I should put a picture of Brad Pitt here to keep the ladies interested, but I’m not going to. Go click on my about page if you want a picture of a sexy mug.

A couple of weeks ago, I went and watched Moneyball, mostly because I liked the book an unreasonable amount. The story chronicles the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 Major League Baseball season. After the 2001 season, the A’s lost three of their best players to free agency, meaning General Manager Billy Beane had to improvise. He didn’t have the payroll that other teams did, so he had to pick up players that could equal the production of the departed free agents, but at a fraction of the cost. (Spoiler alert!) He ends up finding those players, and after a slow start, the A’s end up winning their division, only to ultimately lose to the Minnesota Twins in the playoffs.

In the movie, Beane hired a guy named Peter Brand (who is based on Paul DePosta in real life) who was using advanced statistics to measure the value of players. Brand threw out statistics like batting average, exchanging it for on base percentage, a figure that measures walks along with batting average. RBIs are discounted greatly, because they’re dependant on who gets on base before you. This school of thought is called Sabermetrics, and as you can imagine, there was a great deal of resistance by old school baseball folks when people started looking at statistics differently.

Anyway, I’m boring you with baseball talk. If you want a very limited explanation of what Sabermetrics consists of, go see the movie. And if you’re looking for something a little more in depth, go read the book. As always, it’s better than the movie.

Anyway, back to the thesis. What can Moneyball teach you about investing?

Firstly, Moneyball stresses the importance of doing your research. The reason Beane and Brand were able to identify undervalued players is the amount of time they dedicated to the pursuit. Computer programs were built just for analyzing baseball data. Countless hours of research went into discovering a new way to identify a more effective way of disseminating this data. They were mocked for not having lives, and they didn’t care.

As a Moneyball investor, you need to spend the time doing your homework. Annual reports will be your new friend, along with listening to conference calls, countless web searches, and digesting other investor’s thoughts about whatever company you’re interested in. You will not cry when mocked for having no life. Okay, you can a little… IF YOU’RE A GIRL.

In the movie, Oakland picks up David Justice after the Yankees agree to pay a large portion of his salary just to make him go away. The hope was, for Oakland, that Justice would regain enough of his former glory to be a useful addition. When Oakland traded for Justice, it was well known that his speed and fielding range were suffering, thanks to a career full of knee injuries.

If you’ve been around here for any length of time, you can probably tell where I’m going with this. Contrarian investors have no problem investing in something where the short term outlook isn’t great. They take a look past public perception to the inner workings of the company, taking a good long look at the financial statements. Once they find a company the public hates with a strong balance sheet and is still making money, they’ll pounce, and then just wait for the turnaround.

Yeah, sometimes the turnaround doesn’t happen. I’ve held stocks for years that have floundered and did absolutely nothing. I’ve also had stocks that have both succeeded and failed equally spectacularly. The beauty of investing this way is that when a stock works out for you, it really works out for you. It’s just like in Moneyball. David Justice had low expectations, and taking a gamble was a high risk high reward scenario- except the Yankees paid most of his salary, significantly reducing the risk for Oakland. You should invest like that.

The movie touches on this next topic a little, but the book delves into it in much more detail. When drafting players, teams would look at tools more than they’d look at actual statistics. This means that when a scout would go watch a player play, he’d look at how athletic his swing was, rather than how good the player was at getting on base. Players who didn’t look athletic were hardly given the time of day, no matter how good their stats were. Players were rewarded more for potential than actual performance.

People make the same mistakes investing. For a while this summer, Netflix traded at over 100 times earnings. Investors were gaga over Netflix not because performance was good (which, admittedly, it was) but because of the potential for even greater future performance. As a result of that rosy looking future, investors were willing to pay a huge premium to get their hands on the next big thing.

Sometimes, the next big thing works out for investors. Both Google and Apple traded at some very high multiples to their earnings, yet both delivered consistently for years, letting the earnings catch up to the share price, thereby making their valuations much more reasonable. Google and Apple are the 1st round draft picks that work out. To switch sports for a second, there’s always a Alexander Diagle to compliment a Sidney Crosby. Sometimes, the high flying stocks come crashing back down.

If you want to learn about value investing and can’t bear to pick up an investing book, Moneyball would be a decent place to start. You’re probably going to have to pick up an investing book at some point if you want to learn about, you know, investing. Might I recommend some in my reading list?

Zing! Ended this one with a shameless plug!

*Oh, and P.S., the movie doesn’t even mention the fact that Oakland got ridiculously good starting pitching during 2002, thereby making moves for those hitters much less important.

Also, congratulate the winner of the Wealthy Barber Returns book, Holy Potato, with his entry- Financial Uproar: doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong, I’m the loudest. Join the UPROAR. I’ll be emailing Potato soon. Thanks everyone for entering.

 

Is it any wonder, with titles that clever, that my blog is at least the 642nd most popular in the whole finance blogosphere?

Yellow Media is the owner of Canada’s yellow pages, that big thick book that our parents use to look up business info. Since their main business has suffered greatly in the past decade, the company has diversified into all sorts of internet media, including sites like 411.ca, Canpages, Red Flag Deals, and formerly Auto Trader, which was recently sold. Is the diversification into online businesses enough to offset the slow death of the crown jewel?

Why Is It Cheap?

Investors have been predicting the downfall of Yellow Media for at least 5 years now. Who uses the yellow pages anymore? Businesses are realizing that spending money to get in the yellow pages isn’t increasing business, so why bother? Revenue and profit have been staying somewhat steady over the past few years, mostly because of heavy borrowing to buy other online businesses.

Just a quick glance at the income statement shows a company that’s paying out a dividend higher than earnings. This usually doesn’t end well.

Industry Outlook

Before we get started, let me share with you this gem of a quote from Yellow’s CEO Marc Tellier:

The Yellow Pages brand has been waiting over 100 years for digital.

Are you serious? Yellow Pages is the ultimate of the old crusty brands. Does he honestly expect anyone to believe that BS?

Okay, obviously the yellow pages themselves are a dog. What about the rest of the businesses? Revenue was basically flat from 2009 to 2010, yet online revenue was up 16%. That’s solid growth for the online businesses, but doesn’t translate to good results for the whole company.

Dividend

This is the only saving grace for shareholders. The company currently pays a monthly distribution of over 5 cents a month, which translates into over a 20% annual dividend at the current share price. Even though the stock has gotten hammered over the past 5 years, the dividend has saved investors from further pain. So the company has that going for it, I guess.

Going forward, the company pays out more than it makes. The stock fell 18% in one day back in June, as an analyst issued a scathing report about the future (or lack thereof) of the dividend. This observer has but one comment: “well, duh.”

Balance Sheet

Normally I tend to look at just tangible assets, (that is, assets that aren’t goodwill or intangible assets) since I like assets that can be sold off if needed. Because Yellow Media is pretty much all intangible assets, it makes almost no sense to figure out book value. How do we know that the intangible assets are worth what the company says?

If you figure out book value including all the intangible assets, you get a value of $10.63, which is a pretty sweet premium over the closing price of $2.69. Too bad that number is pretty much useless.

Now the good news. The company has actually figured out they have a debt problem. They have $2.5B worth of debt, plus another $775M in preferred shares. This doesn’t look too bad against $5.5B worth of equity, until you realize the equity is pretty much entirely made up of intangible assets.

The company raised $745M from their sale of Trader Media. This will be applied to debt. That is good.

Earnings

2010: $0.47

2009: $0.36

2008: $0.89

2007: $0.95

Yikes. That trend is uglier than the aftermath of a Vancouver hockey game. Just for fun, let’s look at the dividend the company has paid over the same period.

2010: $0.80

2009: $0.92

2008: $1.06

2007: $1.10

Now that’s just good planning. No, wait, good isn’t the right word.

(In their defense, EBITDA wasn’t nearly as bad as earnings, since they had a lot of non-cash charges. EBITDA is much more important to an income trust than net earnings, so this wasn’t that big of a deal. Also, I realize a full 92% of you have no idea what the hell I’m talking about.)

Insider Activity

I have finally found a site to use for insider transactions on Canadian companies. It’s called SEDI, and it’s pretty annoying to figure out for the first time.

Anyway, SEDI told me that insider buying has been a little weak. More directors are selling than buying, but one did take on a nice 75,000 share position a few months back. So at least someone is a believer!

Price Appreciation

Unfortunately for everyone, all I can get is a one year chart because of the conversion from an income trust to a corporation. The share price has dropped from over $6 to the current levels of below $3. Before that, the company spent lots of time trading above $10. There’s plenty of room on the upside.

Summary

I see more pain in the short term for Yellow’s shareholders. Whenever there’s a sniff of uncertainty around the dividend, the stock gets hammered. The company continues to pay out more than it earns, which usually doesn’t end well. When the company finally comes to their senses and cuts the dividend drastically, (or eliminates it completely) you won’t want to be anywhere near this one.

They are taking steps in the right direction. Online revenues are growing, bringing profits along for the ride. Margins aren’t nearly as good as the directory business, but at least the online division is profitable. Using the proceeds from the Trader Media sale will help with the company’s debtload, which needs to be cut.

Like with every contrarian company, this one needs some sort of catalyst to spring things forward. I can’t see anything but more slow declines for the phone book part of the business, and I have no idea how the company can change public or investor sentiment.

It might be so beaten down that any bit of good news will result in a nice pop in the share price. After all, the company is still profitable. It currently trades at only 5.7 times last year’s earnings. If they keep taking steps in the right direction, it could be a good buy. I’m content to hold it on my watch list for now.

Disclosure: I don’t have a position in YLO and don’t have plans to buy any within the next 72 hours.

 

Since I talked about Nokia back in May of last year, a lot has happened with the company. Let me throw up a one year chart for your viewing pleasure:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, it hasn’t been a good year for the Finnish phone maker. What’s happened over the past year?

Recent Happenings

In the early part of this year, Nokia finally decided to scrap their operating system for smartphones, choosing to enter into a partnership with Microsoft to use their Windows Mobile operating system. The stock promptly dropped 13% on the news. The market wanted Nokia to partner with Google’s Android operating system, but Nokia got a much better deal from Microsoft.

Nokia has missed profit expectations badly twice in the past year. Each time they missed the stock sold off at least 10%. The market is nervous about Nokia’s results, and it shows each time the company has a hiccup.

Their networking division (which is a partnership with German company Siemens) is in the process of acquiring Motorola’s networking assets. This sale was supposed to be completed at this point, however it’s being held up by a Chinese partner of Motorola’s. This deal should close sometime in the 3rd quarter.

Led by new CEO Stephen Elop, Nokia is trying to turn around corporate bureaucracy that was evident over the past few years of failures. The Window’s decision was made quickly. Many of the key people working on the old operating system has been reassigned to come up with cool new things for future models, including the next operating system.

Even Cheaper Than Before

I liked Nokia at over $9, and I really like it under $7.

Nokia sold 450 million mobile phones in 2010. In comparison, Apple sold less than 10% of that total. Nokia still dominates the emerging markets, which still have all sorts of room to grow. Most people in China simply can’t afford an iPhone. This is where Nokia comes in.

Nokia is so cheap that rumblings are starting to happen that they’ll be purchased. A rumour circulated around the interwebs last week that Microsoft was interested in buying the company. Other companies could be interested in just the handset division, looking to buy while the stock is beaten down. According to Bloomberg, the company is worth 52% more broken up into its parts. The Bloomberg article goes on to say that Nokia is cheaper than 10 of it’s largest rivals from an EBITDA perspective.

The company continues to pay a dividend, however investors are skeptical that it’ll continue. The company also will no longer offer full year guidance, which is usually a bearish signal.

The Balance Sheet

The balance sheet continues to look great.

The company is sitting on over 11 billion in cash, and only has a little over 4 billion in debt. 7 billion net cash represents over 25% of Nokia’s 25 billion market cap.

The company trades at approximately 2 times book value. In comparison, RIM trades at 2.2 times book, Motorola at 1.47 and Apple at over 5 times. Each of those other 3 companies are completely debt free. From a purely book value perspective, there are better places to be. However, none of those names are as beaten up as Nokia.

The company made $0.09 per share in the first quarter of 2011, pretty much identical compared to the first quarter of 2010. Sales were up a bit from 9.5 billion to 10.3 billion, meaning that margins have taken a hit. This is what the market is really concerned about. Well, that and Nokia getting their asses kicked by better smartphones. How many of you own a Nokia smartphone? Exactly.

The network division keeps chugging along, giving a nice boost to Nokia’s bottom line.

Buying More?

I bought Nokia back in 2004, and sold a couple of years later for an almost 100% return. Back then, Nokia was struggling because they were lagging behind a hot product, (Motorola’s RAZR. Remember that thing?) and the struggles that brought both sales and margins. Sound familiar?

I think this is a great opportunity to pick up Nokia. The stock has such low expectations that even a small beat could really boost the price. Carriers will be quick to pick up the Nokia smartphones as an alternative to Apple and Android. And with time, Nokia will become the sexy name again. And once that happens, we could easily see a triple or quadruple from these depressed levels. I plan to average down soon.

Disclosure: Author owns shares in NOK and plans to purchase more in the next 72 hours.

Edit: Doubled down my existing position in NOK on Wednesday June 8th at $6.29 per share.

 

As regular readers, you all know I’ve struggled what to do with my investment strategy over the past weeks and months. I’m a contrarian at heart, I find myself attracted to names and sectors that other investors shun. Yet, as I’ve discussed numerous times here, do I really have the knowledge advantage to outperform the market?

After much deliberating, I’ve come up with my investment strategy. While I’m hardly sure I can outperform the market picking contrarian names, I definitely can’t if I don’t try. At the same time, I want the safety that comes with taking a passive approach. How can I accomplish both?

Basically, I’m going to split my portfolio in two. I will invest my RRSP and TFSA in passive index funds. I will split my money equally between 4 funds: XIC (tracks the TSX Composite), XSP (tracks the S&P 500)  XIN (tracks the rest of the world) and XBB (Canadian bond index). This will give me a 75% equity and 25% fixed income weighting, which is fine for my age. Every year I will buy whichever one of these indices that is the worst performer for my contribution that year.

For my non-registered portfolio, I will continue to pursue contrarian investments. I will continue to try to outperform the market, and I’ll do a better job keeping you guys in the loop, via The Uproar Fund. I’ll actually start giving you the quarterly updates I’ve promised. I’ll actually start doing more analysis on individual stocks. You’ll still hear me talk about ETFs too, I’ll just usually make it about a beaten up sector. Look for some sort of analysis about once a week.

So that’s it. I’m not ready to admit defeat from active investing yet. What’s fun about this whole exercise is I can compare my results from passive investing directly to active investing. Will it be worth my time? Will the market kick my ass? Only time will tell.

Now I’m off to enter Moneyville’s Next Blogger Contest. See you kids tomorrow.

 

During last week’s link dump, I treated you to a post by dividend growth investor Dividend Pig titled You’re Not Contrarian and Don’t Know Squat. As you can probably imagine, the title of that particular post got me a little excited. Not swear words excited by any means, but a little excited nonetheless. It could be said that I was semi excited.

Anyhoo, I clicked through to the post, and encourage you to do the same, since it’s pretty darn good. To summarize, Mr. Pig tells his readers about a conversation he had with a friend who works on Wall Street. His friend used information that was freely available to make a nice tidy profit on a risky, beaten up stock that the market hated at the time. This “friend” sounds a lot like my kind of guy.

What Mr. Pig concludes from this story is that investors like you and me (mostly you, sorry) are screwed, since people who are involved in a much more intimate way have all sorts of advantage over us little guys. After all, his Wall Street friend was actually involved in the IPO of the company he later made a boatload of money on.

To quote the author:

This of course got me thinking. We all try to be contrarian investors, and many of us believe that we are. There’s no doubt that if you are intelligent, disciplined, and patient, (which I believe many of the wonderful bloggers I read are) you can buy companies at fair prices. But are we really contrarians? Did you buy Citigroup when it was trading at $1? That’s a contrarian investment. What about SuperValu, when it hit $7? Or Paychex at $21?

Here’s the problem with that argument. What he’s suggesting isn’t being a contrarian. It’s being a market timer. And a HELL of a market timer at that. How long was Citigroup under $1? All of 20 minutes? It never actually closed under $1 ($10 to adjust for the recent reverse split), and only spent time under that magical cutoff for parts of 2 days. I could make the same argument for the other 2 stocks presented in the argument. You’d have to be either remarkably lucky or a really, really good market timer to pull that off.

Being contrarian isn’t being a market timer. I bought Citigroup on the way down, twice, getting my position for an average cost of $12. I did the same thing with General Electric, picking up my whole position at $12, right around the time the market thought the world was going to end. Contrarians generally don’t give two craps about picking up a stock right at the bottom, since their target price is so far ahead of the current price. Who cares about another 5% when you’re aiming for 200-400%?

Trying to figure out when to buy a stock is hard for anyone, let alone contarians. Everyone tries to time the market to some degree, with the exception of the girl who just invests her token amount in index funds every month. Contrarians aren’t some sort of super creature who are really good at timing the market. We just buy when the market appears the most dark.

But I’m cherry picking my argument a little, losing focus in the details. The big picture point of the article is, in my view, that contrarians believe they have some sort of knowledge advantage over other investors. Contrarians think they have a unique ability to see past all the noise of the market, and buy something that, to them anyways, looks good. Sometimes this works out, sometimes it doesn’t, but the oversized winners are supposed to make up for the losers.

Then there’s the other part of the post where he’s exactly right. I don’t know squat. Neither do you. We’re not idiots, but our chances of ever becoming experts in the markets are pretty much zero.

And yet we think we are, emboldened by the fact that our friends/spouse/whoever thinks we’re so smart at investing. Our heads swell as we explain to them terms like debt coverage or price earnings ratio. Just because we’re smarter than the average Joe doesn’t mean we’re any good.

This brings us back to a very basic question, one that will define your investment philosophy and your returns along with it. Can the average investor beat the market using the tools available to anyone? Can a dividend growth guy or contrarian investor beat the market without an MBA and unrestricted access to Wall Street? Is the internet really the great equalizer in this game, or does too much information hurt the average schmoe?

That’s the question I struggle with all the time. Sometimes, when a get a stock right, I think I’m smarter than the market. And then I get one wrong, and the market kicks my ass. I’m more high and low than your friendly neighbourhood meth head.

I’d like to end this post with an answer, saying that I’m certain that I can outperform the market using only my brain and a laptop. I’ve been investing for close to 10 years now, and I consider myself pretty smart when it comes to this stuff. And, the more I read and find out, the more I’m starting to realize I just might not know anything at all.

Readers, do you believe a solid portfolio using your favourite strategy can beat the market long term? Or, is beating the market over a long term basis a lot of luck with only a little skill mixed in?

© 2012 Financial Uproar Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site