|New Threads Only:|
|New Threads & Replies:|
Forum List » Guru News and Commentaries|
Guru News, Stock picks and commentaries
Peter Lynch: Part Two
Posted by: David Chulak (IP Logged)
Date: March 13, 2012 02:59PM
“Companies that have no debt can’t go bankrupt."
In my earlier article, “Is an Idiot Running the Business”, I mentioned taking a closer look at the techniques used by one of the greatest investors of all time, Peter Lynch.
Once again, Lynch took the time to organize his stocks into six categories: Slow Growers, Stalwarts, Fast Growers, Cyclicals, Turnarounds and Asset Plays.
Slow Growers are defined as those companies that are large and aging companies and expected to grow slightly faster than the GDP, around 10% or a little less (my estimation). Lynch did not commit a large part of his portfolio with this group; however, he did not shy away either and would invest primarily for the company’s dividend appeal.
Stalwarts are companies growing in the 10-12 (up to 19%) percent range, according to Lynch, and would include companies such as Coca-Cola (KO), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY), Proctor and Gamble (PG), Colgate-Palmolive (CL), etc. He recommended keeping stalwarts in the portfolio, especially during difficult times such as recessions.
Fast Growers appear to clearly be Lynch’s favorites; however, don’t let the name fool you into thinking that these do not include stocks that we value style investors hold so dearly. While some Fast Growers might not be considered by all value investors, Lynch’s Fast Growers include Intel (INTC) and Dollar General (DG) which are both owned by Warren Buffett and several other value investors.
Lynch clarifies that a fast growing company does not necessarily have to be part of a fast growing industry and all the company needs is a place to expand. He does elucidate the need for having a good balance sheet and substantial profit margins. Knowing how much to pay for the growth is extremely important.
Cyclicals are separated from Slow Growers and Stalwarts because timing becomes increasingly important. The example given is demonstrated by the difference between companies such as Ford (F) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY). While Bristol-Myers Squibb can lose a great amount of value during a major economic downturn, companies such as Ford, due to their cyclical nature, can get pummeled.
Turnarounds are those that “have been battered, depressed and often can barely drag themselves into Chapter 11.” Lynch breaks them down further into sub-categories:
Lynch’s cash position is calculated by adding cash and marketable securities and subtracting long term debt and comparing the result with the price of the stock. As an example, Lynch gives us Ford (F) and his calculations from the 1987 balance sheet.
Lynch adds $5.673 billion in cash with marketable securities of $4.424 billion which is rounded off to $10.1 billion and subtracts the long term debt of $1.75 billion to get a result of $8.35 billion for Ford’s net cash position. With 511 million shares outstanding and dividing that number into the net cash, Lynch concludes that there is $16.30 in net cash to go with every share of Ford
“The $16.30 bonus changed everything. It meant that I was buying the auto company not for $38 a share, the stock price at the time, but for $21.70 a share ($38 minus the $16.30 in cash). Analysts were expecting Ford to earn $7 a share from its auto operations, which at the $38 price gave it a P/E of 5.4, but at the $21.70 price it had a P/E of 3.1… The cash factor helped convince me to hold on to Ford, and it rose more than 40 percent after I made the decision not to sell.”
Lynch points out that it is typical for a stock to have a 10 percent return on cash flow. That is, if you have a $20 stock and $2 per share in free cash flow, one could expect a minimum 10 percent return. A $20 stock with a $4 per share free cash flow and you could expect a 20% return and he advises that if you can find a $20 stock with a free cash flow per share of $10 to “mortgage your house and buy all the share you can find.” The ratios are easy to spot on this website.
Inventory to Sales:
It is imperative that you check if inventories are increasing faster than revenues, especially in manufacturing and retail companies. Take, for example, Wet Seal (WTSLA).
Note that while the revenue has basically been flat, the inventory is trending upward. This may not be a
concern with the small numbers shown, but the trend must be watched or the year over year numbers in order to spot a situation in which the company is forced to liquidate product at a discount.
What are some picks that Lynch would like or pass his screening process that are also owned by our guru value investors:
Here are a few more for consideration:
Omnivsion Tech (OVTI), currently owned by Joel Greenblatt and recently purchased by David Einhorn and Charles Brandes.
Ternium Sa-Adr (TX), recently purchased by Charles Brandes with a P/E ratio of 6.5, P/B of 0.7, P/S of 0.5, PCF of 3.7 and a dividend yield of 6.4%.
Kulicke & Soffa (KLIC). This stock sells for 11.63 and GF’s DCF calculator indicates a value of $28.62 with a margin of safety of 59%
More to come…
Disclosure: I own Dollar General (DG).
Peter Lynch Part Two
Posted by: hschacht (IP Logged)
Date: March 14, 2012 04:08AM
I'm always happy to see someone mention Ternium (TX) but nearly every number you cite above, especially the dividend yield, is wrong.
And while I own shares of TX, it is far from an idiot-proof company.
Peter Lynch Part Two
Posted by: davidchulak (IP Logged)
Date: March 14, 2012 09:34AM
Your comments made me think about a couple of things that I'd like to clear up.
I used a Lynch screener to get these stocks names, but it doesn't mean that Peter Lynch would pick the stock anymore than a Buffettology screen is used for any of Warren Buffett's picks. The stock name comes up based upon several characteristics Lynch desires in stocks...so the screener is nothing more than a beginning point.
When I got the names, I added the names of gurus shown on GuruFocus to indicate that many of Lynch's picks are truly value investing type picks. The numbers that you said were wrong were indeed wrong, but they came from this website. I'll have to follow up as to why. Still....with that said, Yahoo shows the dividend yield at 3.3, the P/S at .50, P/B at .79 and the P/E at 8.91. Those are still good numbers and worthy of more research.
There are no stocks that are idiot proof. Lynch likes simple companies that anyone can run and I think that is what he was alluding to. This may or may not be true with TX, but there's no way to screen information like that.....that's due diligence at work studying annual reports, etc._Sounds like you know the company.
I am just wanting others to see that Lynch was much more than a "growth" investor. Actually, he and Warren Buffett have a lot in common and a lot of Lynch's stocks are truly "value" stocks. I really don't like that distinction, but I think you know what I'm saying. We are truly missing something if we don't study Lynch.