Tag Archives: chinese

Lessons From Muddy Waters Research And Other Short-Sellers In Avoiding Potential Value Traps

I recently read this book “The Most Dangerous Trade: How Short Sellers Uncover Fraud, Keep Markets Honest, and Make and Lose Billions” written by Richard Teitelbaum where he profiles 10 high-profile short-sellers including Bill Ackman, Jim Chanos and David Einhorn among others. In particular, the chapter on Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research caught my attention. Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research is best known for his firm’s short-seller reports on Chinese companies. Carson Block embarked on this journey as an activist short-seller with a visit to NYSE-listed Orient Paper (NYSEMKT: ONP ) in January 2010, at the request of his father William Block who operated an investment research firm called WAB Capital which was compensated by listed companies for publishing research reports. During the visit, Carson Block spotted a couple of red flags, including the inconsistency between the actual raw materials (20-foot pile of used paper which was used as feedstock) sighted and its accounting value on the company’s books, the condition of the fixed assets (“the rolling machinery was antiquated”), and the fact that management was apparently unable to answer questions relating to operational metrics during the meeting. He published a negative report on Orient Paper and distributed it via email in June 2010; the stock is currently trading at a fraction of its share price prior to the report. In the next few years, Carson Block started Muddy Waters Research and went on to publish more reports on companies such as Sino-Forest and Rino International. On Muddy Waters Research’s website, the firm highlights its track record , where it claims its nine “Strong Sell” Reports have led to four de-listings, four resignations of auditors/CFO/board members and more than six formal investigations by regulators into covered companies. Lessons From Muddy Waters In September 2014, Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research gave a presentation to accounting students at Baruch College, the presentation slides are available for download here . Carson Block highlighted a couple of red flags that investors should take note of: High Days Sales Outstanding Few tangible assets on balance sheet Highly acquisitive / high capex Outsized gross margins inconsistent with the value-add they are providing to customers Unique in reliance on intermediary counterparties Often (successfully) entering new businesses High revenue or expense concentrations with counterparties Unexplained cash in the Variable Interest Entity Business models that don’t make sense Opaque business model Tax preferences / rates that don’t hold up Obfuscating answers on conference calls Changing Key Performance Indicators Initiatives disappearing without mention Heavy insider selling Losing customers as evidenced by changing names of top 10 customers Significant customer and/or supplier is a related party Inventory turnover inconsistent with industry peers I will elaborate on some of these red flags in greater detail below with actual case studies. Highly acquisitive In 2011, it was reported that Olympus ( OTCPK:OCPNY ), a Japanese manufacturer of cameras and other electronics, utilized acquisition payments and associated fees to hide the fact that it had made severe losses on its investments. The writing was on the wall, for those who bothered to do due diligence, as the company was a serial acquirer buying companies at inflated valuations, only to write down some of these acquisitions in a short period of time. Furthermore, most of these acquired companies were in industries unrelated to Olympus’ core business and were loss-making. Outsized Gross Margins Longtop Financial, a software company with banks and other financial institutions in China as its clients, was the subject of a negative report by Citron Research in April 2011. One of the red flags highlighted by Citron Research was that Longtop reported outsized gross margins of 69% in FY2010, compared with gross margins between 15% and 50% for its peers. According to Citron Research, management’s explanation for the higher gross margin was that “they have more standardized software sales then peers and standardized software has very high gross margins of around 90%. The company claims that these solutions and modules can be deployed to new customers with fewer man-hours and expenses.” In May 2011, Longtop’s auditor resigned; and the company’s shares were suspended from trading in August 2011 by NYSE. Opaque Business Model Charlie Munger has this particular quote which I like a lot: Where you have complexity, by nature you can have fraud and mistakes. You’ll have more of that than in a company that shovels sand from a river and sells it. This will always be true of financial companies, including ones run by governments. If you want accurate numbers from financial companies, you’re in the wrong world. Certain industries and businesses are inherently more complex and opaque, making it difficult for investors and even auditors to understand and do decent work on them. It is telling that several vegetable farming/processing companies in China have been the target of short-sellers at any one point in time or another; see the reports published here and here . On e key risk factor with investing in companies operating in the Chinese agricultural industry is that both sales (to distributors) and purchases (from farmers) are usually transacted in cash without supporting documents such as receipts. Inventory turnover inconsistent with industry peers China Biotics, a manufacturer and distributor of probiotics products, reported inventory turnover ratios of 33 and 29 times in FY2009 and FY2010 respectively, while a March 2011 report published by China Economic Review mentioned that “During our visit to Shanghai Shining Biotechnology’s facility, we saw no evidence of inventory leaving the premises or clients coming for inquiries.” In June 2011, both the auditor and CFO of China Biotics resigned. Closing Thoughts I am a long-only investor and I do not engage in any short-selling. Munger’s quote below echoes my view: It would be one of the most irritating experiences in the world to do a lot of work to uncover a fraud and then watch it go from X to 3X and watch the crooks happily partying with your money while you’re meeting margin calls. Why would you want to go within hailing distance of that? Nevertheless, investing in value traps, particularly those that are or will be the target of short-sellers, is the single easiest way to lose money with stocks. Therefore, investors should actively learn from short-sellers and draw on their knowledge and experience to minimize the possibility of total capital impairment with any single one of their positions. As a special bonus for my subscribers, they will get access to a list of close to 100 Asian and U.S. stocks with large positive accruals (divergence between earnings and cash flow) and high Beneish M-Scores (these two are good indicators of fraud risks) in a separate bonus watchlist article. For readers interested in further exploring this topic, I have also previously written two articles on value traps, namely “How To Avoid Potential Value Traps With Net-Nets And Other Deep Value Stocks” and “Drawing Inspiration From Short-Sellers In Avoiding Potential Value Traps” published here and here respectively. Note: I flag potential value traps with corporate governance issues, financial statement manipulation risks and other red flags as part of my Asia/U.S. Deep-Value Wide-Moat Stocks exclusive research service. My subscribers get access to the list of value traps for both deep value & wide moat stocks, in addition to monthly top ideas, potential investment candidate profiles and potential investment candidate watchlists. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

4 Utility ETFs Gaining Despite Lackluster Q4

At the tail end of the earnings season, the retail and utility sectors are the only ones with a number of companies yet to report results. As per Earnings Trend report, earnings of all the utility companies that have reported so far are down 5% year over year for the fourth quarter of 2015, with 21.4% of the companies beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Meanwhile, revenues are down nearly 13.3% for the quarter, with none of them surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate. The utility sector failed to impress in its fourth-quarter results with earnings and revenue miss from some of the major players in the space, including Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK ) and Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE: D ). Although some companies like NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE ) managed to beat on earnings, revenues came short of expectations. However, the slowdown in U.S. economic growth, Chinese market turbulence and plunging oil prices along with other factors resulted in a bearish environment, which led to demand for securities from sectors that provide a safer option. Thus, the utility sector, which is considered to be one of the safer options when the market is exhibiting a high level of volatility, managed to remain in the green over the last one month despite lackluster results (read: 3 Utility ETFs in Focus on Market Downturn ). Below we have highlighted the quarterly results of the aforementioned utility companies in detail. Duke Energy Duke Energy reported adjusted earnings of 87 cents per share for the quarter that fell short of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 94 cents by 7.4%. However, quarterly earnings increased by a penny year over year on the back of higher retail pricing and wholesale margins in the regulated business. Total revenue was $5,351 million, lagging the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $5,709 million by 6.3%. The company has provided 2016 earnings guidance in the range of $4.50 to $4.70 per share. Shares of the company declined 1.4% (as of February 19, 2016) since its earnings release. NextEra Energy NextEra Energy’s quarterly adjusted earnings of $1.17 per share beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.11 by 5.4%. Earnings climbed 13.6% year over year on the back of higher revenues from Florida Power & Light Company. However, revenues of $4,069 million missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 2.6% and decreased 12.8% from the year-ago level. NextEra reiterated its earnings guidance of $5.85-$6.35 for 2016. Shares of the company went up 7.5% since its earnings release (as of February 19, 2016). Dominion Resources Dominion Resources’ quarterly earnings of 70 cents per share lagged the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 87 cents by 19.5%. Earnings decreased 16.7% from 84 cents per share in the prior-year quarter due to mild weather conditions in its service territories, absence of a farmout transaction and the impact of bonus depreciation. The company’s operating revenues of $2,556 million also missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $4,092 million by 37.5% and declined about 13.1% year over year. Dominion expects to earn 90 cents to $1.05 per share for the first-quarter 2016 compared with 99 cents per share in the year-ago period. The company expects earnings for 2016 in the range of $3.60 to $4.00 per share. Shares of the company fell 3.8% since its earnings release (as of February 19, 2016). ETFs in Focus Mixed results notwithstanding, many utility stocks managed to hold up gains over the past one month, sending the related ETFs higher. This has put the spotlight on utility ETFs. Below we discuss four of these ETFs having a sizeable exposure to the above stocks, holding Zacks ETF Rank #3 (Hold) with a Medium risk outlook (see all Utilities/Infrastructure ETFs here ). Utilities Select Sector SPDR (NYSEARCA: XLU ) XLU is one of the most popular products in the space with nearly $7.6 billion in AUM and average daily volume of roughly 14 million shares. The fund tracks the Utilities Select Sector Index and holds 31 stocks with NextEra Energy, Duke Energy and Dominion Resources among the top five spots with a combined exposure of nearly one-fourth of its total assets. Sector-wise, Electric Utilities (57.82%) dominates the fund followed by Multi-Utilities (38.85%). The fund charges 14 bps in investor fees per year. The ETF has posted gains of 7.3% in the past month (read: 4 Utilities to Buy in a Bear Market ). Vanguard Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: VPU ) This ETF tracks the MSCI US Investable Market Utilities 25/50 Index. The fund holds 82 stocks in its basket. Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Dominion Resources occupy the top four positions in the fund with a combined exposure of a little more than 20%. More than half of the fund’s assets are invested in Electric Utilities followed by Multi-Utilities (33.8%). The fund has amassed almost $2 billion in its asset base and trades in a moderate volume of 175,000 shares per day. The fund has a low expense ratio of 0.10%. The ETF has surged 7.6% in the last one-month period. iShares Dow Jones US Utilities (NYSEARCA: IDU ) The fund follows the Dow Jones U.S. Utilities Sector Index and holds 59 stocks in its basket. Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Dominion Resources are placed among the top five stocks in the fund, together accounting for a share of more than 21% of total assets. On a sectoral basis, Electric Utilities (53.28%) and Multi-Utilities (34.51%) hold the top two positions in the fund. The fund manages an asset base of around $764 million and exchanges about 199,000 shares per day. It is a bit expensive with 44 bps in annual fees. IDU was up 7.5% in the last one-month period. Fidelity MSCI Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: FUTY ) This ETF tracks the MSCI USA IMI Utilities Index. The fund holds 83 stocks in its basket. Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Dominion Resources are among the top four in the fund with a combined exposure of a little more than 20%. More than half of the fund’s assets are invested in Electric Utilities followed by Multi-Utilities (33.8%). The fund has amassed almost $231 million in its asset base and trades in a moderate volume of 140,000 shares per day. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.12%. FUTY was up 7.5% in the last one-month period. Original Post

Best Ways To Invest In Gold Now – Metal Or Miners ETFs?

Gold appears to be one of the hottest trades this year. The precious metal has gained almost 16% this year-making it the best start to the year since 1980 . The rush to gold and other safe havens is a direct result of concerns about the global economy, including China slowdown, oil price plunge and earnings recession in the US. Growing worries that central banks may be running out of ammunition are also aiding gold’s ascent. Further, negative interest rates in Japan and some European countries are also boosting gold prices. Gold critics often argue that it is an unproductive asset since it pays nothing to holders and that argument does make some sense when interest rates are high but in the current ultra-low/negative interest rate environment, there is almost no opportunity cost of holding the metal. Then there are supply factors too. According to a report from the World Gold Council, Gold production declined during Q4 last year – its first quarterly drop since 2008 and they expect this trend to continue as mining firms have cut investments after years of losses. And demand is China and India has been rising. While Indians have been buying jewelry, Chinese have increased their purchases of gold coins and bullion as the country’s currency and stocks continue to weaken. Physically Backed Gold ETFs Physically backed gold ETFs – SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEARCA: GLD ) and iShares Gold Trust (NYSEARCA: IAU ) provide a convenient and cost-effective access to physical gold. ETF Name Ticker AUM Expense Ratio YTD Return SPDR Gold Trust GLD $28.3 bil 0.40% 16.6% iShares Gold Trust IAU $7.2 bil 0.25% 16.8% While IAU has a lower fee, GLD’s excellent trading volumes make its trading very cheap. So, IAU is more suitable for buy and hold investors while GLD is better for shorter-term traders . Gold Miners ETFs Gold miners are leveraged plays on the metal. Miners’ profits rise even with a small increase in the price of the metal. Market Vectors Gold Miners ETFs (NYSEARCA: GDX ) and Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (NYSEARCA: GDXJ ) are the two most popular ETFs in the space. These ETFs-which are high risk/high reward plays–have been outstanding performers this year. However, in addition to their volatility, investors should also remember these ETFs have a lot of international exposure and associated currency risks. ETF Name Ticker AUM Expense Ratio YTD Return Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF GDX $5.71 bil 0.53% 37.8% Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF GDXJ $1.6 bil 0.55% 32.9% To learn more please watch the short video below: Original post