Ted SeeksQuality

"Yes, I believe that CEF leverage is buying on margin. It can be a low-cost way of securing loans. UTG is listed by Morningstar as having a -30% cash position, which I believe means that they have borrowed $30 for every $100 of investor principal – i.e. $100 of investor principal controls $130 of investments (and $30 of debt).

Margin leverage is on top of the leverage employed by the underlying companies. Moreover, it happens closer to the investor. If you invest on margin, you can get wiped out by a marginal call. Wiped Out. The broker sells off your assets and (maybe) gives you a little back after the loan is paid off. Unless you are very young, you cannot ever recover from that kind of a loss.

If a company borrows too much, that position might get wiped out. But the impact on the investor is presumably much less.

Margin leverage is commonly used by overconfident professionals to boost the returns on investment schemes that are guaranteed not to lose money. Then along comes a “black swan” that their models didn’t anticipate, and they are wiped out. Wiped Out. LTCM was run by Nobel prize winners. Hard to find anybody more experienced, knowledgeable, and professional than that. Wiped Out.

Speaking for myself, if I want a risky investment, I would rather invest in something a bit more speculative and/or volatile. I don’t need to take a safe investment and turn it into a risky investment through the use of leverage.

By the way, I know two family members who have been wiped out by margin calls. (Happily young enough that they can recover from that.) I have absolutely no interest in traveling down that road. I'm an idiot, and thus I like to keep my investing REALLY simple. I will let those who think they have a "sure thing" get wiped out."

"REITs are sensitive to the economy. It isn’t so much interest rates (though that is a factor), but their ability to maintain earnings and dividends through a recession. Most REITs reduced their dividend in the last recession, and there is no guarantee that the survivors of the last will also survive the next.

We will eventually have 20% of our retirement assets invested in what I consider “income equities”. I intend 10% in utilities, 5% in REITs, and 5% in the TIAA Real Estate Account, which is effectively a private (and conservatively managed) REIT."

Conversación acerca de tener un porcentaje de 15% o mayor de REIT en cartera.

" While sector classification is clearly an oversimplification (and somewhat arbitrary), there are real correlations between similar companies. Owning PG, UL, CL, CLX, and KMB is not true diversification, because their product lines overlap heavily. They are all subject to similar market forces.

Quality is important, but quality is largely the ability to survive troubles. It is not a guarantee that you are unaffected by those troubles. If you own several quality companies that are all exposed to a single risk, they can all be hit at the same time – and you are leaning VERY heavily on the quality. Even quality companies can cut dividends, they just have a wider margin of safety before that happens.

So nothing against owning 15%+ in REITs, if you wish, but consider if they all share some risk factor? What happens if 15% of your portfolio hits the skids all at the same time?

On the other hand, it is a broad category. Perhaps their risk factors are substantially different? That is for you to decide – don’t lean too heavily on arbitrary sector classifications."

Responde Chowder:

"You speak about diversity against market forces, so old fashion in my view. When I’m looking for diversity, I’m looking against company specific forces. I want to have sector exposure but want to be protected against any of the companies I own going bankrupt.

I don’t care about market forces hitting a sector, that’s temporary. Tough times don’t last, tough companies do. Let the sector get hit, as long as I own the best of the best, I firmly believe I’m okay over the long run. I can deal with temporary drawdowns, I simply want to avoid the permanent ones."

Ahora Ted:

"I am a firm believer in owning the best of the best, but there are some people who also invest in companies with BBB- credit ratings. Those are NOT the best of the best, and in fact are in danger of a dividend cut if faced with sufficient adversity. There are only ~25 companies with a 50+ year dividend streak. All other companies have cut or frozen their dividends in my lifetime.

And in fact we were talking about REITs, not a defensive sector, where credit ratings tend to be lower and dividend cuts are much more common than in Consumer Staples. Most REITs cut their dividend in the last recession, and while owning quality biases the odds in your favor, I definitely don’t see it as a guarantee.

If somebody wants to have over 15% of their portfolio in triple-net REITs, who am I to object? But economic pressures affect sectors as groups, and dividend cuts tend to come as bunches. There were not many energy companies cutting their dividends in 2008-2009. There were not many banks cutting their dividends in 2015. Sector classification is imperfect, but the concept of shared risk factors is meaningful.

I prefer not to have more than 15% in any of the sensitive sectors, and aim for diversity of risk even WITHIN the sensitive sectors. Quality, yes, but also diversity. And I know you practice this in your own investing, especially in the sensitive sectors. You do not concentrate all of your Industrial positions in Aerospace, for example.

All I am saying is know your risk. Avoid anything that could do real damage to your portfolio goals."

[…]

"In my own sector diversification, I begin by deciding what kinds of business I want to own in what balance, and then aim for the “best of class” representatives of each. Thus my approach to diversification never keeps me away from quality! I suspect the greater danger is to those who go heavily after a sector because they feel it is a “bargain”. If they are right, then they do very nicely. If they misjudge the sector dynamics, they can end up holding a whole lot of cheap junk that was NOT selected on the basis of quality.

All investments have risks. The concept of diversification isn’t to eliminate these risks, but to limit the exposure of the portfolio to any SPECIFIC risk, whether company-specific or sector-wide."

Este comentario es para enmarcar:

"When people read the comments and actions of others, they tend to filter those comments through their own perspective and situation. As a result, they often reach very strange conclusions. I talk about my moves, putting them out there for consideration and criticism, however I operate quite differently from others – and thus the motivations ascribed can be very much off-target.

I talk a lot about “risk”. To me, “risk” is most fundamentally the chance that our portfolio fails to meet our needs. I tend to take a much broader view of risk than others, including the risk that my needs exceed what I am planning for. Thus it isn’t quite as simple as aiming for an income target and then standing put. While achieving my planned needs is essential, any margin of safety above and beyond that is also potentially risk-reducing. Perhaps the most serious risk of this type is the possibility that one or both of us will need expensive long-term care, perhaps for many years. It is unrealistic to plan an income stream that will accommodate that level of expenditure, thus it could be necessary to spend down the portfolio in this scenario. Total return matters for this purpose.

There is also the risk, one that @Bob Wells talks about, that my death or mental deterioration will prevent me from continuing to manage the portfolio. Educating my wife and children in the plan and process are perhaps the best answer to this form of risk.

Risk assessment need not imply a high likelihood of an adverse event. On my optimistic days, I expect that there is a 99.9% chance that we will have enough to be comfortable. (I don’t honestly see how that isn’t going to happen.) On my pessimistic days, I figure that there is a 5% chance that I’m overlooking something huge. On my cynical days, I figure there is a 25% chance that I am grossly overconfident. :wink: Still, I expect we will be fine. I actually lean optimistic in this kind of stuff.

Risk assessment need not be emotional. For me it is more an intellectual question, “What could go wrong, and how can I minimize that chance?” People talk an awful lot about “fear”, which in this context is foreign to me. When it storms, I am anxious that the roof might leak. When I drive in the winter, I am anxious that the cars around me might do something crazy. I’ve been dealing with anxiety since a nasty auto accident a few years ago, a low-level continuing stressor. But finances? Not something I get anxious about. I’ve done my best to bullet-proof our financial plan, and have no fear of it going wrong. Whatever happens will happen, and I will trust in providence.

Moreover, while I work in terms of “total return”, planning and projecting future position and portfolio values, I am not sensitive to market prices. My valuation spreadsheet estimates a future value four or five years out. This works from projected earnings, projected growth, dividend yield, and quality metrics. The calculation does not include the current share price, except in the final step where it estimates the five-year total return. Thus when the market goes down, that final column turns very green. (When it goes up, it fades towards red, moderated by any earnings upgrades.) Half the time I don’t even know the current share price of one of my holdings. Until people teased me with the comments that O was rising, I would have guessed that it was in the high 50s. I watch only a handful of stocks closely, those that I might be trading based on valuation. The rest just do whatever they are going to do, without my attention.

Recognize also that a five-year Total Return projection is not highly sensitive to share price. Or to almost anything else, for that matter. Right now, working from $200, I project a 6.5% annualized return for MMM. This is not going to change substantially if the earnings estimates move by a percent or two. For example, bumping the 2019 earnings estimate from $10.78 to $11.00 only changes the forward return by 0.3%. Increasing the projected growth from 7.3% to 9.0% increases the forward return by just 1.2% Dropping the share price by $10 increases it by 1.1%. So these numbers move slowly, mostly wiggling back and forth within a broad range of inaction. I am not going to dump MMM just because it has a forward return of 6%, and I am not going to “back up the truck” just because it rises to 8%. The valuation-based moves in the portfolio happen outside the 4% to 10% range. (In the past I may have tried too hard to optimize. At this point I am more content to watch and wait.)

So while I do find the occasional “back up the truck” conviction buy, it tends to be the result of longer-term moves rather than an ephemeral price correction. I was talking about NKE a few years back – and was talking about them for at least a year before the price moved. CVS still hasn’t gone anywhere. These days I am mentioning AAPL, DIS, and INTC. These trends are measured in years, not months. But once a stock shows as a strong buy on my spreadsheet, there are really only two ways it can exit. Either a severe downgrade in quality or forward expectations or a substantial rally. Looking at numbers won’t help you anticipate the former, you have to consider the business plan and your confidence in the business plan.

Thus I would encourage other investors to relax a little, especially if your investments are causing you stress. You don’t need to pounce on every 5% move, and in fact the best values are often found among those stocks that HAVEN’T moved much recently. (Think DIS or CVS.) And it is pointless to worry about what is going to happen. Try to consider the risks dispassionately, weighing and balancing them against your own situation, then set a portfolio plan that is designed to meet your needs with minimal risk. After that? Implement the plan.

I spend a lot more time commenting here than I do actually looking at my investments. I spend a lot more time managing the daily/weekly bookkeeping, entering grocery receipts, logging/recording income, paying bills… I do update the prices on my spreadsheet weekly, sometimes also mid-week if there has been a large market move, but that takes just 1-2 minutes and rarely leads to further action. I do update my projection spreadsheet quarterly, which takes perhaps five minutes per stock, but again it rarely leads to substantial changes. When the plan does call for trimming or adding, I have a handful of positions to consider, and it is usually a matter of 30 minutes to figure out how to implement the plan.

Do you have a clear plan that tells you what you should be doing in any situation? If not, consider writing one? Once that is established, the rest is easy and emotion-free. Good luck!"

"Wrote options against SBUX @ $67.50 and AAPL @ $170, as both positions have grown substantially since I last touched them. Will be happy to keep the shares if the price drops below that in the next few months. Will be happy to take the money if it doesn’t happen.

That opened room in the portfolio to add CSCO, which I’ve been talking about doing for months. (I admit that I do limit the amount in Technology, and have AAPL arbitrarily classified as a Technology company, and thus this limited my opportunities to fill out the CSCO position. Task accomplished.)

Also added a few shares of VTR. Didn’t look at the price, yield, or valuation, other than to calculate how many shares are needed to bring it up to size.

Spent most of the last hour and a half looking at the proposed MLB rule changes, as well as some of the locations mentioned by Jeff and Zaan for vacationing. The actual trade orders probably took fifteen minutes. :slight_smile: Enjoy!"

Sector thoughts…

Consumer Staples has been surging, perhaps on the expectation of continued easy money conditions? I’m not loving that – price appreciation without fundamental growth does nothing for me. Only three of the stocks on my list trade at less than 19x estimated 2019 earnings: GIS, KMB, and SYY. HSY and PEP are borderline at 19.5x. Everything else is looking overvalued at this time. At $102, my estimated forward return for PG drops below 4% (and simultaneously the price appreciation would push the position size up into the next category). That would be a clear trim for me, so I may choose to write a call option at that price to cover 1/4 of the position. Or I might not. PG largely gets left alone.

Healthcare has long been one of my favorite sectors, along with Consumer Staples. CVS has been trading sideways for a month or more, waiting for news to catch a direction. They release earnings (and presumably an updated outlook) next week. The shares could take off if it is positive, as they have been beaten down SO far. My major focus will be their cash flow, debt levels, and plans for the MinuteClinic (whatever they are calling it now) vision.ABT and SYK are priced through the roof. Good companies, growing well, but I have a hard time investing in anything at such a high P/E (and low yield). JNJ and MDT are also good companies, and are 2/3 the valuation. The pharma segment is not especially expensive, and pays good dividends, but they are also under political pressure in their pricing. That may hold growth down for a while?

The Industrial sector is the third that I overweight. UPS, UTX, and ETN are looking like good values here (if you believe in the business outlook). UNP has shown stellar operating performance, and despite steep price appreciation it may still be fairly valued. Analysts have a hard time keeping up with a company that is growing this fast! MMM is trading at the upper end of its fair value range, in my opinion. They need to show a stronger outlook to justify further appreciation – but conversely the shares are not likely to appreciate too substantially until the outlook improves. This is my largest Industrial position (followed by UNP), but I am content to wait.

Consumer Discretionary is showing strength similar to Consumer Staples. Hard to justify the pricing on NKE, VFC, MCD, and SBUX – but I’ve already trimmed them back to a “permanent” position and am willing to simply hold regardless of valuations. All four companies are performing well. LOW looks like a good value, if you believe in their outlook. T as well (whatever sector they are in). DIS continues to be undervalued, and in my opinion is making all the right moves. It is by far my largest CD position, some 40% of the sector holdings.

My fifth core sector is Technology. In my opinion, this is a sector where you need to take a long term view, investing for competitive edge and market dominance rather than based on near-term outlook or yield. My favorites are AAPL (which I also believe is a bargain), MSFT (which is emerging as a dominant cloud player), CSCO, and INTC. I have GOOGL flagged to add at some point, but am in no hurry due to the lack of a dividend and the high valuation. IBM will reward investors richly if they ever get anything right…

"Here is an exercise for you…

Go to your planning spreadsheet and hide everything but the ticker and the industry. Hide the yield. Hide the P/E. Especially hide your cost basis. You know the companies on your spreadsheet, I presume, or they wouldn’t be there. What are the highest quality companies in each sector?

My take? (* denotes a company I do not own at this time)

Consumer Staples: PG, *CL, NSRGY, PEP, *COST, KMB, HRL, SYY, *KO, *CHD, DEO, *WMT, UL

Plenty of quality to choose from in that sector! You don’t need to own them all, though I would question why you would want to go much beyond this list.

Consumer Discretionary: DIS, NKE, *HD, *GPC

You’ve probably noticed by now that I tend to pass on retail? :slight_smile: A personal foible.

Healthcare: JNJ, MDT, RHHBY, NVS

Credit ratings falling in this sector, with far too many companies aiming for BBB+ ratings. There are relatively few left with pristine books. I own all four.

Industrial: HON, ITW, *BA, MMM, UNP, UTX, *GWW

Ambivalent on whether that last should be included. It is strong, for sure, but I may have it slightly overrated?

Technology: MSFT, AAPL, INTC, *GOOGL, CSCO

Others: BRK.B, XOMI don’t include Utilities or REITs on this list, so please don’t read anything into that omission. They are hard to compare fairly as they work from different metrics. For that matter I only include 50-60 companies total. If your favorite top-quality company isn’t listed, it may be that I haven’t added them to my watchlist yet. I don’t follow everything!"

15 de febrero:

“Initiated a position in WTR this morning. It doesn’t seem like an especially great value, and I’m uncertain as to what it will look like post-acquisition, but I am only buying a small position to begin from – I hope to build it over the next two years into a size comparable to my other utilities.”

“I will likely be layering into this one slowly over the next two years, whatever the valuation, but I would be willing to make a larger purchase if it were to offer an unusually good value.”

Ha analizado las utilities del sector agua y esta ha sido la escogida.

Nuevo artículo a propósito de KHC, hablando acerca de cómo se puede evitar entrar en empresas que luego den problemas:

Could We Have Seen It Coming?

The KHC dividend cut caught a lot of people by surprise.

Did the business take an unpredictable turn for the worse, or could we have seen this coming?

What might we look for to avoid owning mistakes like this in the future?

I have never considered Kraft (KHC) as “investable” by my standards, as the Baa3 credit rating falls well short of my nominal minimum. I am not a fan of serial acquisitions, as they make it very difficult to get a handle on the financials, and I like to see a solid ten-year history for a company before investing. But what if I had looked? What would I have seen? What were the shareholders of KHC looking at – and perhaps ignoring – when they looked at the financial statements? Let me pull up Morningstar (through my library’s subscription) and see what it shows…

Income Statement

My assessment of a company’s financial situation typically begins with the Income Statement, as that helps to put the rest into context. Revenue is critical. Is a company growing or shrinking? Have there been any major acquisitions? In the case of KHC, it shows just an eight-year history. The first six of these show essentially flat revenue. That jumps to a new level in 2016, which again continues flat through to the present. It is simple enough to deduce that there must have been a major acquisition closed in 2015 – and in fact that is when the Kraft/Heinz merger closed. (It isn’t clear to me why the reported 2015 numbers appear similar to the 2014 numbers. Perhaps the reporting was not merged until the following year, so 2015 shows only Kraft?)

A quick hop over to the Key Ratios page shows that operating margins jumped with the merger, from a prior level in the teens to the low 20s. I can see why that would be encouraging for investors, though a not-quite-three-year history is a bit short for my tastes. Given the magnitude of the transformation, anything prior to 2016 is likely not relevant to the new business.

Moreover, there is no evidence of top-line growth from 2016 to the TTM. Nor has Operating Income improved over that span, going from $6.1B to $6.8B to $6.0B. Net income was impacted by a tax-reform adjustment of $6.7B in the fourth quarter of 2017, which also gets included in the TTM column, but once you back that out there is no meaningful growth in Net Income either. Nor does EBITDA (which is not impacted by the corporate tax reform) show any improvement, going from $7.5B to $7.8B to $6.7B.

It is hard to reach any kind of sensible conclusion from just a three year history! When looking at a number is it a one-time blip in the trend? Or is a slight dip a harbinger of things to come? You can hash and rehash these same three columns forever and still not be able to forecast the future with any kind of confidence. In its present form, KHC is simply too young to have a proven track record. The lack of top-line growth is mildly concerning, but not unusual in this sector over this period of time.

It is tricky to estimate the payout ratio. Morningstar calculates one, but it appears to be in error (I cannot figure out how they reached the number they did). If I back out the impact on earnings for tax reform, I estimate perhaps $2.75 per share, which suggests a “stretched” payout ratio of over 90%, but not immediately concerning – if the earnings grow from there.

Conclusions from the Income Statement: Limited/no growth, possibly slow revenue declines, and earnings that are barely enough to cover the dividend. I would not see it as an attractive investment based on these qualities, but the numbers do not signal imminent disaster.

Balance Sheet

I prefer to look at the Quarterly Balance Sheet report, and mostly focus on debt trends. Looking at the ten-quarter history, I see that debt declined slightly from $30B in 06-2016 to $28B in 12-2017, but then increased to $31B last quarter. Always concerning to see the debt tick up for a heavily indebted company, but it wasn’t a huge bump or an extended trend. Sometimes liabilities shift from one line to another, and the Total Liabilities line has shown a steady decrease from $64B to $54B over ten quarters.

The debt ratio is potentially an issue. First, the LT debt of $31B is only 2/3 of the total liabilities. There is a huge “deferred taxes liability” as well. But forget that. I’m never sure what to make of deferred taxes anyways. The TTM EBITDA (which is not affected by the tax change) shows as $6.7B, for a debt ratio of just under 4.5x. Anything over 4 is scary-high, and I would need a high degree of confidence in the direction of the company to invest at these levels. It is concerning that the company seems willing to carry debt at this level without paying it down more aggressively.

Conclusions from the Balance Sheet: Heavily leveraged, but that merely confirms and reinforces the BBB- credit rating. It isn’t really anything that I needed to sleuth the financial statements to figure out.

Cash Flow Statement

For many businesses, my look at the cash flow statement is pretty perfunctory. I want to make sure that Operating Cash Flow is sufficient to meet all the basic demands on it – Capital Expenses, Dividends, and Share Buybacks. A single-year shortfall is not a problem, but it is concerning if the OCF regularly falls short.

Morningstar calculates $5.2B of operating cash flow in 2016, $0.5B in 2017, and $1.4B over the TTM. Since the last two overlap, it is also important to look at the quarterly breakdown – however the 4Q17 does not stand out.

It is not at all clear to me how a company that is reporting $6B/year in operating income can somehow show just ~$7B over THREE years in cash from operations. I guess there has been a large build in Accounts Receivable and Inventory, as well as other changes in “working capital”? I might have picked that off the Balance Sheet, if I looked closely, but did not notice it until I looked at the reported cash flow!

Capital Expenditures are the first demand on the cash flow. They can be managed by the company, to a degree, but declining investment can be a bad sign (unless there is a very good reason why a company requires less investment than in previous years). CapEx from 2016 onward has been trending lower, from $1.2B in 2016-2017 to $855M over the TTM. It is concerning that despite this decrease, CapEx over the last seven quarters has exceeded OCF, $1.8B to $1.4B. That would not seem to leave ANY cash for other purposes.

The Cash Flow Statement also shows the dividend payments, a current run rate of $762M/quarter or $3.0B/year. While the free cash flow in 2015 was barely sufficient to cover the 2015 dividend, the negative cash flow since was clearly inadequate to the need.

Conclusions from the Cash Flow Statement: There is something badly wrong with the business, as it has struggled for seven quarters to generate consistent cash flow. Cash generation is barely sufficient to cover capital expenditures. It is not clear that the business is generating enough cash at this time to support any dividend at all.

Conclusions

It is hard to formulate an investment thesis for a business with a track record (in its present form) that is just three years old. I like to see stability and consistency, as that gives me confidence in future earnings. The Income Statement from KHC is too volatile and too brief to support that degree of confidence. The quarterly results might offer a little greater insight, but the decline in Operating Income from ~$1.6B/quarter in 2016 to $1.3B in 2Q18 and $1.1B in 3Q18 should give pause – if anybody took a careful look at the quarterly trend.

The leveraged balance sheet is more obvious. In fact you could guess at that simply by looking at the credit rating. It is always debatable how much debt a business can support, but LT Debt/EBITDA over 4.0 is considered dangerous, and a business that skates along at that level is risky. That is what the BBB or Baa3 credit ratings tell us. I might be willing to invest in a business with a low credit rating, but I would need a very high degree of confidence in its outlook.

But it is the Cash Flow statement that raises the most red flags. I’m not enough of an accountant to reconcile the respectable reported Operating Income with the weak/non-existent cash flows. But recognizing that I lack this expertise, I want to see BOTH the Income Statement AND the Cash Flow Statement supporting my confidence in the business. In this case the cash flow is clearly insufficient.

Now yes, this is hindsight in that I’m looking at past numbers and pretending that I didn’t have an inkling of what was to come. I previously never took more than a superficial look at the credit rating (unacceptably low) and Debt/EBITDA (unacceptably high). It is not a business I already owned, and given the obvious weakness it was not one that I cared to research in any detail. I prefer to spend my time researching quality companies that I might want to own!

But when a company with zero top-line growth has fallen well short of being able to cover the dividend out of OCF (let alone FCF) over the past two years, and only barely covered it the year prior, then it is hardly a surprise when the dividend is cut! I would presume that shareholders periodically review the financials of the companies that they own? I admittedly don’t look carefully at all of my holdings every quarter, but I take a close look at any that are showing marginal credit or deteriorating earnings quality. I do not believe that KHC should have passed such an inspection.

Looking Ahead

For those considering holding on to KHC, or considering a speculative buy to take advantage of a rebound, I would raise three concerns.

First, the dividend was cut by 36%. If I take the former $3.0B annual dividend obligation and reduce it by 36%, I get a $1.9B dividend obligation. While the cash flow statement for the latest quarter has not yet been released, as far as I know, the average FCF over the last three years has been $1.28B. Unless they find a way to dramatically increase the FCF, I don’t think they can afford the current dividend rate either. Thus a second dividend cut (likely eliminating it entirely) could be in the cards. And that could be the best thing for the business.

Second, while the Intangibles/Goodwill writedown did not affect the actual operations of the company, it does weaken the asset book. S&P has already indicated that it will consider downgrading KHC from its current BBB rating. KHC cannot afford downgrades, and thus would be well advised to take steps to repair the credit rating. That can include elimination of the dividend (freeing up cash to work off the debt more quickly) or an equity raise (diluting current shareholders and likely also resulting in a dividend cut).

Third, the weakness in cash flow is shocking. Before investing in the company, I would need to understand why their reported cash flow over the last seven quarters is so much weaker than the reported income.

The immediate default for an investor should be “do nothing”. Under most circumstances, you are better off allowing a situation to develop before acting. You are less likely to miss a great opportunity than you are to miss making a bad mistake. But competing with this is the “show me” principle. If you cannot confidently project stable and growing revenues, earnings, and cash flow, then it is very hard to justify investing in a company. A retreat in a recession is expected. A collapse during a period of economic expansion is a surprise.

I will refrain from making specific recommendations, but would encourage any KHC shareholder or anybody considering an investment in KHC to find their own answers to the three questions raised. It is entirely possible that you will find solid answers that my limited research has not turned up. Read the transcript of the conference call (or better yet, listen to the recording). Review the SEC filings whenever they are released. Consider the direction that management lays out. Is that sufficient to answer these concerns?

Acerca de KO:

"KO suffers from the “moving parts” problem, as in the past decade they first took over their bottling operations and then refranchised them. Thus you see revenue trend from $31B in 2009 to $48B in 2012 and it is now back to $32B. They have not seen a third of their business evaporate! It is simply a question of whether those low-margin bottling operations are included in the books or operated as separate entities.

If you look at Operating Income, that has been much steadier. It did peak at $10.8B in 2012, falling back to $8.6B in 2016, but it has risen nicely each of the last two years. And again, the bottling operations may be low-margin, but they contributed something to the income. So it is hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison unless you reach back ten years.

I am not thrilled by the KO debt. They added debt when they took over the bottlers, and added more debt through acquisitions. Yet somehow they forgot to clear that debt when they refranchised the bottlers! In 2009, KO had $5B of LT debt. Now they have $25B, for a company that is essentially the same size. It is like running across that star athlete from high school who now weighs 250 lbs. He may be the same person, but you cannot reasonably expect the same performance. Nonetheless, he might still beat me in a race…

The payout ratio is a little concerning, but not TOO bad. I don’t see how Morningstar is calculating those numbers, and thus would ignore them (and calculate them myself). I see $28B in Operating Income and $23B+ of Operating Cash Flow over the last three years combined. CapEx is around $5B, while the dividend is around $19B. This more-or-less works. I would love to see them open up a little more breathing room, perhaps restraining dividend growth for a few years to allow earnings to pull ahead, but I don’t see it as actively dangerous.

Part of the reason is that they still enjoy strong A1 credit. Even if they stumble, they can afford to borrow a lot more before they are at any risk of losing Investment Grade status. A company that is already highly leveraged like KHC does not enjoy that margin of safety.

In conclusion, I consider KO “top quality” and carry it on my watch list. If somebody is looking for a high-yield Consumer Staples company, I would recommend they consider KO, KMB, UL, or PEP (also strongly recommend PG, but its dividend has dipped below 3.0%). Analysts are expecting $2.00++ of earnings this year, so the payout ratio should be okay. Forward earnings growth projections of 7% may be optimistic, but even 3% would be sufficient to their needs. They should be fine. Not promising you great growth or great returns, but I would be shocked if they were to run into financial trouble in the next five years."

Ha vuelto a colgar su cartera, supongo que con el cambio de ID ya no la borrará, pero por si acaso…
OJO, hay movimiento de cartera esta semana (lo pego al final).

Portfolio And Trades

This portfolio combines our taxable and retirement accounts.

We are in our “middle years”, between the age of 40 and 60. We are focused on long-term capital preservation, and measure our portfolio and progress by total return.

I intend to blog trades in the comment section, as they occur, but do not promise that they will be either timely or complete. The portfolio will be updated periodically.

We currently hold 35 different individual securities, not counting REITs or utilities which are tracked and managed separately. The percentages are out of the total of these 35 stocks, representing a little more than half of our total financial assets. Shares that are covered by an in-the-money call option are not included in either the position size or portfolio total.

Portfolio as of February 27, 2019:

  • Oversized holdings: JNJ (9%), DIS (6%), AAPL (6%)
  • 4% positions: PG, MDT, MMM, KMB, CVS, UNP, MSFT
  • 3% positions: INTC, HON, CSCO, UL, UTX, SYY, ETN
  • 2% positions: NKE, GIS, ITW, AMGN, HRL, DEO, VFC, NVS, NSRGY, PEP, T, XOM, RHHBY, HD
  • 1% positions: BRK.B
  • 0% positions: REZI, GTX, SBUX

Option positions:

  • Covered Call: AAPL 2019-06-21 @ $170
  • Covered Call: SBUX 2019-04-18 @ $67.50

"Trade executed on February 26:

  • Sold out of SBUX at $71, aside from 100 shares that had been optioned previously at $67.50. (Might as well let that option run to expiration, though I could also choose to roll it forward at that time.)
  • Put most of the proceeds towards HD at $184.I have to thank SBUX for the 21% IRR over the past year and a half, but the increase in leverage has left me less comfortable than when I initiated the position in May 2017 and their strong outlook needs to be balanced against a very high valuation. The CEO running for POTUS would also be a risk factor, at least in the short term. I can return at some future date if the valuation or my comfort level with the leverage improves.

HD is clearly a higher quality company, also an industry leader, and while their growth potential is a bit lower, the dividend and valuation are 30% superior. With the 32% dividend increase, HD is now in my “sweet zone” for owning companies: a dividend in the 2.5% to 3.0% range, moderate growth outlook, and a valuation between 16x and 20x earnings. A-grade credit. Industry leader. It is hard to own too many companies like this!

If you review the metrics for SBUX, you will see it misses on all counts but the last. Being an industry leader is a great recommendation, arguably the most important of the above metrics, but it is otherwise not the kind of company I seek to emphasize."

"If I were to trim back to 20-25, I would start with my largest positions. (They are intentionally largest.) JNJ, DIS, AAPL, PG, MMM, MDT, KMB, CVS, UNP, MSFT, INTC, CSCO, HON, UTX, UL, SYY.Might add DEO, NVS, and NSRGY to that. Would need to choose one REIT (likely O) and two utilities (NEE and ???).

ETN? Nope, not enough of a moat.
NKE? Nope, too pricey.
GIS? Nope, too weak.
ITW? Yeah, maybe, but I’ve already listed four Industrials. Would have to think hard before adding a fifth.

As you can see, I’m starting to struggle a little at this level… I would not own any pure pharma (though NVS is approaching that), or any of the weaker credit scores aside from CVS, or anything with a P/E over 25. To concentrate my portfolio I would need to focus on those stocks that most precisely represent what I am trying to find."

Y acaba de vender ROCHE y con el dinero aumentar la posición en Novartis. La razón, esta:

https://www.roche.com/investors/faq_investors/major_shareholders.htm

NVS tiene 33% de las acciones de Roche.

"Sold RHHBY, bought NVS with most of the proceeds. I dislike closely controlled companies, and definitely prefer to avoid layered risk. This keeps things simpler, owning the more diversified company directly while keeping a stake in Roche.

This was my first sale of the year in our taxable account."

"HRL may be the most overvalued stock in my portfolio at this time (having sold MKC).

It trades at 23.8x FY19 estimates, which is another way of saying that each dollar I have invested is expected to earn just 4.2% over the coming year. This is towards the upper end of the valuation range from the last three years, Morningstar sees it as 21% overvalued. The dividend yield is under 2%. Expected growth is modest, in the middle single digits. There is perhaps the potential for a 10% forward Total Return, but that would be the optimistic projection at this point.

HRL has a strong history of stable and growing cash flow. The payout ratio is a modest ~40% and (given the quality of the books) should be very safe. It seems probable that the calculated “fair value” will catch up to the current fair value within 3-4 years. That said, there is good reason to anticipate weak total returns over that time frame, as the low dividend is a poor reward if the share price stagnates.

It is tempting to sell the shares and wait for a lower price, however there is no guarantee that we will actually see that materialize and no certainty that I would pull the trigger on a buy if it did. (Even if willing to buy at that price, I might not be ready to buy at that time.) So I refuse to trade based on that rationale. If I’m going to sell, then I need to buy something else immediately rather than speculating about future price movements.

And many of the Consumer Staples are trading at similarly inflated valuations. DEO, NSRGY, PG, and PEP are all trading at similar earnings multiples, fully valued or overvalued. I could add to GIS, but that would be a step down in quality. I could add to SYY, but that is arguably similarly overvalued (and a bit more sensitive than HRL).

Moreover, the shares are in a taxable account with 30%+ capital gains. I am reluctant to recognize the income without good reason to do so.Thus while I will not be adding at this level ($37 would be a better price), neither will I be selling these shares. At 2.4% of my portfolio, I can afford a period of underperformance with a company that is executing well with a very safe dividend. Maybe it will surprise me and deliver better? Or maybe it will fall back a bit, in which case I can more easily add to what I already hold than initiate a new position. (Psychological, perhaps, but nonetheless true.) If I want to bolster my portfolio income by adding to UL or KMB? I imagine I can find a way to do that without needing to sell HRL.

Finally, note that all of the above is subject to change if the price rises substantially further. At $47 (unlikely, but you never know…) I would be out."

“In my opinion, your best bet for continued dividend growth is with companies that have NOT leveraged up over the past decade. Periods of increased leverage need to be followed by periods of paying down debt, which holds back growth, earnings growth, and especially dividend growth. This is part of why I am usually not interested in merger situations. Even when successful, they are often followed by a few years of consolidation”

Looking at KHC, GIS, and SJM… Which is the strongest?

GIS is doing okay on cash flow, with $2.0B FCF vs. $1.2B in dividends over the TTM, but they are not yet making any real headway on the debt. It spiked three quarters ago and hasn’t really budged since. Operating margins are down since FY17, though some of that may be product mix with the acquisition.

The KHC financials for the last quarter still have not been uploaded by Morningstar. Trapping Value expresses concern about their margins. Their cash flow has also been a clear concern, and their debt continues to increase.

SJM is also facing some margin pressure, with operating margins down to 16.1% over the TTM (they just reported the third quarter of FY19) from 17.1% in FY18. Yet once again, that includes a recent acquisition that may skew comparability. FCF is down over the last couple years, but still more than sufficient to support the dividend. And they’ve made noticeable progress on the debt over the last two quarters, bringing LT debt down by almost 15% and total liabilities down by 7%. That is more than twice the progress that GIS is making on THEIR debt load.

GIS has been rewarded for the vision demonstrated in their plan for Blue Buffalo. I’ve questioned the ability of SJM management to execute, and they have badly missed guidance multiple times over the last few years. Still, the past-looking financials look at least as good for SJM as they do for GIS – and both are in better shape than KHC as far as I can tell.

"Recent moves in a “young folk” portfolio (IRA) that I advise: Sell SBUX, Add HD. I see this as a step up in quality (now that SBUX has increased its leverage) as well as a step up in yield/valuation. It is possible that SBUX has the stronger growth prospects, but I’m not convinced of that. Especially if the chairman/founder gets involved with politics.

Wrapped leftover dollars from that trade, as well as cash in the account, into add-on purchases of AXP and UPS. Nothing particularly timely about either one, but they were among the smallest of the existing positions and seem to be a reasonable value. Working to build in size.

In the account owner’s other IRA, I recommended available cash be invested into an add-on purchase of UTX. Similar reasoning. (That trade will likely be executed in a couple days, it is still short by $100 or so of the amount needed.)

Trades in another “young folk” taxable account I advise:
Add-on purchase of INTC (was actually February’s buy that never got executed).
Initiate position in HD (March’s buy)

That account was started with ‘core’ positions in AAPL, BRKB, DIS, JNJ, MDT, MMM, PG, and UL. Over the last half year we’ve made two (smaller) purchases each in CSCO, INTC, and T. HD is the latest addition.

This account is a bit of a juggling act, as I intend to build out AND up at the same time. The eight core positions are more than twice the size of the four supporting positions, but they may still be built further. Over time (years) I hope to end up with 20+ sizeable positions in this portfolio. But that will take time! Meanwhile, just one bite of the apple at a time."

[…]

"I advise four different young-folk portfolios, ranging from 40s down to teens… But not sure it is worth a permanent blog?

My approach to these accounts is very simple – buy, hold, build. Two of the accounts do not permit selling under any condition. A third permits selling only on serious quality concerns (and I am making every effort to avoid the potential for those through screening the buys). A fourth can be traded, if appropriate, but it is important to keep the focus there on dividend growth rather than sliding into a trading mentality.

When starting a new portfolio, I prefer to begin from a handful of positions. Chowder seems more willing to own 30 small positions and build each of them up over time. I would rather begin from 5-8 positions and build out-and-up simultaneously. Picture a triangular “staircase”, extended one block at a time. Each round you add to both the breadth and height.

It may be risky to have a portfolio concentrated in just a few stocks, but I’m a firm believer that it is the dollars that matter not the percents. For a younger person that will be adding over many years, the bulk of their lifetime savings has yet to be contributed to the account. In some sense you can view that as a “cash” allocation. Thus both of my kids started with just one stock – JNJ – which still represents close to half of their portfolio. They may never need to buy another share of JNJ (aside from dividend reinvestment), but the future contributions will build the rest of the portfolio up in size to match. Eventually!

As you can tell from the list above, I prefer to begin from “classic growth” stocks with a defensive slant, building out first to “growthier” names and then to higher-yield names. Building from the core out. I know Chowder prefers a different direction."

Pongo juntos, los últimos movimientos de su cartera. Si bien los suele comentar en hilos de Chowder, ahora los explica mejor en el que ha creado acerca de su patrimonio. El enlace lo puse recientemente. Pego los comentarios por si un día decide borrar todo otra vez.

1.- "Trade executed on February 26:

  • Sold out of SBUX at $71, aside from 100 shares that had been optioned previously at $67.50. (Might as well let that option run to expiration, though I could also choose to roll it forward at that time.)

  • Put most of the proceeds towards HD at $184.I have to thank SBUX for the 21% IRR over the past year and a half, but the increase in leverage has left me less comfortable than when I initiated the position in May 2017 and their strong outlook needs to be balanced against a very high valuation. The CEO running for POTUS would also be a risk factor, at least in the short term. I can return at some future date if the valuation or my comfort level with the leverage improves.

    HD is clearly a higher quality company, also an industry leader, and while their growth potential is a bit lower, the dividend and valuation are 30% superior. With the 32% dividend increase, HD is now in my “sweet zone” for owning companies: a dividend in the 2.5% to 3.0% range, moderate growth outlook, and a valuation between 16x and 20x earnings. A-grade credit. Industry leader. It is hard to own too many companies like this!

If you review the metrics for SBUX, you will see it misses on all counts but the last. Being an industry leader is a great recommendation, arguably the most important of the above metrics, but it is otherwise not the kind of company I seek to emphasize."

2.- "Trade executed on March 1 in taxable account:

  • Sold out of RHHBY @ $34.73
  • Added to NVS @ $91.47 (2/3 of the proceeds)

We have owned NVS since 2010, a global leader in pharmaceuticals in six different disease areas (most prominently Oncology), as well as eye care (Alcon) and generics (Sandoz). Novartis was even more diversified when we first invested, however they have focused their portfolio and consolidated to four operating divisions.

Analyst coverage of foreign companies is often limited, however Novartis is carried by all of the research sources that I use. This helps me have confidence in the investment and my ability to understand the business dynamics at some level.

More recently, we have been looking to expand the number of high quality Health Care companies we hold, and (largely on a valuation analysis from Morningstar) chose to initiate a small position in RHHBY. As best I can tell it is also a high quality global pharmaceutical company, with (naturally) a somewhat different product portfolio from NVS, so I was comfortable including it for diversification. We have done well enough with that investment, and I have no concerns about the company or its operations.

However, it was brought to my attention yesterday that Novartis owns a 33% stake in Roche. This stake is larger than some of their own divisions! (Roche is a slightly larger company than Novartis.) I prefer not to hold overlapping interests like that, and have better information on Novartis, so selling RHHBY was an easy decision. Our allocation plan was calling for a trim, so I put 2/3 of the proceeds into NVS and will keep the remainder as cash – our savings account was getting light and we have various large bills coming due over the next three months.The tax consequence of the sale is minimal, given the size of the position and the modest appreciation in RHHBY over the last two years."

OJO: Puede que también venda NVS por temas fiscales ya que recientemente, en Fidelity le han informado ya no cubren la recuperación del exceso de fiscalizad suiza (35%).

3.- "Trade executed on March 8 in an IRA:

  • Added to CVS @ $52.41

While CVS is a long-term conviction holding for me, these shares are intended as a trade. I plan to sell if the price rebounds to the $60-$62 range within the next few months. And if it doesn’t? I may sell anyways. Short-term trades are not intended to be held for years.

4.- "Trade executed on March 15 in an IRA:

  • Trimmed DIS @ $114.35
  • Added to HD @ $180.87

As previously mentioned, I expect to build HD over time, now that its valuation and dividend profile are a better fit for my portfolio goals. DIS remains a conviction position, our third largest, however it is up 10% since the last addition (while the market has been flat) and the outlook has been recently reduced. They have a strong future, but I do not anticipate rapid growth yet.

This move doubles the dividend yield on these dollars, moving laterally on both valuation and quality, while arguably improving the near-term growth prospects. Equally important, it takes advantage of a rise in one of our largest holdings to build our newest high-quality holding in size. All else equal, I strive for balance!"

5.- "Trade executed on March 18 in an IRA:

  • Initiate position in DLR @ $114.91.

It seems by all accounts to be a well-run company with a bit of an operating moat, and it operates in a different area than my other REITs: O, VTR, and WPC. While this initial purchase is small, less than 1/4 the size of the other REITs, I hope to bring it up to size over the course of the next two years. In the meantime I will follow it more closely than I have in the past, watching either for opportunities to buy at a better valuation or (hopefully not) for red flags that I missed in the initial screening process."

Acerca de GIS:

"Solid earnings, a beat-and-raise…That said, I’m less thrilled with the report than the headline would suggest. Looking at their segments, NA Retail is down in volume, flat in sales. Convenience/Foodservice is down in volume, up 3% in sales. Europe & Australia is down in volume and down in sales, even before forex. Asia and Latin America is up 2% in volume and 4% in price/mix, but that is wholly offset by forex. Overall? Decent improvement in price/mix, but the sole driver of volume growth is the Blue Buffalo acquisition (still less than a year old, so no YOY comparisons there). Growth is growth, perhaps, but they clearly still have operating challenges in 90% of their business.

Profit is in much better shape, likely the result of the aforementioned price increases as well as cost cutting efforts. NA and Foodservice profits are up 12% and 15% respectively, and overall operating profits are up 27% (again boosted by the acquisition). Their nine-month results show 13% YOY profit growth, with NA/Foodservice in the upper single digits, even before the impact of the acquisition.

So…

  • Continuing volume challenges. This is a mature business in a mature industry, with few growth opportunities in the US. They may still have some international growth opportunities, but pulling profits out of those is a bit more challenging. The Blue Buffalo acquisition was important to them because it is a growth opportunity in their core market.

  • Improved margins and operating results. You can’t sell stuff if people aren’t buying, but at least you can work on margins. This is a sign of good management. One of my biggest concerns with SJM and KHC has been their inability to show any kind of pricing power. There is a huge difference between flat revenues and improving margins vs. flat revenues and declining margins. Commodity prices have been generally trending up, but it appears that GIS is navigating this challenge better than its peers.

  • Expectation that BLUE will accelerate volume in the fourth (current) quarter, as their previously announced initiatives take hold. This was a big piece of the jump on their last earnings report, and should continue to drive the share price higher. Though, of course, the coming quarter will be a “show me” earnings report. Trust management (which has done pretty well with this recently) to deliver on their promises.

  • Cash flow (9 month basis) of $2B easily supports the dividend of $900M, with the balance mostly going towards debt. The LT debt has come down $1153M over the last nine months, however “notes payable” has increased by $430M. (Their current ratio is not pretty…) Thus the net debt repayment is in the vicinity of $250M per quarter vs. LT debt of $11.6B. Their debt situation is firming, but they do not at this time have enough cash flow to pay down the debt rapidly. Nor are they showing the kind of top-line improvement that would be necessary to repair the debt ratios through growth.

Conclusion: I would expect the PE rebound to continue on the basis of this solid earnings report. Management is executing well and the immediate danger is passing. That said, they will continue to labor under a heavy debt burden for some years to come, and the YOY impact of the Blue Buffalo acquisition will disappear in the September reporting. I do not expect the dividend to be increased in the next year, and in fact would treat that as a strong sell signal if management were to attempt such a foolish increase. (They need their cash to grow the business and work down the debt.) I see fair value in the $52-$57 range and would consider exiting my own position there – since the credit quality and limited growth are not a great fit for my personal goals, despite the sweet dividend."

"The Consumer Staples sector is looking pretty pricey again! I carry 17 companies on my watch list that I classify here: CHD, CL, CLX, COST, DEO, GIS, HRL, HSY, KMB, KO, MKC, NSRGY, PEP, PG, SYY, UL, WMT. Note that a few of these are retail/distributors, not manufacturers. Classify those separately if you prefer. :slight_smile:

The median P/E based on estimated 2019 operating earnings is 21.6x, with the mean slightly higher. GIS (at 15.5x) is the only stock on the list with a forward P/E under 18.0x.

The median yield is 2.6%. GIS, again, is the only one with a yield greater than 3.5%. The median projected growth rate is 6.7% to 6.9% depending on your source. Keep in mind that projected growth rates consistently lean optimistic (at least for the sources I follow). Thus we are looking at an optimistic yield+growth number of 9.5% over the next few years. Not bad, right? Except those numbers are consistently optimistic – and thus I would expect something in the 8% to 9% range. This is a sector where mid-single-digit growth is success.

The actual total return over the next few years should approximate the yield+growth only if P/E multiples remain steady. If you expect the P/E multiples to fall a bit from their presently elevated levels (the 18-20 range is more typical than the present 21.6x), that will knock the total return back a bit. Thus I anticipate four-year annualized total return in the 2% to 4% range for the stocks on my list.

The best values at this time appear to be GIS, KMB, KO, PEP, and PG, with projected forward total return ranging from 4% to 6%. SYY actually leads the list at 7.9%, however as a distributor it merits a lower multiple than the brand-name peers (and thus is not really directly comparable). These five companies pay dividends ranging from 2.8% to 4.0%. With the exception of GIS (which trades at a substantial valuation discount), they have credit ratings of A2 or higher. Intermediate to strong investment grade quality. The valuations are mostly in the vicinity of 20x, thus there is less potential for retrenchment than in some of the frothier sector names.

My present holdings include HRL, DEO, UL, and NSRGY, however I am not looking to add to those at this time due to valuation. I also hold PG, PEP, KMB, GIS, and SYY, though I am not looking to add to either PG or KMB based on position size.

Potential candidates to add at this time would be PEP and KO. Strong companies, good dividends, attractively valued."