against my assertion, that one should ignore the index when investing directly in stocks. I can bet a lot of you must have rolled your eyes when you saw the title and read the post 🙂

The main reason why my previous post may have appeared rash is that I did not explore all the nuances of investing, while ignoring the index. Let me start by highlighting some assumptions behind the previous post

– My key assumption behind the previous post was that the investor is investing for the long term and would not be bothered by short term fluctuations of the market or the stock price.
– The investor is a reasonably informed and diligent investor (a do it yourself kind of person)
– The investor has done his or her homework or analysis and has sound reason for believing that the stock is undervalued. In other words, the investor has evaluated the business well and believes that the company will do well in the long run (increase its intrinsic value).
– The investor is looking at building wealth in the long run and would be satisfied with above average returns (couple of percentage points above the index in the long run) and not looking at beating the index every quarter or year.

Let’s explore further by what is meant by investing while ignoring the index –

Sound fundamental analysis
The first requirement for this type of approach is that the individual has analyzed the company in detail and has good reason, backed by experience, to believe that the company will do well and the stock is also undervalued.

It is common to find undervalued and cheap stock during bear markets and market panics. It is however not a fact written in stone that one cannot find cheap stocks during bull markets and overpriced one’s during bear markets (hint – look at bharti airtel’s performance since Jan 2009 during which period the index has almost doubled).

When I suggested that one should ignore the index when investing in individual stocks, I did not mean that one should stop thinking and buy a stock which does not offer a good margin of safety. My assertion is that the process of evaluating a company and deciding if it is undervalued or not is not linked to the index levels.

A stock is undervalued if the current price is well below the conservatively calculated fair value of the company (which depends on the future performance of the company). This undervaluation or overvaluation does not depend on whether the index is overpriced or if it is raining in Timbuktu.

What if the market drops?
If you believe that company is selling below the fair value and you have confidence in the long term performance of the company, why does it matter if the market and the stock price drops after you have bought? Is it a tragedy that you bought a stock at a 50% discount to fair value and the stock went to 60% discount before eventually reaching fair value and giving you a 100% return in the process?

Is your approach to buy at the very bottom and sell at the absolute top ?

The problem with most of the investors is that they look at the short term price performance to validate their analysis. If you have that mindset, then it is very difficult to hold a stock for the long term as almost every other company which has given good long term returns has had short term spells of absolutely disastrous price performance.

The sole validation of your analysis should be the fundamental performance of the underlying business. If the company does well, the stock price will follow in due course of time. In the short run, the stock price will be influenced by market sentiments, news, liquidity and god knows what other factors. In the long run (usually 2-3 yrs), the price does catch up with value.

If on the other hand, the underlying business performance starts going south, then the best course of action is to sell and cut your losses (easier said than done). You will lose money in such a company even if the index goes up.

Buying the stock cheaper
The other argument I read repeatedly is that the stock price will come down when the market drops and an investor should be patient to wait for such opportunities.

I am all for being opportunistic and keeping some cash on hand to take advantage of such opportunities. I did not recommend that one should be fully invested during bull runs and not have some cash around if an opportunity presents itself. Asset allocation depends on several factors (age, target allocation % etc) and should be made based on your personal preferences.

Let’s say you do have ample cash and have to make a decision on a specific stock. If however you think that the market is too high and would like to wait for the market to drop to pick the stock cheap, then how do you know if the market will drop in 1, 3 or 8 months. In addition, can you be assured that the company will not keep doing well during this period and even if the market drops, the price may never drop to the current levels?

Finally, if you are confident that the market is going to drop soon (based on some logic or intuition), then are you buying index puts to benefit from it? If the market drops as you thought, then you will make money on your puts and also be able to buy the stock cheap !!!

Should you invest blindly during bull runs
I actually got accused of saying this in the previous post ! I personally don’t recall making this statement. Ignoring the index does not mean that you become blind to the valuation of individual stocks and start investing like a monkey.

It is true that stocks are usually overvalued when the market is in a bull run. Usually does not mean always and all the time.

My suggestion is this – disconnect the process of analyzing the stock and deciding whether it is undervalued or overvalued from the level of the market, GDP growth projection and other macro factors. One should focus on the specific factors which will drive the performance of the company and based on this assessment, decide if the stock is undervalued or overvalued.

If it is undervalued start buying! If you think the market will drop, then buy slowly and add to your position when the price drops. If you are wrong, then you would have missed a good opportunity. ofcourse all of this is easy to say and tough to execute.

The most cherished assumption
The market level seems to be one of the most fundamental drivers of buy/ sell decisions for most investors. I personally think it is worth evaluating this assumption and not dismissing it without thinking about it. You can always test it with a single stock or a very small amount of your capital and see if the assumption holds up.

The downside of this test is that you could lose a small amount of your money, but the upside is that it could open up a completely new way of thinking about the market and investing.

Ignore the index

I

I regularly try to understand the assumptions which drive my portfolio decisions, which in turn have a major impact on the long term returns . There is a fancy term for this process – meta congnition or ‘thinking about thinking’.

I have realized (and will continue to discover) that I have made sub-optimal decisions in the past due to various assumptions. One of the most damaging assumptions has been this – One should buy stocks when the market is low and sell when the market is high.

This assumption and way of thinking is more or less a stupid way of investing in the markets. I have engaged in it in the past and have paid a heavy price in terms of opportunity cost

Reason behind this thinking
I think the main reason behind this thinking is due the negative effect of all the media chatter and noise. The commentators on various financial channels are paid by the volume and not by intelligence. If a financial commentator recommended a great stock or great idea and then asked you check back after one year, do you think they will remain in business?

As a result of this bais (towards unnecessary activity), the media and a lot investors have to discuss about something. Now, you can’t discuss about the fundamental performance of stocks every day ..isnt it ? so what better topic to discuss than market levels and price action of various stocks?

Does the market level even matter ?
The first question I am asked after someone comes to know that I invest regularly is – do you think the market is high or low and should they wait for a particular level before they starting putting money into the market ?

What do you people mean by the market level ?

The market level is usually the index which in turn is a weighted average of a fixed number of stocks (for example nifty is an average of 50 stocks). So the notion is that the market is overvalued or undervalued at some number at a particular point in time.

The problem with this question is the market level is immaterial if you want to buy individual stocks. If the stock you want to buy is overpriced, then a low market does not matter and vice versa.

The only case where the market level would matter is if you plan to invest a large sum of money into the index.

How has this assumption hurt me?
I have engaged in this convoluted thinking in the past. As a result, I have slackened during bull runs assuming that most of the stocks would be overpriced. The reality is that even during bull runs there are stocks which are undervalued, but it takes more effort to dig them out.

I abandonded this thinking two years back and have started looking for good ideas irrespective of the market level. If the stock is underpriced, I will create a position in the stock irrespective of the market levels. If the market drops and the stock drops too, then all the better as I am able to add to my position further at a lower price.

A real example
One can have several counter points to the above thought process
– Should one not wait for the markets to drop so that you can buy the stock even cheaper?
– Will the stock appreciate if the market drops and remains at lower levels for extended periods of time?

To the first point – if you can see the future (know if the market will drop in the future), then either you are a gifted person or completely delusional. If you are gifted, then use your talents to do something big or world changing.
One cannot invest based on hindsight and we have to make decisions based on what we know now (the stock is cheap or not based on current facts!)

On the second point – The long term returns of a stock is dependent on the level of undervaluation and fundamental performance of a company and not entirely on the market level. As an example, in early 2008, mid cap IT stocks were among the most ignored group. The future was not bright for them.

I wrote about IT stocks (NIIT tech in particular) in Q2 of 2008 and felt that the market was over discounting the future. Interestingly the future turned out to be worse than anyone imagined. Inspite of that, these companies survived and have done fine.

The market has since then corrected the undervaluation and these stocks have doubled during this period whereas the index (aka market level) has been more or less flat.

Focus on the important and knowable
As warren buffett has said, an investor should focus on the important (fundamental performance of a company) and the knowable (current performance and not future market levels). The rest is noise and a smart approach is to ignore it.

The secret of high portfolio returns

T

There is none.

If you were expecting me to share some magic key to super high returns, you must be disappointed. It is amazing that there is an entire segment of the financial industry which is into selling all kinds of special ways of making very high returns with minimal risk and absolutely no effort. I will not blame the seller alone for selling
snake oil. They would not be able to sell this garbage, if there was no demand for it.

If one leaves aside the clueless and the greedy, the rest of the investors still live under several myths. Let’s look at some of the prevailing myths

Finding a multi-bagger is key to high returns
The number one aspiration of a lot of investors is to find the elusive multi-bagger or better yet a ten bagger. If one can find and invest in a multi-bagger, then he or she is all set for life.
I don’t deny the thrill of investing in a multi-bagger. However unless one has a focused portfolio (with 3-5 stocks), a multi-bagger will not make a huge difference to the overall returns.

The problem with focusing on multi-baggers is that one loses sight of the main objective (getting good portfolio returns) and ends up confusing the means with the end. A lot of times a mindless focus on multi-baggers blinds one to good opportunities, where one can make good returns (30-40%) in a decent period of time.

In addition to the above problem, new investors become susceptible to fly by night operators and other shady services which promise multi-baggers and quick returns.

Finally multi-baggers are the result of a good investing process, patience of holding the stock over a long period of time and ample luck.

Leverage
I have heard from some readers that they have considerable leverage in their portfolio and it has helped them to get high returns.

I am personally against leverage. High leverage is enjoyable when the going is good and one is making high returns, but it can kill your financial well being when things go wrong. The whole 2008-2009 financial disaster was a lesson in excess leverage, both by individuals and financial institution.

John maynard Keynes said it best – The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Inside information
The other common myth I have heard is that the markets are completely rigged and the only way to get high returns is to have access to insider information.

That may be true. It is quite possible that there are several shady operators in the market who try to manipulate the market and have been able to make a killing as a result.

It is however incorrect to blame the market operators alone for the losses of the small investor. A lot of time, cheats and con artist are able to take advantage of others due to their greed and fear. This is not limited to stock markets alone and one has heard of such stories in lots of other cases, especially if money is involved.

Super high intellect
The other common myth is that one is born with some kind of ‘finance’ gene. Such super talented investors can make money effortlessly and are destined for greatness. This myth is not limited to finance alone and extends to a lot of other areas such sports and education.

This is an topic is of great interest for me and I have read a lot on it (as I consider myself to have no inborn talent for investing).

The question is this – Is extreme skill, such as being a great investor or great sportsman the result of an inborn talent or something which one can develop over a lifetime?

There are a lot of great books on this topic – talent is overrated and mindset. My personal conclusion for whatever it is worth is this – Extreme skill is the result of a lot of focus and hard work over a long period of time.

There are lot more myths and I could go on and on. The key question is what drives high returns?

The key points which I think drives portfolio returns are quite simple and can be listed in a couple of points

1.Continuous learning with the aim of constant improvement
2.Intellectual humility to learn from one’s mistakes
3.Hard work and intense focus

I don’t have any research to back the above points and state them from my personal experience and what I have read of other super-investors and top performers.

It is true that talent plays a part in one’s success, but intense focus and hard work drives eventual success far more than talent alone. I don’t think there is any great investor out there who has also not worked extremely hard over a long period of time to achieve that level of success. There is nothing natural in picking a good stock.

The counter point to the above statement can be – Do you think that working hard will make you a warren buffett or rakesh jhunjhunwala ?

I think this statement or thought misses the point. I may not become a warren buffett (highly unlikely), but working hard and focusing on this skill over a long period of time will definitely make me a much better and hopefully successful investor.

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