Category: Investment strategy

Monthly Newsletter November 2017

  • The Fund posted a gain of +3.6% over the month of November, which was ahead of our expectations in an exceptionally strong month for the Australian Listed Property sector. The derivatives overlay which we use to both enhance income and protect capital will naturally cause performance to lag in very strongly performing months.
  • The Fund remains positioned towards Trusts that offer recurring earnings streams from rental income,  rather than development profits. After the McGrath profit warning in November (attributed to slowing off the plan apartment sales), we remain convinced that this strategy will outperform as the market gives a higher value to recurring earnings as development profits being to wane.

 

Go to  Monthly Newsletters for a more detailed discussion of the listed property market in November and the fund’s strategy going into 2018.

Breaking Up

In late September Commonwealth Bank announced both the sale of its life insurance business and that they were looking at floating the bank’s funds management business Colonial First State GAM on the share market. Based on the strong performance of recent spin-offs investors are likely to have a close look at any initial public offering (IPO) of Colonial First State GAM. In this week’s piece we are going to look at the rationale behind spinning off assets to form a new company, and we will review the performance of recent company spin-offs from large companies such as BHP, Orica and Amcor.

What is a spin-off?

A spin-off occurs when a listed company parent separates a portion of their existing company into a second listed company and allots shares in the new company to existing shareholders based on their holdings in the parent company. In some situations, the parent company will also simultaneously issue new shares to new investors to broaden the shareholder base and allow the new spun-off company to begin life with a healthy financial position. In a spin-off, the newly created company takes a portion of the parent company’s assets, employees, intellectual property and debt. For example, in 2012 Woolworths’ spun-off 69 Australian and New Zealand shopping centres into a $1.4-billion listed property trust called SCA Property. Woolworths shareholders then received one unit in SCA Property Group for every five Woolworths shares held.

The ignored child gets a new lease on life

The most common reason cited for a company demerging or “spinning off” a division into a separately listed vehicle is that the smaller new firm will now be run by management totally focused on it. The theory goes that as a result of this increased love and focus and not having to compete with other larger divisions for management attention and capital, the demerged division begins to prosper.

Recent examples of this can be seen in BHP’s 2015 spin-off of South32, Woolworth’s spin-off in 2012 of a portfolio of shopping centers into SCA Property Group, and Amcor’s demerger of its Australian packaging business Orora. These three spin-offs have proved to be very successful with South32 giving shareholders a total return (share price gain plus distributions) of +35% vs BHP’s gain of +16%. Similarly, SCA Property has returned +103% since it was spun out of Woolworths in 2012, against a total return to Woolworths shareholders of 8%. Since listing, Orora (which was viewed by the market as low growth compared to the dynamic world of global packaging) has returned to investors an impressive +198%: a healthy premium compared to Amcor’s still strong +68%.

From meeting with the new management teams of following their demergers, it was clear to me that they exhibited a great deal of pride in the results of their own smaller companies. Furthermore, as stand-alone companies they were able to make acquisitions to grow their businesses or buy back their stock on market. Such moves probably would not have been approved if they were still competing with Woolworths and BHP’s much larger Australian grocery and global mining business for capital.

Sum of parts worth more than the whole

In many cases the value of the two separate businesses is greater than the old combined business, even after accounting for additional costs such as a separate ASX listing and board. This is a benefit for shareholders of the parent company, as the more attractive “core” business is now re-rated upwards by the market and valued on a higher multiple. The sum of the two parts becomes greater than the original whole.

Looking at Commonwealth Bank and its fund manager Colonial First State GAM, the bank as a whole is currently being valued at 13.6 times the profits that it generated in 2017. Here the market is valuing the funds management earnings as if they were bank earnings, despite their higher margin. However, the market values stand-alone fund managers such as BT Investment Management (trading on 22 times earnings) and Janus-Henderson (trading on 15 times earnings) on higher multiples, reflecting the higher profit margins and low capital requirements for fund managers.  Using a mid-point of these valuations, Colonial First State GAM would be valued at $4.5 billion, an uplift from the $3 billion that their profits from 2017 are currently being valued as part of Commonwealth Bank.

Spinning off a management headache?

Whilst the above more recent spin-offs have all outperformed their parents, it would be wrong to see that all spin-offs from large companies make great investments. In some situations, a spin-off can be prompted by management foreseeing that a division of their business is likely to face issues in the future, that may spill over and impact their core business.

Arrium

BHP has previously spun off divisions in the past that they deemed less desirable. In 2000 BHP demerged their long steel division (Arrium née OneSteel), and in 2002 their flat steel division BlueScope. This was motivated by the view (which proved to be correct) that greater returns could be made from digging ore out of the ground and directly shipping it to China, compared to manufacturing commodity steel in Australia. Furthermore, BHP was able to “spin-off” the industrial relations headaches that are a feature of the heavily unionised steel manufacturing sector.

From listing up until 2008, BHP was criticised for letting go of their steel manufacturing businesses. It might face similar opposition to spinning-off South32, however often the genius behind this course of action does not become apparent for several years. Arrium was delisted in 2016 after a well-publicised insolvency. Whilst BlueScope has performed well over the last few years it still remains 74% below the issue price courtesy of dilutive capital raisings in 2011, and in 2009 required  to keep the wolves from breaking down the steelmaker’s doors.

PaperlinX

In 2000 Amcor spun off PaperlinX (now called Spicers) their stodgy printing papers division. However by 2003, Amcor was being criticised in the press after PaperlinX’s share price had risen from $3.17 at listing to $5.40. Concurrently, the PaperlinX was expanding globally after paying $1 billion to buy Europe’s largest fine paper merchant and became the world’s largest paper merchant.

The following decade was particularly unkind to PaperlinX investors as the paper business consistently shrank globally with the growth of electronic communication and document transfer technologies. Currently the company’s share price sits at 3.2 cents and one could make the case that Amcor’s management team, in spinning off a low-growth declining business, removed a division that would have consumed both shareholder capital and management attention. These negative factors ultimately would have arrested Amcor’s share price growth over the past ten years had they held on to their paper business.

Our Take

Whilst the above suggests that spin-offs can unlock hidden value for shareholders, there are downsides. Two separately listed companies result in the additional costs of maintaining two separate listings on the ASX such as two separate boards and management teams. We are likely to have a close look at any initial public offering (IPO) of Colonial First State GAM, especially on price weakness if a number of shareholders sell their entitlements just after listing. Unlike steel making or printing paper, funds management in Australia is a robust business and Colonial is a significant player with a powerful brand.

 

Not all Great Ideas turn into Great Companies

In my experience, most professional fund managers and equity analysts are frequently given unsolicited stock ideas from clients and friends. Generally, these are small companies, with a great idea that is either going to turn them into the next Amazon or revolutionise a particular industry.  Frequently these companies are difficult for investment professionals to value as they are often at a very early stage. They tend to be long on promise, but short on profits and assets that provide the basis of most valuation methodologies. Inevitably the person presenting the idea knows much more about the exciting technology behind the company and is very enthusiastic about its prospects.

In this week’s piece, we are going to look at the processes and questions that investors should ask when looking at early-stage listed companies.  Atlas is not endorsing any of the companies mentioned in this piece, they are only mentioned in the context of the process that we use in evaluating early-stage companies.

1. How much runway do management have?

The first thing that I look at when reviewing one of these speculative companies is how much time or financial runway management has in which to commercialise their idea before running out of cash. Whilst companies can look to raise additional equity to extend this runway, this is almost always done at a discount to the prevailing share price and relies on supportive investors. Few early-stage companies are financed by debt, as the interest rates charged are likely to be high to compensate for the risk of lending to an unprofitable company.

Investors should look at the company’s cash flow statement to gauge how much cash the company has been burning for the past six months. Compare this against how much cash is on hand on the balance sheet. The reason for using the cash flow statement is that this represents actual cash flows and is harder to manipulate than the profit and loss statement. For example, when I looked at cloud call recording software company Dubber in February, the company reported a cash burn of $4M in the previous six months, yet had $5.2M cash on hand. Here unless there is a dramatic change in the company’s fortunes, one could expect another equity raising within the next 9 months.

Conversely, technology company Fastbrick Robotics had no debt and $10M of cash on hand. This is sufficient to fund the company’s development of a bricklaying robot beyond 2019. Without making any judgement as to the relative investment merits of the two companies, the second company has more flexibility to weather delays, without coming to the market to raise more equity to keep afloat. Obviously, the spectre of near-term equity raisings provides a cap on a company’s share price, as outside investors know there will be discounted share issues in the future.

In more extreme circumstances, the lack of a financial runway has seen companies with solid ideas or assets going into administration, with these assets later picked up by competitors.

2. Management’s record and shareholding

The next step is to look at the experience of management and board of the company in question.  Here what I am looking for is not so much experience at large and well-known corporations such as General Electric or Westpac, but rather experiences in guiding small and more financially unstable companies through to an IPO or trade sale. Large companies have little difficulty in getting attention from potential investors or banks and managing cash flows. Additionally, executives from large organisations are unlikely to have had experience of running a number of business areas while also having a laser-like control of costs.  Looking at job management software GeoOp, it was apparent that the chairman and CEO have solid experience in the digital space and in running start-up ventures.

Additionally, investors should look at the percentage of the company owned by management, as a management team with a significant portion of their personal wealth invested in the company are more likely to act as good agents on behalf of the other shareholders. Here investors should look at existing holdings, as well as the share options granted when management hit certain targets such as profitability and specific share prices.

3. Who else is on the share register?

The presence of larger corporations or well-regarded fund managers on a fledgling company’s share register should be viewed as a good sign. This can indicate that others have done the due diligence on the company, and it is often helpful that they have the voting firepower to stand up to management and scrutinise decisions. The presence of competitors or corporations in similar industries could indicate the possibility of a takeover at a later stage. In the Dubber example mentioned above, the presence of small capitalisation manager Thorney on the share register at 6.4% is a positive sign.

However, the presence of well-known fund managers on the register should not by itself be viewed as sufficient grounds for investment.  Most if not all small capitalisation fund managers have positions in their fund that they now regret and may be quite illiquid at the size of their investment. What may seem to be a significant investment for an individual investor may only represent 0.25% of a large fund.

4. Who are the Company’s competition and what is the size of its addressable market?

All successful small companies face the spectre of competition from large industry players. In some cases, large competitors may be watching the target company closely, learning from their mistakes, before launching a competing product or technology drawing on the larger company’s scale and market access.  Whilst “disruptive” financial technology companies or fintechs are very much flavour of the month at the moment, I find it hard to believe that the big banks and insurance companies are not keeping a close watch their activities. A great example of this is mobile payments company Mint Payments which in 2013 went from 2c to 40c per share on expectations that the company’s wireless point of sale would enjoy spectacular growth. The share price has slid back to 6c as the banks and technology companies such Apple launched competing payment products.

When looking at the prospects for a company and its potential growth, it is important to look at the size of the market to which its products can be sold. A small niche market might not attract competition from larger players, but significant share price growth is unlikely to come from dominating a very small market. Additionally, investors should be wary when a company suggests that it has no competitors, often this is a case of no competitors yet.

5. What barriers to entry are there?

A small company’s prospects of enjoying significant share price gains are significantly decreased if there is little in the way of barriers to stop other firms from entering into their industry. The technology sector in particular has been an elephant’s graveyard of large companies laid low by smaller, more nimble competitors that jumped over the low barriers to entry.  Examples of once exciting companies that only had low barriers to entry include AltaVista, Netscape and Myspace.

Recently we looked at social media marketing company VAMP that was planning on listing on the ASX and was backed by high profile Nova Scotian Qantas and Fairfax Media director Todd Sampson. The social media marketing firm had an exciting buzz as it was designed to capitalise on growing demand from advertising agencies and high-profile consumer brands to connect with Instagram ‘influencers’. However, on reflection, this particular antediluvian fund manager thought that the barriers to entry into social media marketing are quite low.

Our Take

Whilst most small companies have an exciting good, technology or concept that is inevitably presented in a form that will result in large gains in the share price, we see that it is helpful for investors to have a five-point checklist to look at when evaluating a small, exciting, yet unprofitable company. Atlas would like to thank our supporters whose ideas helped in writing this article.

Faded Blue Chips – solid stocks with feet of clay

Blue Chip stocks are the large well-established household names, in the top 50 companies listed on the ASX with a market value in the tens of billions. Stockbrokers recommend these companies to their clients based on the perception that they are safe and stable and following the axiom “Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM“. They are viewed safe for advisors to recommend even if they fall in value. However, like Ozymandias in the poem by Shelley, strong and financially sound companies are not always permanent and can become buried in the Egyptian desert like the statue of the pharaoh.

“I met a traveller from an antique land, who said— “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert.  Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, the hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Shelley’s Ozymandias 1818

In this week’s piece, we are going to look at blue chips on the ASX over the last quarter century, the factors that caused them to decline and some thoughts on the current crop of “blue chip” companies on the ASX and their permanence.

What is a blue-chip stock?

The term “Blue Chip Stock” was first used by Oliver Gingold of Dow Jones in 1923 and referred to high priced stocks. “Blue” was a poker reference, as in poker sets the highest value chip is traditionally the blue one. Since then the term has come to denote high quality stocks, with consistent revenue growth and dominant market positions in their industry. They typically have a stable debt to equity/interest coverage ratios and generate superior return on equity (ROE).  Over time this translates into a high market capitalisation that places a company in the Top 50 companies listed on the ASX. Currently the smallest stock (BlueScope Steel) in the ASX Top 50 has a market value of almost A$7 billion.

The below table looks at the Top 50 stocks on the ASX by market valuation in four points in time over the last 26 years. There are many familiar names such as BHP and Westpac that were considered blue chips in 1991 and retain that status today, but there are also many that would be unfamiliar to many investors today. Whilst most of these (Cadbury Schweppes, North Broken Hill, PNO, Dairy Farm Holdings) have disappeared from the share market due to being taken over by other companies, in each period there are a number of supposed blue chips that ultimately went into administration or faded away to a small fraction of their previous size. The faded blue chips in the table are coloured in red. We will now examine the factors that contributed to their declines.

Too much debt

In early 2007 shopping centre trust Centro Properties was riding high after making a string of acquisitions in Australia and the USA. It was viewed as highly innovative, dubbed the Macquarie Bank of Property Trusts due to its use of debt to create a global property empire. After acquiring a portfolio of 469 small shopping centres across 38 US states for A$3.9 billion, the trust was managing A$26 billion of property. As a result of the acquisition, Centro Properties upgraded its forecast 2008 financial year distribution growth to 19%. However instead of rising distributions, in December 2007 Centro Properties faced significant problems in refinancing US$5.5 billion of debt that was due in a very challenging market. Additionally, the shopping centre owner faced questions about the accuracy of their financial accounts after billions of dollars in short-term bridging debt was classified as long-term debt. As a result of asset write offs, Centro Properties in June 2009 reported a negative net tangible assets (NTA) of -$2.23 per share (it was trading at $0.16 per share at the time). Ultimately equity holders were essentially wiped out as the mountainous debt burden was converted into equity.

Financial Engineering

In 1998 zinc miner Pasminco was one of the premier global zinc miners after buying the Century project from Rio Tinto. The company developed an audacious hedging strategy to lower debt costs by borrowing in USD and hedged the currency based on the expectation that the AUD would remain between US68c and US65c. Unfortunately, the AUD/USD fell to below 51c in 2001 at the same time that the zinc price crashed. This left the company with limited cash flow and losses on the hedge book that blew out to $850 million when the company went into administration in late 2001.

The combination of too much debt and financial engineering

No discussion of faded blue chips would be complete without looking at investment bank Babcock & Brown. At its peak in June 2007, the investment bank was lauded as a creative user of financial structuring and a fee-generating machine that propelled the company’s share price to $34.63, with a market capitalisation above $9 billion. From meetings that I had with Babcock & Brown management prior to the GFC, they also made no secret of the fact that only a small amount of their earnings could be characterised as “recurring” and that most of the profit (used to pay dividends) was generated by revaluing assets cannily acquired by the company.

Similarly, to Centro, Babcock & Brown both entered the GFC with too much debt and – more importantly – too much short-term debt that needed to be refinanced in a challenging market. In June 2007, the Babcock & Brown group had amassed $80 billion in assets, supported by $77 billion in debt, much of this held off balance sheet or characterised as “non-recourse” and held by satellite funds.  The company collapsed in 2009 after a falling share price triggered debt covenants and the company was unable to refinance the debt due. Ultimately, in very complex liquidation proceedings the noteholders ended up receiving 2c in dollar for bonds held, with equity holders receiving nothing.

Technology that did not work as expected

The orbital engine was invented by Ralph Sarich in 1972and at one time was expected to revolutionise combustion engines, with fewer moving parts and greater efficiency.  In 1991, the future for Orbital – a company that owned the technology for orbital engines – looked bright and BHP took a 25% stake in the company. Despite this promise, a range of technical problems with cooling and lubricating the engine proved unsolvable and both the founder and BHP ran for the exits. Orbital still exists selling fuel injection technology and propulsion systems for drones, but with a share price of $0.59 which is a long way from its peak at $24.

ERG’s future looked bright 17 years ago and was a glamour tech stock listed on the ASX offering smartcards for mass transit systems from Moscow to Manila. Whilst the technology itself was sound the company was effectively sunk, not by the offshore moves but by difficulties in implementing the ERG’s T-Card in Sydney and issues with the NSW State Government which led to the project being scrapped.  Ultimately this resulted in lawsuits and the company was delisted in 2009.

The above table shows the ASX Top 50 as of April 2017 ranked by market capitalisation.  Whilst it is usually hard to identify at the time which strong companies will falter in the future, history strongly suggests that amongst this list there are one or two companies, currently considered blue chips that will either go into administration or slide back into insignificance. Below we identify some considerations that might influence the future fates of current blue chips.

High Debt

In 2013 Fortescue looked like a candidate for a blue chip that might blow up, with 70% gearing resulting from $10.5 billion in net debt. However, a period of sustained high iron ore prices has allowed the company to pay off $6.5 billion in debt and reduce gearing to a more manageable 30%.

Amongst the blue-chip stocks in the table above, the companies with the highest debt burden as measured by gearing (net debt divided by total equity) are Sydney Airport (770%), APA Group (242%), Transurban (225%) and Ramsay Healthcare (135%). The key characteristic of these heavily geared companies is the view that the stable returns from airports, pipelines, toll roads and hospital procedures affords the ability to service high levels of debt.

Whilst these companies own wonderful assets and point to both the spread of debt maturities and their interest rate hedges (which lock in a portion of the company’s debt at a fixed rate), these hedges will expire and debt currently attracting low rates will almost certainly have to be refinanced at higher rates. For example, in the five-year period 2020 to 2024, Sydney Airport will have to refinance on average $806 million in debt per year.

Technology does not work as expected

Whilst we do not consider this likely and believe that the company has instituted many safeguards, blood therapy company CSL does face the risk of product recalls through contamination. In 2008, CSL’s rival Baxter faced a product recall after 81 deaths were linked to tainted blood thinning drugs produced under contract in China, but sold in the US under Baxter’s name.

 Left Field

Political factors could potentially derail BHP spin-off S32, which has climbed into the ASX Top 50 courtesy of higher coal and manganese prices. In February S32 reported that 35% of their profits were earned from the company’s coal and manganese mines and aluminium smelters in South Africa and Mozambique. Significant political unrest, power disruption from Eskom or amendments to South Africa’s 2002 mining charter requiring higher percentages of black ownership could result in significant falls in S32’s share price.

Our Take

We see that investors spend far too much time trying to pick the next Apple or CSL and not enough time thinking about whether there is a Pasminco lurking in their portfolio. Rather than chasing high return and higher risk investments, Atlas observes that superior performance and lower volatility of returns are best delivered by concentrating on avoiding mistakes or “performance torpedoes”.  Looking at the current list of blue chip stocks, we consider that the most probable candidate to become a fallen angel is likely to come from the list of highly geared utilities.

 

Trading by those in the know

In finance, there is a vast industry of market experts that attempt to provide guidance as to future moves in share prices. Often their predictions are based on nebulous macroeconomic factors such as concerns about rising bond yields or market attitude to risk. These factors, however, rarely have a significant impact on the inherent valuation of an individual company. Whilst sell-side analyst reports are a great source of background information on factors influencing a company, they rarely are able consistently to identify near-term structural issues that cause large share price moves.

We see that a consistently underappreciated source of intelligence as to the future prospects for an individual company is trading in that company by insiders. Often large and unusual insider selling can be the “canary in the coal mine”, occurring before a significant fall in the company’s share price. In this week’s debut piece from Atlas Funds Management, we are going to look at trading by insiders and how to interpret trade notifications. We are not going to look at the illegal act of insider trading per se, but rather how trades by key personnel can help frame an investing decision. We see that while management teams can publicly minimise challenges the company faces, they can tend to be more cautious when it comes to their personal holdings.

 Insiders and insider trading

Insiders required to report trading activity are key management personnel, defined by the Australian Accounting Standards Board as “those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director of that entity”.

The ASX listing rules in conjunction with the Corporations Act require that key management personnel notify the market within five days of changes that occur to that person’s holdings in the listed company. These changes are posted to the ASX and quite helpfully are collated in the financial press daily in the back of the markets section. Additionally, ASIC requires that substantial investors (defined as those who own greater than 5% of a listed company) are required to notify the market of a change of 1% or more in their holding.

Rationale for rules

Most investors agree that it is generally beneficial for directors and key employees of a listed company to own securities in the entity. Many investors, including Atlas, view it as negative when researching a company where directors or senior management own minimal shares in the company. We are usually not persuaded by the justifications provided, such as that this “gives the directors greater independence” or that “they have enough financial exposure to the company”.

Investing alongside other shareholders gives key personnel a bigger stake in the success of the entity and helps to align their interests with the interests of investors. The downside is that these insiders will often be, or be perceived to be, in possession of “market sensitive information” or “inside information” concerning the company that is not generally available to other investors. These insiders also have legal obligations not to engage in insider trading or market manipulation and not to use information acquired as a director or employee to gain an improper advantage for themselves.

Examples of sensitive information include dividends, a financial outlook that differs from consensus, upcoming litigation, regulatory investigations, or changes to the company’s structure such as dilutionary capital raisings.

The Temptation

Key personnel face powerful temptations to sell shares when they come into possession of negative information or deeper concerns about factors influencing the company’s business that may cause large falls in their personal wealth.

Typically, insiders frame their decision to sell large percentages of their holdings in the company as motivated by stated desires to rebalance their portfolio, buy a beach house or – my personal favourite – to pay a tax bill. Just prior to the GFC, the CFO of a major financial services sold the bulk of his holdings in his company. When asked about it he explained that this was due to the tax bill he faced due to the recent exercise of some options. After calculating that his sales were approximately ten times the tax bill he faced, we also decided to reduce our position in the company.  Whilst I am not suggesting any impropriety occurred in this case, over the next 9 months the company’s share price did fall 50%.

Recent Activity

2016 was a banner year for the informational value of insider trades. Organic infant formula producer Bellamy’s has faced a challenging 2016 due to a “temporary volume dislocation” in China due to regulatory changes. Whilst the market was aware of these issues for the bulk of 2016, it appears that Bellamy’s CEO and Chairman had a superior appreciation of the challenges the company faced than equity analysts, when they reduced their holdings of the former market darling in August. The company was suspended from trading on the ASX for a month over the Christmas period and now trades at half the level it did in early December.

Liver cancer drug manufacturer Sirtex’s CEO sold a large proportion of his shares in the company in November for taxation reasons. Similarly this proved to be a good indication for shareholders also to lighten their holdings of the company as it occurred one month before a trading update in December that caused Sirtex’s price to fall by 47%.

Construction software group Aconex continued this in 2017, with a 30% earnings downgrade earlier this week that caused the company’s shares to open down 45%. This downgrade was attributed to uncertainty around Brexit and Trump’s election (two factors that have boosted equity prices globally over the past three months), though we note that the two executive directors were reducing their holdings in August and September in 2016.

The news is not always grim

One of the most powerful buying signals for investors is when directors and management are buying their own stock in the market. To detect this in the ASX notices, it is important to determine that this buying involves their own money and not simply the granting of stock due to achieving performance hurdles. However we would question the strength of the signal when management of a very troubled company symbolically add to their holdings in what seems like a gesture to shore up fractured confidence. A famous example of this occurred in 2005 when the CEO of embattled carpet manufacturer Feltex interrupted a torrid analyst briefing to place a call with his stockbroker to buy shares.

We see that the better indicator is where management in a stable and growing company are buying their own stock on the ASX.  Several years ago, I was a little nervous about my position in an industrial company after their share price had risen 30% over the previous few months since I had purchased the position. Whilst the published outlook from management was positive, I noticed that most senior personnel were also increasing their investments in the company despite this rise. Over the next four years the company’s share price increased tenfold.

Our Take

Company management teams invariably present the most positive view of the company that they represent, as the personalities of the individuals that make it to the top of large companies are almost always positive and hardworking. Whilst we would not advocate trading by insiders as the sole rationale for making an investment decision, if an investor is nervous about either the valuation of a stock held or the implications of a significant change, we see that selling by management or directors is a strong indicator for investors immediately to review their holdings in that company.

Hugh Dive
Chief Investment Officer

Click here to subscribe to our free weekly piece on the markets.