Sunday, February 10, 2008

Bruce Sheppard: When the going gets tough...

If my readers haven't already read Bruce Sheppard's Stirring the Pot Blog his latest post is right on the money, so I have added to my blog below. It is essential reading and you need a gander at it before you invest in the sharemarket, or any business for that matter.

The focus by an investor on the quality of management, before anything else, is one of the main criteria for picking a good company to invest in.

If you have good management , it will follow that the business that they management will probably be a good investment.

It is at these times of market stress and economic downturns that good management can get through the tough times.


Bruce Sheppard in Stirring the Pot | 4:03 pm 8 February 2008

When investing in a share you are investing in a business. A business is an opportunity run by management with your capital.

But how do you judge the quality of management? It is easy to judge the numbers but hard to judge the resilience, integrity and determination of people, particularly if you never eye ball them.

You have one opportunity a year to do this and it is the annual general meeting. Once the prepared speeches are done, the response of management to shareholder questioning gives a wonderful opportunity for insight into these people who have the responsibility for the prudent and rewarding use of your capital.

Over the next 18 months, shareholders are likely to see reversals in profit performance and it may even flow though into reduced dividends. Mr Market, as imperfect as ever, is anticipating this and as a result share prices have fallen.

But the real entertainment, and the chance for insight, will come as our managers seek to explain the situation to shareholders.

The explanations will fall into these broad categories:

1. “The profit is down, and we know the mistakes we made. We have changed the way we do things to evolve our practices to adjust to the changed environment.”

2. Some will go a step further and analyse the mistake for the benefit of shareholders and will also advise the lessons learned.

3. A few, but not many, might actually admit that conditions are difficult but may still report improved earnings. Of this group, some might admit that it was luck more than good management. Others might share a little of the decisions they made to make their own luck, of course taking care not to give away operational secrets.

4. Some will seek to blame others for the earnings reversal. “It is all the fault of the economy and in due course earnings will improve.”

Those that adopt the fourth approach are useless tossers who should not be left in charge of running a bath. Their management style is reactive, they take what is given to them and if you are lucky make the best of it. They don’t try to alter their environment and or even anticipate it.

Businesses run by such people will never perform long term without luck, and luck favours those who make it. Hopefully the board will recognise this and move the management team on, replacing it with a more dynamic approach. But generally boards recruit people that are similar in temperament to them so don’t hold your breath waiting for the board to react.

Generally “blame others” management only gets moved on when the business is at or near the precipice. Such managers should not be provided by shareholders with the custody of the wealth of others, so sell. A difficult business with an inspirational manger will outperform a business with favourable economics and a tosser running it.

Those that prosper in recession, and are self aware enough to admit when it is luck, give shareholders the confidence to know that they will in future make their own luck. These are safe guys to back.

Those that are honest enough to admit their mistakes and tell you what they have learned are okay too. They are learning, and honest. Honesty is a really good start. If, however, as the years unfold they descend into a pattern of making new and distressing mistakes each year, they are honest fools and should also be avoided.

So in picking a recession proof investment, look for simple businesses run by honest, hard working people who over time will make their own luck and beat the market.

We have 160 listed companies, and not many fall into this category. And in reality you won’t know which do unless you analysis the history, review critically the prospects and understand the underlying strength of management. Sounds like a lot of work. Well it is to a point. But if you keep your focus and apply the work to five or 10 good businesses, and don’t waste your time on trying to adopt portfolio theory with hundreds of separate investments, it is not too hard, and what’s more it is fun.

In the words of Warren Buffett: “Modern finance theory teaches students to do average” with my addendum “less costs.” Just as you don’t want your mangers to do average, why would you aspire to it?


Related Share Investor reading

The Intelligent Investor: Book review

Mr Market gets his groove on
Business Gobbledygook puts up barriers
Business Mis-Management


C Share Investor & Stuff.co.nz 20o8

Telecom New Zealand facing a watershed period

Chart for Telecom Corporation of New Zeal (TEL.NZ)

Long term, the future of Telecom maybe uncertain but the share price has been
on a downwards trend for some time. The slight upticks in share price and reasonable
volumes make this share one for short term traders.



Long suffering shareholders of Telecom New Zealand [TEL.NZ] for a reversal of fortune for the company may have a long wait on their hands.

Friday's announcement that 2nd quarter profit was down 33% sent the share price down NZ 15c in trading, to close at $3.95 and also sent commentators into a flap about the future of the company.

Profit would have been higher if not for the sale of the lucrative Yellow Pages unit towards the end of 2007, and the continued poor showing of their Australian arm, with a drag on earnings in that competitive market.

I have been down on Telecom for many years for many different reasons and it is easy to knock one of the countries largest companies, if only for its extremely poor customer service, something it shares with the likes of alot of monopolies/duopoly's, like Vodafone NZ and the majority of the countries banks.

Telecom's problems though are multiple, deep set and are entrenched in company culture. From the top management, right down to the help desk in the Philippines or whatever the latest third world country has been used to cut costs.


http://www.in-site.co.nz/cancersociety/links/objects/TelecomLogocolour.jpg
Telecom must refocus their efforts on their
customers and spending more to update aging
technology to have good long-term prospects.


CEO Dr Paul Reynolds, said there had not been enough focus on customers.

"Telecom had made decisions about leadership, structure and focus that would help secure future momentum, based on a focus on customers".

This has been said before, Reynolds has been at the helm for 6 months but there is not yet evidence that the above has been acted upon.

Management, especially middle to lower supervisory level, still have an attitude that Telecom is a virtual monopoly, you know it, they know it and you can go elsewhere if you are looking to get decent customer service.

One specific which I encountered the other week, piling on illegal service charges(they call it a "convenience charge") for customers who pay by credit card and advising customers it is the credit card company charging it is certainly not a new and innovative way to win friends and influence customers. In a positive way anyway.

Other providers are taking customers off them though, as technology has allowed and Government imposed regulation bites, with the forced split of the group into 3 parts at the end of March.

The continuation of the "monopoly attitude" in the face of increasing competition is Telecom's biggest challenge. In the past that was great for shareholders and bad for customers, increasingly things have become bad for both parties.

The past has been filled with exceptional dividends paid out to shareholders, that was good for the first 8 or nine years, as costs were cut, from its initial inception as a government department, overloaded with excess staff, but as the last of the fat was trimmed from the company in the early 2000s the need for reinvestment of profits became even more apparent than it was years before.

Telecom's investment in their infrastructure is at least 10 years behind some of the international telcos. A plethora of 19 century copper wire is Telecom's answer to the road that 21st century technology and content must travel on and that road long ago gridlocked, to a point where we now have internet speeds at the lowest end of the world scale for a very high cost.

Like allot of investors in the stockmarket, management at Telecom have been shortsighted in their business outlook.

Short term profits have been at the expense of the long term future of the company and billions of dollars must now be invested to turn that shortsightedness around.

Hard decisions have to be made and the company now finds itself in a bit of a watershed period.

It must focus on their customers first and provide them with the best in service and the "new" technology that must come with that service and eradicate the culture that seems to still have them in a battle with those that wish to do business with them.

There must be no shades of gray towards a new long term thinking Telecom, the change must be bold, brash and black and white. Reynolds words "...based on a focus on customers..." must be the core principle on which the company is based and it must be more than words, those words must be acted upon at every opportunity.

If they bite the bullet and do those things, the short term will clearly be difficult but longer term things will get better.

If management decide that the status quo is the way to go or fail to drive a new focused Telecom hard enough, then the long-term future for Telecom New Zealand looks bleak at best.


Telecom NZ @ Share Investor

Telecom Share Price Limbos but has it jumped the Shark?
Telecom NZ: Saint Gattung gets her Ya Ya's out
Telecom NZ: Bye Bye Paul Reynolds
Long Term View: Telecom NZ Ltd
Stock of the Week: Telecom Ltd
Revisiting Telecom

Getting cute and fluffy with Teresa Gattung
Telecom NZ Hangs up
Business Gobbledygook puts up barriers to communication
A Rare Breed
Telecom NZ facing a watershed period
Biology a major key in "glass ceiling" for women
Telecom rewards Gattung for mediocrity

Download every available TEL Annual Report Free


Discuss this stock at Share Investor Forum - Register free

Recommended Amazon Reading

The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value Investing. A    Book of Practical Counsel (Revised Edition)
The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value Investing. A Book of Practical Counsel (Revised Edition) by Benjamin Graham
Buy new: $14.95 / Used from: $7.50
Usually ships in 24 hours

Buy Bird on a Wire & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2008, 2010

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Court of Appeal delays Warehouse bid

Contrary to a comment made earlier last week when High Court Judge Jill Mallon had said an appeal could be made by the Commerce Commission to overrule her decision in November 2007, that Foodstuffs and Woolworths Australia [WOW.ASX] could make a bid for The Warehouse Group [WHS.NZ] and it should be under the condition that the case was heard urgently, the Court of Appeal has ruled that it would hear an appeal on April 29.

The latter court date will be after a court imposed ban on bidding for the Warehouse ends on February 29.

It is difficult to see a bid be made by either Foodstuffs or Woolworths after the bid deadline but it has been an unusual tussle so far and stranger things have happened in other takeover processes.

It would be presumptuous for any of the two possible bidders to show their hand early though and clearly wouldn't look good for their defence in the Court of Appeal case because the last thing the defence needs is a pissed off learned judge because his authority has been undermined in his court.

What is clear though, is that we are unlikely to get a result either way anytime soon.

If either side doesn't get their desired result in April they are likely to have another go at a case packed Supreme Court in Wellington.


Disclosure: I own WHS shares


The Warehouse Group @ Share Investor

Long vs Short: The Warehouse Group
Warehouse bidders ready to lay money down
The Warehouse set to cut lose "extra" impediment
The Warehouse sale could hinge on "Extra" decision
The case for The Warehouse without a buyer
Foodstuffs take their foot off the gas
Woolworths seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court
Warehouse appeal decision imminent
Warehouse decision a loser for all
Warehouse Court of appeal decision in Commerce Commission's favour
MARKETWATCH: The Warehouse
The Warehouse takeover saga continues
Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse]
History of Warehouse takeover players suggest a long winding road
Court of Appeal delays Warehouse bid
The Warehouse set for turbulent 2008
The Warehouse Court of Appeal case lay in "Extras" hands
WHS Court of Appeal case could be dismissed next week
Commerce Commission impacts on the Warehouse bottom line
The Warehouse in play
Outcomes of Commerce Commission decision
The fight for control begins soon

Share Investor Forum-Discuss this topic


Related Links

The Warehouse Financial Data


Related Amazon Reading

Life With <span class=

Life With Walmart: A Vendor's Story by Kunmi Oluleye
Buy new: $19.95 / Used from: $11.50
Usually ships in 24 hours

c Share Investor 2008 & 2009

Michael Cullen's history on tax cuts comes back to haunt him

Michael Cullen's education as a Dr of History clearly lacked the basic tenant that as history is more often than not written down for posterity it can often come back to haunt the history maker:

"We just don't believe in tax cuts - it's against our fundamental philosophy - after all we are socialists and proud of it".
A hardly stunning admission by Michael Cullen a while back but hard to fathom considering his announcement of personal tax cuts in an address to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce today.


Cullen trumpeted 4 billion dollars of tax cuts annually and gave examples as: " working for families, business tax cuts and Kiwisaver.

Of course Working for Families is not a tax cut but welfare, Kiwisaver isn't a tax cut either and business tax cuts were long ago gobbled up by Labour Government imposed business taxes like increased holidays, Kiwisaver contributions and administration, Government imposed energy hikes and a whole range of other taxes too long to list here.

If there are any tax cuts this year or in the following years by Labour, they will be linked to a Government agency and distributed that way not by the usual method of more cash directly in the hand.

Strangely enough, a 66c across the board tax cut was promised in the 2005 budget, coincidently another election year, but Labour broke their promise after reelection because they commented that economic conditions didn't allow such a cut.

Now 3 year latter, and with a crippled stagnant economy tax cuts are going to happen?

The truth is though Labour were and never will deliver proper tax cuts because they are philosophically opposed to them:


"Tax cuts are a path to inequality. They are the promises of a visionless and intellectually bankrupt people".

— Helen Clark, speech to 2000 labour Party Conference

On the contrary though, tax cuts show true vision and are not only "intellectually enriching" but in the long term they enhance every sector of society, socially and economically.

What is "intellectually bankrupt" though is promising personal tax cuts in election year.

The facts are that any time is a good time for tax cuts. They stimulate business and economies and have an upside long term, not a downside on the tax take by governments, and are especially relevant during the tough economic times we are now going through.

Tax cuts have been affordable since Labour came to office almost 9 long years ago and the excuses used to dodge such cuts have been coming as thick and as fast as Parekura Horomia on speed.

Cullen sites several: "we will have to cut Government services", "tax cuts lead to inflation and higher interest rates", "we will have to borrow money to fund tax cuts".

All clearly bollocks.

What has led to inflation and the highest interest rates in the Western world is reckless Labour Party spending, cut that and you can afford to return stolen taxpayer funds.

Ditto borrowing and government services, cut back Cullen, New Zealanders have, and have had to borrow because of your tax and spend mentality.

Finally, Cullen hinted today that any tax cuts must be "fair" and he clearly meant that those who earn't high salaries, probably wont be getting a tax cut.

Those earning higher salaries don't traditionally vote Labour anyway so they will be left out if there are personal tax cuts, but in an ironic twist, those receiving welfare through "working for families" benefits, mainly middleclass voters who could vote either National or Labour, maybe getting some of the taxes back that they have been paying to fund WFF in the first place!

Cruel but true.

I will leave you dear readers with a quote Robin Hood probably originally made:


"Tax cuts are a very sort of blunt weapon to redistribute income"


— Mike Williams, President of the Labour Party

To sum it up Labour's real attitude to tax cuts. Firstly Labour clearly don't believe in them and they truly believe that the high taxes they have imposed are there to "redistribute income".

You certainly can't vote for a party like Labour, The Green Party, The Maori Party, NZ First, Jim Anderton because they all fundamentally agree with Cullen, the Labour Party philosophy on tax cuts and cannot be trusted to deliver as part of a Labour-led Government in 2008.

Vote for either Act or National, they have promised real tax cuts and have done for years.


Related Political Animal reading

Pointing fingers in the playground
At least Robin Hood was honest
The black economy makes sense
Labours State Control out of control





c Political Animal 2008