Connect with us


Stansberry Research: A stock that still makes us smile



From Porter Stansberry, Editor, Stansberry’s Investment Advisory:

It’s time to revisit – and re-recommend – an “old faithful.”

This stock should be a mainstay in your portfolio. It will provide ballast and stability when the market gets choppy. And given a recent decline in the share price, this stock should do well from here even if a market correction takes longer to show up than we expect.

Plus, it’s a perfect example of how capital efficiency produces excellent returns over the long run…

As we wrote when we first recommended this stock, “The longer you hold this stock, the more rapidly your wealth will compound, and you’ll never have to sell – ever.”

And as we promised in that original write-up, “When you learn the name of this stock, I promise you’ll smile.”

But we don’t want you to skip ahead. So before we divulge exactly which stock we’re re-recommending, let’s revisit the original rationale for investing in this company. Obviously, the numbers have changed, but the point remains the same. As the original issue said:

This is a slow-growth business. That, surely, will turn off most investors. Most people simply don’t understand the impact of even slow growth over time in businesses that are extremely capital efficient…

In almost every year, the company’s dividends are larger than its capital expenditures. This company rewards shareholders, not its managers…

It’s the impact of these reinvested dividends and the consistent decrease in shares outstanding that most investors do not figure into their future total return equation. And over the last 10 years, the company’s annual capital spending has remained essentially unchanged. Meanwhile, cash profits and dividends nearly doubled.

This is the beauty of capital-efficient businesses: As sales and profits grow, capital investments don’t. Thus, the amount of money that’s available to return to shareholders not only grows in nominal dollars, it also grows as a percentage of sales.

Thanks to share-count reductions, sales growth, and the company’s incredible capital efficiency, it is able to increase its annual free cash flow per share by 15%.

There aren’t many businesses that you can realistically expect to make you 20 times your money. There are even fewer businesses that you can expect to hold safely for 20 years. But in this case, you can.

We think that captures the company today… and wouldn’t change a word of the original.

And we’d like to go even further in showing the power of capital efficiency by comparing the long-term results of two actual companies. The first company is the one described above. That’s Company A. The second one, Company B, is a business we have highlighted many times in the past for how not to operate. Company B is highly capital inefficient.

Over the past 25 years through 2017, both companies grew sales by more than 130%… or by a nearly identical 3.4% per year on average. (We call this average yearly growth calculation the “compound annual growth rate,” or “CAGR” for short.)

But that’s where the similarities end.

Given its capital efficiency, Company A took this somewhat modest 3.4% revenue growth and created a much better return on its invested capital for shareholders. Through a combination of improved operating margins, a 42% reduction in the share count, and virtually no increase in capital spending levels, Company A grew its per-share free cash flow by 15.5% per year. In other words, from just 133% growth in revenues, Company A’s superior business model generated 3,571% growth in FCF per share.

Meanwhile, Company B’s capital-intensive business generated far lower returns from the same revenue growth. Over the same 25-year period, with the same level of revenue growth, Company B’s free cash flow per share actually declined 16%.

Longtime subscribers can probably guess Company A… And Company B? You may have a good guess here as well. It’s industrial conglomerate General Electric (GE).

Below are more details on the 25-year comparison.


Both companies returned considerable capital back to shareholders. They both paid a growing dividend and bought back stock to reduce the number of shares outstanding. But Company A grew its dividend by more than 880%, while GE’s grew about one-fourth as fast.

And more important, Company A’s asset-light, capital-efficient business ensured its FCF could easily cover its large dividend. That’s not true at GE. Prior to recent dividend cuts, GE paid an annual dividend of $0.84 per share… But FCF per share – after accounting for bloated capital expenditures – amounts to only $0.42 per share.

Worse, its per-share FCF still falls short of GE’s new, lower annual dividend of $0.48 per share. This is worrisome and ultimately unsustainable.

Company A’s business is exceedingly sustainable. It’s one of the most sustainable on the planet. And that’s not just because of the capital efficiency. It’s also a result of the enduring nature of the products it sells.

Our grandparents enjoyed Company A’s same product 50 years ago that our great-grandkids will enjoy 50 years from now. And that makes it a must-have in your portfolio… especially after the recent sell-off in the shares.

To be sure, Company A’s stock has done great since we first recommended it. Subscribers who bought the stock in 2007 have enjoyed gains of nearly 170% (and even higher if dividends were reinvested)… far better than the roughly 100% gains the S&P 500 Index produced (including dividends) over that time.

So given that huge return – and even with the stock’s recent decline – Company A must be far more expensive today than it was when we recommended it in 2007, right? Well, no, it’s not. You see, Company A kept growing earnings and FCF over the past decade. So even though the stock price has risen substantially, its valuation (or price relative to its earnings or free cash flow) has not.

Company A’s current valuation level relative to its FCF is nearly identical to its valuation back in 2007.

So why have the shares dropped of late? Why are we getting this chance to buy back in at an attractive price? Put simply, the stock market is concerned about rising costs and shifting consumer behavior.

We find both concerns shortsighted.

Whenever it’s faced cost pressure, Company A has always passed through price increases eventually. Consumers choose products based on brands they love and trust, not based on price. That’s why the penetration of private-label offerings in this industry is less than 4%, among the lowest in all categories.

Similarly, fads come and go. But this product is forever. Company A will continue to sell it to a growing number of global consumers. So when the stock market provides an opportunity like this, we need to take it.

We recommend you BUY shares of Company A today. And to quote our original recommendation… “Expect to hold this stock for an exceptionally long period of time.”



Crux note: If you’re dying to learn the identity of Company A  and why it will serve your portfolio faithfully  you must subscribe to Stansberry’s Investment Advisory. As of today, the stock is still trading below its buy-up-to price. 

In the latest issue, Porter also recommends a familiar “Global Elite” business that will act as a safe haven in your portfolio during the turbulent times ahead.

To sign up for a risk-free trial to Porter’s flagship newsletter, click here.

Subscribe to Crux

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Is the world’s biggest real estate market about to collapse?




From Brian Tycangco, Editor, Stansberry Churchouse Reseach:

The world’s biggest real estate market is slowing down. And it’s not because of failing subprime mortgages or an economic crisis.

China’s property market – worth seven times that of the U.S., based on total value of new homes sold – is weakening… again.

China’s new home sales hit US$1.69 trillion last year, as an estimated 22 million Chinese moved from rural areas into cities (that’s like the entire populations of the U.S. states of Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Kansas moving to the city).

A total of 1.44 billion square meters of apartments and condominiums were sold – the equivalent of 5.76 million new homes, assuming the size of an average American suburban house (last year, 614,000 new homes were sold in the U.S.).

But a couple of years of breakneck growth has caused the average price of developed property (i.e., condominiums and residential apartments) in China to jump 18% since July 2015. In the biggest cities of Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai, prices increased more than 50%.


Adding fuel to soaring real estate prices are Chinese investors speculating for short-term gain, considering property prices in most cities are rising at least twice as fast as the 5.5% average mortgage rate.

Buyers now need to show a pile of cash up front

To curb speculation, the government started raising the requirements to purchase property in March 2017. It increased the minimum down payment on second home purchases in second- and third-tier cities from 20% to 30%.

That compares to a typical second-home buyer in the U.S., who is required to put up between 10% and 20% as down payment.

What’s more, the Chinese government also ordered state-owned banks to raise the minimum down payment for privately-developed residential projects in first-tier cities from 70% to 80%. That essentially locked out all smaller buyers in many cities, including Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing.

The next stage of tightening happened in September 2017, when local governments in a number of cities, including Shenzhen, banned investors from selling newly purchased homes for up to five years. Other local governments barred investors from buying a second home for up to three years.

So after growing by 16.1% in the first half of 2017, home sales growth in China slowed to just 3.3% in the first half of 2018.

The Chinese government’s year-long crusade to deflate the property market finally filtered through to developers’ sales. As a result, the shares of listed Chinese real estate developers have fallen.

The MSCI China Real Estate Index, which captures the performance of large and mid-cap segments of the China real estate market declined by 14% between May 1 and July 31. That compares with a 5.8% decline in the MSCI China Index and a 2.7% gain in the MSCI All Country World Index.

But is this a precursor to a Chinese real estate market collapse? History shows us that it’s likely not. We’ve seen this same knee-jerk reaction in Chinese real estate company stock prices in the face of Beijing’s previous efforts to deflate the hot property market.

China’s history can be a road map to profits

In September 2010, for instance, Beijing enacted measures to curb speculation in real estate after prices jumped 32% in just two years (2008 to 2010) to 4,725 yuan per square meter.


That eventually led to a 30% decline in the MSCI China Real Estate Index by the following year, as curbs filtered through to developers’ bottom lines.

(That also opened up a terrific buying opportunity in shares of Country Garden Holdings (Exchange: New York; ticker: CTRYF; Exchange: Hong Kong; ticker: 2007), one of China’s biggest and most established real estate developers, which I recommended to my readers in February 2011. It went on to nearly double their money (95%), as government curbs were eventually lifted and eager buyers returned to the market.)

Then, in March 2013, after average property prices rose 17% to 5,850 yuan per square meter in a just a couple of years, Beijing stepped in again, slapping a 20% tax on selling a home (vs. existing 1% to 3% capital gains taxes). Beijing also increased the required minimum down payment from 60% to 70% for second homes.

That resulted in a 20% correction in the MSCI China Real Estate Index over the next 12 months, and caused total property sales to fall nearly 3% between 2013 and 2015.

(The lull in the market presented an opportunity in our Strategic Wealth Confidential newsletter to recommend shares in one of the country’s best-run real estate investment trusts (REITs). REITs are companies that hold a portfolio of income-generating property and distribute nearly all their profits to shareholders as dividends. This one in particular was paying out an 8.5% yield.)

With average real estate prices in China again up 18% in just the last couple of years, Beijing’s recent determined moves to rein in the property market shouldn’t come as a surprise. We actually welcome it.

Will the Chinese real estate selloff continue?

For the short-term, the outlook is going to be weak. The government has not given any indication that it’s willing to ease restrictions on new home purchases, and will likely add more restrictions in the coming weeks and months.

But I’ve been covering the Chinese real estate market since 2003, and the volatility we’re seeing today is nothing new.

With 600 million Chinese (40% of the country’s population) still living in rural areas, and 22 million of them moving into cities each year, the property market in China is still far from reaching a point of peak demand.

Down the road, I expect there will be a slew of profitable, well-managed and under-leveraged Chinese property developers that will once again offer up enticing value.

Good investing,


P.S. Even as China’s property market is letting off some steam, other sectors of its economy are expanding at a breakneck pace. One of these sectors is water treatment, which is growing non-stop thanks to the government’s efforts to clean up the country’s heavily-polluted rivers and lakes. It’s opening up a rare opportunity for 793% gains on a leading water treatment specialist. To find out more about this company – and two others with similar potential – go here.

Subscribe to Crux

Source link

Continue Reading


Cramer’s charts suggest it’s still worth investing in bonds




U.S. Treasury bond yields have been on a tear this year, and with the Federal Reserve on track to continue raising short-term interest rates, it looks like the trend will continue. But when bond yields rise, prices fall, which has investors worried. “The conventional wisdom on both Wall Street and Main Street is that U.S. Treasuries are one of the worst possible asset classes to own right now,” said CNBC’s Jim Cramer.

However, Cramer thinks that investors shouldn’t be too quick to follow the crowd. The “Mad Money” host enlisted the help of technician Carley Garner, co-founder of DeCarley Trading and author of “Higher Probability Commodity Trading,” to reassess the state of the bond market. Garner believes that “the bears in the Treasury complex have gotten overconfident,” said Cramer.

Taking a look at the weekly chart of the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures, Garner’s analysis shows that large speculators, who are professional money managers, are betting against Treasury prices at never-before-seen levels.

“Not only are they holding net short positions in these 10-year Treasury futures, but they’re more bearish than they’ve ever been at any other time in living memory,” Cramer said. Together, large and small speculators are holding a net short position of 800,000 10-year Treasury futures contracts.

Garner “thinks this trade has gotten overcrowded,” Cramer said. She believes that prices are poised to rise once all of these short sellers buy back Treasury bonds to close their positions.

Looking at the seasonal price patterns of the 10-year Treasury bond, the charts show that prices tend to rise in the second half of the year. This trend is particularly reliable according to Garner’s analysis, with the biggest rally occurring from July through early October.

“Garner thinks the rally could be particularly pronounced this year given that Treasury prices are pretty depressed,” the “Mad Money” host said.

Cramer’s bottom line? The markets aren’t always what they seem. “Don’t just assume that our long-term interest rates are destined to head lower immediately,” he said. “The charts suggest that U.S. Treasury prices could actually have some upside here.”

Source link

Continue Reading


The pool of publicly traded stocks is shrinking. Here’s what investors can do




From Frank Holmes at Frank Talk:

Elon Musk is no stranger to making controversial and outlandish comments, and his tweet last week is no exception. As you probably know by now, the perennial entrepreneur announced to his more than 22 million Twitter followers that he is “considering taking Tesla private at $420.”

Despite the Herculean challenge—such a move would be the largest leveraged buyout in history—and despite Musk’s history of being a provocateur, Wall Street seemed to take his comment seriously. Tesla stock rose close to 11% last Tuesday to end at $379, a few bucks shy of its all-time high of $385, set in September 2017.

There are many reasons why investors should take note. For one, Musk and Tesla are now likely to face heightened scrutiny from securities regulators.

My reason for bringing it up is that, should Musk follow through and take the electric carmaker private, the already shrinking universe of investable U.S. stocks will lose yet another name.

This is a trend that cannot continue indefinitely.

As I wrote in May 2017, the number of publicly listed companies in the U.S. has fallen steadily since 1997. More companies have delisted, in fact, than gone public in every year of the past 20 years except one, 2013.

Put another way, the pool is getting smaller even while the population and economy are expanding.


The U.S. Has 5,000 Fewer Listed Companies Than It Should

In 1976, there were about 23 listed companies per 1 million U.S. citizens. Today, it’s closer to 11 per million.

That’s according to a new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) report by respected financial economist René Stulz, who adds that the U.S. has roughly 5,000 fewer companies listed on exchanges than you would normally expect, given the country’s size, population, economic and financial development and respect for shareholder rights.

Are we seeing the same phenomenon in other countries, developed or otherwise?

“There are other countries that have lost listings since 1997, but few have experienced a greater percentage decrease in listings,” Stulz writes. “Further, the U.S. is in bad company in terms of the percentage decrease in listings—just ahead of Venezuela.”

Given that Venezuela’s economy is in freefall, with inflation forecast to hit 1 million percent this year, I would call it bad company indeed.

So why is this happening?

Continue reading at Frank Talk…

Subscribe to Crux

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.