By Jeff Saut, Chief Investment Strategist RJF, Monday 06 August 2018
We don’t know how long ago we met Frederick “Shad” Rowe, but we are glad we did, because our conversations with him have been net worth changing. Recall that Shad is the founder, and portfolio manager, of the Dallas-based Greenbrier Partners Capital Management and one of the smartest guys on Wall Street. We first heard of him while reading Forbes Magazine in the 1970s where he was a regular contributor. We still have many of the articles from back then and have often used quotes from those articles in these missives. Last week, we read his monthly letter, which we think is consistently brilliant; indeed, when smart people talk (write) we listen. In this month’s letter Shad wrote:
It strikes me that the once passionate investment debate of content versus distribution has now become irrelevant. The creation of content has exploded (and shows no sign of slowing), the number of distribution channels continues to grow, and the costs to create and distribute content have decreased dramatically. As a result, the balance of power has completely flipped. The new king is the consumer – long live the king. Previously consumers had little choice; now options are unlimited as their expectations continue to rise. Thanks to technology, people can consume whatever content they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want. In addition, the very definition of content has changed – consumers themselves are now the world’s most prolific content creators thanks to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc.
As a result, the lines between content creators and distributors continue to blur. A number of today’s most successful companies have the ability to create, purchase, and distribute content themselves. Moreover, these companies have built platforms that billions of consumers love and use every day – this is what matters and is why we believe in the concept of “digital real estate”, a key tenet of Greenbrier’s investment philosophy. As a reminder, here is the theory: The applications on the home screen of your smartphone have become the most valuable real estate in the world. The value of these platforms is based on unprecedented scale, customer loyalty, and profitability. [Note: eight out of the top ten most popular iPhone applications are properties of Greenbrier companies, which does not include Apple’s own preinstalled applications.]
These developments have clearly democratized the creation and distribution of content for billions of people, which is positive (for the most part). But, the unlimited choice is overwhelming for most people – there are not enough eyeballs or hours in the day to discover even a fraction of what is currently available. Consumers may look for new things, but typically spend most of their time on the few dominant platforms, which is why it will be so difficult to displace them. As a result, we expect these platforms will continue to capture the majority of user time and attention, which makes this ‘real estate’ so desirable.
Shortly after reading Shad’s letter, we received an email from one of our financial advisors (FAs), which more or less said that, arguably the smartest guy on the Street of Dreams, Oakmark’s Bill Nygren, is saying exactly what we have been saying for years. The FA’s email to us read:
I wanted to follow up and let you know that Bill Nygren, the Portfolio Manager for Oakmark Fund and Oakmark Select presented at our sales conference last week and had some great points about how to value companies in the world we live in today, and why the Morningstar style box can be misleading. Since we do get questions about how he might own a stock like Netflix or Alphabet in a value portfolio, I thought this might help.
In 1975, 83% of assets on the balance sheet for the average S&P500 company were tangible, today only 13% of the assets are tangible.
In the days of Benjamin Graham, defining value was much more straightforward and easy to categorize. Low price to book value was an accurate picture of value, because most companies were “asset heavy”.
Example: a company buys a machine to manufacture a good, this expense is amortized over the expected life of the machine, and therefore the entire expense does not impact the balance sheet all at once, immediately. Future value creation is accounted for. Today, when a company spends money on something like R&D to develop new products, that expense hits the balance sheet immediately, all at once, even though the return on that investment may carry on for 10 years. This affects ratios like P/E and P/B immediately with a large up front expense, making “asset light” companies look more expensive using existing GAAP accounting methods.
Example: If a company like Netflix spends on advertising—that expense is added to the balance sheet immediately, even if the average expected subscriber is a customer for 10 years. Oakmark would adjust that advertising cost over of the expected life of the customer, which would lead to a lower P/E or price to book.
With existing GAAP accounting, cost of acquiring a customer is expensed up front, immediately, even if the customer lasts a lifetime. In 1975 there was a 71% correlation between the stock price and tangible book value for S&P500 companies, today there is only a 14% correlation, though low price to book is still used to define value stocks in indexes like Russell and by Morningstar, etc. Overall, value investing is the same today as it was over 80 years ago. Investors follow fads, get emotional and over-react; this creates a gap between price intrinsic value, creating a margin of safety and the opportunity to make money.
We have discussed “intangible capital” for over a decade, suggesting companies that are accruing intangible capital at a faster rate than other companies would likely be good investments. The two best organizations that we know that invest this way are GaveKal (Louis Gave) and Knowledge Leaders Capital, whose mutual funds are managed by my friend Steve Vannelli.
As for us, the S&P 500 (SPX/2840.35) is back within “spitting distance” of new all-time highs, a view we have embraced since our “bottom call” at the February 9, 2018 “undercut low.” Since then, the SPX has gained 12.2% and, in the process, left the “market crash” predictors and the “range bound” crowd in the rearview mirror with many individual stocks gaining 20%+ over that timeframe! As for our models, they are recharged with a full load of “internal energy”, suggesting the potential for an attempt at new all-time highs this week. If past is prelude, however, such action usually fails on the first attempt to make new highs. Nevertheless, that is our “call.”
The call for this week: In recent missives, we have written about the rotation that has been occurring in the equity markets over the past few weeks. In their weekend strategy letter, the astute Lowry’s Research organization writes:
Information Technology and Consumer Cyclicals were the two most consistent market leaders during the first half of 2018. Over the past month, however, apparent profit-taking has caused both Sectors to underperform the S&P 500. Rather than moving to cash, though, investors appear to have reinvested their profits into other Sectors such as Consumer Non-cyclicals, Industrials and Financials. Sector rotation such as this is typically associated with a healthy bull market. A similar rotation appears to be occurring away from the Small Cap market segment into what had been a laggard Large Cap segment. The overall result of this rotation among market Sectors and Segments was another new all-time high in Lowry’s Operating Companies Only (OCO) Unweighted NY Price Index on July 26th 2018.
Manifestly, we agree with the good folks at Lowry’s, leaving our call for new all-time highs this week intact.
Additional information is available on request. This document may not be reprinted without permission.
Raymond James & Associates may make a market in stocks mentioned in this report and may have managed/co-managed a public/follow-on offering of these shares or otherwise provided investment banking services to companies mentioned in this report in the past three years.
RJ&A or its officers, employees, or affiliates may 1) currently own shares, options, rights or warrants and/or 2) execute transactions in the securities mentioned in this report that may or may not be consistent with this report’s conclusions.
The opinions offered by Mr. Saut should be considered a part of your overall decision-making process. For more information about this report – to discuss how this outlook may affect your personal situation and/or to learn how this insight may be incorporated into your investment strategy – please contact your Raymond James Financial Advisor.
All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the Equity Research Department of Raymond James & Associates at this time and are subject to change. Information has been obtained from sources considered reliable, but we do not guarantee that the material presented is accurate or that it provides a complete description of the securities, markets or developments mentioned. Other Raymond James departments may have information that is not available to the Equity Research Department about companies mentioned. We may, from time to time, have a position in the securities mentioned and may execute transactions that may not be consistent with this presentation’s conclusions. We may perform investment banking or other services for, or solicit investment banking business from, any company mentioned. Investments mentioned are subject to availability and market conditions. All yields represent past performance and may not be indicative of future results. Raymond James & Associates, Raymond James Financial Services and Raymond James Ltd. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Raymond James Financial.
International securities involve additional risks such as currency fluctuations, differing financial accounting standards, and possible political and economic instability. These risks are greater in emerging markets.
Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses of mutual funds carefully before investing. The prospectus contains this and other information about mutual funds. The prospectus is available from your financial advisor and should be read carefully before investing.
Black MondayOn 19 October 1987, the stock markets experienced a dramatic plunge that prompted many firms to shut down their trading desks and turn off their phones to minimize internal losses. Raymond James refused to do the same. Our desks stayed open to help meet clients’ needs, resulting in our first and only unprofitable quarter since the firm went public in 1983. |
 |
Who was Raymond James?The Raymond in our name is actually from Edward Raymond, owner of a 15-employee mutual fund sales group, Raymond and Associates, along Florida’s west coast. He sold his company to Bob James on 15 July 1964, on condition that the surviving firm be called Raymond, James & Associates. Three days after the sale, Ed Raymond was involved in a near-fatal automobile accident and never joined the firm. Nonetheless, even after Raymond had passed away, Bob James insisted that his name remain on the door – ahead of James’ own. That was a promise he made to Ed Raymond three days before the accident, and Bob James was a man who kept his promises. |
|
Bear Market of 1974The severe bear market of 1974 threatened the existence of Raymond James, which was bleeding capital by the day. Tom James, his father and other leaders took extreme measures to keep the firm afloat, slashing costs, foregoing paychecks and even attempting to sell the firm for just enough capital to protect client assets and retain as many associates as possible. The story could have ended very differently if not for a sharp upturn and continued rebound in the stock markets late in the year. |
|
Taking Raymond James PublicWhen consideration was being given to taking Raymond James public, Tom James penned a letter to shareholders (largely employees at the time). ” … the public offering should be considered as a statement of our independence. While this is a psychological rather than an economic rationale, it is nonetheless very important. We have asserted for some time that we are not interested in becoming a small part of a very large corporation. That assertion results mainly from the inclinations of management rather than the economic benefits associated with either alternative. The public stock offering affords us the opportunity to enjoy a little bit of the best of both worlds. While shareholders will be given liquidity at fair market value, we will still have the ability to control our own destiny.” After 40+ years of Tom’s leadership, upon becoming CEO, Paul Reilly was often questioned about whether the company might ultimately surrender its cherished independence and be acquired by some larger entity. His response: “Not while I’m around.” It’s a theme that continues today. |
 |
