Tuesday, May 3, 2016

DCF Myth 3.1: The Margin of Safety - Tool for Action or Excuse for Inaction?

In my last post on dealing with uncertainty, I brought up the margin of safety, the tool that many value investors claim to use to protect themselves against uncertainty. While there are certainly some in the value investing community who have found a good way to incorporate MOS into their investing process, there are many more who seem to have misconceptions about what it does for them as well as the trade off from using it. 


The Margin of Safety: Definition and Rationale

While the margin of safety has always been around, in one form or another, in investing, it was Ben Graham who brought the term into value investing in The Intelligent Investor, when he argued that the secret of sound investment is to have a margin of safety, with the margin of safety defined as the difference between the value of an asset and its price. The definitive book on MOS was written by Seth Klarman, a value investing icon. Klarman’s book has acquired a cult following, partly because of its content and partly because it has been out of print now for years; a quick check of Amazon indicates a second-hand copy can be acquired for about $1600. Klarman’s take on margin of safety is similar in spirit to Graham’s measure, with an asset-based focus on value, which is captured in his argument that investors gain the margin of safety by “buying at a significant discount to underlying business value and giving preference to tangible assets over intangibles”.



There are many reasons offered for maintaining a margin of safety. The first is that the value of an asset is always measured with error and investors, no matter how well versed they are in valuation techniques, have to recognize that they can be wrong in their judgments. The second is that the market price is determined by demand and supply and if it diverges from value, its pathway back is neither quick nor guaranteed. The proponents of margin of safety point to its benefits. By holding back on making investment decisions (buy or sell) until you feel that you have a margin of safety, they argue that you improve your odds of making successful investments. In addition, They also make the point that having a healthy margin of safety will reduce the potential downside on your investments and help protect and preserve your capital. 

The Margin of Safety: Divergence across Investors
As a concept, I not only understand the logic of the MOS, but also its allure, and I am sure that many investors adopt some variant of it in active investing, but there are differences in how it is employed:
  1. Valuation Basis: While MOS is often defined it as the difference between value and price, the way in which investors estimate value varies widely. The first approach is intrinsic value, either in its dividend discount model format or a more expansive DCF version. The second approach estimates value from accounting balance sheets, using either unadjusted book value or variants thereof (tangible book value, for instance). The third approach is to use a pricing multiple (PE, EV to EBITDA), in conjunction with peer group pricing, to estimate “a fair price” for the company. While I would contest even calling this number a value, it is still used by many investors as their estimated value.
  2. Magnitude and Variability: Among investors who use MOS in investing, there seems to be no consensus on what constitutes a sufficient margin. Even among investors who are explicit about their MOS, the follow up question becomes whether it should be a constant (say 15% for all investments) or whether it should be greater for some investments (say in risky sectors or growth stocks) than for others (utilities or MLPs).
The bottom line is that a room full of investors who all claim to use margin of safety can contain a group with vast disagreements on how the MOS is computed, how large it should be and whether it should vary across investments and time.

Myths about Margin of Safety
When talking about value, I am often challenged by value investors on how I control for risk and asked why I don’t explicitly build in a MOS. Those are fair questions but I do think that some of the investors who are most enamored with the concept fundamentally misunderstand it. So, at the risk of provoking their wrath, here is my list of MOS misconceptions.

Myth 1: Having a MOS is costless
There are some investors who believe that their investment returns will always be improved by using a margin of safety on their investments and that using a larger margin of safety is costless. There are very few actions in investing that don’t create costs and benefits and MOS is not an exception. In fact, the best way to understand the trade off between costs and benefits is to think about type 1 and type 2 errors in statistical analysis. If type 1 errors refer to the fact that you have a false positive, type 2 errors reflect the opposite problem, where you have a false negative. Translating this proposition into investing, let’s categorize type 1 errors as buying an expensive stock, because you mistake it to be under valued, and type 2 errors as not buying a bargain-priced stock, because you perceive it wrongly to be over valued. Increasing your MOS will reduce your type 1 errors but will increase your type 2 errors. 

Many risk averse value investors would accept this trade off but there is a cost to being too conservative and  if that cost exceeds the benefits of being careful in your investment choice, it will show up as sub-par returns on your portfolio over extended periods. So, will using a MOS yield a positive or negative payoff? I cannot answer that question for you, because each investor has to make his or her own judgment on the question, but there are simple tests that you can run on your own portfolios that will lead you to the truth (though you may not want to see it). If you find yourself consistently holding more of your overall portfolio in cash than your natural risk aversion and liquidity needs would lead you to, and/or you don't generate enough returns on your portfolio to beat what you would have earned investing passively (in index funds, for instance), your investment process, no matter what its pedigree, is generating net costs for you. The problems may be in any of the three steps in the process: your valuations may be badly off, your judgment on market catalysts can be wrong or you may be using too large a MOS.

Myth 2: If you use a MOS, you can be sloppy in your valuations
Value investors who spend all of their time coming up with the right MOS and little on valuation are doing themselves a disservice. If your valuations are incomplete, badly done or biased, having a MOS on that value will provide little protection and can only hurt you in the investment process (since you are creating type 2 errors, without the benefit of reducing type 1 errors). Given a choice between an investor with high quality valuations and no/little MOS and one with poorly done valuations and a sophisticated MOS, I would take the former over the latter every single time.

I am also uncomfortable with investors who start with conservative estimates of value and then apply the MOS to that conservative value. In intrinsic valuation, conservative values will usually mean haircutting cash flows below expectations, using high discount rates and not counting in growth that is uncertain. In asset-based valuation, it can take the form of counting only some of the assets because they are tangible, liquid or both. Remember that you are already double counting risk, when you use MOS, even if your valuation is a fair value (and not a conservative estimate of value), because that value is computed on a risk-adjusted basis. If you are using a conservative value estimate, you may be triple or even quadruple counting the same risk when making investment decisions. If you are using this process, I am amazed that any investment manages to make it through your risk gauntlets to emerge as a good investment, and it does not surprise me that nothing in the market looks cheap to you.

Myth 3: The MOS should be the same across all investments 
I have always been puzzled by the notion that one MOS fits all investments. How can a 15% margin of safety be sufficient for both an investment in a regulated utility as well as a money-losing start-up? Perhaps, the defense that would be offered is that the investors who use MOS as their risk breakers would not look at companies like the latter, but I would still expect that even in the value investing spectrum, different investments would evoke different degrees of uncertainty (and different MOS).

Myth 4: The MOS on your portfolio = MOS on individual investments in the portfolio
I know that those who use MOS are skeptics when it comes to modern portfolio theory, but modern portfolio theory is built on the law of large numbers, and that law is robust. Put simply, you can aggregate a large number of risky investments to create a relatively safe portfolio, as long as the risks in the individual stocks are not perfectly correlated. In MOS terms, this would mean that an investor with a concentrated portfolio (who invests in three, four or five stocks) would need a much larger MOS on individual investments than one who spreads his or her bets across more investments, sectors and markets.

Expanding on this point, using a MOS will create biases in your portfolio. Using the MOS to pick investment will then lead you away from investments that are more exposed to firm-specific risks, which loom large on an individual company basis but fade in your portfolio. Thus, biotechnology firms (where the primary risk lies in an FDA approval process) will never make your MOS cut, but food processing firms will, for all the wrong reasons. In the same vein, Valeant and Volkswagen will not make your MOS cut, even though the risk you face on either stock will be lowered if they are parts of larger portfolios. 

Myth 5: The MOS is an alternative risk measure
I know that many investors abhor betas, and believe it or not, I understand. In fact, I have long argued that there are replacements available for portfolio theory-based risk measures and that not only is intrinsic value robust enough to work with these alternative risk measures but that the discount rate is not (and should not) be the ultimate driver of value in most companies. That said, there are some in the value investing community who like to use their dislike of betas as a bludgeon against all financial theory and after they have beaten that straw horse to death, they will offer MOS as their alternative risk measure. That suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of MOS. To use MOS, you need an estimate of value and I am not aware of any intrinsic value model that does not require a risk adjustment to get to value. In other words, MOS is not an alternative to any existing risk measure used in valuation but an add-on, a way in which risk averse investors can add a second layer of risk protection.

There is one possible way in which the MOS may be your primary risk adjustment mechanism and that is if you use a constant discount rate when doing valuation (a cost of capital of 8% for all companies or even a risk free rate) and then apply a MOS to that valuation to capture risk. If that is your approach, you should definitely be using different MOS for different investments (see Myth 3), with a larger MOS being used on riskier investments. I would also be curious about how exactly you make this MOS adjustment for risk, including what risks you bring in and how you make the conversion.

Margin of Safety – Incorporating into a Strategy
I would not put myself in the MOS camp but I recognize its use in investing and believe that it can be incorporated into a good investing strategy. To do so, though, you would need to do the following:
  1. Self examination: Even if you believe that MOS is a good way of picking investments, it is not for everyone. Before you adopt it, you have to assess not only your own standing (including how much you have to invest, how risk averse you are) but also your faith (in your valuation prowess and that markets correct their mistakes). Once you have adopted it, you still need the effects it has on your portfolio, including how often you choose not to invest (and hold cash instead) and whether it makes a material difference to the returns you generate on your portfolio.
  2. Sound Value Judgments: As I noted in the last section, a MOS is useful only if it is an addendum to sound valuations. This may be a reflection of my biases but I believe that this requires intrinsic valuation, though I am willing to concede that there are multiple ways of doing it right. Accounting valuations seem to be built on the twin presumptions that book value is an approximation of liquidation value and that accounting fair value actually means what it says, and I have little faith in either. As for passing of pricing as value, it strikes me as inconsistent to use the market to get your pricing number (by using multiples and comparable firms) and then argue that the same market misprices the asset in question.
  3. A Flexible MOS: Tailor the MOS to the investment that you are looking at: There are two reasons for using a MOS in the first place. The first is an acceptance that, no matter how hard you try, your estimate of value can be wrong and the second is that even if the value estimate is right, there is uncertainty about whether the market will correct its mistakes over your time horizon. If you buy into these two reasons, it follows that your MOS should vary across investments, with the following determinants.
  • Valuation Uncertainty: The more uncertain you are about your estimated value for an asset, other things remaining equal, the larger the MOS should be. Thus, you should use a smaller MOS when investing in mature businesses and during stable markets, than when putting your money in young, riskier business or in markets in crises.
  • Portfolio Tailoring: The MOS that you use should also be tailored to your portfolio choices. If you are a concentrated investor, who invests in a four or five companies, you should use a much higher MOS than an investor who has a more diversified portfolio, and if you the latter, perhaps even modify the MOS to be larger for companies that are exposed to macroeconomic risks (interest rates, inflation, commodity prices or economic cycles) than to company-specific risks (regulatory approval, legal jeopardy, management flux).
  • Market Efficiency: I know that these are fighting words to an active investor, red flags that call forth intemperate responses. The truth, though, is that even the most rabid critics of market efficiency ultimately believe in their own versions of market efficiency, since if markets never corrected their mistakes, you would never make money of even your canniest investments. Consequently, you should settle for a smaller MOS when investing in stocks in markets that you perceive to be more liquid and efficient than in assets, where the corrections will presumably happen more quickly than in inefficient, illiquid markets where the wait can be longer.
  • Pricing Catalysts: Since you make money from the price adjusting to value, the presence of catalysts that can lead to this adjustment will allow you to settle for a lower MOS. Thus, if you believe that a stock has been mispriced ahead of an earnings report, a regulatory finding or a legal judgment, you should demand a lower MOS than when you invest in a stock that you believe is misvalued but with no obvious pricing catalyst in sight. 
Finally, if MOS is good enough to use when you buy a stock, it should be good enough to use when you sell that stock. Thus, if you need a stock to be under valued by at least 15%, to buy it, should you also not wait until it is at least 15% over valued, to sell it? This will require you to abandon another nostrum of value investing, which is that once you buy a great company, you should hold it forever, but that is not just unwise but is inconsistent with true value investing.
Conclusion
Would I prefer to buy a stock at a 50% discount on value rather than at just below fair value? Of course, and I would be even happier if you made that a 75% discount. Would I feel even more comfortable if you estimated value very conservatively. Yes and I would be delighted if all you counted was liquid assets. That said, I don't live in a  world where I see too many of these investments and when I do, it is usually the front for a scam rather than a legitimate bargain.  That is the reason that  I have never formally used a MOS in investing. I did buy Valeant at $32, because my valuation of the stock yielded $45 for the company. Would I have still bought the stock, if my value estimate had been only $35 or if it was a big chunk of my portfolio? Perhaps not, but I have bought stocks that were priced at my estimated fair value and have held back on investments that I have found to be under valued by 25% or more. Why? That has to wait for my coming post on simulations, since this one has run its course.

YouTube Video


Uncertainty Posts
  1. DCF Myth 3: You cannot do a valuation, when there is too much uncertainty
  2. The Margin of Safety: Excuse for Inaction or Tool for Action?
  3. Facing up to Uncertainty: Probabilities and Simulations
DCF Myth Posts
Introductory Post: DCF Valuations: Academic Exercise, Sales Pitch or Investor Tool
  1. If you have a D(discount rate) and a CF (cash flow), you have a DCF.  
  2. A DCF is an exercise in modeling & number crunching. 
  3. You cannot do a DCF when there is too much uncertainty.
  4. The most critical input in a DCF is the discount rate and if you don’t believe in modern portfolio theory (or beta), you cannot use a DCF.
  5. If most of your value in a DCF comes from the terminal value, there is something wrong with your DCF.
  6. A DCF requires too many assumptions and can be manipulated to yield any value you want.
  7. A DCF cannot value brand name or other intangibles. 
  8. A DCF yields a conservative estimate of value. 
  9. If your DCF value changes significantly over time, there is either something wrong with your valuation.
  10. A DCF is an academic exercise.

Monday, May 2, 2016

DCF Myth 3: You cannot do a valuation, when there is too much uncertainty!

Uncertainty, both imminent and resolved, has been on my mind these last two weeks. I posted my valuation of Valeant on April 20, making the argument that, at least based on my expectations on what could be revealed in the delayed financial filings, the stock was worth about $44, approximately $12 more than the prevailing stock price. Many of you were kind enough to comment on my valuation, and one of the more common refrains was there were too many unknowns on the stock to be taking a stand. In fact, one of the comments on the post was that "regardless of the valuation, a sufficient margin of safety does not exist (on the stock)". On April 21, we got news that Volkswagen had come to an agreement with US authorities on the compensation that they would offer buyers of their cars and a day later, the company announced that it would take an $18.2 billion charge to cover the costs of its emissions misrepresentations. It was a chance for me to revisit my valuation of Volkswagen, in the immediate aftermath of the scandal in October 2015, and take stock of how the the investment I made in the stock then looks, as the uncertainty gets slowly resolved. All through these last two weeks, there were signs that Yahoo's journey, that was starting to resemble the Bataan Death March lately, was nearing its end, as the company reviewed bids for its operating assets. Since it is a stock that I valued almost two years ago (and bought after the valuation) and labeled as a Walking Dead company, I am interested, both financially and intellectually, to see how this end game plays out. As I wrestle with the resolution of uncertainties from the past and struggle with uncertainties in the future on every one of my investments, I thought it would be a good time to look at good and bad ways of responding to I uncertainty in investing and valuation.

The Uncertainty Principle
Uncertainty has always been part of human existence, though it has transitioned from the physical uncertainty that characterized the caveman era to the economic uncertainty that is more typical of today, at least in developed markets. Each generation, though, seems to think that it lives in the age of the greatest uncertainty. That may be partially a reflection of a broader sense of "specialness" that afflicts each generation, where it is convinced that its music and movies were the very best and that it had to get through the biggest challenges to succeed. The other is a variation of hindsight bias, where we can look at the past and convince ourselves that what actually happened should have been obvious before it occurred. I am surprised at how many traders, investors and portfolio managers, who lived through the 2008 crisis, have convinced themselves that November 2008 was not that bad and that there was never a chance of a catastrophic ending.  That said, uncertainty not only ebbs and flows over time but also changes form, making enduring fixes and lessons tough to find. As investors bemoan the rise of uncertainty in today's markets, there are three reasons why they may feel more under siege now than in prior decades:
  1. Low Interest Rates: In my post on negative interest rates, I pointed to the fact that as interest rates in many of the leading currencies have dropped to historic lows, risk premiums have increased in both stock and bond markets. The expected return on the S&P 500 in early 2008, before the crisis, was 8% and it remains at about that level today, even though the treasury bond rate has dropped from 4% to less than 2%, but the equity risk premium has risen to compensate. Even though the expected return may be the same, the fact that more of it can be attributed to a risk premium will increase the market reaction to news, in both directions, adding to price volatility.
  2. Globalization: Globalization has not only changed how companies and investors make choices but has also had two consequences for risk. The first is that there seem to be no localized problems any more, with anyone's problem becoming everyone's problem. Thus, political instability in Brazil and too much local government borrowing to build infrastructure in China play out on a global stage, affecting stock prices in the rest of the world. The second is that the center of global economic power is shifting from the US and Europe to Asia, and as it does, Americans and Europeans are starting to bear more of world's economic risk than they used to.
  3. Media/Online Megaphones: As an early adopted of technology, I am far from being a Luddite but I do think that the speed with which information is transmitted around the world has allowed market risks to go viral. It is not just the talking heads on CNBC, Bloomberg and other financial news channels that are the transmitters of these news but also social media, as Twitter and Facebook become the place where investors go to get breaking investing news.
I am sure that you can add other items to this list, such as the disruption being wrought by technology on established businesses, but I am not sure that these are either uncommon or unusual. Every decade has its own disruptive factors, wreaking havoc on existing business models and company values.

The Natural Responses to Uncertainty
Much of financial theory and a great deal of financial practice was developed in the United States in the second half of the last century and therein lies a problem. The United States was the giant of the global economy for much of this period, with an economy on an upward path. The stability that characterized the US economy during this period was unusual, if you look at long term history of economies and markets, and much as we would like to believe that this is because central bankers and policy makers learned their lessons from the great depression, there is the very real possibility that it was just an uncommonly predictable period. That would also mean that the bedrock of financial practice, built on extrapolating from past data and assuming mean reversion in all things financial, may be shaky, and that we have to reevaluate them for the economies that we operate in today. It is unfair to blame the way we deal with uncertainty entirely on the fact that our practices were honed in the United States. After all, it is well chronicled in both psychological annals and behavior studies that we, as human beings, deal with uncertainty in unhealthy ways, with the following being the most common responses:
  1. Paralysis and Inaction: The most common reaction to uncertainty, in my experience, is inaction. "There is too much uncertainty right now to act" becomes the refrain, with the promise that action will come when more of the facts are know. The consequences are predictable. I have friends who have almost entirely been invested in money market funds for decades now, waiting for that moment of clarity and certainty that never seems to come. I have also talked to investors who seem to view investing when uncertain as a violation of value investing edicts and have found themselves getting pushed into smaller and smaller corners of the market, seeking elusive comfort.
  2. Denial and Delusion: At the other end of the spectrum, the reaction that other investors have to uncertainty is go into denial, adopting one of two practices. The number crunchers fall back on false precision, where they add more detail to their forecasts and more decimals to their numbers, as a defense against uncertainty. The story tellers fall back on story telling, acting as if they have the power to write the endings to every uncertain narrative, when in fact they have little control over either the players or the outcome.
  3. Mental Accounting and Rules of Thumb: The brain may be a wondrous organ but it has its own set of tics that undercut investing, when uncertain. As Richard Thaler has so convincingly shown in his work on mental accounting, investors and analysts like to use rules of thumb, often with no basis in fact or reality, when making judgments. Thus, a venture capitalist who is quick to dismiss the use of intrinsic value in a young start-up as too fraught with estimation error, seems to have no qualms about forecasting earnings five years out for the same company and applying a price earnings ratio to those earnings to get an exit value.
  4. Outsourcing and Passing the Buck: When stumped for answers, we almost invariably turn to others that we view as more knowledgeable or better equipped than we are to come up with solutions. Cynically, you could argue that this allows us to avoid taking responsibility for investment mistakes, which we can now attribute to consultants, text book writers or that person you heard on CNBC. 
  5. Prayer and Divine Intervention: The oldest response to uncertainty is prayer and it has had remarkable staying power. There are large segments of the world where big investment and business decisions are preceded by prayers and divine intervention on your behalf. 
If the first step in change is acceptance, I have come to accept that I am prone to do some or all of the above, when faced with uncertainty, but I have also discovered that these reactions can do damage to my portfolio. 
Dealing with Uncertainty
To reduce, if not eliminate, my unhealthy responses to uncertainty, I have developed my own coping mechanisms that will hopefully push me on to healthier tracks. I am not suggesting that these will work for you, but they have for me, and please feel free to modify, abandon or adjust them to your own needs.
1. Have a narrative: As many of you who read this blog know, I have long believed that a company valuation without a story to bind it together is just numbers on a spreadsheet and a story that uses no numbers at all is a fairy tale. There is another advantage in having a narrative underlie your valuation and tying numbers to that narrative. When faced with uncertainty about specifics, the question that I ask is whether these specifics affect my narrative for the company and if yes, in what way. In my valuation of Volkswagen, right after the diesel emissions scandal, I did not find a catastrophic drop in value for the company because my underlying narrative for Volkswagen, that of a mature business with little to offer in terms of expansion or growth opportunities, was dented but largely unchanged as a result of the scandal. With Valeant, in my November 2015 valuation, I argued that the attention brought to the company by its drug pricing policies and connections to Philidor would result in it having to abandon its strategy of growth driven by acquisitions and growth and to shift to being a less exciting, lower growth pharmaceutical company. That shift in narrative drove the inputs into my valuation and my lower assessment of value. 
2. Categorize uncertainty: Uncertainty can come from many sources and it is useful, when valuing a company in the face of multiple uncertainties, to classify them. Here are my groupings:


Since it is easy to miss some uncertainties and double count others, I find it useful to keep them isolated in different parts of my valuation:


Specifically, in my Volkswagen and Valeant valuations, it was micro risk that concerned me, with some of that risk being continuous (the effect of the diesel emissions scandal on Volkswagen car sales) and some being discrete (the fines levied by the EPA on Volkswagen and the risk of default in Valeant). That is why both companies, at least in my conventional valuations, have low costs of capital, notwithstanding the risky environment, but their values are then adjusted for the expected costs of the discrete events occurring.
3. Keep it simple:  This may seem ironic but the more uncertainty there is, the simpler my valuation models become, with fewer inputs and less levers to move. One reason is that it allows me to focus on the variables that really drive value for the company and the other is that it reduces my need to estimate dozens of variables in the face of uncertainty. Thus, in my valuations of start-up companies, my focus is almost entirely on three variables: revenue growth, operating margins and the reinvestment needed to sustain that growth. 
4. Make your best estimates: As I start making my estimates in the face of uncertainty, I hear the voice in the back of my mind pipe up, saying "You are going to be so wrong!" and I silence it by  reminding myself that I don't have to be right, just less wrong than everyone else, and that when uncertainty is rampant, most investors give up.
5. Face up to uncertainty: Rather than cringe in the face of uncertainty and act like it is not there, I have found that it is freeing to admit that you are uncertain and then to take the next step and be explicit about that uncertainty. In my valuations of tech titans in February 2016, I used probability distributions for the inputs that I felt most shaky about and then reported the values as distributions. Since some of you have been curious about the mechanics of this process, I will take a lengthier journey through the process of running simulations in a companion piece to this post.
6. Be willing to be wrong: If you don't like to be wrong, it is best not  to value companies in the face of uncertainty. However, if you think that Warren Buffet did not face uncertainty in his legendary investment in American Express after the salad oil scandal in 1964 or that John Paulson knew for sure that his bet against the housing bubble would pay off in 2008, you are guilty of revisionist history. There is a corollary to this point and it relates to diversification. As I have argued in my post on diversification, the more uncertain you feel about individual investments, the more you have to spread your bets. It is not an admission of weakness but a recognition of reality.

If you are a value investor, you will notice that I have not mentioned one of value investors' favorite defenses against uncertainty, which is the margin of safety. Seth Klarman is one of my favorite investment thinkers but I am afraid that the margin of safety, at least as practiced by some in the investing community, has become an empty vessel, an excuse for inaction rather than a guide to action in risky times. I will come back to this measure as well in another post in this series.

Conclusion
If you are an active investor, you are constantly looking for an edge, something that you can bring to the table that most other investors cannot or will not, that you can exploit to earn higher returns. As the investing world gets flatter, with information freely accessible and available to almost all investors, and analytical tools that anyone can access, often at low cost, being comfortable with uncertainty may very well be the edge that separates success from failure in investing. There may be some who are born with that comfort level, but I am not one of them. Instead, my learning has come the hard way, by diving into companies when things are most uncertain and by valuing businesses in the midst of market crises, "by going where it is darkest". That journey is not always profitable (see my experiences with Vale as a precautionary note), sometimes makes me uncomfortable (as I have to make forecasts based upon little or bad information), but it is never boring. I am wrong a hefty percent of the time, but so what? It's only money! I am just glad that I am not a brain surgeon!

YouTube Video

Uncertainty Posts
  1. DCF Myth 3: You cannot do a valuation, when there is too much uncertainty
  2. The Margin of Safety: Excuse for Inaction or Tool for Action?
  3. Facing up to Uncertainty: Probabilities and Simulations
DCF Myth Posts
Introductory Post: DCF Valuations: Academic Exercise, Sales Pitch or Investor Tool
  1. If you have a D(discount rate) and a CF (cash flow), you have a DCF.  
  2. A DCF is an exercise in modeling & number crunching. 
  3. You cannot do a DCF when there is too much uncertainty.
  4. The most critical input in a DCF is the discount rate and if you don’t believe in modern portfolio theory (or beta), you cannot use a DCF.
  5. If most of your value in a DCF comes from the terminal value, there is something wrong with your DCF.
  6. A DCF requires too many assumptions and can be manipulated to yield any value you want.
  7. A DCF cannot value brand name or other intangibles. 
  8. A DCF yields a conservative estimate of value. 
  9. If your DCF value changes significantly over time, there is either something wrong with your valuation.
  10. A DCF is an academic exercise.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Valeant: Information Vacuums, Management Credibility and Investment Value

As an investor, would you buy shares in a company that is at the center of a political and legal firestorm? What if this company has a CEO who has lost the faith of his board and an ex-CFO who is being accused of shady financial practices? And would you pull  the buy trigger if the company has delayed its scheduled annual filing by more than two months, and by doing so is running the risk of violating debt covenants and being pushed into default? And to top it all off, would you be a little worried  if the largest investor in the stock, a well known activist with his reputation and wealth on the line, is now calling the shots? No way, you say! At the right price, I would, and that is the reason that I decided to revisit my Valeant valuation last week, six months after I valued it for the first time, in the aftermath of a crisis born of hubris and happenstance. In structuring this post, I will draw on an old-time consulting matrix, where companies were classified into stars, cash cows, dogs and question marks, to illustrate the transience of these classifications, since Valeant has cycled through the entire matrix in a year.

Valeant, the Star
Valeant's rise from an obscure Canadian drug company to pharmaceutical star has been well chronicled and rather than drown you in prose, I think it is best captured in this picture, which shows the increase in market value (market cap and enterprise value) and operating numbers (revenues and operating income), especially between 2009 and 2015:
Source: S&P Capital IQ
During a period when other pharmaceutical companies were struggling with revenue growth and profit margins, Valeant outstripped them on both counts, growing revenues at almost 43% a year while posting higher operating profit margins than the rest of the sector. At least on the surface, the company seemed to be delivering the best of all combinations: high growth with high profitability.

So, how did Valeant pull of this feat? In an earlier post on the company, in November 2015, I argued that the Valeant business model was a stool with three legs: growth from acquisitions, with the acquisitions funded primarily with debt, followed by a strategy of increasing prices on "under priced" drugs.

The unique combination of growth and profitability made the company a target for value investors, making it a favored stop for investors as diverse as Bill Ackman, the activist investor, and the Sequoia Fund, a storied mutual fund, and a dominant part of their portfolios. In their defense, not only were these investors transparent about their big bets on Valeant, but at least until September 2015, their concentration was viewed as a strength rather than a weakness. In fact, when I posted on why diversification is a necessary component of even a value investing strategy, it was these two investors that were held up as a counters to my argument.

To see the allure of Valeant to value investors, let me go back to mid-year last year, when the company's business model was going strong, its stock price was higher than $200/share and its enterprise value exceeded $100 billion. If the intrinsic value of a company is driven by cash flows from existing assets, value-creating growth and low risk, Valeant looked attractive on almost every dimension:

Valeant was not only delivering the value trifecta, high revenue growth in conjunction with high operating profit margins and generous excess returns, but was doing so on steroids (taking the form of low taxes and high debt). One note of caution even then, though, was that the business model was built on an architecture of acquisitions, with acquisition accounting playing a large role in pushing up operating profitability and lowering taxes.  If you were unfazed by the acquisition accounting effect and assumed that the company could continue to deliver this combination going forward, the value per share that you would have obtained for the company would have been more than $200/share. 
Download spreadsheet
In estimating the value, I did lower the compounded revenue growth for Valeant to 12% for the next ten years, but that translates into revenues more than tripling over the decade. 

From Star to Cash Cow
While many trace Valeant's fall to September and October of 2015, when short sellers launched an assault on its links to Philidor, an online pharmacy, the business model was already under pressure in the months prior, a victim of its own financial success. The model was designed, in my view, to operate under the radar, since key parts of it (the drug pricing and acquisition accounting) would wither under exposure. While much of what Valeant did in 2010 and 2011, when the company was not a household name, went unnoticed, its actions in 2015, when it was a higher profile company, drew attention from unwelcome sources. The company's acquisition of Salix increased the scrutiny, both because of it's size and partly because the Salix drugs that Valeant acquired (and repriced) affected more people (and drew more complaints). The Philidor revelations pushed these concerns into hyperdrive and the stock lost almost 55% of its value in September and October, dropping from $180/share to $80/share.

In my November post, I rehashed much of this story and argued that even if Valeant were able to survive legal and regulatory scrutiny, the company would never be able to return to its old business model. In effect, even in the absence of more bad news, Valeant would have to be run like other pharmaceutical companies, reliant on R&D, rather than acquisitions, for (more anemic) growth. Removing the debt-funded acquisitions and the drug repricing  from the business model yielded a company with lower revenue growth (3% a year, rather than 12%), lower margins (a pre-tax operating margin of 43.66%, instead of 49.82%) and higher taxes (with an effective tax rate of 20% replacing 16.51%).

Download spreadsheet

Note that these numbers were reflective of more conventional drug companies and reflect a profitable, albeit slow-growth business. With these numbers, though, the value per share that I obtained for Valeant was about $77, down substantially from its star status, but the market price, at $82, was higher. 

From Cash Cow to Dog?
If there were dark clouds on the horizon for Valeant in November 2015, the months since have only made them darker for four reasons:
  1. Information blackout: In November 2015, when I valued Valeant, I used the most recent financial filings of the company, from October 2015,  to update my numbers. Almost six months later, there have been no financial filings since, and the 10K that was expected to be filing in February 2016 was delayed, ostensibly because the company was still gathering information, and that delay has extended into April. 
  2. Managerial Double talk: In the intervening months, Valeant’s managers have been in the news, almost as often giving testimony to Congress, as holding press conferences. Arguing, as they did, that they grew through R&D like any other pharmaceutical company and that their revenue increases came mostly from volume growth (rather than price increases) was so much at odds with the facts that they became less credible with each iteration. Michael Pearson’s hospitalization for an undisclosed illness, just before Christmas, was something that was out of the company’s control but its handling added to the air of opacity around the company. 
  3. Legal Jeopardy: The Philidor entanglement, the original source of the crisis, did not go away. In fact, the company, after claiming that separation from Philidor would be low-cost and easy backtracked in January and February with disclosures that suggested deeper links, with the potential for legal problems down the road. 
  4. Debt load: Debt is a double edged sword, increasing earnings per share and providing tax benefits in good times but potentially making bad times worse. That argument got backing from what happened at Valeant, a company that accumulated more than $30 billion in debt during its acquisition binges, with about half of that debt being added on during 2015. That debt came with the added covenant that if financial disclosures were not filed by March 30, 2015, the firm could technically be in default, a possibility that spooked markets. 
Without financial disclosures from the company, a management that seemed to be making up stuff as it went along and the possibility of a debt covenant being triggered, it is not surprising that the market marked down Valeant’s stock price further:


This price collapse, following last year’s swoon, has reduced the market capitalization of the company to $11 billion, almost 85% lower than its value a year prior. In late March 2016, the company announced that Michael Pearson would be stepping down as CEO, the clearest sign yet that there will no return to the old business model, and Bill Ackman increased his involvement of the company in a bid to preserve what was left of his investment in the company and more importantly, his reputation as a savvy activist investor.

With the stock trading at $32, the question of whether the stock is a good buy now looms large. Compared to my November 2015 estimate, the answer is an emphatic yes, but the caveat is that a great deal has happened to the company’s fundamentals during the last six months that could have shifted the value down significantly. The problem that I face, like any other investor in Valeant, is that in the absence of financial filings, there are no numbers to update. The solution seems simple. Wait for the delayed filing to come out in late April, early May or later, and use that updated information in my valuation. That is the low-risk option, but I think that it is also a low return option, since if the filing contains good news (that revenues have held up and profit margins remain healthy), the stock price will adjust before my valuation does. The alternative is scary, but it has a bigger payoff. I could try to make a judgment on Valeant’s value now, before the information comes out, and follow through by buying or selling the stock. In arriving at this value, here are some of the adjustments that I chose to make:
  1. The Dark Side of Debt: The debt at Valeant has become more burden than a help, as it has not only triggered worries about covenants being violated but has opened up the possibility that that the company will have trouble making its payments. In fact, Moody's lowered the bond rating for Valeant to B1, well below investment grade, in March 2016, causing an increase in the cost of capital used in the valuation from 7.52% (in my November 2016 valuation) to 8.29%. The secondary impact is that there is a chance now that Valeant's going concern status may be jeopardized by its debt commitments; I assume a 5% chance of this occurrence in conjunction with the assumption that a forced liquidation of its assets will come at a discount of 25% on fair value. 
  2. The Bad News in Delay: Delayed news is almost never good news and there are two key operating numbers where the delayed report can contain bad news. The first is that the company may restate revenues, reflecting its separation from Philidor and perhaps for other undisclosed reasons. The second is that the company may reveal that some or all its acquisition-related expensing from prior years may have been overdone, resulting in some or a big chunk of these expenses being moved back into the operating expense column. In my valuation, I will assume (and cheerfully admit that this is based on no news) that the revenue reduction will be small (about 2%) and that half of all acquisition expenses will be shifted to operating expenses, reducing the pre-tax operating margin to 40.39% (from the 43.66% that I used in November 2015). 
Since I had already assumed that the existing business model was dead in my November 2015 valuation, I don't see any need to lower revenue growth further or to raise the effective tax rate. The value that I obtain with these updated numbers is below:
Download spreadsheet
The value per share that I obtain for Valeant is $43.66, higher than the stock price ($32) at the time of this analysis. That value, though, is clearly a bet on what the delayed financials will deliver as a surprise. One way to measure the exposure that you have to this risk is to measure value as a function of how much of a revenue and earnings surprise you get from the report:

Is there a chance that the earnings report could contain news that make Valeant a bad investment at $32? Of course, and you will have to make your own judgment on that possibility, but based upon my priors (uninformed though they might be), it looked like a good investment at $32, late last week, and I own it now. 

Conclusion
I am sure that Valeant will be used to draw many lessons and I will extract my share in future posts about acquisition accounting, activist investing and corporate finance. The first is that acquisition accounting is rife with inconsistencies and plays into investor biases and preconceptions about companies. The second is that cookbook corporate finance, with its dependence on metrics and magic bullets, can have disastrous consequences when it overwhelms the narrative. The third is that activist investing, notwithstanding its successes, has two weak links: concentrated portfolios and investors who can become too wedded to their investment thesis.   I will continue to draw on Valeant as an illustrative example of how quickly views on a company and its business model can change in markets and why absolutism in investing (where you know with certainty that a business model is great or awful, that a stock is cheap or expensive) is an invitation for a market takedown. 

YouTube Video


Attachments
  1. Value of Valeant as Star (September 2015)
  2. Value of Valeant as Cash Cow (November 2015)
  3. Value of Valeant as Dog (April 2016)