CASE STUDY: Macro Enterprises (MCESF)


November 28, 2021

I first wrote up Macro Enterprises (MCESF) in January 2020, when the stock price was $2.79. At the time, here were the five metrics of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 1.37
    • P/E = 3.72
    • P/B = 1.08
    • P/CF = 3.51
    • P/S = 0.26

Today the stock price is at $2.15. Normalized earnings are $20 million. And here are the five metrics of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 1.41
    • P/E = 3.35
    • P/B = 0.75
    • P/CF = 2.16
    • P/S = 0.30

The current figures are very similar to the previous figures, except that P/B and P/CF are both much lower. Therefore, overall, Macro Enterprises is cheaper now than it was before. Much of this is because the stock price has dropped from $2.79 to $2.15.

Next we calculate the Piotroski F-Score, which is a measure of the fundamental strength of the company. For more on the Piostroski F-Score, see my blog post here:https://boolefund.com/piotroski-f-score/

Macro Enterprises has a Piotroski F-Score of 7. (The best score possible is 9, while the worst score is 0.) This is a very good score.

Then we rank the company based on low debt and high insider ownership.

We measure debt levels by looking at total liabilities (TL) to total assets (TA). Macro Enterprises has TL/TA of 38%, which is fairly low.

Insider ownership is important because that means that the people running the company have interests that are aligned with the interests of other shareholders. Macro’s founder and CEO, Frank Miles, owns approximately 30%+ of the shares outstanding. This is excellent.

Intrinsic Value

Macro Enterprises has been in operation for over 25 years. Over that time, it has earned a reputation for safety and reliability while becoming one of the largest pipeline construction companies in western Canada.

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: Macro is probably not worth less than half of book value, which is $2.83 per share. That’s 34% lower than today’s share price of $2.15.
    • Mid case: The company is probably worth at least EV/EBITDA of 5.0. That translates into a share price of $6.57, which is over 200% higher than today’s $2.15.
    • High case: Macro may easily be worth at least EV/EBITDA of 8.0. That translates into a share price of $10.29, which is over 375% higher than today’s $2.15.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Delta Apparel (DLA)


November 21, 2021

From the company’s website:

“Delta Apparel, Inc., along with its operating subsidiaries, DTG2Go, LLC, Salt Life, LLC, and M.J. Soffe, LLC, is a vertically-integrated, international apparel company that designs, manufactures, sources, and markets a diverse portfolio of core activewear and lifestyle apparel products under the primary brands of Salt Life®, Soffe®, and Delta… The Company specializes in selling casual and athletic products through a variety of distribution channels and tiers, including outdoor and sporting goods retailers, independent and specialty stores, better department stores and mid-tier retailers, mass merchants and e-retailers, the U.S. military, and through its business-to-business e-commerce sites. The Company’s products are also made available direct-to-consumer on its websites… as well as through its branded retail stores.”

IMPORTANT: DTG2Go is most important part of the company. It is a “market leader in the direct-to-garment digital print and fulfillment industry, bringing technology and innovation to the supply chain of its customers.” DTG2Go uses proprietary software to deliver on-demand, digitally printed apparel direct to consumers on behalf of the customer.

We bought DLA in late 2020 at an average cost of $15.26. Today the stock is at $30.01, up about 96%. But the stock is still quite undervalued.

Here are the original multiples for Delta Apparel from September 2020:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.41
    • P/E = 7.38
    • P/B = 0.76
    • P/CF = 1.85
    • P/S = 0.28

Since then, the company has grown its earnings and cash flows. Here are the normalized figures: EBITDA is $75.3 million, net income is $38.2 million, cash flow is $120.3 million, and revenue is $597.9 million.

The market cap is $193.3 million, while the enterprise value (EV) is $320.5 million.

Here are the updated multiples:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.26
    • P/E = 5.06
    • P/B = 1.23
    • P/CF = 1.61
    • P/S = 0.32

Delta Apparel has a Piotroski F-Score of 8, which is excellent.

We measure debt levels by looking at total liabilities (TL) to total assets (TA). DLA has TL/TA of 63.4%, which is decent.

Insider ownership is important because that means that the people running the company have interests that are aligned with the interests of other shareholders. At DLA, insider ownership is approximately 16%. This is good.

What is the intrinsic value?

See this very good writeup on Value Investors Club: https://valueinvestorsclub.com/idea/DELTA_APPAREL_INC/9696182477

(You may have to register at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, but it’s free.)

From the writeup:

DTG2Go’s proprietary software and logistics system enable it to seamlessly integrate with any of itscustomer’s websites,and for digitally printed apparel to be manufactured upon purchase, and shippedwithin 24-48 hours directly to the customer without them knowing DLA had anything todo with the process. This model is simply a better mouse-trap for virtually any retailer, enabling them to lower costs, eliminate holding inventory, increase selection, and quicken delivery times. Imagine how much more money a retailer would make if it could multiply the selection of printed apparel it offers on its website at no additional cost, and with no inventory? Also imagine how much money a retailer could save byalmost never having to write-down this type of inventory again? DTG2Go’s platform allows them to do bothno-brainer. This platform can also give e-retailors future capabilities such as allowing consumers tocustomize their own clothing, which many say is a coming trend. DTG2Go’s market opportunity is huge, and has barely entered its first inning of growth. Digital impressions only make up about 2% of total graphic impressions on clothing. DLA believes the digital impression market could grow over 400% in the coming years, to 10% of graphic impressions on clothing. Other commentators expect even greater penetration of digital printing. Given the tremendous advantages of digital printing for many applications versus traditional screen printing, it seems highly likely that rapid growth of 30%+ will continue into the foreseeable future. Many industry participants expect digital printing to eventually comprise 50%+ of the graphic impressions market due to its superior cost and selection characteristics. It is also important to note that digital printing is generally environmentally superior versus screen printing, because of the cleaner water based ink used in the digital process.
Intrinsic value scenarios:
    • Low case: If the company trades at a P/E of 10 based on trailing earnings, then the stock would be $29, which is 3% lower than today’s $30.01.
    • Mid case: The company should trade for a P/E of at least 15 based on normalized earnings. That would put the stock at $90 per share, which is 200% higher than today’s $30.01.
    • High case: Normalized earnings could easily be closer to $52.3 million. Given the huge growth opportunities for DTG2Go, the company should trade at a P/E at least 20. That would be the stock at $150 per share, which is 400% higher than today’s $30.01.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Obsidian Energy (OBELF)


November 14, 2021

Many oil and gas companies appear remarkably cheap if oil prices stay at $70 to $80. Not only is it likely that oil prices will stay at $70 to $80, but it’s quite possible that oil prices will approach $90 or $100 (or even more).

Even at $60 oil, Obsidian Energy is undervalued. But if oil prices are much higher than that, then Obsidian Energy–like some other oil companies–will likely be a wonderful investment.

 

OIL PRICES

Over the past 6 to 7 years, oil producers and oil-producing countries have significantly cut their capital spending due to lower oil prices. As a result, many oil producers do not have much capacity to produce more oil. Similarly, even OPEC+ appears to have much less spare capacity than it did in the past.

Check out this piece by Josh Young of Bison Interests, “OPEC+ Spare Capacity is Insufficient Amid Global Energy Crisis.” Link: https://bisoninterests.com/content/f/opec-spare-capacity-is-insufficient-amid-global-energy-crisis

In recent years, shale oil companies have been able to boost production relatively quickly. However, under pressure from investors, shale oil companies are now much more focused on generating free cash flow. So they have yet to invest much in order to increase their production.

Thus, oil supply constrained.

Even more importantly, oil demand is very strong.

This is because massive monetary and fiscal stimuli have caused households to be flush with cash. This has greatly increased demand for most goods and commodities.

See this recent note from Bridgewater Associates, “It’s Mostly a Demand Shock, Not a Supply Shock, and It’s Everywhere”: https://www.bridgewater.com/its-mostly-a-demand-shock-not-a-supply-shock-and-its-everywhere

Bridgewater argues that the supply of everything is at all-time highs. But demand across most areas is much stronger than supply. Due to the large amount of money the Federal Reserve has been printing, coupled with large fiscal stimulus, a massive amount of cash has been transferred to households. Consumer spending has created demand that cannot be met by the increased supply.

Bridgewater concludes that demand is outstripping supply by a wide enough margin that high inflation will probably be mostly sustained, especially because extremely easy government policy continues to encourage further demand rather than limiting it.

Finally, even if car manufacturers started making only all-electric vehicles today, oil demand would keep rising for many years, as Daniel Yergin points out in The New Map.

Oil demand is likely to increase for at least 10 to 20 years before a peak is reached. The peak itself could last for another 10 to 20 years.

I am, of course, in favor of the transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. But the global economy needs a lot of oil in order to make that transition over the next several decades.

The oil and gas industry will exist in close to its current form 10 or 20 years from now, as Jeremy Grantham has noted. (As well, most oil companies do not have more than 15-20 years of reserves.) The fact that some investors are no longer investing in oil and gas companies means that oil and gas stocks now have even higher expected returns.

In sum, oil supply is quite constrained, while oil demand is very strong. This situation is likely to persist for some time, which means oil prices could easily be $70 to $80, or even higher. Also, oil stocks historically have done very well in inflationary environments. Due to massive monetary and fiscal stimuli, the gap between demand and supply is likely to persist in many areas, which means high inflation may last for some time.

 

OBSIDIAN ENERGY

Obsidian Energy (OBELF) appears very cheap because of the recent increases in oil prices. Here are the multiples:

    • EV/EBITDA = 1.53
    • P/E = 1.04
    • P/NAV = 0.29
    • P/CF = 1.97
    • P/S = 0.98

(We use P/NAV instead of P/B. The NAV assumes $70 WTI.)

The Piotroski F_Score is 6, which is OK.

The market cap is $289.5 million. The company has $4 million in cash and $406.5 million in debt. TL/TA is 48%, which is OK. The company plans to continuing paying down its debt, which it can easily due if oil prices remain relatively high.

Insider ownership is 7%. That is worth a bit more than $20 million. Insiders can make $40 million or much more if oil prices are $70 or higher and if the company continues to execute.

We calculate NAV based on 2P reserves (proved plus probable).

    • Low case: If the oil price averages $50 WTI, then NAV per share is $4.55, which is 21% higher than today’s $3.74.
    • Mid case: If the oil price averages $70 WTI, then NAV per share is $12.71, which is 240% higher than today’s $3.74.
    • High case: If the oil price averages $90 WTI, then NAV per share is $20.87, which is over 455% higher than today’s $3.74.

In March 2019, the company appointed Michael Faust as CEO. (The previous CEO had done a poor job on costs, on where to invest, and on others areas.)

Faust significantly cut costs and improved efficiency. Faust also focused capex on the right wells. Overall, he did a great job. After making these operational improvements, Faust stepped down. But he is still on the board of directors and is deeply involved.

The interim CEO is Steve Loukas, who works at a hedge fund with a large stake in Obsidian Energy. Loukas is doing an excellent job so far.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Genco Shipping (GNK)


November 7, 2021

I first wrote up the idea of GNK in June 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/genco-shipping-gnk/

At the time, the stock at $6.94 a share was very cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.60
    • P/E = 6.52
    • P/B = 0.34
    • P/CF = 2.07
    • P/S = 0.70

Now the stock is up to $15.81. There has been a huge increase in dry bulk shipping rates.

Dry bulk shipping rates are highly volatile. But the supply of dry bulk ships is at a historic low. Very few new vessels will come into the market over the next couple of years. If someone wanted to order a new dry bulk ship, they would have to wait until early 2024 to get it. There are far fewer shipyards than has been the case historically, and most of those shipyards already have orders, much of which is for container ships rather than dry bulk vessels.

Global GDP is expected to be 4% to 5%, which when coupled with the historically low supply, will probably lead to higher dry bulk shipping rates going forward.

Also, the company has a barbell approach to fleet composition: The minor bulk fleet provides stable cash flows, while the Capesize vessels provide meaningful upside and operating leverage if rates continue to move higher.

The market cap is $662.8 million. EV is $915.1 million. Normalized estimates: Revenue $620 million, EBITDA is $320 million, net income is $250 million, and cash flow of $360 million.

Here are the multiples based on normalized estimates:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.86
    • P/E = 2.65
    • P/B = 0.53
    • P/CF = 1.84
    • P/S = 1.07

(P/B is based on P/NAV. Vessel values have increased due to the increase in shipping rates.)

Because of the large increase in rates and the expectation that rates will remain volatile but high, GNK looks cheaper now than it was in June 2020.

Insiders own about 7.4% of the shares outstanding, which is worth about $49 million (at today’s stock price of $15.81). Insiders will obviously do well if they successfully lead the company forward.

Genco Shipping has a Piotroski F_Score of 6, which is OK.

Debt is fairly low at $296.8 million. TL/TA is 29%, which is good. Also, the company is targeting total debt of zero.

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: GNK is probably worth at least 50% of NAV. NAV/share is $29.72. 50% of that is $14.36, which is 9% lower than today’s $15.81.
    • Mid case: Dry bulk rates are likely to stay relatively high, due to limited supply. Also, the company will soon have no debt and plans a substantial dividend. In this context, GNK is probably worth at least 140% of NAV. That works out to $41.61, which is over 160% higher than today’s $15.81.
    • High case: If dry bulk rates continue to move higher over the next few years, GNK could be worth a P/E = 10. That works out to $59.62, which is over 275% higher than today’s $15.81.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Ranger Energy Services (RNGR)


October 31, 2021

I first wrote up the idea of RNGR in January 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/ranger-energy-services-rngr/

At the time, the stock at $6.83 a share was very cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.96
    • P/E = 17.51
    • P/B = 0.53
    • P/CF = 2.20
    • P/S = 0.31

Since then, Ranger has made a series of acquisitions at low multiples. Here are the estimates for 2022 figures: EBITDA of $125 million, earnings of $45 million, cash flow of $120 million, and sales of $500 million.

Here are the multiples based on the 2022 estimates:

    • EV/EBITDA = 1.75
    • P/E = 4.45
    • P/B = 0.44
    • P/CF = 1.48
    • P/S = 0.36

The company named Stuart Bodden as the new CEO effective September 1, 2021. (Bill Austin, Chairman of the Board of Directors, was interim CEO. ) Bodden has 20+ years of experience in various executive roles in the oil and gas industry. Bodden was a Partner at McKinsey & Company, leading projects in the oilfield services and upstream oil and gas sectors. Bodden received his Bachelor of Science degree from Brown University and his Master of Business Administration from The University of Texas, Austin.

Insiders own 19% of the shares outstanding, which is worth about $34 million (at today’s stock price of $9.95). Insiders can make a lot of money if they successfully lead the company forward.

Ranger Energy Services has a Piotroski F_Score of 3. This is low because the company has recently made a series of acquisitions. As the company moves through 2022, its F_Score will rise.

Debt is low at $49 million. TL/TA is 30%, which is good. Also, the company is targeting debt of zero.

The oil price (WTI) is $83.57. If oil prices stay around this level, Ranger Energy Services will comfortably hit its targets for 2022.

For a good take on how tight oil supplies are currently, check out this piece by Josh Young of Bison Interests, “OPEC+ Spare Capacity is Insufficient Amid Global Energy Crisis.” Link: https://bisoninterests.com/content/f/opec-spare-capacity-is-insufficient-amid-global-energy-crisis

More importantly, demand is very strongly increasing, which will continue. See this recent note from Bridgewater Associates, “It’s Mostly a Demand Shock, Not a Supply Shock, and It’s Everywhere:https://www.bridgewater.com/its-mostly-a-demand-shock-not-a-supply-shock-and-its-everywhere

Bridgewater argues that the supply of everything is at all-time highs. But demand across most areas is much stronger than supply. Demand is being driven by the MP3, which is a combination of monetary and fiscal policy. Due to the large amount of money the Federal Reserve has been printing, coupled with large fiscal stimulus, a massive amount of cash has been transferred to households. Consumer spending has created demand that cannot be met by the increased supply.

Bridgewater concludes that demand is outstripping supply by a wide enough margin that high inflation will probably be mostly sustained, especially because extremely easy government policy continues to encourage further demand rather than limiting it.

Finally, even if car manufacturers started making only all-electric vehicles today, oil demand would keep rising for many years, as Daniel Yergin points out in The New Map.

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: RNGR is probably worth at least 50% of book value. That is $11.30, which is over 10% higher than today’s $9.95.
    • Mid case: The P/E = 4.45 relative to 2022 earnings. But the P/E should be at least 15. This implies over 335% upside from today’s $9.95, or an intrinsic value of at least $43.50 per share.
    • High case: Oil prices could exceed $100 (WTI). In that case, RNGR could be worth $70 per share. That is 600% higher than today’s $9.95.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Karora Resources (KRRGF)


October 24, 2021

Although the stock price has moved up from $2.62 to $3.50, our investment in Karora Resources (KRRGF) is still quite undervalued under most scenarios.

I first wrote up the idea of KRRGF in December 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/karora-resources-inc-krrgf/

At the time, the stock at $2.62 a share was cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.50
    • P/E = 13.04
    • P/NAV = 0.29
    • P/CF = 5.95
    • P/S = 2.12

The mid case scenario for intrinsic value was that KRRGF was probably worth $9.08 based on NAV.

How much is KRRGF worth today?

    • EV/EBITDA = 1.74
    • P/E = 4
    • P/NAV = 0.20
    • P/CF = 2.50
    • P/S = 1.23
  • These figures are based on 2024 production of roughly 200k ounces of gold per year. The gold price is assumed to be $1,750. (Note that Karora’s operations are in Western Australia, so there is very little political risk.)

Karora Resources is exceptionally well-managed, led by CEO Paul Andre Huet and head of Australian operations Graeme Sloan. The Karora team–despite numerous external headwinds–has met or exceeded every target it has set since its acquisition of HGO Mill in mid-2019.

Also, management owns 2% of the shares outstanding, which is worth $10 million (at today’s stock price of $3.50). That $10 million could become $30 or $40 million (or more) if Karora keeps executing.

Karora Resources has a Piotroski F_Score of 7, which is good.

Net debt is low: Cash is $82.2 million. Debt is $30.8 million. TL/TA is 40%, which is good.

Very importantly, Karora’s growth is internally funded by existing cash and cash flow. Karora is not relying on debt for growth.

Furthermore, the company is increasing its production steadily each year until it reaches 200k gold ounces per year in 2024.

Finally, Karora has massive exploration potential.

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: Gold prices could fall. Also, there could be a market correction or a recession during which the stock could temporarily fall by 50% or more (from today’s $3.50 to $1.75).
    • Mid case: The P/E = 4 relative to 2024 production, assuming the gold price stays around $1,750 per ounce. But the P/E should be at least 16 for a mid-tier, multi-asset gold producer in a top tier jurisdiction (Western Australia). This implies 300% upside from today’s $3.50, or an intrinsic value of $14 per share. This does not factor in the continued lowering of AISC (which could reach $935/oz or lower). Keep in mind that the company has met or exceeded all targets thus far and that its growth will be internally funded from existing cash and cash flow, and not debt. Also, Karora has huge exploration potential.
    • High case: Gold prices could be much higher in an inflationary scenario. Fair value could easily be $21 per share, 500% above today’s $3.50.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Tidewater, Inc. (TDW)


October 17, 2021

Our investment in Tidewater, Inc. (TDW) has been one of our best ideas thus far.

I first wrote up the idea of TDW in May 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/tidewater-tdw/

At the time, the stock at $5.12 a share was extremely cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 3.85
    • P/E = 2.95
    • P/B = 0.21
    • P/CF = 2.06
    • P/S = 0.43

Since then, TDW stock is up to $12.49.

How much is TDW worth today?

On a normalized basis: revenue is approximately $600 million; cash flow is $300 million; EBITDA is $260 million; earnings are $120 million. (The market cap is $531.1 million. Enterprise value (EV) is $555.9 million.) NAV per share is about $40.

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.14
    • P/E = 4.43
    • P/B = 0.31
    • P/CF = 1.77
    • P/S = 0.89
  • (I used P/NAV instead of P/B because P/NAV is more accurate.) TDW is still very cheap assuming that the industry experiences some normalization–i.e., reversion to the mean.

The oil price (WTI) is $82.17. If oil prices stay around this level, Tidewater will achieve normalized revenues and earnings. But the oil price could move quite a bit higher, in which case Tidewater could approach peak earnings within a couple of years.

For an interesting take on how tight oil supplies are currently, check out this piece by Josh Young of Bison Interests, “OPEC+ Spare Capacity is Insufficient Amid Global Energy Crisis.” Link: https://bisoninterests.com/content/f/opec-spare-capacity-is-insufficient-amid-global-energy-crisis

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: The current book value per share is $18.51. TDW could be worth 50% of book value. That’s $9.25, which is 25% lower than today’s $12.49.
    • Mid case: TDW is probably worth the current NAV of $40 per share. That is 220% higher than today’s $12.49.
    • High case: TDW could be worth 150% of the current NAV ($40 per share). That is $60 per share, which is 380% higher than today’s $12.49. (NAV itself could be revised upward significantly in a recovery scenario.)

The Piotroski F_Score is 4, which is not very good. But this is a cyclical company whose trailing revenues, cash flows, and earnings are far below normal. As the industry recovers, TDW’s F_Score will also recover.

Insider ownership is 2.6%, which is low. But that’s still about $14 million. So insiders have an incentive to maximize the value of the company over time.

Note: Robert Robotti, through his investment management firm, owns a stake in TDW. Robotti has a long history of successfully investing in energy companies. Also, Robotti is on the board of directors of Tidewater.

Debt is low. Net debt is zero. TL/TA is 33%. This is excellent. One of Tidewater’s advantages is that it has much lower debt than most if its competitors.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: Global Ship Lease (GSL)


October 10, 2021

Our investment in Global Ship Lease (GSL) has been one of our best ideas thus far.

Shipping is a terrible business. It is asset-intensive, with low returns on capital. There are short-lived booms and sustained busts. Also, the booms are impossible to predict with any precision. However, if you can be roughly right about when the next boom will start, you can do well investing in shipping.

I first wrote up the idea of GSL in June 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/global-ship-lease-gsl/

At the time, the stock at $4.62 a share was extremely cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 5.28
    • P/E = 1.93
    • P/B = 0.20
    • P/CF = 0.81
    • P/S = 0.29

These figures made Global Ship Lease one of the top ten cheapest companies out of over two thousand that we ranked.

We bought GSL stock in June 2020 at $4.57. Today the stock is at $21.48. The position is up 370% so far, which makes it our best-performing idea.

But there still appears to be substantial upside for GSL.

Shipping rates now are at record highs. They could stay this way for 6 to 12 months and maybe longer. That’s because demand is strong, while supply is quite constrained.

Demand

Demand is strong and likely to remain strong because global GDP is strong.

Moreover, 70% of global containerized trade volume is in non-mainline routes–and these routes are growing faster than mainline routes. As well, these routes are served by mid-sized and smaller containerships. This is where GSL focuses.

Supply

The supply of container ships is constrained. There are not many new ships coming into the market in the next couple of years. It takes two to three years for shipyards to make a new ship, and there are only 120 shipyards (compared to 300 in 2008).

Furthermore, the supply of mid-sized and smaller containerships is even more constrained that the supply of larger ships. There are very few orders of mid-sized and smaller containerships coming into the market in the next couple of years.

What is the intrinsic value of GSL today?

EBITDA based on 10-year average rates is about $350 million. Normalized net income is ~$150 million. Normalized cash flow is ~$160 million. Based on normalized figures:

    • EV/EBITDA = 4.23
    • P/E = 5.33
    • P/B = 0.46
    • P/CF = 5.00
    • P/S = 1.33

NOTE: I use P/NAV instead of P/B. A conservative estimate of NAV is approximately $47 per share. A more realistic estimate of NAV is around $62 per share. See this analysis by J. Mintzmyer on Seeking Alpha: https://tinyurl.com/39jx5fey

George Youroukos, Executive Chairman of the Board, recently acquired approximately $10 million of GSL’s stock. Youroukos clearly believes GSL’s stock is cheap. This brings Youroukos’ total position to 6.4% of GSL’s outstanding shares, worth over $50 million.

Here is GSL’s Q2 2021 earnings presentation: https://www.globalshiplease.com/static-files/a226750c-bb27-45e2-8017-a0183e07ad26

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: Global Ship Lease may be worth 50% of NAV. (A conservative estimate of NAV is about $47 per share.) That works out to $23.50 a share, which is over 9% higher than today’s $21.48.
    • Mid case: Global Ship Lease is likely worth at least NAV of $47 per share. That’s about 120% higher than today’s $21.48.
    • High case: NAV may be closer to $62, which is over 180% higher than today’s $21.48.

So far in 2021, GSL has increased its fleet by 53%. It paid prices in the range of 3.6 to 4.0 times EBITDA. These deals are immediately accretive because most of then already have charters attached. GSL will have most of its fleet contracted by the end of the year.

The Piotroski F_Score for Global Ship Lease is 6, which is OK.

Bottom Line

GSL is one of our best-performing stocks, up over 370% since we bought it in June of 2020. The Boole Microcap Fund continues to hold most of the position because GSL is still undervalued compared to NAV. If GSL hits NAV of $47, it will be up over 925% since we bought it. That said, NAV may be closer to $62, which is over 1,255% higher than where we bought it.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

CASE STUDY: TravelCenters of America (TA)


October 3, 2021

Our investment in TravelCenters of America (TA) has been one of our best ideas thus far.

I first wrote up the idea of TA in May 2020 here: https://boolefund.com/travelcenters-america-ta/

At the time, the stock at $9.29 a share was extremely cheap based on our five measures of cheapness:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.55
    • P/E = 2.90
    • P/B = 0.14
    • P/CF = 1.40
    • P/S = 0.01

These figures made TravelCenters of America one of the top ten cheapest companies out of over two thousand that we ranked.

However, just because a stock is quantitatively cheap does not mean that it’s a good investment. In fact, before launching the Boole Microcap Fund on 6/9/20, I had bought TA at quantitatively cheap prices. But the company was being chronically mismanaged and so the stock was deservedly cheap. I ended up selling at a loss. But this experience is what prepared me to buy TA for the Boole Microcap Fund.

Studies have shown that if you systematically buy quantitatively cheap stocks, then your portfolio will beat the market over time. This is called deep value investing, which is what the Boole Microcap Fund does. See this classic paper: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/contrarianinvestment.pdf

However, if you’re doing deep value investing, roughly 57% of your quantitatively cheap stocks will underperform the market. It’s only because the other 43% increase a great deal that the overall deep value portfolio beats the market over time.

But there are ways to decrease the number of cheap but underperforming stocks in your deep value portfolio. This will boost your long-term performance.

One example is the Piotroski F_Score, which the Boole Microcap Fund uses. A high F_Score indicates improving fundamentals. See: https://boolefund.com/piotroski-f-score/

Another thing that can greatly improve your odds is if new management with a track record of success is brought in to turn around an underperforming company. This is what happened with TravelCenters of America.

Turnaround specialist Jon Pertchik was named CEO of TravelCenters of America in December 2019. Pertchik has a track record of significantly improving the performance of underperforming companies.

With Pertchik in charge, it now seemed probable that TravelCenters of America would be worth at least book value of $66.54 per share, which was 615% higher than its May 2020 price of $9.29.

Furthermore, the company could be worth close to $100 a share if Pertchik’s turnaround efforts exceeded expectations.

We bought TA stock in July 2020 at $13.04. Today the stock is at $53.14. The position is up over 300% so far. We sold some along the way, but have kept most of it because Jon Pertchik has set very aggressive goals and is meeting or exceeding those goals.

Normalized EBTIDA is approximately $300 million (trailing EBITDA is $190 million). Normalized earnings are about $200 million. Normalized cash flow is close to $300 million. The current market cap is $657 million while current enterprise value (EV) is $599 million. That means that:

    • EV/EBITDA = 2.0
    • P/E = 3.29
    • P/B = 1.17
    • P/CF = 0.29
    • P/S = 0.14
  • TA stock is still cheap.

But how cheap is it? What is TA’s intrinsic value?

Intrinsic value scenarios:

    • Low case: The current book value per share is $45.63. That is about 14% lower than today’s $53.14.
    • Mid case: Normalized EBITDA is about $300 million. A conservative EV/EBITDA is 5.0. That puts EV (enterprise value) at $1,500 million. The market cap would be $1,558 million, which works out to $106.86 per share. That’s over 100% higher than today’s $53.14.
    • High case: Normalized EBITDA could reach $350 million. At an EV/EBITDA of 6.0, the EV would be $2,100 million. The market cap would be $2,158 million, which works out to $148.01 per share. That’s over 175% higher than today’s $53.14.

Insider ownership is 15%, which is pretty good.

The Piotroski F_Score is 5, which is mediocre. But the company is improving fast and is investing heavily to create the best customer experience.

 

BOTTOM LINE

Since the Boole Microcap Fund bought TA stock at $13.04, the stock is up over 300%.

Today, thanks to the great performance of the new CEO Jon Pertchik and everyone at TA, the stock still appears cheap. $106.86 a share is 100% higher than today’s $53.14.

Also, $106.86 is about 720% higher than $13.04.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.

Tips from a Legendary Growth Investor


September 26, 2021

Philip A. Fisher is a legendary growth investor. He is the author of Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (Wiley, 1996; originally published by Harper & Brothers, 1958). Growth only creates value when the return on invested capital (ROIC) is higher than the cost of capital. Fisher focuses on value-creating growth.

Warren Buffett – partly through the influences of both Charlie Munger and Phil Fisher – went from buying statistically cheap stocks to buying stocks where the business could maintain a high ROIC for many years. Buffett also learned from Fisher the value of scuttlebutt research – interviewing competitors, suppliers, customers, industry experts, and others who might have special insight into the company or industry. Finally, Buffett learned from Fisher that you should concentrate the investment portfolio on your best ideas. Buffett once remarked:

I’m 15% Fisher and 85% Benjamin Graham.

Typically, Buffett only buys a stock (or an entire company) when he feels certain about the future earnings. This means the business in question must have a sustainable competitive advantage in order to keep theROIC above the cost of capital. Buffett then looks at the current price and determines if it’s at a discount relative to future earnings power. Because Buffett is still trying to buy at a discount to intrinsic value (in terms of future earnings power), he’s 85% Graham.

  • That’s not to say Buffett does a precise calculation. Only that there must be an obvious discount present. At the 1996 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Munger said: “Warren talks about these discounted cash flows… I’ve never seen him do one.” Buffett replied: “That’s true. If [the value of the company] doesn’t just scream at you, it’s too close.” (Janet Lowe, page 145, Warren Buffett Speaks (Wiley, 2007))

Phil Fisher doesn’t think about buying at a discount to future earnings power. He just knows that if a company can maintain a relatively high ROIC for many years into the future, then all else equal, earnings will march higher over the years and the stock will follow. So Fisher simply looks for these rare companies that can maintain a high ROIC many years into the future. Fisher doesn’t try to calculate whether the current price is at a discount to some specific level of future earnings.

 

THE FIFTEEN POINTS

Fisher highlights fifteen points that an investor should investigate in order to determine if a prospective investment is worthwhile. A worthwhile investment can, over a few years, increase several hundred percent, or it can increase proportionately more over a longer period of time.

Point 1. Does the company have products or services with sufficient market potential to make possible a sizable increase in sales for at least several years?

Fisher writes that sales growth is often uneven on an annual basis. So the important question is whether the company can grow over several years. Ideally, a company should be able to grow for decades. This generally only happens when management is highly capable.

Point 2. Does the management have a determination to continue to develop products or processes that will still further increase total sales potentials when the growth potentials of currently attractive product lines have largely been exploited?

To grow beyond the next few years, ongoing scientific research and development engineering are required. Usually such research is most effective when it is clearly related to new products bearing some similarity to existing products. The main point is that management has to be farsighted enough to develop new products that, if successful, will produce growth many years from today.

Point 3. How effective are the company’s research and development efforts in relation to its size?

Some well-run companies get twice (or more) the ultimate gains for each research dollar than other companies. A good company has technically skilled engineers and scientists, but also leaders who can coordinate the research efforts of people with diverse backgrounds.

Moreover, company leaders have to integrate research, production, and sales. Otherwise, costs may not be minimized or products may not sell as well as they could. Non-optimal products are usually vulnerable to more efficient competition.

Point 4. Does the company have an above-average sales organization?

Fisher writes:

It is the making of a sale that is the most basic single activity of any business. Without sales, survival is impossible. It is the making of repeat sales to satisfied customers that is the first benchmark of success. Yet, strange as it seems, the relative efficiency of a company’s sales, advertising, and distributive organizations receives far less attention from most investors, even the careful ones, than do production, research, finance, or other major subdivisions of corporate activity. (page 31)

In some successful companies, a large chunk of a salesperson’s time – often over the course of many years – is devoted to training.

Point 5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?

Marginal companies typically increase their earnings more during good periods, but they also experience more rapid declines during bad periods. The best long-term investments usually have the best profit margins and the best ROICin the industry. Marginal companies are very rarely good long-term investments.

Point 6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?

Fisher observes:

Some companies achieve great success by maintaining capital-improvement or product-engineering departments. The sole function of such departments is to design new equipment that will reduce costs and thus offset or partially offset the rising trend of wages. Many companies are constantly reviewing procedures and methods to see where economies can be brought about. (page 37)

Point 7. Does the company have outstanding labor and personnel relations?

A company that has above-average profits and that pays above-average wages is likely to have good labor relations. Furthermore, management should treat employees well in other ways. Ideally, employees will feel that they are a crucial part of the business mission.

Point 8. Does the company have outstanding executive relations?

Executives should feel that promotions are based solely on merit. Some degree of friction is natural, but such friction should be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that executives work together.

Point 9. Does the company have depth to its management?

Fisher explains:

…companies worthy of investment interest are those that will continue to grow. Sooner or later a company will reach a size where it just will not be able to take advantage of further opportunities unless it starts developing some executive talent in some depth. (page 41)

Fisher also points out that executives must be given real authority in order forthem to develop. As well, top executives should be open to suggestions from developing executives.

Point 10. How good are the company’s cost analysis and accounting controls?

No company is going to continue to have outstanding success for a long period of time if it cannot break down its over-all costs with sufficient accuracy and detail to show the cost of each small step in its operation. Only in this way will a management know what most needs its attention. Only in this way can management judge whether it is properly solving each problem that does need its attention. (page 42)

Point 11. Are there other aspects of the business, somewhat peculiar to the industry involved, which will give the investor important clues as to how outstanding the company may be in relation to its competition?

Typically it is leadership in engineering or in business processes – rather in than patents – that allows a company to maintain its competitive position.

Point 12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?

One company will constantly make the sharpest possible deals with suppliers. Another will at times pay above contract price to a vendor who has had unexpected expense in making delivery, because it wants to be sure of having a dependable source of needed raw materials or high quality components available when the market has turned and supplies may be desperately needed. The difference in treatment of customers is equally noticeable. The company that will go to special trouble and expense to take care of the needs of a regular customer caught in an unexpected jam may show lower profits on the particular transaction, but far greater profits over the years. (page 46)

Point 13. In the foreseeable future will the growth of the company require sufficient equity financing so that the larger number of shares then outstanding will largely cancel the existing stockholders’ benefit from this anticipated growth?

If the company is well-run and profitable, then a reasonable amount of equity financing need not deter you as an investor. A stock offering creates cash for the company. If the ROIC on this cash is high enough, and the price at which the stock offering is made is not too low, then future earnings per share will not suffer.

Point 14. Does the management talk freely to investors about its affairs when things are going well but ‘clam up’ when troubles and disappointments occur?

Even the best-run companies will encounter unexpected difficulties at times. Also, companies that will grow their earnings far into the future will constantly be pursuing technical research projects, some of which won’t work:

By the law of averages, some of these are bound to be costly failures. Others will have unexpected delays and heartbreaking expenses during the early period of plant shake-down. For months on end, such extra and unbudgeted costs will spoil the most carefully laid profit forecasts for the business as a whole. Such disappointments are an inevitable part of even the most successful business. If met forthrightly and with good judgment, they are merely one of the costs of eventual success. They are frequently a sign of strength rather than weakness in a company. (page 48)

It’s crucial when failures or setbacks do occur that management is candidin reporting the bad news.

Point 15. Does the company have a management of unquestionable integrity?

There are countless ways management could enrich itself at the expense of shareholders. This includes issuing stock options far beyond what is reasonable and fair.

Managers with high integrity always keep the interests of outside shareholders ahead of their own interests. Good managers tend to produce positive surprises, while bad managers tend to produce negative surprises. Over a long period of time, it’s simply not worth investing when you can’t trust management.

 

WHAT TO BUY

Fisher argues that a superbly managed growth company will generally see its stock increase hundreds of percent each decade. By contrast, a stock that is merely statistically undervalued by 50 percent will generally only double.

You should invest part of your portfolio in larger, more conservative growth companies, and the rest in smaller growth companies. How much to invest in each category depends on your circumstances and temperament. If you can leave the investment alone for a long time and you don’t mind shorter term volatility, then it makes sense to invest more in smaller growth companies.

 

WHEN TO BUY

Fisher writes that forecasting business trends is not far enough along to be dependable for investing purposes. This is still true. I wrote last week about why you shouldn’t try market timing: https://boolefund.com/shouldnt-try-market-timing/

Yet, says Fisher, often when a new full-scale plant is about to begin production, there will be a buying opportunity. First, it takes many weeks at least to get the plant running. And if it’s a revolutionary process, it can take far longer than even the most pessimistic engineer estimates.

Even after the new plant is operating, generally there are difficulties and unexpected expenses. Often word spreads that the new plant is in trouble, which causes some investors to sell the stock. A few months later, the company might report a drop in net income due to the unexpected expenses. Fisher:

Word passes all through the financial community that the management has blundered.

At this point the stock might well prove a sensational buy. Once the extra sales effort has produced enough volume to make the first production scale plant pay, normal sales effort is frequently enough to continue the upward movement of the sales curve for many years. Since the same techniques are used, the placing in operation of a second, third, fourth, and fifth plant can nearly always be done without the delays and special expenses that occurred during the prolonged shake-down period of the first plant. By the time plant Number Five is running at capacity, the company has grown so big and prosperous that the whole cycle can be repeated on another brand new product without the same drain on earnings percentage-wise or the same downward effect on the price of the company’s shares. The investor has acquired at the right time an investment which can grow for him for many years. (page 65)

Fisher reiterates that it’s possible to learn how an individual company will perform. But it’s not possible to forecast the stock market with any useful degree of consistency. There are too many variables, including the business cycle, interest rates, government policy, and technological innovation.

 

WHEN TO SELL

For an investor, mistakes are inevitable. Generally speaking, a careful investor may be right as much as 70% of the time. But that means being wrong 30% of the time. The important thing is to learn to identify mistakes as quickly as possible. This is not easy, as Fisher explains:

…there is a complicating factor that makes the handling of investment mistakes more difficult. This is the ego in each of us. None of us likes to admit to himself that he has been wrong. If we have made a mistake in buying a stock but can sell the stock at a small profit, we have somehow lost any sense of having been foolish. On the other hand, if we sell at a small loss we are quite unhappy about the whole matter. This reaction, while completely natural and normal, is probably one of the most dangerous in which we can indulge ourselves in the entire investment process. More money has probably been lost by investors holding a stock they really did not want until they could ‘at least come out even’ than from any other single reason. If to these actual losses are added the profits that might have been made through the proper reinvestment of these funds if such reinvestment had been made when the mistake was first realized, the cost of self-indulgence becomes truly tremendous.

Furthermore this dislike of taking a loss, even a small loss, is just as illogical as it is natural. If the real object of common stock investment is the making of a gain of a great many hundreds of per cent over a period of years, the difference between, say, a 20 per cent loss or a 5 per cent profit becomes a comparatively insignificant matter…

While losses should never cause strong self-disgust or emotional upset, neither should they be passed over lightly. They should always be reviewed with care so that a lesson is learned from each of them. If the particular elements which caused a misjudgment on a common stock purchase are thoroughly understood, it is unlikely that another poor purchase will be made through misjudging the same investment factors. (page 78)

The second reason for selling is if the company no longer qualifies with respect to the fifteen points. Usually this is either because there has been a deterioration of management or because the company no longer has the same growth prospects.

Deterioration of management, writes Fisher, is sometimes due to complacency, but it usually is because new top executives are not as good as their predecessors.

A third reason for selling is that a much better investment opportunity has been found. Attractive investments are extremely hard to find, observes Fisher. When you do find one, it’s often worth switching (including paying capital gains taxes) if the new opportunity appears to have much more upside than some current investment.

Once you have found a good company, you should rarely sell. Even if you knew a bear market was about to occur – which can very rarely, if ever, be known – if your stock will probably reach a new high in the next bull market, then trying to sell and then re-buy is risky and time-consuming.

You can’t know how far a specific stock will decline – if at all – and thus you won’t know when to buy the stock back. Also, the stock may not necessarily decline at the same rate, or even at the same time, as the general market. In other words, if your stock is likely to increase at least 400% eventually, say from a price of $20 a share to $100+ a share, then it’s risky and time-consuming to try to sell at $20 and buy it back at $16 or $12. Many investors who try to do this end up not buying the stock back below where they sold it. Fisher sums it up:

That which really matters is not to disturb a position that is going to be worth a great deal more later. (page 83)

This is even more true when you factor in capital gains taxes.

Some argue that if a stock has increased a great deal, you should sell it. This makes no sense, says Fisher. If the stock is a long-term winner of the sort you’re looking for, then by definition it’s going to increase significantlyand frequently be hitting new all-time highs. Fisher concludes:

If the job has been correctly done when a common stock is purchased, the time to sell it is–almost never. (page 85)

 

THE HULLABALOO ABOUT DIVIDENDS

If you’ve found an excellently managed growth company – a company that can maintain a relatively high ROIC, including on reinvested earnings – then you should prefer low dividends or no dividends.Fisher:

Actually dividend considerations should be given the least, not the most, weight by those desiring to select outstanding stocks. Perhaps the most peculiar aspect of this much-discussed subject of dividends is that those giving them the least consideration usually end up getting the best dividend return. Worthy of repetition here is that over a span of five to ten years, the best dividend results will come not from the high-yield stocks but from those with the relatively low yield. So profitable are the results of the ventures opened up by exceptional managements that while they still continue the policy of paying out a low proportion of current earnings, the actual number of dollars paid out progressively exceed what could have been obtained from high-yield shares. Why shouldn’t this natural and logical trend continue in the future? (pages 94-95)

At the extreme, for an outstanding company that will grow for decades, it may be best if the company paid no dividends at all. If you bought Berkshire Hathaway at the beginning of 1965 and held it through the end of 2015, you would have gotten 20.8% annual returns versus 9.7% for the S&P 500 (including dividends). Your cumulative return for holding Berkshire stock would come to 1,598,284% versus 11,335% for the S&P 500 (including dividends). Berkshire has never paid a dividend because Buffett and Munger have always been able to find better uses for the cash over the years.

 

FIVE DON’TS FOR INVESTORS

Don’t buy into promotional companies.

All too often, young promotional companies are dominated by one or two individuals who have great talent for certain phases of business procedure but are lacking in other equally essential talents. They may be superb salesmen but lack other types of business ability. More often they are inventors or production men, totally unaware that even the best products need skillful marketing as well as manufacture. The investor is seldom in a position to convince such individuals of the skills missing in themselves or their young organizations. Usually he is even less in a position to point out to such individuals where such talents may be found. (page 97)

Don’t ignore a good stock just because it is traded ‘over the counter.’

The key point here is just to be sure you are investing in the right company.

Don’t buy a stock just because you like the ‘tone’ of its annual report.

Often annual reports are either overly optimistic or they fail to disclose material information needed by the investor. Very often you need to look beyond the annual report in order to find all important information.

Don’t assume that the high price at which a stock may be selling in relation to earnings is necessarily an indication that further growth in those earnings has largely been already discounted in the price.

If a company can grow profitably in the future like it has in the past, then even with a high P/E, the stock may still be a good buy. Fisher:

This is why some of the stocks that at first glance appear highest priced may, upon analysis, be the biggest bargains. (page 105)

Don’t quibble over eighths and quarters.

If you’ve found a well-managed growth company whose stock is likely to increase at least several hundreds of percent in the future, then obviously it would be a big mistake to miss it just because the price is slightly higher than what you want.

 

FIVE MORE DON’TS FOR INVESTORS

Don’t overstress diversification.

Investors have been so oversold on diversification that fear of having too many eggs in one basket has caused them to put far too little into companies they thoroughly know and far too much in others about which they know nothing at all. It never seems to occur to them… that buying a company without having sufficient knowledge of it may be even more dangerous than having inadequate diversification. (pages 108-109)

When Buffett was managing the Buffett Partnerships (1957 to 1970), in the mid 1960’s he put 40% of the portfolio in American Express when the stock fell due to the salad oil scandal. Buffett and Munger have always believed in concentrating on their best ideas. Buffett:

We believe that a policy of portfolio concentration may well decrease risk if it raises, as it should, both the intensity with which an investor thinks about a business and the comfort-level he must feel with its economic characteristics before buying into it.

Buffett again in a 1998 lecture at the University of Florida:

If you can identify six wonderful businesses, that is all the diversification you need. And you will make a lot of money. And I can guarantee that going into the seventh one instead of putting more money into your first one is [going to] be a terrible mistake. Very few people have gotten rich on their seventh best idea. So I would say for anyone working with normal capital who really knows the businesses they have gone into, six is plenty, and I [would] probably have half of [it in] what I like best.

Link: http://intelligentinvestorclub.com/downloads/Warren-Buffett-Florida-Speech.pdf

Fisher summarizes:

In the field of common stocks, a little bit of a great many can never be more than a poor substitute for a few of the outstanding. (page 118)

Don’t be afraid of buying on a war scare.

Fisher explains:

Through the entire twentieth century, with a single exception, every time major war has broken out anywhere in the world or whenever American forces have become involved in any fighting whatever, the American stock market has always plunged sharply downward. This one exception was the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. At that time, after an abortive rally on thoughts of fat war contracts to a neutral nation, the market soon was following the typical downward course, a course which some months later resembled panic as news of German victories began piling up. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of all actual fighting – regardless of whether it was World War I, World War II, or Korea – most stocks were selling at levels vastly higher than prevailed before there was any thought of war at all. (page 118)

Whether stocks end up higher due to inflationary government policies, or whether stocks actually are worth more, depends on circumstances, writes Fisher. Yet either way, buying stocks after the initial war scare has been the right move.

Don’t forget your Gilbert and Sullivan.

Some investors look at the highest and lowest price at which a stock has traded in each of the past five years. This is illogical and dangerous, writes Fisher, because what really matters is how the company – and stock – will perform for many years into the future. A good growth stock will increase at least several hundred percent from its current price as a result of the company’s future economic performance. Past stock prices are largely irrelevant.

Don’t fail to consider time as well as price in buying a true growth stock.

Occasionally if you’ve followed a company for some time, you may notice that certain ventures have consistently been followed by stock price increases. Although it won’t always work, you could use this information as a guide to when to buy the stock.

Don’t follow the crowd.

Psychology can cause a stock to be priced almost anywhere in the short term, as the value investor Howard Marks has noted. Fisher:

These great shifts in the way the financial community appraises the same set of facts at different times are by no means confined to stocks as a whole. Particular industries and individual companies within those industries constantly change in financial favor, due as often to altered ways of looking at the same facts as to actual background occurrences themselves. (page 131)

 

HOW TOGO ABOUT FINDING A GROWTH STOCK

It’s difficult to find good investment ideas. In your search, you may accidentally exclude a few of the best ideas, while spending a great deal of time on many stocks that won’t turn out to be good ideas.

Note: Fisher is talking about growth stocks. If you’re a value investor, then a quantitative investment strategy can work well over time.

One way to find good investment ideas is to see what top investors are doing.

Fisher offers some details about how he approaches potential investment ideas. In the first stage, he does not seek to talk with anyone in management. He does not go over old annual reports. Fisher:

I will, however, glance over the balance sheet to determine the general nature of the capitalization and financial position. If there is an SEC prospectus I will read with care those parts covering breakdown of total sales by product lines, competition, degree of officer or other major ownership of common stock (this can also usually be obtained from the proxy statement) and all earning statement figures throwing light on depreciation (and depletion, if any), profit margins, extent of research activity, and abnormal or non-recurring costs in prior years’ operations.

Now I am ready really to go to work. I will use the ‘scuttlebutt’ method I have already described just as much as I possibly can… I will try to see (or reach by telephone) every key customer, supplier, competitor, ex-employee, or scientist in a related field that I know or whom I can approach through mutual friends. However, suppose I still do not know enough people or do not have a friend of a friend who knows enough of the people who can supply me with the required background? What do I do then?

Frankly, if I am not even close to getting much of the information I need, I will give up the investigation and go on to something else. To make big money on investments it is unnecessary to get some answer to every investment that might be considered. What is necessary is to get the right answer a large proportion of the very small number of times actual purchases are made. For this reason, if way too little background is forthcoming and the prospects for a great deal more is bleak, I believe the intelligent thing to do is to put the matter aside and go on to something else. (pages 140-141)

If you’ve finished ‘scuttlebutt’ research with regard to the fifteen points, then the next step is to approach management. Only ‘scuttlebutt’ can give you enough knowledge to approach management with intelligent questions.

Fisher writes that he may find one worthwhile stock out of every 250 stocks he considers as possibilities. He finds one good stock out of every 50 he looks at in some detail. And Fisher invests about one time of out every 2 or 2.5 company visits. By the time Fisher visits a company, he has already uncovered via ‘scuttlebutt’ nearly all the important information. If Fisher can confirm his investment thesis when he meets with management, as well as ease some of his concerns, then he is ready to make the investment.

 

TEMPERAMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN IQ

Fisher concludes Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by noting the importance of temperament:

One of the ablest investment men I have ever known told me many years ago that in the stock market a good nervous system is even more important than a good head. (page 148)

Or as Buffett put it:

Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with the 130 IQ… Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing.

 

BOOLE MICROCAP FUND

An equal weighted group of micro caps generally far outperforms an equal weighted (or cap-weighted) group of larger stocks over time. See the historical chart here: https://boolefund.com/best-performers-microcap-stocks/

This outperformance increases significantly by focusing on cheap micro caps. Performance can be further boosted by isolating cheap microcap companies that show improving fundamentals. We rank microcap stocks based on these and similar criteria.

There are roughly 10-20 positions in the portfolio. The size of each position is determined by its rank. Typically the largest position is 15-20% (at cost), while the average position is 8-10% (at cost). Positions are held for 3 to 5 years unless a stock approachesintrinsic value sooner or an error has been discovered.

The mission of the Boole Fund is to outperform the S&P 500 Index by at least 5% per year (net of fees) over 5-year periods. We also aim to outpace the Russell Microcap Index by at least 2% per year (net). The Boole Fund has low fees.

 

If you are interested in finding out more, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

My e-mail: jb@boolefund.com

 

 

 

Disclosures: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This material is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Boole Capital, LLC.