Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Intelligent Investor: Book Review





If you don’t have this book in your library, then you should not even be contemplating an investment in shares directly, or even indirectly, though a mutual fund.

It is surely not a co-incidence, as Warren Buffett graphically illustrates in his Appendix to this book, that some of the world’s most successful investors learned at the feet of Benjamin Graham and have applied his principles with great success.

This book, like all of Graham’s writings, is easy enough to understand for even lay investors. Graham sets the scene early in the book by explaining the difference between intelligent investing and mere speculation. Using the history of stock market booms and crashes and illustrating them with real life examples, Graham explains how an intelligent investor can stay ahead of the market.

Graham sets out investment principles for both the defensive investor and one who is more enterprising and shows how investor can identify under priced stocks.

As Warren Buffett has said, the two most important chapters in the book are Chapter 8, The Investor and Market Fluctuations, where Graham develops his concept of Mr Market, and Chapter 20, Margin of Safety where he preaches the wisdom of leaving enough room to cover mistakes in judgment of a share’s intrinsic value.

A must buy book, worth every penny, especially during turbulent times.






c Share Investor 2007





Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: Underperforming

The recent announcement by the CEO of Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd [SKC.NZX], Evan Davies, that management will be looking over "underperforming assets" leaves more questions to ask than it answers.

Decisions

The timing of management for a reassessment of underperforming assets must be questioned.

Indicators that various units of Sky City's business were not cutting the mustard were obvious years ago.

The Sky City Cinema division is the most glaring example of the inability of management to move on from a dumb decision. Even at the time of purchase of the cinemas, it was obvious that they were never going to perform ,even for a moderate return on capital.

Intense competition from other cinema chains and other forms of media coupled with the high capital expense of continued new technology and the roll-out of more screens, made this purchase one of the worst of its time by any company listed on the NZX.

Management ignored these basic facts and shareholders pleas to cut it loose.

Queenstown Casino

For the life of me I cannot understand the rationale of management in keeping an asset that has never returned wealth to shareholders and has yet to make a profit. It appears to this writer that the status of a casino in the prestigious Queenstown tourist mecca and competition with Skylines outlet there(SKCs partner in the Christchurch Casino) is much more important than making a return on capital. Let Barry Thomas have Queenstown, it will never bring much to the bottom line even if the other casino left town.


Adelaide Casino

The Adelaide Casino has much going for it but it is taking far too long for it to deliver an acceptable return to its owners.

There has been much shareholder money pumped into this gaming den and they have been waiting patiently for the cherries to come up in a set of three. So far only 2 keep appearing.

It doesn't look like management can turn this one around. They have been given ample time and money but still keep shareholders with baited breath that spending millions more on this or that improvement will get more punters in the door and spending. It clearly isn't going to work any time soon.

Why now? Timing.

The most curious question left unanswered is that why, after many long years do Evan Davies and management see fit to look at these and other assets again with a view to remove them perhaps from the Sky City portfolio?

Pressure from shareholders hasn't worked in the past. I'm postulating here that Davies has been pressured by the more astute members of the board to do the honest thing and face up to the reality that some of Sky City's assets just do not belong alongside the good ones : Auckland, Hamilton, Darwin and Christchurch Casinos.

I'm guessing that Davies was given an ultimatum, that he either do something and get rid of the losers or ending up being cut himself.

If Davies only listens to board members and not shareholders do they deserve his leadership at the helm?

The question shareholders must ask themselves is, do we still want Evan Davies as our chief decision maker or do we need to put Sky City in the hands of a CEO who can make decisions, when it is appropriate and timely to do so.

What now? Proceeds of a sell-off

Shareholders have seen the Sky City share price become stagnant over the last 4 years, that is because the market hasn't had confidence in management to do the right thing with the assets and shareholders capital that they have at their disposal.

It is clear that high interest rates and business costs have continued to rise across the entertainment sector and other areas of the economy and Sky City Management have racked up over $NZ 1B of debt with some of the recent acquisitions that they have made on behalf of owners.

The proceeds of a sale of Queenstown Casino, a 40% share of Christchurch Casino(this writer doesn't believe it should be sold)Sky City Cinemas and Adelaide Casino seem to start at around $NZ 600M or there abouts.

75% of the proceeds $450M must go towards paying down debt but the rest $150M must be returned to shareholders via a capital return in the form of a special dividend. Shareholders need some payback for years of average returns.

To leave the proceeds of a asset sale in current managements hands will only encourage another burning hole in the pocket approach to investing and that is the last thing that Sky City needs for a good long term future.

A question still remains.

Who is Evan Davies successor and why isn't he in his chair?


Disc: I own SKC shares in the Share Investor Portfolio


Sky City Convention Centre @ Share Investor

Share Investor discusses Convention Centre proposal with CEO Nigel Morrison
Sky City Convention Centre Expansion a Money Loser: Part Two
Sky City Convention Centre Expansion a Money loser
SKC Convention Centre power-point slide illustrations & SKC submission to Auckland City Council

Sky City Entertainment Group @ Share Investor


Share Investor's Total Returns: Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd
Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: Presentation to Macquarie Group
Morningstar Revalues Sky City Entertainment Group
Guest Post - Michele Hewitson Interview: Nigel Morrison
Failed Sky City bid for Christchurch Casino good news for Shareholders
Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: Christchurch Casino bid falls short of Investment Criteria
Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: Never mind the width feel the volume
Sky City Annual Meeting & 2011 - 2012 Profit Forecast
Stock of the Week: Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd
Sky City set to lose National Convention Centre bid
Sky City Entertainment Group: Australian Acquisition on the Cards?
Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: 2010 Full Year Profit Analysis
Sky City Entertainment Group 2010 Full Year Profit Preview
Chart of the Week: Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd
Share Investor discusses Convention Centre proposal with CEO Nigel Morrison
Share Investor Q & A: Sky City CEO, Nigel Morrison
Sky City Entertainment: CEO Nigel Morrison discusses 2010 HY
Sky City Convention Centre Expansion a Money Loser: Part Two
Sky City Convention Centre Expansion a Money loser
Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd: Download full Company analysis
Sky City 2010 full year profit looking good
Long Term View: Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd
Sky City Entertainment: CEO Nigel Morrison discusses 2010 Half Year
Sky City Entertainment Group 2010 Interim Profit Review
Sky City to focus on Gaming
Sky City debts levels now more manageable
Insider Trading on Sky City shares
Sky City Profit Upgrade: Always on the Cards
Sky City's Current Cinema "Boom" a Horror Story in Disguise
Stock of the Week: Sky City Entertainment Group
Are Insiders selling Sky City Stock?
Sky City Entertainment 2009 Interim Result Preamble
2008 Sky City profit analysis
Sky City share offer confusing and unfair for smaller shareholders
Sky City Entertainment 2008 Full Year profit results , NZX release, 2008 full year presentation, result briefing webcast, financial statements
Sky City 2008 profit preamble
Sky City outlines a clear future plan
As recession bites Sky City bites back
Sky City Assets: Buy, sell and hold
Why did you buy that stock? [Sky City Entertainment]
Sky City Share Volumes set tongues wagging
Sky City half year exceptional on cost cutting
NZX Press release: Sky City profit to HY end Dec 2007
Sky City Cinemas no Blockbuster
Sky City Entertainment share price drop
New Broom set to sweep
Sky City Management: Blind, deaf and numb
Sky City sale could be off
Opposition to takeover
Premium for control
Sky City receives takeover bid
Sky City Casino Full Year Profit to June 30 2007
Setting the record straight
Sky City CEO resigns
Sky City Casino: Under performing
Sky City Casino 2007 HY Profit(analysis)
Sky City Casino 2007 HY Profit


Discuss SKC @ Share Investor Forum
Download SKC Company Reports

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: $6.99
Usually ships in 24 hours

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2007

Friday, May 25, 2007

Competitive Strain Inquiry

The decision that the Commerce Commission are currently mulling over, to give the go-ahead for the Warehouse to be sold to either Foodstuffs or Woolworths Australia, is a very clear one.

The competitive advantage that either one of these two companies would have if they were given approval and won a bidding war would allow a larger company to dominate not only the grocery sector but the variety goods sector as well.

The removal of a third and in time, eventually larger competitor in the Warehouse, will remove the ability of the public to have a viable chance for cheaper grocery prices and leave New Zealand with the current duopoly, with high prices and poor service.

To go back to two players in the New Zealand grocery business will be a missed opportunity that will probably never come again for generations and put the sector back where the variety goods sector was before the Warehouse came along 25 years ago.

Will the two players in this drama cite the sort of nonsense that Auckland Airport and Regency Duty trot out when they tell us less competition will mean more choice and cheaper prices for consumers? Well the answer is they already have. Those are two of their arguments for both of them buying the Red Sheds. How dumb does business and the Commerce Commission think the New Zealand consumer is. Clearly terminally so.

For too long New Zealand consumers have come off second best when it comes to the competitive advantage of having manifold players operating in an industry. When we get a chance to have more competition in an area so important and so uncompetitive as the grocery sector is, then we need to grab it with both hands and our watchdogs need to do their jobs and come out on our side for once.

Airlines, retail petrol, communication and a myriad of other industry have been given the once over lightly from the Commerce Commission when it comes to mergers, anti-competitive behaviour and the like.

If Woolworths and Foodstuffs want to expand in this country then they have only got to plunk down the some of billions that they have in revenues and go head to head with the Warehouse in a truly competitive environment and let the best man win. Carnage or not that is true competition.

We have only got to look at Woolworths anti-competitive modus operandi on the North Shore of Auckland where a new Foodstuffs Supermarket has sat empty for 2 years because WW has objected to it opening on the bizarre grounds that it will create too much traffic, strange when a Mitre 10 Mega has opened just around the corner. Do we expect Woolworths to operate fairly if they are allowed to expand by buying the Warehouse?

The alternative to a buy by the aforementioned parties would be for a party with a small presence already doing business here or a completely new player from offshore, thereby making a the purchase a competitive one that keeps three players in the grocery business.

New Zealand is a small market and often, in business sectors of monopolies, duopoly's and the like market dominance is all too frequent. While I'm not against business getting bigger, areas like the grocery sector that are extremely unrepresented by multiple players must be open to such when the opportunity arises. The Commerce Commission must therefore make the decision, and soon, to keep the grocery sector open to real competition.


C Share Investor 2007

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Business Mis-Management

Image result for mis business management

The recent and distant past of company management and its track record in New Zealand leave a lot to be desired.

While the calibre of management in selected companies listed on the NZX is clearly very good: Mainfreight Ltd [MFT.NZ], Pumpkin Patch, Michael Hill, Fletcher Building, Rakon among a shortlist, the great bulk of management is littered with far too many candidates for the top prize of mis-manager of the year.

On the negative side the list includes Feltex at the top followed by Restaurant Brands ,with Telecom, The Warehouse(previous Management)Tourism Holdings and Sky City all worth a mention.

The bottom rung seem to share some common traits. Basic bad decision making, at times it is part of the culture- Telecom, in Feltex Carpets case bad decision making was endemic and used to cover up problems, Restaurant Brands suffers from a culture of denial when it comes to decision making-witness the complete ignorance of store level service, Tourism Holdings simply couldn't make a decision as to what their problems were caused by and Sky City Ltd [SKC.NZX] has made a hastie decision to buy a cinema unit that drags down profit and is capital hungry for no return but they refuse to make the decision to let go and cut lose a bad business.

The Warehouse's woes were widely canvassed but they suffered from a man,Tindall, that rushed into a new business with too much confidence, ignoring basic differences in the shopping culture of 2 different countries.

Managers are paid to manage and that means, as much as possible, decisions being made at the right time and in the right direction as consistently as possible. When managers begin to garner a track record of bad decision making, it is time to look at the problem, fix it if possible or move that manager on if an easy fix isn't possible.

Shareholders need to have a means of making their opinions known to those who manage their investment in the company they have bought and apart from the likes of Bruce Sheppard from the Shareholders Association, the rest of us appear to be sheep when it comes to standing up for our vote on the board.

The buck stops with the person at the top rung of management but a clear stumbling block with our listed and private companies is the bottleneck of middle managers ,who often serve the purpose of mere relay people, of information from productive workers on the shop floor to those executives at the top. We could do with less of these people in our companies, in my humble opinion they can confuse the clear messages that must get through from upper management to shop floor and back in order for a company to function efficiently and competently.

Restaurant Brands suffers from this syndrome in spades. Store workers don't get to communicate clearly as to what is going on at store level directly to upper management, problems are filtered through a multifaceted layer of store, area and regional management before getting operating concerns to the top.

Of course RBD store managers often don't have the motivation to let upper management know if there are problems at store level anyway, lest they be in the gun themselves. This happens to a lesser extent in other New Zealand companies but is still clearly a problem. Telecom suffers badly from the same syndrome.

The solutions to our problems may lay in what Toyota calls the "Toyota Way" that is, where there is a free flow of reciprocal critical information between upper management and productive workers. In essence this means that a shop floor worker has access directly to upper management and vice versa.

Like a pyramid of cheerleaders whispering advice from the bottom of the pile to the top, by the time it gets there the message is often completely different from its original form. Remove the middle of the pyramid and it will collapse but remove middle management from the management pyramid and it will serve to make the company stronger.



Related Share Investor Reading
    
The Intelligent Investor: Book review
Mr Market gets his groove on
Business Gobbledygook puts up barriers



Amazon

KFC in China: Secret Recipe for SuccessKFC in China: Secret Recipe for Success by Warren Liu
Buy new: $14.99 / Used from: $2.43
Usually ships in 24 hours





c Share Investor 2007