Interview: Investing in Stellantis - An Opportunity in Discounted Stock Prices
Recently, I had the pleasure of sitting down with VisionForex, an Italian channel dedicated to finance and investment opportunities, to discuss the potential that Stellantis (NYSE: STLA) holds for value investors. In the interview, titled “Investire oggi qui conviene davvero? Ecco il perché” ("Is it really worth investing here today? Here’s why"), we explored why Stellantis, despite facing significant industry challenges, presents a compelling investment opportunity.
The Current Landscape in the Automotive Sector
The automotive industry is undergoing a transformative period, marked by the shift towards electric vehicles (EVs). Stellantis, like many of its competitors, has struggled to keep pace with industry leaders such as Tesla and BYD. This lag in innovation is compounded by high interest rates, which are making it increasingly difficult for consumers to finance new vehicle purchases.
Addressing Quality and Brand Perception Issues
One of the critical points I discussed was Stellantis' brand perception, particularly in the American market. The company has faced several recalls affecting key models like the Jeep Grand Cherokee and brands such as Citroen, DS, Opel, and Peugeot. These recalls, primarily due to safety concerns, have undoubtedly impacted consumer trust and sales. However, I believe that these challenges, while significant, also present an opportunity for the company to improve and rebuild its reputation.
Analyzing Financial Performance and Market Sentiment
Stellantis' recent financial performance has been mixed. The company reported a 12% year-over-year drop in net revenues and an increase in unsold inventory. However, there have been modest gains in the sales of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and low-emission vehicles (LEVs), indicating potential for future growth.
From a value investing perspective, I find Stellantis' current valuation particularly intriguing. The company holds $19.5 billion in net positive cash and offers a sustainable dividend yield of 7.5%. This strong financial foundation suggests that the market's current pessimism may be overblown.
Investment Potential and Valuation
During the interview, I employed a conservative valuation approach, including the Earnings Power Value (EPV) model developed by Professor Bruce Greenwald. Despite a pessimistic outlook, the analysis revealed significant upside potential, making Stellantis a strong candidate for value investors. The company's commitment to reinvestment, evidenced by substantial capital expenditure, further supports this optimistic view.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I rated Stellantis as a strong buy. While the company faces numerous challenges, its robust financial position and undervaluation provide a solid investment opportunity. For those willing to take a calculated risk, Stellantis offers the potential for substantial returns as market conditions normalize and the company's initiatives begin to pay off.
Watch the Full Interview
For those interested in a deeper dive into my analysis, I encourage you to watch the full interview on VisionForex's YouTube channel. The video, “Investire oggi qui conviene davvero? Ecco il perché,” provides a comprehensive overview of why investing in Stellantis might be a smart move in today’s market.
Investment Insights from recent interview on VisionForex: Are there opportunities to invest in the markets today? (Part 1)
Today, I'm thrilled to share the video of a recent interview on the Italian Channel VisionForex where I had the opportunity to discuss our team's investment philosophy and uncover potential opportunities in today's market landscape.
First and foremost, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Giancarlo Dall'Aglio and Francesco Cerulo for facilitating this enriching discussion and to the whole VisionForex's community for the support. I cannot wait the watch the second part!
At Moat Investing, we adhere to a philosophy we've coined as "a modern take on Value investing". Our approach focuses on identifying solid companies trading at reasonable prices, with a keen eye on avoiding inflated valuations. We firmly believe in the importance of investing with a margin of safety, safeguarding our portfolios against unforeseen risks.
Now, let's delve into the heart of the matter – the current investment landscape. Amidst the chatter surrounding renewable energies, we've found intriguing prospects in an unexpected sector: coal, particularly in the metallurgical domain. Despite the prevailing narrative, certain companies in this sector appear undervalued, presenting compelling investment opportunities.
During the interview, we spotlighted two companies that caught our attention: Alpha Metallurgical Resources (AMR) and Warrior Met Coal (HCC). AMR stood out for its prudent capital management, demonstrating a strategic deployment of free cash flow through share buybacks. On the other hand, HCC offered a more speculative outlook, with promising growth potential driven by strategic investments in high-quality mining assets.
In conclusion, while the coal sector may carry inherent risks, we believe these select companies hold promise for investors with a medium to long-term investment horizon and a balanced risk tolerance. Our team remains vigilant in uncovering opportunities that align with our investment philosophy, seeking value in overlooked corners of the market.
Stay tuned for the second part of the video!
Capitalizing on Anticipated Rate Cuts in an Overpriced Market: The Risk-Reward Sweet Spot with Treasury Bonds
As the Federal Reserve hints at a more dovish stance and the likelihood of further rate hikes diminishes, we recognize the potential for the financial landscape to change. With inflation seemingly on a trajectory towards normalcy and stock valuations creeping back towards potentially overvalued levels, we believe an attractive risk-reward opportunity is presenting itself within the U.S. Treasury market.
The central focus of this opportunity is the U.S. 10-Year Treasury bond (Gov10). Currently priced at 95.25 with a yield-to-maturity (YTM) of 3.96%, we see potential for significant upside under the right circumstances
In assessing the potential returns of investing in Gov10, our central thesis hinges on the direction of inflation and, subsequently, its impact on the Gov10's YTM. The Federal Reserve has reiterated its commitment to a long-term inflation target of 2%. Their unwavering stance suggests that they are likely to utilize monetary policy tools to steer inflation towards this target over the medium to long term.
Nevertheless, in our calculations, we have opted for a more conservative approach. Instead of assuming a reversion of the Gov10's YTM towards the 2% inflation target, we assume that it falls to 2.6% in the next 24 months. This approach allows for some persistence in above-target inflation, which is plausible given recent trends.
Given this assumption, we believe there is room for the YTM of the Gov10 to decrease, which would lead to an increase in its price.
Using the formula for calculating bond prices:
Price = [C / (YTM / 2)] * [1 - (1 + YTM / 2) ^ -2n] + [F / (1 + YTM / 2) ^ 2n]
where:
- C is the annual coupon payment ($3.38),
- YTM is the yield to maturity (2.6%),
- n is the number of years to maturity (10), and
- F is the face value of the bond ($100)
we estimate that if the Gov10's YTM declines to 2.6% over the next 24 months, the price of the bond would increase to approximately $107.29. This potential change represents a total gain of about 19.94% over the two-year period, including the bond's coupon payments.
To calculate this total gain: Total Gain = [(New Price - Old Price) + 2Coupon] / Old Price Total Gain = [(107.29 - 95.29) + 23.38] / 95.29 ≈ 19.94%
Annualizing this total gain, we derive an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of approximately 9.39% per annum. This annualized return is attractive, especially when juxtaposed with the current yield of the 2-year Treasury bond at 5.4%.
Moreover, should this yield contraction occur more rapidly than anticipated – say, over 18 months – the annualized return would improve further to approximately 12.64%.
Additionally, it's crucial to consider the positioning of this trade within a broader portfolio context. The proposed strategy could act as a hedge against adverse market scenarios.
For instance, let's consider a scenario where market conditions deteriorate and a recession emerges. Currently, the markets do not fully account for this possibility in their valuations. The materialization of a recession would likely prompt a market sell-off. However, such an environment would also likely lead to a 'Fed Put', a situation where the Federal Reserve steps in to support the economy by cutting rates. Consequently, the value of the Gov10 Treasury bond would likely increase, given its inverse relationship with interest rates
Finally, while historical data suggests that bonds do not necessarily provide accurate long-term inflation predictions, they do reflect the market’s inflation expectations. If these expectations normalize and align more closely with the Federal Reserve’s targets, we could expect the Gov10 YTM to decline by 100 to 150 basis points.
In conclusion, investing in the Gov10, considering the current market dynamics and potential inflation trajectory, offers an appealing risk-reward balance. Not only does it provide a meaningful return potential, but it also serves as a plausible hedge against negative market scenarios, thereby reinforcing the defensive stance of a diversified portfolio.
The Sea Change in Finance: Navigating Interest Rates, Volatility, and Credit in a Sticky Inflation Era
In an era where the term austerity seems to have faded into the archives of economic history, the specter of sticky inflation is rising to the fore. We are witnessing a world where fiscal spending and global expenditure are increasing at an unprecedented rate, bringing us into a new economic phase that demands our attention.
As the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) grapple with sticky inflation, interest rates are set to rise. Both institutions will need to continue their hikes, possibly even exceeding 6%, to keep inflation in check. With consumption and restaurants booming in the Eurozone, the UK stands in contrast, struggling with unique challenges of its own.
The real concern is that the swift, generous monetary policies in response to the current economic situation may set the stage for future crises. It's only a matter of time. Short-term interest rates alone aren't enough to create tighter financial conditions. Most old mortgages have locked in favorable rates. This environment may even facilitate a carry trade, with short-term interest rates higher than long-term ones, creating a "reverse yield curve."
The key to navigating this shift lies in understanding Quantitative Tightening. Central banks are trying to "break the system" slowly with gradual rate hikes, avoiding the need for early market rescues. Unless things break down entirely, no immediate rate cuts are expected.
Fast forward to a future with a potential 5% interest rate in the next few years. This scenario would necessitate a major repricing of many financial assets, a shift that hasn't occurred yet. Caution is warranted.
Now, if we imagine a trajectory where the 10-year yield heads towards 4-4.5%, we can foresee a surge in market volatility. This increase would impact various sectors, especially those heavily reliant on favorable interest rates for funding, REITs, and Tech companies. If the market refuses to revert to the mean, existing policies and business models will likely need an overhaul to survive.
Credit is another arena requiring keen scrutiny. While it's been relatively stable, I predict an increase in default rates in the coming months. While I don't foresee a double-digit rise, some pressure is undeniable. In such an environment, government bonds don't offer a compelling spread, making them less attractive.
In terms of investment opportunities, certain areas within the credit sector show promise. For instance, defensive high-yield sectors in Europe could offer value, though one must act quickly as opportunities can be fleeting. Banks too present an intriguing prospect. However, I advocate for caution and recommend positioning against certain REITs and tech SPVs, which may struggle in this changing environment.
Preserving a healthy cash reserve is advisable. Treasury and high-grade financial bonds are potentially good choices, offering an added layer of protection against volatility. If we experience an increase in volatility, well-diversified portfolios are expected to fare better.
Our current global financial situation is shifting from a low-inflation environment to a persistently higher one. In such a landscape, private bonds may find support from governmental bodies. However, with soaring inflation, the freedom to cut interest rates as liberally as in the past is dwindling. It's crucial not to overleverage, to stay invested, and to make sound, careful decisions in these challenging times.
In summary, while the market environment is undoubtedly tough, it's filled with opportunities for those who can navigate the storm. This era demands prudence, adaptability, and a keen eye for shifting trends. Protecting against volatility and unfavorable valuations is key while uncovering potential growth areas. This changing tide may be challenging, but it is also a time for growth and evolution for savvy investors.
In light of these market conditions and potential risks, as an investment professional, I'd like to outline four primary strategies I would consider for a well-balanced portfolio. Each position is aimed to mitigate risks and capture potential opportunities in this changing economic landscape.
- Defensive High-Yield Sectors in Europe: There may be pockets of opportunities in these sectors. These are expected to provide yield in an uncertain environment.
- Government Bonds and High-Grade Financials for Protection: These are primarily seen as defensive measures against potential instability and volatility. They are not expected to provide significant returns but rather to offer safety and stability to the portfolio.
- Short Positions in REITs and Unstable Tech Business Models: There's an expectation of an industry shake-up due to rising interest rates. Short positions in both real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tech businesses, particularly those with unsustainable models and questionable long-term free cash flow projections, could serve as a hedge against potential downturns in these sectors.
- Maintaining Cash Reserves: Cash reserves are critical for flexibility, enabling quick responses to market changes. They also provide a safety net in case of unforeseen market turbulence.
Remember, in this volatile environment, it's key not to overextend positions. While there are potential opportunities, it's crucial to have the means to stay invested without risking excessive exposure.
Originally published on Medium
Unveiling a Spin-off Opportunity: Sphere Entertainment Co. (SPHR)
In the fast-paced today’s world of investing, it is always exciting to discover a compelling opportunity that holds favorable upside potential. As a discerning value investor, my relentless pursuit is to uncover opportunities where the market may be overlooking a company's true worth, leading to an undervaluation. Today, we shift our focus to an intriguing investment occasion: Sphere Entertainment Co. (SPHR); a spin-off from the renowned Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (MSGE).
SPHERE
SPHERE is an innovative entertainment venue under construction in Las Vegas. It promises to be quite a spectacle with a slated opening in September. Although Las Vegas is accustomed to grand entertainment venues, SPHERE is set to redefine expectations.
Located in the heart of the Las Vegas Strip, adjacent to the esteemed Venetian Hotel, the MSG Sphere (as it is also known) has the potential to become a long-standing central attraction for the city. With a seating capacity of approximately 17,000 to 18,000 and a standing capacity of about 20,000, the venue incorporates cutting-edge technology, including a 190,000-resolution screen enveloping the entire building, spanning an impressive 160,000 square feet.
The SPHERE’s sound system will incorporate more than 165,000 speakers, and its 600,000 LED lights promise to create stunning visual experiences. It is designed to host a variety of events, including concerts, boxing, MMA fights, and esports tournaments. SPHERE promises to be one of the most iconic venues and tourist attractions in Las Vegas and will be even seen from flights landing in the city.
Analysis
To understand the calculations, we first need to understand the structure of the company before and after the spinoff. The original company MSG had broadly four types of assets/businesses,
- Maddison Square Garden
- Sphere Construction project
- Maddison Square Garden Networks
- TAO Group.
As a result of the spin-off, Sphere Entertainment Co. (SPHR) is composed of three assets: SPHERE, MSG Networks, and TAO GROUP. As well as a 33% interest in Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (MSGE).
One development worth noting is the sale of TAO Group a post-spinoff where SPHR is expected to receive a net of $300 million.
Given the complexities surrounding the spin-off, an asset valuation presents a buying opportunity: acquiring the Sphere asset (built at a cost of $2.3 billion) for less than $500 million. This might seem improbable, yet market dynamics can occasionally create such scenarios.
Our calculation methodology takes into account that Sphere holds a 33% stake in MSGE worth north of $636 million at current prices.
To determine the adjusted price of Sphere, we subtract this holding from its overall market capitalization. Additionally, we incorporate a conservative estimate by adding $104 million in cash, considering that approximately $100 million is projected for further construction expenses. Furthermore, we consider the anticipated net cash from the sale of Tao and deduct the outstanding term loan as part of our calculation. We get a price of around $556m which translates into a per share price of $16.02. I must stress the fact that even the initial forecasted cost of sphere was $1.66b provides us with a remarkable discount at current prices.
In the subsequent analysis, we will thoroughly examine the valuation of these assets. It's essential to remember that an asset's inherent value is tied to its capacity for generating sustainable earnings and free cash flow. While estimating the revenue potential of a unique asset like SPHERE is a complex task that requires careful consideration of assumptions, even with conservative estimates, the asset's current valuation suggests an attractive investment proposition.
Advertising
It is important to highlight the uniqueness of Sphere as an asset and its tremendous potential in the advertising sector. The exceptional design of SPHERE grants it a distinct advantage, making it valuable for large corporations seeking branding and naming rights opportunities. Based on media reports, we can see that the Dolan family is actively seeking $50 million in naming rights for Sphere. However, in our analysis, we will adopt a conservative approach and account for only $3 million in potential revenue from naming rights.
SPHERE is not just an entertainment venue but a colossal billboard with 580k square feet of fully programmable LED panels. The magnitude of this structure far surpasses anything currently available. This guarantees superior visibility, making it an unavoidable spectacle for local pedestrians, passers-by on adjacent roads, and passengers in planes flying into Las Vegas.
The advertising strategy revolves around the use of digital billboards, with a display time of 10 seconds. This duration allows for a more conservative approach, ensuring advertisers are comfortable with the length of their ads while maintaining competitive CPM rates. It is worth noting that the 10-second duration aligns closely with the standards set by major billboards in prominent locations like New York City and Los Angeles.
To calculate potential revenue, Sphere Entertainment Co. employs a CPM rate of $8, which is deemed reasonable given the company's capabilities. With an estimated impression count of 12,500, the daily revenue estimation is around $100,000. Considering 300 days of advertisement in a year we get an annual revenue of $30 million and applying a 45% operating margin, the projected EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) from the advertising business alone amounts to $13.5 million.
When combined, the estimated EBIT from the total advertising business, including naming rights, amounts to $16.5 million.
Events
Let's move on to ticketing revenue from concerts, shows, and movies. We could postulate numerous assumptions, but we will maintain a conservative approach to both ticket prices and occupancy rates. An average price of $140 for a concert, considering the anticipated high-profile acts and the Sphere's unique experience, seems reasonable. Assuming 40 concerts per year and a 60% occupancy rate for the 17,000 seats, and a profit margin of 10%, we could calculate the gross revenue as follows:
The gross revenue for one event: 10,200 seats (17,000*60%) * $140 per seat = $ 1,428,000
Gross revenue for 40 events: 40 events * $1,428,000 per event = $57,120,000
Finally, applying the 10% profit margin: $57,120,000 * 10% = $5,712,000 EBIT.
Sphere will also be hosting Movie screenings. The company's plan includes organizing 400-500 screenings per year, with a potential ticket price of $50 per screening.
Conservatively if we assume only 350 screenings in a year with a price of just $35 per seat, an occupancy of just 35%, and a margin of 22.5%, we can calculate the EBIT as shown below:
Gross revenue for one screening: 5,950 seats (17,000*35%) * $35 per seat = 208,250
Gross annual revenue for total screenings: 208,250 * 350 = 72,887,500
10% Profit Margin: 22.5% * 72,887,500 = 16,399,688.
From the Sphere managed events we get an estimated total EBIT of $22,111,688.
Third-party events
The Sphere is also set to host an assortment of third-party events, from concerts to award ceremonies, corporate product launches, and combat sports events. The success and attractiveness of these events depend on the Sphere's performance and its ability to garner external interest. If we consider an annual rate of 10 events with a venue licensing fee of $200,000 and an assumed profit margin of 60%, we can calculate the potential revenue:
Total Revenue: 10 events * $200,000/event = $2,000,000
EBIT: $2,000,000 * 60% = $1,200,000
As explained in the above calculation, we could estimate that third-party-hosted events would generate at least $1,200,000.
Food & Beverages
Regarding food and beverage revenue, we should consider a conservative assumption. Let's assume that 74% of attendees (approximately 7,548 out of 10,200) will purchase food and beverages at each event, with an average spend of $39.50 per person, and a total of 50 events annually:
Per Event F&B Revenue: 7,548 attendees * $39.50 = $298,142
Total Annual F&B Revenue: $298,142 * 50 events = $14,907,100
EBIT: $14,907,100 * 50% = $7,453,550
Revenue breakdown and EBIT estimations
Below is the breakdown of our revenue and EBIT estimations for different sources of revenue.
- Sphere-Hosted Events:
- Revenue: $130million
- EBIT: $22.11million
- Third-Party Events:
- Revenue: $2million
- EBIT: $1.2million
- Food & Beverage Sales:
- Revenue: $14.91million
- EBIT: $7.45 million
- Advertising:
- Revenue: $30 million
- EBIT: $16.5million
Total Revenue: $130 million (Sphere-hosted events) + $2 million (third-party events) + $14.91 million (F&B sales) + $ 30 million (advertising rights) = $176.91 million
Total EBIT: $22.11 million (Sphere-hosted events) + $1.2 million (third-party events) + $7.45 million (F&B sales) + $16.5 million (advertising) = $47.26 million
So, with these estimates, the Sphere's total annual revenue would be approximately $176.91 million and its total EBIT would be approximately $47.26 million.
In this case, the value of Sphere could be $47mil EBIT x 15 multiple equal to $709 million.
Indeed, the initial EBIT assumption of $47 million might seem rather conservative, especially when considering the scale and potential of the Sphere project. Given the Sphere's substantial initial budget of $1.66 billion, one would expect a target yield of at least 5 to 6% to justify such an investment, which translates to an EBIT in the ballpark of $83 to $99 million.
Therefore, estimating an EBIT of $75 million appears more realistic and aligns more closely with the expected return on investment. At a multiple of 15x EBIT, this would suggest a valuation for the Sphere alone of $1.125 billion, translating into a share price of $51.68..
This analysis, of course, rests on the assumptions that the SPHR will be able to generate such an EBIT, that a 15x EBIT multiple is appropriate, and that market conditions will be conducive for such performance. It also depends on the successful completion and operation of the Sphere. Remember, while we strive to be as precise as possible in our projections, the actual outcome may differ due to unforeseen market factors and operational challenges.
However, it's worth noting that even at a valuation of $1.125 billion, SPHR is significantly undervalued compared to its initial forecasted cost of $1.66 billion. The discount becomes even more pronounced when considering the revised construction cost of $2.3 billion. These discrepancies underline the potential value opportunity at hand, given successful execution and favorable market conditions.
Sensitivity Analysis
The table below highlights the valuation of SPHR at different EBIT assumptions.
Considering the above a value of $50 to $55 should be indicated for the stock.
Identified Risks & Conclusion
Understanding the forces at play behind the scenes requires an examination of the Dolan family and MSGE. The Dolans have long held controlling interests in numerous companies, including MSGE, which owns iconic properties such as Madison Square Garden. Family patriarch Charles Dolan founded Cablevision, which was later sold to Altice, as well as HBO. His son, James Dolan, has played a significant role in managing Cablevision, MSGE, and sports franchises such as the New York Knicks and the New York Rangers
For us, one of the potential risks associated with investing in SPHR relates to the ownership and management of the Dolan family. The Dolan family has demonstrated a historical tendency to prioritize their own interests over those of minority shareholders.
Recently, the Dolan family reached a settlement amounting to $85 million for a case dating back to 2021 involving the merger of MSG with MSGN. The lawsuit accused the family of orchestrating the merger, overpaying for MSGN, diluting the value of MSGE's public stockholders, and advancing their own interests by enhancing their voting rights.
In fiscal year 2019, Dolan received a total compensation of $54.1 million, earning him the highest CEO salary in the media sector for that year, according to an analysis conducted by S&P Global Market Intelligence. The majority of his compensation was comprised of stock and option awards totaling $49.9 million. In March 2019, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging that the MSG board had violated their fiduciary duties to stockholders by approving Dolan's compensation.
In June 2020, the company reached a settlement with a shareholder, and Dolan agreed to relinquish additional one-time stock awards in MSG Sports and MSG Entertainment.
Another aspect to consider is Sphere Entertainment Co. anticipated project in London. As value investors, we prioritize the return of capital to shareholders through means such as buybacks and dividends, which is one of the reasons we favor $OXY. However, with this company, there is a risk that the cash flow generated from the Vegas project may be allocated toward the development of SPHERE in London. Not only is this an inherently risky capital allocation decision for growth purposes, but it is also, in our view, an unfavorable business decision due to the vast cultural differences between London and Las Vegas.
London serves as a prominent global business hub with a distinct professional atmosphere, where evenings tend to be quieter. Concerns have already been raised by British individuals regarding the potential night-time illumination of SPHERE. Consequently, we firmly believe that utilizing cash flow to pursue the development of SPHERE in London poses a significant risk.
Moreover, given the Dolan family's past actions, we consider it highly likely that they may repeat a similar pattern in the present circumstances. It is worth noting that the Dolan family faced lawsuits in the past when they merged MSGN, with allegations suggesting that the merger was driven by the need to fund their Sphere project. These legal disputes further reinforce our concern regarding their potential utilization of cash flow for the development of SPHERE in London.
Another risk to consider is the situation concerning MSGN. It is important to note that the loan associated with MSGN is non-recourse, which is the primary reason why we have assigned a conservative valuation of zero to it. Our concern lies in the possibility that the Dolan family may be reluctant to relinquish control of MSGN, even if the company encounters difficulties in repaying its loan. Their actions might not align with the best interests of the overall group if it comes to safeguarding the legacy network company.
It is also important to highlight the significant increase in SPHERE's construction costs, which currently surpassed $2.3 billion, exceeding the initial forecast of $1.66 billion. It remains uncertain as to how much further the costs for this construction project might escalate, and whether the newly scheduled opening in September can be adhered to, or if it will need to be postponed again, as has occurred in the past.
However, when evaluating the risk-reward profile associated with investing in SPHR, we find it to be generally aligned with our risk appetite. That being said, considering the theoretical nature of the EBIT calculation, the lack of a sustained earnings history, the risks associated with the Dolan family, and the potential long-term operations, we would limit our exposure to no more than 3% of the total portfolio. This precautionary approach provides a balanced way to participate in Sphere's potential upside while mitigating downside risk.
In conclusion, it is important to reiterate that this investment is primarily focused on the potential value of the underlying asset, with uncertain earnings at present.
Lumen Technologies: A Risky But Potentially Rewarding Turnaround Story
Lumen Technologies, formerly known as CenturyLink, is a global communications company that offers cloud infrastructure and managed services to businesses, governments, and consumers. With a commitment to innovation and a focus on customer satisfaction, Lumen is positioning itself as a leader in the digital landscape by investing in its network and expanding its portfolio of solutions. However, the company's recent suspension of its dividend and high level of debt has led to selling pressure, making it a risky but potentially rewarding investment.
Introduction to Lumen Technologies Lumen Technologies is a global communications company that was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana. The company offers a wide range of services, including network connectivity, data centers, cloud computing, managed IT services, cybersecurity, and communication solutions. Lumen operates under three brands: Lumen, Quantum Fiber, and CenturyLink. With 190,000 on-net buildings and 500,000 route miles of fiber optic cable globally, Lumen is one of the largest providers of communications services to domestic and global enterprise customers.
Challenges Facing Lumen Technologies Lumen's inability to grow meaningfully has been a major factor in its recent struggles. Over the past nine years, the company's revenue growth has been a disappointing 7%. Additionally, the proportion of debt to equity is alarmingly high, with debt roughly five times the market cap. This high level of debt makes traditional measures of valuation, such as EPV and DCF, unreliable.
Lumen's Transformation Efforts Lumen is in the process of transforming its business model from a telecommunications company to a technology company. The company is entering new sectors such as hybrid IT, cloud, and edge computing to keep pace with technological advancements. The recent appointment of a new CEO, Kate Johnson, is a positive sign in this regard. Johnson, who previously served as the president of Microsoft for US operations, brings valuable expertise to Lumen in addressing its two main challenges: growth and transformation.
The Suspension of the Dividend and Sale of Non-Core Assets Historically, Lumen's strategy has been to return capital to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks, returning roughly $19 billion to shareholders. However, this strategy has hindered the company's growth potential. The recent suspension of the dividend and sale of non-core assets highlights Lumen's eagerness to turn things around. The company has announced the sale of three businesses, including its Latin America operations for $2.7 billion, its ILEC business for $7.5 billion, and some of its operations in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa for $1.8 billion.
Future Outlook for Lumen Technologies Lumen has several options for how it can use the incoming funds from the divestiture of non-core assets. The company could use the funds to repay debt, which would be a welcome relief given its overleveraged capital structure. Alternatively, Lumen could use the funds for share repurchases, as the company has a $1.5 billion plan in place. Finally, the riskiest option would be to use the funds for growth initiatives.
Conclusion Lumen Technologies is a risky but potentially rewarding investment opportunity. The company's recent divestiture of non-core assets, combined with the appointment of a new CEO with a strong background, presents a unique opportunity for growth. However, due to the high level of risk involved, we recommend taking a cautious approach and limiting any investment to a 1% position until we have more clarity on the future of the company.
META - A Value Opportunity In The Tech Environment
The accounting representation of Tech companies is key to understanding their value. Only if you dig deep enough can you appreciate their fair value, and being a conservative Tech investor is not easy. Value investors are usually unwilling to pay for growth, and finding a tech stock where growth is not priced in is a rare beast or a value trap.
Asset protection is hard to assess because Tech companies are asset-light and intangible, and Goodwill represents most of their assets. One needs to be skillful in recreating an adjusted asset valuation to understand the true essence of the balance sheet.
Why would any analyst be worried about recreating an adjusted balance sheet of a tech company? That’s what a fundamental value investor should do, and in this article, we discuss why while applying this concept to this very debated company.
In this article, we are going to:
- Recreate a conservative Asset value for META (META) to compare it to its EPV (Earning Power Value).
- Compute EPV calculation.
- Explain why META is undervalued even when considering all the investment in reality labs as lost with zero growth priced in the valuation
- Conclude that from its current price, there is a limited downside possibility, and multiple are so compressed that any easing of the micro conditions or small improvements of margins or revenue could drive META to outperform the market.
Why EPV?
Earnings Power Value is a measure of sustainable earnings used often by Proof. Greenwald at Columbia University is a proxy for putting in perpetuity at WACC a company’s sustainable earnings, smoothing out revenue and margin that are not considered within the norm, mostly averaging them after understanding the firm's typical cycle.
We have previously employed the value investing framework in assessing companies like Silvana or Menzies, and for both, we exit at more than 100% gain, but publicly until now, we haven't analyzed a tech company using a value approach; we intend to try now with META (META) since among the FAANG it seems the one where the market is discounting the worse possible scenario.
Only once we have assessed that a company is able to produce superior returns, meaning that having capitalized sustainable earnings which are superior to its asset value, we can dig further to verify that the company enjoys barriers to entry. Therefore we can analyze what is called franchisee value, which is the ability to generate higher returns on invested capital over its cost of capital.
That’s what Munger calls a "great business for a fair price" When he refers to the importance of a business having a MOAT and the ability to compound returns at a rate higher than WACC. How much to pay for its growth is a key metric in buying a great business without losing sight of a realistic valuation.
Asset Value of META
Starting with asset valuation, some of you might think that asset valuation does not have any meaning for tech companies, but it does provide the opportunity to verify the essence of the moat when compared with their sustainable earnings.
Let’s take a glance at the balance sheet. It’s not a surprise to see how low leveraged META is, with an asset value, according to the last available statement, of $179b and an equity value of $124b, with only $55b in liabilities, including $16b of accrued expenses. If we look at the goodwill amount, it is about $20b, which includes amounts related to the acquisition of Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, and other smaller firms.
So, meta reports its revenues into two segments: Family of Apps and Reality Labs. With the latter, the main issue is $10b “lost” in 2021, and only last quarter loss of $3.6b, and Zuckerberg does not seem to be interested in stopping this, which some value investors are calling a bloodbath.
The Reality Labs' issue is the key to understanding META's stock price crises. Realty Labs' cost is dramatically increasing, the operative cost was 3.95 billion, and its trend has been up north of 50% in the last year, and it shows no sign of coming down. The table below highlights the breakdown of revenue and operating income between the family of apps and Reality Labs.
This investment is, as we know, far from becoming profitable. All of you that came across the famous Christensen book “The Innovation Dilemma” perfectly understand META's current stage and the main problem of its founder.
A company at this stage could become a cash cow, in which the management could concentrate on returning shareholder value through buyback and improving cost efficiency. However, this does not come as a free lunch. Indeed, it comes at the expense of the company's future growth, which would no longer be there. Instead, investing in growth and new opportunities for new markets would allow the company to try not to get disrupted by other companies in the future. Money spent on growth would eventually come back as a new stream of free cash flow. At least in theory, and only if the company can produce and sell a meaningful, useful product.
In META's reported intangibles, the most important part, the internally generated ones, are missing. The internal product portfolio, software, internal technologies, and platform that METAS has. And the customer portfolio, the billions of people participating in the network that every day log into those platforms to interact. Also, the workforce, engineers, marketing staff, and executives who generate value for the company.
We believe that the valuation of intangibles is the only way to assess the profitability of the company and the possibility that this company can convert investments in research and development into streams of future cash flow.
Assessing Asset Value
To assess those missing internal intangibles, we will proceed as follows.
First, we are going to use a perpetual inventory model to assess the product portfolio, then we will assess the customer portfolio by using the reproduction cost framework, and lastly, we will assess the cost of rehiring the workforce and capitalize on it.
For the workforce, we take the general administrative expenses for the year of $9.9 billion and divide them by 76,000 employees (after firing 11k just a few weeks ago). At this point, the average salary for employees would be 130,000, and we would assume 15% of the headhunting fee in general, which would be a value of roughly $2.5 Billion for the workforce.
The capitalization of the R&D in the product portfolio is not reported, and we want to be conservative and assume that all the money of realty labs would be lost. So, let’s assume that a depreciation of 20% starts from 2014. We are going to use the perpetual inventory method. So, looking at this, we will cut by much the reported R&D and only use the one without realty labs cost.
Research and development expenses are the costs spent on developing new products and keeping old products up to date. The classical or maintenance CAPEX is included in these expenses, which is a very important distinction to assess to separate the maintenance costs from the Growth CAPEX.
25% of those costs in R&D are based on stock compensation, which is typical of some tech companies, so dilution does happen all the time to pay for this compensation. However, Meta has been buying back, as we know, many shares, but it’s important to assess the real net value of the buying, also considering the dilution in place, to understand if the buyback is a way for the executives to sell their stocks or it would be a way to drive shareholder value.
Sometimes, people tend to jump quickly to conclusions on buybacks. Yes, they could be a great way to create shareholder value if the company does not keep diluting from the other side to compensate its team.
For reference, the table below highlights the cost related to share-based compensation for the past three years.
The second most important factor is the customer portfolio. We will be highlighting both of our models to calculate it for the understanding of our audience.
Traditionally the model we use is based on some assumptions.
The number of customers acquired during the fiscal year is linear based on the money spent on sales and marketing expenses.
The rate of customers acquired per dollar spent on sales and marketing decreases over time (it cost more to acquire the last client than the first one).
Starting from the formula of the customer:
C(T) = (1-a) * C(t-1) + B(T) * i(T)
The customer today C(T) is just the customer of yesterday C(t-1) less the churn rate (1-a) plus the money spent on marketing i(T) multiplied by how much spent in dollars terms convert into customers B(T).
We are assuming a churn rate of 5%, which is the rate at which Meta loses customers every year. For a number of customers, we are using the daily active users (DAU) that Meta reports in their annual reports.
From this, we rearrange to get the B(T) value:
B(T) = (C(T) - ((1-a)*C(t-1))) / i(T)
As we can see, the number of customers obtained for each dollar spent is the customers today minus those who are left after one year, divided by the money spent on sales and marketing.
So, the goal is to find how much a customer costs to be acquired B-1(T), which is the inverse of B(T), and then multiply that by the number of customers to get the customer portfolio, which obviously is not contemplated in the balance sheet.
From the above methodology, the value of the customer base would be m$153,696. Calculations are highlighted in the table below.
Since we are being very conservative with META's valuation, it only makes sense to use a conservative model for the customer base too.
In that model, we first calculate the sum of how much the company invests each period to increase the customer base (IC) for several years and then add that amount to some base period to get the value of the customer base (VCB).
Our conservative estimation of the customer portfolio is shown in the table below, which gives us a value of $58,871m.
So, let’s readjust the asset value to include the missing intangibles we have calculated above. There is one more adjustment that we will make, which is to adjust Goodwill to avoid double counting.
We only want to keep the Goodwill of the brands that still have a separate brand identity, like WhatsApp or Instagram. Since Oculus is now fully integrated with the Meta brand, we would remove the part of Goodwill which was acquired due to Oculus’s acquisition.
Asset Value Calculation
The adjusted asset value we get is $235,078b. We will next calculate the earnings power value (EPV) and compare it with the asset value to identify whether Meta has an economic moat or not.
Earnings Power Value Assessment
We have a revenue estimate, which is lower than the last financial year, so not only are we not accounting for the growth of revenue, we are conservatively reducing the revenue to $105 Billion, which is lower by roughly 11% YoY.
We also use a very conservative margin of 27%, which is much lower than the historical one, close to 40%, also accounting for the huge R&D expenses in realty labs and reels and AI which the company is facing, and they might persist longer.
At this point, we must consider the growth CAPEX related to product and customer portfolios.
If we use the same amortization rate of 20% for a product portfolio worth 50 billion, that will be 10 billion depreciation, intended to be the amount we need for the maintenance CAPEX of the software. To find the growth part, we will deduct the maintenance expense from the total expense of RnD ex Realty labs of $19.4 billion, the total growth part would be around $9.4 Billion.
This is an assumption; of course, we need to believe the 9.4 billion spent on reels, AI, etc., would eventually not be lost. However, at this stage, we do find that to be the case.
In order to understand the growth part related to the customer portfolio we have to calculate the maintenance CAPEX, so it will be the cost of acquiring a client B-1(T) of 100$, multiplied by the 5% churn rate multiply the number of customers of 1.9 bill, so total = 9.6Billion, I need to subtract the latter from the total sales and marketing expenses of 14 billion and from that the remaining growth will be $4.4 billion.
We have also made a more reasonable assumption with higher revenue using the latest one and by adjusting our conservative estimate of the margins for the latest announced layoffs and a lower WACC close to the current one.
Earnings Power Value Calculation
As we can see, there is a huge difference between the asset value of $86.75 and the Average EPV of $162.29. This indicates that META may have a competitive advantage (MOAT), so paying for growth might be justified. But we want to be conservatives and don’t want to pay for growth. Even at current levels, there is enough margin of safety for an investor to feel comfortable.
Conclusion
In this valuation, we could argue that we have adopted a doomsday scenario, in which we have compressed operative margin, being quite severe with WACC, and have included not only zero growth but in scenario 1, we also assumed a contraction of revenue, assuming that all the Metaverse investment would be completely lost, referring not only yo the previous but also to the future investment, since in the EPV we have assumed that Zuck will keep investing 12 billion yearly and receive not benefit from it.
Even in such circumstances, Meta is a great buy. We recommend buying at this level and holding at least up to $165 to $180.
If we start to receive a breath of fresh air on the metaverse front or growth starts to pick up again due to WhatsApp and/or Reels, META (META) should be worth north of $250.
Free thoughts on my wrong investment in ATER
In life and business, consistency is essential. The ability to show steadiness with your thoughts gives you leverage in the form of moral authority. One of the main characteristics that leaders share is stability and commitment to their previous thoughts and ideas. Many “lazy” thinkers (sheep) want to follow somebody they can trust, that does not change their mind. In equity investment, not changing your mind can be fatal – for your capital and the capital you manage on behalf of others.
An equity story cannot be a life commitment, neither can you show devotion to them as a religion or your favorite football team. Things change, executives make mistakes, new technologies come, macro scenarios change, and more than anything else, you could realize you were WRONG. That happens as well, and there is nothing wrong with it unless you persist in the error. Many money managers and equity analysts want to avoid admitting mistakes and stay with their thesis. After years, not only do they look stupid, but they also affect their capital and/or the capital they manage.
I made a mistake with ATER. In the last few years, thanks to God, I did not make many, but ATER was one of the worst I made for sure.
When you sell a stock at a loss, you can use that amount to buy another, and if that new investment goes up, you make money back (with less risk sometimes). So, you don’t have to wait until you recover your losses with the same stock when you can redirect that money into a better strategy. I know it’s obvious, but some people get stuck for years in a losing position without realizing or admitting that it was a mistake when they should have shaken it off and move forward.
In the last few months, from October 2020 to February 2021, we have lived a very hectic stock market period where we had no time to sleep, primarily due to momentum stocks going higher every day. During that kind of pre-bubble time, in which it is impossible to cover all those stocks profoundly, you always have a few that you leave more to your team, rely on third parties, or you go over them by yourself but not with the needed level of in-depth analysis.
ATER was one of those companies I quickly looked at and therefore didn’t pay too much attention to some details that I left in my analysts’ hands. I checked up the models but didn’t have the time to dig deeper into the story, which at the moment seemed a straightforward, growth story.
I have come to believe that DCF for growth stories is something that doesn’t make much sense. Most of it has so many assumptions that it becomes a very risky bet. That’s why I usually prefer Sustainable Earnings (EPV) valuation, which allows us to analyze what the company has achieved in recent years and therefore provides a “feet-on-the-ground” idea of what it can deliver in the future.
I like some small growth stories on which I have small positions on my portfolio, between 1% and 2%, which gives me the ability to spend less time studying the stock because of the implied risk for my overall performance. Of course, I spent much more time analyzing the companies where I have more significant positions and still follow and study them closely.
I would have taken more prominent positions. However, time management is an essential skill, especially in high-volatility environments where opportunity cost is outrageous. You must spend more time on the significant convictions of your portfolio rather than trying to make the impossible and cover all the “promising-looking” stories.
The lack of proper due diligence is behind any mistake
Many FinTwit gurus only push the stories and never go into valuation assumptions or perform a proper strategic analysis of the stocks. They overlook the matter by throwing some multiples (usually P/S and EV/S); those multiples are a hazardous way to value a company. Especially in a period of bullish market in which relative multiples are very high and even more when you choose the wrong peer and compare “apples with oranges.” Different companies usually have distinct growth and risk implications, and this can bring two companies of the same space to have unrelated multiples justifiably by their intrinsic and individual characteristics. So, executing a valuation by simply looking at multiples can be extremely harmful because it might lead you to believe that a company is cheap when it is overly expensive.
Revenue Growth is meaningless to value a company unless it is not aimed to produce future free cash flow. Don’t forget that! Most Tech companies, especially SaaS, are based on a subscription model, and most of their revenue can be converted into EBITDA and then eventually free cash flow. When you buy software companies, 80% to 90% of that revenue can be converted into free EBITDA. Once you consider the cost of customer acquisition and the churn rate, most of the income would be cash, so multiples like EV/S may make some sense.
Because of the above argument, some gurus in the FinTwit community take for granted that EV/S is a useful metric for all Tech companies in general when it is bloody not!
Look at the kind of people we need to answer to on Twitter:
Stock pumping on Twitter is creating virtual boiler rooms
Stock pumpers manipulate followers and leverage their lack of knowledge. FinTwit traders have a dangerous behavior that fraudsters can exploit. When you learn about something, understand the terms and have some experience but don’t comprehend the subject deeply, you could be in danger. Because you are at a stage where you think you can handle a conversation, you can put your head around it, so you feel you don’t have to say, “I know nothing about it,” but deep inside, you know you don’t master that topic. That degree of knowledge is dangerous because it is not enough to address the issue accurately and not too little to let you walk away so that you can get played!
Wrong valuation input leads to big mistakes!
When you do a DCF on a growth story, you rely on multiple extremely difficult assumptions to hit correctly. Terminal growth could be responsible for 60% or more of your final equity value, and the model would be susceptible to the hurdle rate you use and the assumed growth. When you don’t know how value drivers move (Free cash flows either to the equity or to the firm, hurdle rate, and terminal growth), you are not safely investing. For some companies, DCF just doesn’t make sense.
As an example, let’s dig into ATER’s valuation technicals, and let’s try to explain what the issue with ATER is.
Look at what happens to ATER’s DCF model if you change some of the realities of the company to reflect new evidence:
- Raising Hurdle rate from 14% to 16%
- Reducing terminal growth rate from 3,5% to 1%
- Increasing the share count from 23.2 mil now to 26.2 (however, we could also use 30 to incorporate options and higher strike price warrants, but to avoid critics to this methodology, we use the share count on a weighted average basis)
One could argue that 16% as a discount factor is too high? Well, think about it again: if debt holders are getting 8% on a cash basis with an option to avail warrants, the real cost of debt is north of 12%. Wouldn’t the equity holder be compensated a few extra percentage points of risk premium?
The growth dilemma leads to other big mistakes!
That said, let’s now try tweaking the revenue CAGR growth rate. Growth can slow down if the share prices remain depressed. This is because one of the major investment theses of this company revolved around accretive M&A deals. To remain prudent, here we are assuming that the company’s organic growth does not decline, instead remains stable and grows slowly – which is also a big “if” and risky assumption. We will decode this argument later. If you tried to capture this scenario, valuation again drops significantly.
The fallacy of such a method to value this company is that we are missing the whole point by purely basing the valuation on growth assumptions from now to 10 years ahead. Trying to foresee the growth for a company like this is misleading. Revenue doesn’t mean anything; EBITDA is what matters, or, if we dig deeper, how much EBITDA you can convert into free cash flow. This is especially true when the company is externally buying growth at a high cost of capital.
While I was busy, my team prepared a DCF on ATER; sometimes, busy analysts do that quickly by using consensus and maybe adjusting for a higher hurdle rate if they smell implied growth might be high. By inputting consensus numbers and calculating a reasonable hurdle rate, you most likely will understand what the market thinks about the company.
When the initial model was constructed, the M&A activity of the company was done in an accretive way because the market cap was more than two times what it is today. So it was easy for the company to grow by giving shares in exchange. This narrative has now changed, as ATER is down more than 60% from its ATH, and buying assets in exchange for shares is highly dilutive for ATER. Think about it this way: if you are worth USD 1bln and buy an asset worth USD 40 mln, your share base dilution would be 4%. After a 60% share price drop as in the case of ATER, the same deal would lead to a a 10% share base dilution.
If we look at the products ATER bought, they are pure Chinese garbage. Objectively, they are cheap goods that sell well online. How much the company can grow is NOT the most crucial factor here.
A company can grow its sales CAGR at a factor of infinity. Still, the most crucial element is that whatever they sell makes enough money to pay for the debt and gain a reasonable amount of money. Think about it, plain a simple, they can keep buying all the companies they want and become a 100 billion turnover, but they are buying with a capital that needs to be reimbursed after the debt is paid, and that is the key.
So, the parameter you have to adjust in the DCF model is not only growth, but the most critical part is the EBITDA conversion to Free Cash Flow and EBITDA Margin.
Look below:
Getting back to company valuation, the most crucial element to analyze a company is its free cash flow. We all know that valuation is just trying to figure out the future cash flow of a company and bring it back discounted of the hurdle rate to today’s value. Still, some of these genius stock pumpers don’t even know what a hurdle rate is.
When you work on ATER’s model, you take for granted that the EBITDA margin will grow towards 15%, as indicated by the management. Only focusing on the growth will tend to overvalue the company. This is very easy to understand. ATER is buying growth. They are buying companies financing growth north of 12% (8% + warrant), so revenue increase is not an issue that is relatively easy to achieve. It would be best to make sure the company you buy will generate enough money to pay for the debt and remunerate the capital accordingly to satisfy the risk incurred.
Growth is not a helpful metric because ATER is buying it; ROIC is what we have to analyze because if your return on capital is not adequate, you can grow, destroying value. ATER sells stupid cheap Chinese goods, and they have to increase the sales of those products to justify their investment. If they can grow their sales and make a good spread between the money they borrow and what they make, then the business can succeed. However, if these products will go out of favor, or they won’t be able to sell them for a higher price, this company can easily go bankrupt. YES, it can be worth ZERO.
AIMEE is not a competitive advantage
ATER claims AIMEE to be the key to its business model. Well, AIMEE is just a data software that works with data inputs, and it has a code that would analyze data in a certain way. This doesn’t seem to be an advantage or a moat. What should be monitored closely is what kind of advantage AIMEE can offer. In my opinion, it was just one of those gimmicks where a company tried to take up SaaS valuation by selling an investor story involving this tech.
Look at this scary situation, one of the crucial revenue segments is going down dramatically:
Source: 10Q
This is what we need to look for as investors. Can they grow sales of the companies they are acquiring? Their rebuttal was:
Source: 10Q
What happened to AIMEE? They are selling 37% less because of “sell-outs inventory”? So, all this competitive advantage due to AIMEE technology that is supposed to optimize the process does not exist?
A company could hide their organic growth slowing down but keep growing revenue by buying companies at high prices and higher multiples if you don’t have a breakdown of the different companies. These companies could be running a Ponzi scheme, and it would not be easy to spot them if their financials don’t share segment by segment details.
Another FinTwit myth that needs to be clarified: Don’t get fooled by the story that a new high growth story does not have to be profitable. Some companies could not be profitable initially but will be investing heavily in Research and Development (R&D). Think about Amazon, Apple, or any other company that has spent years developing technologies that represent an actual moat. So, if you look at the P&L, you will see hundreds of millions or even billions spent during years to develop a technology.
You will see this cost deducted from the profit. But when the technology is eventually developed, all those R&D will ultimately manifest itself in a growing cash flow stream. In the case of ATER, their R&D is negligible – in 2020, they spend less than 4% of their revenues in R&D.
Conclusions
You should invest in ATER only if you believe that AIMEE provides a substantial competitive advantage. Their organic sales will grow steadily, and their products won’t get out of favor. It would help if you also trusted that they would be able to get better debt conditions. But how would you know that?
Moreover, let’s address two quick issues; in valuation, there are parameters to check for accounting manipulation called Benish Score and Z score. Although the explanation of these tests is beyond this article’s scope, I am not suggesting they are manipulating their books, but the possibility remains.
Nonetheless, a company like this could do this easily because of the setup of the business model. If they don’t show the breakdown of organic growth for each company they buy, they can show a higher EBITDA. Still, we wouldn’t know if EBITDA growth is fueled by a new acquisition (from expensive debt) or was fueled organically. Only the insiders like the CFO know that. ATER, former CFO left after the short report (according to the report, he had previously bankrupted a company).
So, back to the main issue, if the EBITDA growth cannot be assessed accurately, we will never know if it is a company with a stable future. Sometimes you can also define a stock by analyzing who is primarily investing in it. Feel free to go on the Twitter feed and check the kind of people pushing ATER, their financial background, as well as their motives. I was not impressed.
So, if you are a momentum trader and want to ride this, there is nothing wrong with it. If the growth story keeps going up again, ATER could get pumped back to $30 or $40 once again. But remember that price and value remain two different things.
I don’t know, and I don’t care where ATER will go. I don’t want to be seen like somebody who promotes this stock because I don’t feel safe and made a mistake the first time I bought it.
Because I changed my mind about ATER and made some tweets expressing my concerns, I was bullied and even received death threats and all sorts of insults from several Twitter accounts that are bullish on the stock. I have initiated legal procedures, and my lawyer already informed the police that they are constantly monitoring Twitter and taking things very seriously.
This is my last post on ATER, and I don’t want to talk or tweet anymore about it. I am not short yet; I would only take a short position eventually if there is further strong evidence of organic growth slowing and price momentum gaining traction. That said, I will pursue legal actions if I receive insults or threats because of my view and opinions.
About Antonio Velardo
Antonio Velardo is an experienced Italian Venture Capitalist and options trader. He is an early Bitcoin and Ethereum adopter and evangelist who has grown his passion and knowledge after pursuing the Blockchain Strategy Programme at Oxford University and a Master’s degree in Digital Currency at Nicosia University.
Velardo manages an 8-figure portfolio of his investment company with a team of analysts; he is a sort of FinTweet mentor, people interact with him online, and he has more than 40,000 followers after his tweets. He has built a fortune in the great tech years and put together a tail strategy during the pandemic that allowed him to take advantage of the market drop. “I did not time the market, and I did not think this was even a black sworn,” he says.
On the side of the financial markets, Velardo has a unique combination. He was a real estate entrepreneur that developed several projects in Tunisia, Miami, Italy, the UK, and many other countries and cities. But he has always been passionate about options trading. Still, contrary to the volatility player and quant trading, he always had a value investing touch in his blood. Antonio studied Value Investing at Buffet’s famous business school at Columbia University. Even though the central concepts of value investing are antagonists to the venture capital pillars, Antonio’s approach tries to bridge elements of both worlds in order to seek alpha. Velardo has learned the importance of spotting pure growth stories and taking advantage of their S-Curve position. This is an essential element of Velardo’s approach as he looks forward to embracing great tech stories at the right time of the adoption cycle. This applies to stocks but also to blockchain projects.
Assessing Menzies risk to go bankrupt after breaching covenants
Many of you have been reaching out to comment and ask about the Multiple-Valuation approach on John Menzies plc (MNZS). Of course, there are some concerns about the cash-burning, and for that reason, here I address that in this short article.
Relying on the Q3 presentation, we know that:
- Available cash resources of over £175m at 31 August 2020
- Underlying operating cash flow ahead of expectations with good debtor collections and upfront support from governmental agencies
- In January, the Company completed the refinance of the Group’s bank facilities that were due to mature in 2021 and replaced them with a US$235m amortizing loan and a £145m revolving credit facility, both due to mature in January 2025.
- The new covenant structure’s critical terms foresee net leverage covenant replaced with a minimum EBITDA covenant tested on a quarterly basis. The Group must keep a minimum of £45m liquidity. The new covenant structure will remain in place until the earlier of June 2022 or whenever the Group’s leverage as measured on a pre-IFRS 16 basis remains below 3.0 times for three consecutive quarters.
Based on the above points, we know the Company has addressed the liquidity issue and has renegotiated covenants. Now the question is whether these measures are enough to support the Company during the pandemic.
Still, from the Q3 presentation, we know that:
- Market conditions will remain challenging through the winter and the early part of next year, but expect a sustainable recovery in activity levels after that, contributing to modest revenue growth in 2021 over 2020
Assuming a liquidity level around GBP 150mln by the end of 2020 and a cash-burning between GBP 7mln and GBP 12mln per month, we believe Menzies might breach the liquidity covenant over the next 9 to 15 months.
Source: Our estimates
What happens in case covenants are breached?
There are three possible scenarios:
- The most likely scenario is that covenants are renegotiated as the banking system proved to be supportive of Menzies.
- Menzies might be forced to look for a share capital increase and/or possible asset disposal to reduce its debt exposure.
- A mix of the above two scenarios
A prolonged lockdown scenario is clearly the major risk we see for Menzies shareholders as it might force Menzies to look for a dilutive share capital increase that might occur at a substantial discount to the current share price (227p as of 19 January 2021).
That said, we share Menzies management view for the long term as we expect “Menzies to emerge as a more efficient, agile and profitable business with a more focused footprint having exited stations that are no longer economically viable.”
Actions to be taken
It is crucial to continue monitoring disclosures on liquidity levels. Suppose we do not see a recovery in the level of activities for Menzies by the late summer period (which also carries a positive seasonality). In that case, we might eventually consider reducing our position as the probability of the events mentioned above increases over time.
MNZS Chart
About Antonio Velardo
Antonio Velardo is an experienced Italian Venture Capitalist and options trader. He is an early Bitcoin and Ethereum adopter and evangelist who has grown his passion and knowledge after pursuing the Blockchain Strategy Programme at Oxford University and a Master’s degree in Digital Currency at Nicosia University.
Velardo manages an 8-figure portfolio of his investment company with a team of analysts; he is a sort of FinTweet mentor, people interact with him online, and he has more than 40,000 followers after his tweets. He has built a fortune in the great tech years and put together a tail strategy during the pandemic that allowed him to take advantage of the market drop. “I did not time the market, and I did not think this was even a black sworn,” he says.
On the side of the financial markets, Velardo has a unique combination. He was a real estate entrepreneur that developed several projects in Tunisia, Miami, Italy, the UK, and many other countries and cities. But he has always been passionate about options trading. Still, contrary to the volatility player and quant trading, he always had a value investing touch in his blood. Antonio studied Value Investing at Buffet’s famous business school at Columbia University. Even though the central concepts of value investing are antagonists to the venture capital pillars, Antonio’s approach tries to bridge elements of both worlds in order to seek alpha. Velardo has learned the importance of spotting pure growth stories and taking advantage of their S-Curve position. This is an essential element of Velardo’s approach as he looks forward to embracing great tech stories at the right time of the adoption cycle. This applies to stocks but also to blockchain projects.
CURI: The NETFLIX For Documentary Nerds Tilting On Future Growth
Hey guys, here we will go over CuriosityStream. Before getting into it, I recommend you go to my article about approaching subscription companies and review the concepts that we discussed there. Check it out, and then come back here! If you already did, then let’s dig into $CURI.
Summary
- CuriosityStream is a streaming platform that offers thousands of engaging educational documentaries, short films, and series on science, history, nature, travel, adventure, and more.
- Strong management team, insider buying, hypergrowth estimates, and attractive gross margin serve as a bullish sign for CURI.
- Risk-reward based on valuation, trading multiple, potential dilution, and execution risk are unfavorable.
- At the current price, investors aren’t getting growth at a reasonable price as we estimate the fair value to be around $13.73.
What is CuriosityStream (CURI)?
CuriosityStream offers access to thousands of engaging educational documentaries, short films, and series on science, history, nature, travel, adventure, and more. If you relished watching classic Discovery Channel and Animal Planet type of content – this streaming service is similar. The company’s ambition is to address full category service within factual streaming and become what ESPN is to the complete sports category and not just a niche within sports like a golf or tennis channel.
Examples of some of the programs on offer include:
- David Attenborough’s Light on Earth
- Stephen Hawking’s Favorite Places
- Beyond the Spotlight by Leonardo DiCaprio and Stephen David
In August 2020, CuriosityStream underwent a reverse merger with Software Acquisition Group, Inc, a special-purpose acquisition company. Proceeds from this were mainly used to cover production & promotion costs.
Solid Management
CuriosityStream’s management team is packed with relevant experience in this industry. The company was set up by John Hendricks — the founder of Discovery Communications. Hendricks spent decades building the successful factual cable network, as shown below:
Source: Company Presentation
His track record with Discovery instills trust and confidence that he could do the same with CURI. One valid question that might bother you is why did he left Discovery or not helped them transition towards streaming? According to him, Discovery could not fully take advantage of the ongoing shift in the entertainment industry from cable to streaming due to legacy obligations and restraints; CURI does not have these problems.
In June 2018, Clint Stinchcomb was appointed the CEO of CuriosityStream. He is an industry veteran and served as a CEO and a co-founder of Poker Central. This company ran a subscription streaming service called Poker GO, which was tailored towards the card-playing community.
Jason Eustace, the CFO, was the former head of finance for Bluemercury, Pet360 & Discovery.
Multiple options to Monetize content
- The company not only acquires and produces content for its direct subscription service; it also sells content via digital providers like ROKU, Prime Video, etc.
- It also offers bundled subscriptions via cable, satellite, and internet distributors. With a wide range of distribution deals worldwide, featuring Comcast, Altice USA, MultiChoice (Africa), StarHub (Singapore), Totalplay (Mexico), and Millicom (Latin America). This category has seen astonishing growth over the last four years (see below)
Source: Company Presentation
Although this comes with lower ARPU vs.. selling directly to the consumer, according to management, it enables scalability due to its newness compared to major players like NFLX, who achieved this in a decade. ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is about 15 cents per month, which totals $1.80 per user per year. They receive 8 cents per month from bundled distribution users, which represents a majority of their accounts.
- Corporate partnership – where they target $20BN+ Fortune 500 yearly spending on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Currently, 40 companies have purchased an annual subscription and represent 140K paying subscribers.
- Educational Partnerships -it will also sign multi-year contracts with universities and colleges to build streaming libraries on their behalf. Within their advisory board representation include the president of Georgetown University and a vice provost at Stanford University (among many other universities), there is good reason to believe this may take off.
- Program sales – where they will sell existing content and pre-sell originals to global media companies
Sponsorship and Advertisement – it does sell exclusive sponsorship slots for some of its contents. This is done in the form of 15-second pre-roll ads before the start of a show. For its bundled subscription 30-60 seconds, commercial on linear networks was recently planned.
Breakdown of Revenue TAM and Estimate % of Total Revenue:
Source: Company Presentation
Insider Buying
One of the legend investors, Peter Lynch, once said:
“insiders might sell their shares for any number of reasons, but they buy them for only one: they think the price will rise.”
As corporate executives sometimes have better insights about the firm and its future, this asymmetrical information between companies’ management and investor insider buying is seen as a bullish signal. It can be seen below founder John Hendricks has been galloping some CURI share recently.
Source: Simply Wall St
Astonishing growth and gross margin
- In 2015, when the company was founded, the management hoped to acquire five to seven million subscriptions by 2020. They were able to surpass this, and current subscribers stand at 13M. Management is aiming for a 79M Subscription target by 2023. Due to its track record, there is a high probability they might be able to pull this
- Revs up 83% YOY to $8.7M in last quarter
- >100% Y/Y revenue growth in last three years with 50% CAGR estimated till 2023
- International partnerships, i.e., Tata Sky
- CURI intends to grow from 3100 factual titles today ($1.3B estimated original production value) to around 12k in 2025. Currently, NFLX has 500. When CURI started, it had a library of about 800.
- Gross Margin of >60% due to cheaper average production cost can be sustained long term. For example, it cost $500-600k for a top-end factual documentary to be produced, while scripted shows cost around five to six million.
Risks
- Rapid growth is vital for CURI – at the moment, relying on management, forecasts require a lot of execution.
- Risk of potential share capital dilution, assuming all warrants are converted, the fully diluted share count is estimated to be around 74.3M. An element market has paid less attention to, compared to its potential for profitability and growth.
- The majority of subscriptions came via bundles (12M out of 13M total subs), which have significantly lower ARPU
- Bundle subscription can cannibalize their direct offering as it is cheaper.
- What happens when competition decides they no longer need CURI on their platform or want to compete directly?
- Recent growth might be there as there were fewer sports in March and people stayed at home more (see google trends below). Can this be sustainable in the long run?
Source: Google Trends
Our Valuation case
Basic assumptions underlying the valuation model
- The perpetual growth rate of 2%
- 5 Year Average of 10 Year UST is 2%
- 2% is also the average of US GDP growth in recent years
- A discount rate of 15%
- Cost of Equity for NFLX us 7.4% based on Market Risk Premium of 6%, Beta of 1.06, and Risk-Free rate of 1%
- Additional to NFLX’s cost of equity, we added a Small-Cap risk premium of 7.7%. Why?
- Professor Damodaran estimated the stock premium of small-cap between 1926 and 2015 to be 3.82% on average. (You can find the study here). He also noticed the premium had a standard deviation of about 1.91%. To become 95% confident in our small-cap premium estimate, we took 7.6% as our premium (2 standard deviations from the mean).
- Liquidity Risk
- Price Volatility causing risk aversion for investors
- No previous price history, we cant estimate the cost of equity using CAPM
- Information uncertainty/asymmetry as it’s a new company
- Revenue Growth Rate – CAGR 40% divided into two stages
- Till 2025 we used management estimates Y/Y as given in its company presentation
- From 2025-2030 we took the average revenue growth rate of NFLX and Discovery channel as they entered from high growth to mature growth stage of the company’s life cycle
Company Life Cycle Framework
Source: Damodaran (2010)
- Gross Margin –Two Stages
- 2020-2025 – company guidance around 60%
- 2025-2030 – 60% Long term margin akin to Discovery and other streaming companies
- SG&A increases by 10% Y/Y
- Since CURI is not capital intensive
- Operating income to FCFE conversion ratio of 60%
- To remain conservative in our valuation
Fair value based on our valuation model
Source: MOAT Investing
Sensitivity analysis on key value drivers (discount rate and g)
Source: MOAT Investing
Multiple analysis VS peers.
As shown in the table below, CURI is trading at higher multiples relative to its peers. The market has already priced in the growth story for this stock. Implied growth priced in is higher compared to that of FuboTV, which has a similar business model. Additionally, it’s trading at a slight premium compared to Roku, which can be argued, addresses a significantly larger TAM market relative to CURI.
Price as of 5th Jan*
Fubo and CURI share outstanding assumes potential dilution**
Source: MOAT Investing.
Conclusion
We believe that CURI is a hold at the current price (USD 16,33 p/sh as of January 8, 2021). Market consensus has aggressively priced in rapid growth. Although it offers an elevated level of growth at present, its niche business model limits its TAM. Despite management having a demonstrable track record, there is an inherent risk of executing their aggressive growth promise. That said, we will monitor this stock to see whether the company can hit its forecast (or surpass it). If they do so, it can tilt its way to becoming NETFLIX for documentary nerds, and we would eventually revise our stance on the stock!
About Antonio Velardo
Antonio Velardo is an experienced Italian Venture Capitalist and options trader. He is an early Bitcoin and Ethereum adopter and evangelist who has grown his passion and knowledge after pursuing the Blockchain Strategy Programme at Oxford University and a Master’s degree in Digital Currency at Nicosia University.
Velardo manages an 8-figure portfolio of his investment company with a team of analysts; he is a sort of FinTweet mentor, people interact with him online, and he has more than 40,000 followers after his tweets. He has built a fortune in the great tech years and put together a tail strategy during the pandemic that allowed him to take advantage of the market drop. “I did not time the market, and I did not think this was even a black sworn,” he says.
On the side of the financial markets, Velardo has a unique combination. He was a real estate entrepreneur that developed several projects in Tunisia, Miami, Italy, the UK, and many other countries and cities. But he has always been passionate about options trading. Still, contrary to the volatility player and quant trading, he always had a value investing touch in his blood. Antonio studied Value Investing at Buffet’s famous business school at Columbia University. Even though the central concepts of value investing are antagonists to the venture capital pillars, Antonio’s approach tries to bridge elements of both worlds in order to seek alpha. Velardo has learned the importance of spotting pure growth stories and taking advantage of their S-Curve position. This is an essential element of Velardo’s approach as he looks forward to embracing great tech stories at the right time of the adoption cycle. This applies to stocks but also to blockchain projects.