Tag: Burford Capital

Burford Capital Share Trading and Why No Transparency?

Burford Capital (BUR) was affected by a shorting attack from Muddy Waters (Carson Black) who have published several dossiers attacking their accounts. As I have said before, I have never had any interest, long or short, in the shares of that company but I have publicly questioned the business model, their corporate governance and the prudency of their accounts. But other investors take a different view of the company.

Burford have alleged that there was some manipulation of their share price taking place at the time of the shorting attack, i.e. market abuse by such methods as “spoofing and layering”. They went to court to force the LSE to disclose the share trades so that they could determine whether this was in fact the case and to identify who might have been doing it. The application was supported by a joint letter from ShareSoc and UKSA.

The High Court rejected the application on a number of grounds. For example because the FCA and LSE had already reviewed the matter and could not confirm the allegations.

ShareSoc director Paul de Gruchy has now published a blog article which covers the judgement. See: https://www.sharesoc.org/blog/regulations-and-law/slave-to-the-algorithm-burford-and-the-importance-of-maintaining-confidence-in-a-broken-system/

It is very good analysis of the problem of identifying market manipulation when the market is dominated by high frequency trading. For example it says: “An ordinary investor may wonder what strategies could be revealed by releasing the trading data in relation to a single company on two days. It appears that there is a genuine fear that “algorithmic” trading companies would have their secrets exposed by this information”; and: “This may look like market manipulation, but the LSE, who have a commercial interest in maintaining the income stream provided by high frequency, algorithmic trading, say it is “legitimate”. Indeed, it is a noticeable feature of the judgment that the judge appeared unconcerned by the clear conflict that the LSE has in being a commercial business seeking to maximise revenues with its role in identifying market manipulation. A cynic might say that the difference between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” market manipulation depends on the level of fees you pay to the gatekeeper”.

The share trading all took place some weeks ago. What damage could have been done by disclosure of the trades? The Court could have imposed confidentiality conditions to avoid wider public distribution if they had a mind to do so. The fact that the FCA have given it a whitewash hardly inspires confidence either as they have been notoriously inefficient in pursuing wrong-doing in financial markets.

We do not know whether there was any market manipulation taking place and we will never know as Burford is not going to appeal the judgement. That is a shame because transparency is all important in financial markets.

Investors do want to know when market manipulation is taking place and who is doing it. As Mr de Gruchy says: “It was hard to imagine how confidence in the markets could be further eroded. This judgment has managed to do so”. I completely support ShareSoc’s stance on this issue.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Stock Market Trends, Covid-19 Treatments, Burford Results, Lookers Accounting and Medica

The stock market seems to be returning to normal with a positive trend over the last month despite the economy being in a complete shambles as a result of the “lock-down”. The Government is incurring massive costs to bail-out companies, support the NHS and pay workers to do nothing. We have yet to see the real economic impact of those measures on the Government’s finances. But investors seem to be euphoric because they now realise we are not all going to die from the Covid-19 epidemic and there are signs we will be able to get back to work soon.

There are also indications that vaccines to prevent the disease, or treatments for it, may be available in the next few months. One of the best commentators on the epidemic because of his scientific background is Matt Ridley who I met many years ago in circumstances he probably prefers to forget. He publishes a blog which is here: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/ plus he has several good books published which I can recommend. His latest blog article is entitled “The contenders – and challenges – in the race to cure Covid” and is a good review of the field.

One interesting suggestion is the possible use of monoclonal antibodies to replicate antibodies from those infected with the disease and use them to treat other people. This might be very expensive from my knowledge of other such treatments but if the treatment is effective it might only require an injection every few months. It might be affordable for developed countries.

The diversion of NHS resources to treat Covid-19 patients is creating many problems though. Minor operations and non-urgent consultations are being cancelled. You can see the impact of this in the results reported by Medica Group (MGP) earlier this month. The company provides teleradiology services to the NHS and others. This is what it said: “In terms of Routine activity, the Company is experiencing a decline of around 90% in activity with many NHS hospitals having already suspended non-urgent elective procedures”. Reduced A&E admissions are also having an impact. But the company remains positive and can reduce its cost base substantially. ShareSoc has organised a webinar with this company this evening which may be interesting as I do not hold it.

Another company I do not hold is Burford Capital (BUR) which announced results this morning. This company has been in the news a lot because of a shorting attack. This is what the Chairman had to say: “2019 was a year of contrasts, marked by the continued expansion of our business yet also by the disruption of a meritless short attack.  Though our business fundamentals remained strong, investor confidence was dented, causing shareholders to urge changes to our governance”. The announcement contains many positive comments about the progress on litigation, the future prospects, and balance sheet strength.

The accounts are not easy to understand and the Annual Report consists of 163 pages so I have not read it all. No doubt other people will comment on it in detail. But one simple thing I did do was look at the income and cash flow statements.

This is a company where the profits do not turn into cash. Comprehensive income was down from $342 million to $194 million but after changes in “capital provisions” the net cash outflow was $8.3 million. There are also doubts as to whether the legal awards which are recognised in the accounts can actually be collected. The share price is up over 25% today at the time of writing.

Another company worth mentioning as I like to cover cases of defective accounts is that of motor dealer Lookers Group (LOOK) – I have never held it. A few days ago the company gave a “Trading and Operational Update”. It included coverage of the fraud investigation which is now expected to result in a non-cash charge of £4 million in the 2019 financial accounts. Those have now been delayed until June. The investigation has also been extended across all divisions and more charges are expected.

The share price of Lookers was 185p in early 2016. It’s now about 21p. Such events totally undermine investor confidence in the accounts of public companies and suggest much tougher action is required to ensure accounts reported by companies are accurate and not subject to fraud or misrepresentation. Auditors surely are one group who need to take a lead on this as frequently when frauds are identified they have been running for several years.

As I said in my book Business Perspective Investing, “financial accounts don’t matter because they cannot be relied upon”. That’s certainly the case at present and it’s better to look at other measures of the quality of a business.  That is particularly the case at present when the Covid-19 epidemic is distorting the results of companies and making it very difficult to forecast future financial numbers.

Better to look at other factors such as your trust in the management, the market position of the company and its future prospects.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Competition in the Audit Market

I attended a “roundtable” event at the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) on Monday. It was primarily a discussion of audit market competition and how to improve it, with private investors attending. But as I said at the meeting the key issues in the audit market are the quality of audits and the accountability of auditors. Too many blatant frauds go undetected by auditors, and they avoid any responsibility for their errors. Being able to avoid accountability for their failings has resulted in declining audit standards over the last few decades. The Caparo legal judgement is one big reason as it prevents shareholders suing auditors for their failings. It needs overturning.

These thoughts were echoed by other speakers at the meeting although the FRC made clear that their focus is on quality.

The Kingman review of the FRC was critical of the audit sector and its regulation by the FRC while the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is undertaking a review of the market for audit services which is dominated by the big four audit firms.

Would improved competition for audit services improve the quality of auditing is one key question? Or simply lead to a race to the bottom as price competition was increased? Alternatively could quality be improved by improving the work of audit committees and how they select auditors? All of these questions were discussed but no specific conclusions reached.

One proposal to improve competition is to enforce “joint” or “shared” audits where all audits of larger companies would require the involvement of more than one audit firm. This might enable smaller audit firms to become more experienced and more credible to take on larger audits it is argued. But as I said in my response to the CMA consultation: “ So far as investors are concerned, joint and several liability would be a positive advantage to ensure audit quality in theory. But in practice as auditors avoid liability for most failings, it might not matter a great deal”.

I do not see how joint or shared auditing will improve the quality of audits or necessarily improve competition either. An alternative suggestion that there should simply be a cap on the market share of any one audit firm seems a better and simpler solution to the competition issue.

Apparently according to a report in the FT, audit firms have been lobbying hard to retain the status quo. The FT reported the comments of Will Hayter, a director of the CMA that those in the industry should not doubt the CMA’s resolve to go “from four to more” [audit firms].

Improving competition is undoubtedly of benefit even if it just avoids the risk of one of the big four collapsing (as happened with major audit firm Andersen a few years ago after reputational damage and criminal charges over the Enron fraud). But shareholders major concern is improving the quality of audits so that fraud is detected and dubious financial reports are not published; in other words to ensure that published accounts do indeed contain a “true and fair” view of the financial position of a company.

One example of where they might not be was mentioned in the meeting which is the accounts of Burford Capital (BUR) which I have also commented on myself negatively recently, much to the displeasure of Burford holders. All Burford shareholders should read the article by John Dizard published in the FT on the 17th February and entitled “Burford faces long wait over $1bn Argentina claim”. It questioned the valuation of the Petersen legal claim. See https://www.ft.com/content/6debcc05-e368-44b2-bb99-618b7bc0a618 . The key issue is reliance on the management to value the legal claims where any cash arising from the claimed profits based on the valuation of on-going claims may be a long time in coming, if at all.

In summary we need to improve the accounting and auditing standards if investors are to rely on the published accounts of companies. In the meantime investors will need to take a more sceptical view of the accounts of companies and not take them at face value.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact tab to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Speedy Hire and Burford Capital

There are a couple of interesting articles in this week’s Investors Chronicle. One of their share tips for 2020 is Speedy Hire (SDY) which I own some shares in after attending a presentation by the company at a ShareSoc meeting in October. I was somewhat impressed by the apparent turnaround in the business that the management has achieved. You can read a write-up of the presentation here: https://roliscon.blog/2019/10/04/speedy-hire-presentation-burford-analysis-and-treatt-trading-statement/

Another very good article in Investors Chronicle was on the subject of fair-value accounting. It should be essential reading for all Burford Capital (BUR) investors. It explains how Enron used mark-to-market accounting to value long-term contracts. Their reported profits surged as they recognised future profits but the cash did not appear so the management then went from creative accounting to downright fraud by the use of off-balance sheet vehicles.

In reality it was using “mark-to-estimate” accounting as there were no public markets for the assets that could provide a sound valuation. How is this relevant to Burford? That company is in the same position in that the majority of its profits come from fair value gains on the value of the legal cases it is pursuing. As in Enron, the cash flows are very different to the reported profits. In 2018 the reported operating profit was $344 million but the cash outflow was $198 million.

As I said in my blog article mentioned above, I have always been doubtful about the merits of the company and one reason is the answer to the question “Do profits turn into cash?” The answer is “Not in the short term at Burford”. They are effectively recognising what they consider to be the likely chance of success in current profits. But winning legal claims is always in essence uncertain. I have been involved in several big cases and your lawyer always tells you that you have a very good chance of winning as they wish to collect their fees, but even if you win collecting any award can be uncertain”. In essence the accounts of Burford rely to a large extent on management’s estimates of the chance of winning cases and hence the future profits.

Incidentally a few respondents to my mention of my portfolio performance last year in a previous blog post and tweet requested details of my portfolio holdings and investment strategy. My response was that I don’t like disclosing the details mainly because listing all my holdings and providing reasons for them would be tedious but clearly one reason for success is avoiding companies such as Burford where profits do not turn into cash. As regards my investment strategy this is well covered in my book Business Perspective Investing https://www.roliscon.com/business-perspective-investing.html.

As I point out in the book, attending presentations by management or attending Annual General Meetings can give you useful information and the ShareSoc events are very relevant to that objective so I recommend them.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

Winning The Loser’s Game – It’s Like Tennis

It’s that time of year when we review our investment performance over the last year and some of us realise that it would have been lot better if it was not for the few disasters in our share holdings. For example, this is what well known investor David Stredder tweeted before Xmas: “End of 2018 and most of this year has been pretty awful investing wise for me…ACSO, CRAW, BUR, SOM, OPM & JLH were all top 15 holdings and lost 50% or more. CRAW actually went bust. First signs of recovery in two of those and thankfully my top three holdings GAW, JDG & INL have all doubled and covered most my losses but shows investing cannot be fab returns every year. Often a roller coaster ride and must prepare yourself…Sell half on first bad news, slice profits, make friends, share bad and good times as happen to all of us. Enjoy the festive break”.

For those like me that cannot remember all the TIDMs of the several thousand listed companies, the failings were in Accesso, Crawshaw, Burford Capital, Somero, 1PM and John Lewis of Hungerford. The positives were Games Workshop, Judges Scientific and Inland Homes. As an aside I do wish investors would put the company name not just the TIDM (EPIC) code when referencing companies in tweets. A lot of the time I have no idea what they are talking about.

As in most years, I have also had failures. Patisserie was a wipe-out. It went bust after a massive fraud. Thankfully not one of my bigger holdings but I ignored two of the rules I gave in my book “Business Perspective Investing” – namely avoid Executive Chairmen, and directors who have too many roles. I lost money on a number of other newish holdings but not much because I did not hold on to the duds for long.

One of the keys to successful long-term investing is to simply minimise the number of failures while letting the rest of your investments prosper. It is important to realise that investment is a “loser’s game”. It is not the number of sound investments one makes that is important, but the number of mistakes that one avoids that affects the overall performance of your portfolio.

A good book on this subject which I first read some years ago is “Investment Policy – How to Win the Loser’s Game by Charles D. Ellis”. It covers investment strategy in essence but it also contains some simple lessons that are worth learning. He points out that investing is a loser’s game so far as even professional investors are concerned, let alone private investors. Most active fund managers underperform their benchmarks. A lot of the activity of investors in churning their portfolios actually reduces their performance. The more they change horses with the objective of picking a winning steed, the worse their performance gets as their new bets tend to be riskier than the previous holdings, i.e. newer holdings are just more speculative, not intrinsically better. That is why value investing as followed by many experienced investors can outperform.

But Charles Ellis supplied a very good analogy obtained from Dr. Simon Ramo who studied tennis players. He found that professional tennis players seemed to play a different game to amateurs. Professionals seldom make mistakes. Their games have long rallies until one player forces an error by placing a ball just out of reach. But amateurs tend to lose games by hitting the ball into the net or out of play, i.e. they make a lot of unforced errors. The amateur seldom beats his opponent, but more often beats himself. Professional tennis is a winner’s game while amateur tennis is a loser’s game.

In a recent review of my book by Roy Colbran in the UKSA newsletter he says “the book takes a somewhat unusual line in telling you more about things to avoid than things to look for”. Perhaps that is because I have learned from experience that avoiding failures is more important to achieve good overall returns. That means not just avoiding investing in duds to begin with, but cutting losses quickly when the share price goes the wrong way, and getting out at the first significant profit warning.

However, the contrary to many negative qualities in companies are positive qualities. If they are unexceptional in many regards, they can continue to churn out profits without a hiccup if the basic financial structure and business model are good ones. Compounding of returns does the rest. If they avoid risky new business ventures, unwise acquisitions or foreign adventures, that can be to the good.

The companies most to avoid are those where there might be massive returns but where the risks are high. Such companies as oil/gas exploration businesses or mine developers are often of that nature. Or new technology companies with good “stories” about the golden future.

There were a couple of good articles on this year’s investment failures in the Lex column of the FT on Christmas Eve. This is what Lex said about Aston Martin (AML): “Decrying ambitious ventures is relatively safe. Many flop. We gave Aston Martin the benefit of the doubt, instead”. But Lex concedes that the mistake was to be insufficiently cynical.

Lex also commented on Sirius Minerals (SXX) a favourite of many private investors but where Lex says equity holders are likely to be wiped out. Well at least I avoided those two and also avoided investing in any of the Woodford vehicles last year.

To return to the loser’s game theme, many private investors might do better to invest in an index tracker which will give consistent if not brilliant returns than in speculative stocks. At least they will avoid big losses that way. Otherwise the key is to minimise the risks by research and by having a diverse portfolio with holdings sized to match the riskiness of the company. As a result I only lost 0.7% of my portfolio value on Patisserie which has been well offset by the positive movements on my other holdings last year. It of course does emphasise the fact that if you are going to dabble in AIM stocks then you need to hold more than just a few while trying to avoid “diworsification”.

Not churning your portfolio is another way to avoid playing the loser’s game. And as Warren Buffett said “Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.” – in other words, he emphasised the importance of not losing rather than simply making wonderful investment decisions.

Those are enough good New Year resolutions for now.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Mello Event, ProVen and ShareSoc Seminars and Lots More News

It’s been a busy last two days for me with several events attended. The first was on Tuesday when I attended the Mello London event in Chiswick. It was clearly a popular event with attendance up on the previous year. I spoke on Business Perspective Investing and my talk was well attended with an interesting discussion on Burford Capital which I used as an example of a company that fails a lot of my check list rules and hence I have never invested in it. But clearly there are still some fans and defenders of its accounting treatment. It’s always good to get some debate at such presentations.

On Wednesday morning I attended a ProVen VCT shareholder event which turned out to be more interesting than I expected. ProVen manages two VCTs (PVN and PGOO), both of which I hold. It was reported that a lot of investment is going into Adtech, Edtech, Fintech, Cybersecurity and Sustainability driven by large private equity funding. Public markets are declining in terms of the number of listed companies. The ProVen VCTs have achieved returns over 5 years similar to other generalist VCTs but returns have been falling of late. This was attributed to the high investment costs (i.e. deal valuations have been rising for early stage companies) in comparison with a few years back. Basically it was suggested that there is too much VC funding available. Some companies seem to be raising funds just to get them to the next funding round rather than to reach profitability. ProVen prefers to invest in companies focused on the latter. Even from my limited experience in looking at some business angel investment propositions recently, the valuations being suggested for very early stage businesses seem way too high.

This does not bode well for future returns in VCTs of course. In addition the problem is compounded by the new VCT rules which are much tougher such as the fact that they need to be 80% invested and only companies that are less than 7 years old qualify – although there are some exceptions for follow-on investment. Asset backed investments and MBOs are no longer permitted. The changes will mean that VCTs are investing in more risky, small and early stage businesses – often technology focused ones. I suspect this will lean to larger portfolios of many smaller holdings, with more follow-on funding of the successful ones. I am getting wary of putting more money into VCTs until we see how all this works out despite the generous tax reliefs but ProVen might be more experienced than others in the new scenario.

There were very interesting presentations from three of their investee companies – Fnatic (esports business), Picasso Labs (video/image campaign analysis) and Festicket (festival ticketing and business support). All very interesting businesses with CEOs who presented well, but as usual rather short of financial information.

There was also a session on the VCT tax rules for investors which are always worth getting a refresher on as they are so complex. One point that was mentioned which may catch some unawares is that normally when you die all capital gains or losses on VCTs are ignored as they are capital gains tax exempt, and any past income tax reliefs are retained (i.e. the five-year rule for retention does not apply). If you pass the VCT holdings onto your spouse they can continue to receive the dividends tax free but only up to £200,000 worth of VCT holdings transferred as they are considered to be new investments in the tax year of receipt. I hope that I have explained that correctly, but VCTs are certainly an area where expert tax advice is quite essential if you have substantial holdings in them.

One of the speakers at this event criticised Woodford for the naming of the Woodford Equity Income Fund in the same way I have done. It was a very unusual profile of holdings for an equity income fund. Stockopedia have recently published a good analysis of the past holdings in the fund. The latest news from the fund liquidator is that investors in the fund are likely to lose 32% of the remaining value, and it could be as high as 42% in the worst scenario. Investors should call for an inquiry into how this debacle was allowed to happen with recommendations to ensure it does not happen again to unsuspecting and unsophisticated investors.

Later on Wednesday I attended a ShareSoc company presentation seminar with four companies presenting which I will cover very briefly:

Caledonia Mining (CMCL) – profitable gold mining operations in Zimbabwe with expansion plans. Gold mining is always a risky business in my experience and political risks particularly re foreign exchange controls in Zimbabwe make an investment only for the brave in my view. Incidentally big mining company BHP (BHP) announced on Tuesday the appointment of a new CEO, Mike Henry. His pay package is disclosed in detail – it’s a base salary of US$1.7 million, a cash and deferred share bonus (CDP) of up to 120% of base and an LTIP of up to 200% of base, i.e. an overall maximum which I calculate to be over $7 million plus pension. It’s this kind of package that horrifies the low paid and causes many to vote for socialist political parties. I find it quite unjustifiable also, but as I now hold shares in BHP I will be able to give the company my views directly on such over-generous bonus schemes.

Ilika (IKA) – a company now focused on developing solid state batteries. Such batteries have better characteristics than the commonly used Lithium-Ion batteries in many products. Ilika are now developing larger capacity batteries but it may be 2025 before they are price competitive. I have seen this company present before. Interesting technology but whether and when they can get to volumes sufficient to generate profits is anybody’s guess.

Fusion Antibodies (FAB) – a developer of antibodies for large pharma companies and diagnostic applications. This is a rapidly growing sector of the biotechnology industry and for medical applications supplying many new diagnostic and treatment options. I already hold Abcam (ABC) and Bioventix (BVXP) and even got treated recently with a monoclonal antibody (Prolia from Amgen) for osteopenia. One injection that lasts for six months which apparently adjusts a critical protein – or in longer terms “an antibody directed against the receptor activator of the nuclear factor–kappa B ligand (RANKL), which is a key mediator of the resorptive phase of bone remodeling. It decreases bone resorption by inhibiting osteoclast activity”. I am sure readers will understand that! Yes a lot of the science in this area does go over my head.

As regards Fusion Antibodies I did not like their historic focus on project related income and I am not clear what their “USP” is.

As I said in my talk on Tuesday, Abcam has been one of my more successful investments returning a compound total return per annum of 31% Per Annum since 2006. It’s those high consistent returns over many years that generates the high total returns and makes them the ten-baggers, and more. But you did not need to understand the science of antibodies to see why it would be a good investment. But I would need a lot longer than the 30 minutes allowed for my presentation on Tuesday to explain the reasons for my original investment in Abcam and other successful companies. I think I could talk for a whole day on Business Perspective Investing.

Abcam actually held their AGM yesterday so I missed it. But an RNS announcement suggests that although all resolutions were passed, there were significant votes against the re-election of Chairman Peter Allen. Exactly how many I have been unable to find out as their investor relations phone number is not being answered so I have sent them an email. The company suggests the vote was because of concerns about Allen’s other board time commitments but they don’t plan to do anything about it. I also voted against him though for not knowing his responsibility to answer questions from shareholders (see previous blog reports).

The last company presenting at the ShareSoc event was Supermarket Income REIT (SUPR). This is a property investment trust that invests in long leases (average 18 years) and generates a dividend yield of 5% with some capital growth. Typically the leases have RPI linked rent reviews which is fine so long as the Government does not redefine what RPI means. They convinced me that the supermarket sector is not quite such bad news as most retail property businesses as there is still some growth in the sector. Although internet ordering and home delivery is becoming more popular, they are mainly being serviced from existing local sites and nobody is making money from such deliveries (£15 cost). The Ocado business model of using a few large automated sites was suggested to be not viable except in big cities. SUPR may merit a bit more research (I don’t currently hold it).

Other news in the last couple of days of interest was:

It was announced that a Chinese firm was buying British Steel which the Government has been propping up since it went into administration. There is a good editorial in the Financial Times today headlined under “the UK needs to decide if British Steel is strategic”. This news may enable the Government to save the embarrassment of killing off the business with the loss of 4,000 direct jobs and many others indirectly. But we have yet to see what “sweeteners” have been offered to the buyer and there may be “state-aid” issues to be faced. This business has been consistently unprofitable and this comment from the BBC was amusing: “Some industry watchers are suggesting that Scunthorpe, and British Steel’s plant in Hayange in France would allow Jingye to import raw steel from China, finish it into higher value products and stick a “Made in UK” or “Made in France” badge on it”. Is this business really strategic? It is suggested that the ability to make railway track for Network Rail is important but is that not a low-tech rather than high-tech product? I am never happy to see strategically challenged business bailed out when other countries are both better placed to provide the products cheaper and are willing to subsidise the companies doing so.

Another example of the too prevalent problem of defective accounts was reported in the FT today – this time in Halfords (HFD) which I will add to an ever longer list of accounts one cannot trust. The FT reported that the company “has adjusted its accounts to remove £11.7 million of inventory costs from its balance sheet” after a review of its half-year figures by new auditor BDO. KPMG were the previous auditor and it is suggested there has been a “misapplication” of accounting rules where operational costs such as warehousing were treated as inventory. In essence another quite basic mistake not picked up by auditors!

That pro-Brexit supporter Tim Martin, CEO of JD Wetherspoon (JDW) has been pontificating on the iniquities of the UK Corporate Governance Code (or “guaranteed eventual destruction” as he renames it) in the company’s latest Trading Statement as the AGM is coming up soon. For example he says “There can be little doubt that the current system has directly led to the failure or chronic underperformance of many businesses, including banks, supermarkets, and pubs” and “It has also led to the creation of long and almost unreadable annual reports, full of jargon, clichés and platitudes – which confuse more than they enlighten”. I agree with him on the latter point but not about the limit on the length of service of non-executive directors which he opposes. I have seen too many non-execs who have “gone native”, fail to challenge the executives and should have been pensioned off earlier (not that non-execs get paid pensions normally of course. But Tim’s diatribe is well worth reading as he does make some good points – see here: https://tinyurl.com/yz3mso9d .

He has also come under attack for allowing pro-Brexit material to be printed on beer mats in his pubs when the shareholders have not authorised political donations. But that seems to me a very minor issue when so many FTSE CEOs were publicly criticising Brexit, i.e. interfering in politics and using groundless scare stories such as supermarkets running out of fresh produce. I do not hold JDW but it should make for an interesting AGM. A report from anyone who attends it would be welcomed.

Another company I mentioned in my talk on Tuesday was Accesso (ACSO). The business was put up for sale, but offers seemed to be insufficient to get board and shareholder support. The latest news issued by the company says there are “refreshed indications of interest” so discussions are continuing. I still hold a few shares but I think I’ll just wait and see what the outcome is. Trading on news is a good idea in general but trading on the vagaries of guesses, rumours or speculative share price movements, and as to what might happen, is not wise in my view.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Speedy Hire Presentation, Burford Analysis and Treatt Trading Statement

On Tuesday the 1st October I attended a company seminar organised by ShareSoc in Birmingham, mainly to present my new book. But there was an interesting presentation given there by Speedy Hire (SDY). This is not a company I have looked at before because it seemed to be in a sector driven by construction activity which tends to be cyclical and in a fragmented market with few barriers to entry. This is probably why other listed companies in the sector such as HSS and VP are on low valuations (typically P/Es of less than 10). Speedy Hire is on a prospective P/E of 9.5 and a dividend yield of 4.2% according to Stockopedia.

So why was the company interesting? Firstly Speedy Hire seems to be somewhat of a turnaround situation from dire 2016 results. The presenter, Chris Morgan, explained how the company has a new focus on improving the proportion of services in the revenue mix which have better margins and there is a new focus on SME customers which they consider a significant opportunity. They are also undertaking a “digital transformation” to reduce costs and improve service. That includes a new “app” that enables customers to order items whereas most orders are taken over the phone at present. This is currently in essence a very labour intensive business – for example they have over 50 people on credit control alone.

There are clearly opportunities to improve efficiencies in the business by investing in technology which small local hire companies would be unable to match. There is also a focus on improving the return on capital employed (ROCE) which I always like to see – it’s now about 12.8% excluding the recent Lifterz acquisition so is moving in the right direction. On the 3rd October the company issued a positive trading statement with revenue up 6% and higher growth in the sectors focused upon mentioned above.

In summary a company that may be worth a closer look as management seem to be improving the business substantially.

After the Speedy Hire presentation I covered my book “Business Perspective Investing” (see https://www.roliscon.com/business-perspective-investing.html ) which explains the important things that you should look at when choosing companies in which to invest. It suggests ignoring the typical approach of looking for “cheap” shares based on low P/Es and high dividend yields but focusing on the business model and other attributes.

As Burford Capital (BUR) is a company in the news after the shorting attack by Muddy Waters, I chose to run through why I would never have invested in the company based on the check lists given in the book. In essence it fails too many of them, no doubt to the consternation of some in the audience who held the stock. Here are just some of the problems:

  1. High barriers to entry? None I am aware of – I suspect anyone could set up a litigation funding company given enough capital.
  2. Economies of scale? I doubt there are any as legal claims are labour intensive.
  3. Differentiated product/service? I am not clear that they differ much from other litigation funding businesses.
  4. Low capital required? Absolutely the contrary as they have to fund legal cases for years at enormous cost before they get any payback.
  5. Proprietary technology or IP? There is none.
  6. Smaller transactions? The opposite. Burford’s profits depend on a few large legal cases.
  7. Repeat business? I question whether there is any. Legal cases tend to be one-offs.
  8. Short term contracts? The opposite. The cases they take on can run for years.
  9. No major business risks obvious? Significant risks of losing major cases.
  10. Low debt? The contrary as they use debt to finance their legal cases.
  11. Appropriate corporate structure? Odd to say the least until recently with the CFO being the wife of the CEO and no executive directors on the board.
  12. UK or US domicile? No they are registered in Guernsey.
  13. Adhere to UK Corporate Governance Code? No.
  14. AGMs at convenient time and place? No, they are in Guernsey.
  15. No big legal disputes? Apart from participating in the legal actions they fund, they also have received a claim from their founder and former Chairman recently.
  16. Accounts prudent and consistent? Is recognition of the value of current legal claims prudent (upon which the reported profits rely) and the accounts conservative? It’s very difficult to determine from the published information but I have serious doubts about them.
  17. Do profits turn into cash? Not in the short term. They are effectively recognising what they consider to be the likely chance of success in current profits. But winning legal claims is always in essence uncertain. I have been involved in several big cases and your lawyer always tells you that you have a very good chance of winning as they wish to collect their fees, but even if you win collecting any award can be uncertain.

I could go on further but the above negatives are sufficient to rule it out as a “high quality” business so far as I am concerned. That’s ignoring the allegations of Muddy Waters and the counter allegations by Burford of share price manipulation (i.e. market abuse).

Treatt (TET) issued a trading statement today (4th October). This is a company that specialises in natural ingredients for the flavour and fragrance markets, particularly in the beverage sector. I hold a few shares in it.

The statement says that there has been “a significant fall in certain key citrus raw material prices…..”. This is impacting revenue growth although they have been diversifying into other product areas. Profit before tax and exceptional items is still expected to be in line with expectations – which was for a fall in EPS for 2019 based on consensus broker forecasts.

Now when a company says its input prices are coming down by more than 50% as in this case, you would expect the company to be making bumper profits as a result. But clearly this is not so. It would seem that their customers expect to pay less which suggests this is a “commodity price” driven business where competitors track the prices of the raw material downwards.

This might be a well-managed business in a growth sector for natural ingredients but there may well be low barriers to entry and an undifferentiated product in essence. So it may well fail the checklists in my book.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Burford, ShareSoc Seminar, Woodford Patient Capital and Patisserie

Burford Capital (BUR) have published a report by Professor Joshua Mitts over the alleged manipulation of their share price in early August, i.e. market abuse by “spoofing” and “layering”. It links it to the shorting attack by Muddy Waters and is fairly convincing.

They have also published a “witness statement” for an application in the High Court for disclosure of trading information from the London Stock Exchange so as to identify who was trading. In it they also appear to be suggesting that there may have been some “naked” short selling taking place, i.e. sales not covered by borrowed stock which they indicate is illegal under EU Short Selling Regulation 2012.

My opinion on the merits of Burford as an investment or who is going come out smelling of roses in this battle are unchanged – it could be neither. Incidentally I will be discussing the merits of Burford as an investment at some length in my presentation on my book “Business Perspective Investing” at the ShareSoc Birmingham Seminar tomorrow evening (Tuesday) – see https://tinyurl.com/yxryk2h2 . It’s not too late to register and it should be an interesting discussion.

Woodford Patient Capital (WPCT) issued their interim results this morning. Net asset value per share was down 26% on the previous year end. The share price removed unmoved but it was already at a discount of nearly 40% to the Net Asset Value and more write-downs in their portfolio have been made since the half year end. The discount is quite extreme for any investment trust. There have been more board changes and there is a lengthy article in the Financial Times this morning on the pressure faced by Neil Woodford to quit managing the trust. The article suggests the board has lost confidence in Mr Woodford and is courting other asset managers – but who would want to take it on?

I happened to visit a Patisserie Valerie café in York during my Northern vacation last week. Now under new management of course. But the service was absolutely dire, prices were high and there were few customers there when other cafes in the town were busy. One customer walked out because of the slow service. Looks like the new management have taken on a problem.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Burford, Channel Island Registrations and Brexit

Firstly lets talk about Burford Capital (BUR). Tom Winnifrith, who has been complaining about the accounts and other issues at that company for a long time, sent a letter of complaint to the FCA and FRC (the Financial Reporting Council) asking them to investigate the allegations of Muddy Waters. The FRC have responded with this comment: “Burford Capital is incorporated under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 and is accordingly not subject to the requirements of the Companies Act 2006”. They also said that the shares are traded on AIM which is not a regulated market. The FRC’s Corporate Reporting Review Team therefore does not have powers to make enquiries about the matters raised.

In summary, although the FCA and the FRC have some powers relating to the company’s directors and its auditor, Mr Winnifrith will have to complain to the Guernsey Financial Services Commission who are the regulatory authority.

As I said in my recently published book, company domicile does matter and is definitely worth checking before investing in a company. I specifically said: “In general for UK listed companies, any domicile outside the UK adds to the risk of investing in a company. Domicile in the Channel Islands or Isle of Man is also not ideal [see Chapter 7]”. So that’s yet another reason why I would not have invested in Burford, apart from my doubts about the prudence of their accounting.

Brexit

At the risk of offending half (approximately) of my readers, here are a few comments on the latest political situation and the prorogation of Parliament. Speaker John Bercow has said that “shutting down parliament would be an offence against the democratic process and the rights of parliamentarians….” while there was an editorial in the Financial Times today that said “it was an affront to democracy” and that Mr Johnson had “detonated a bomb under the constitutional apparatus of the United Kingdom”. But I tend to side with Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg who called it “completely constitutional and proper”. Suspension after a near record long parliamentary session to allow the Government to put forward its programme in a new Queen’s Speech is entirely appropriate and not unusual. There is also time before the suspension, and after, for Parliament to debate whatever they want before Brexit date on October 31st. Also Parliament is often closed down in September for the party conferences so this is not unusual.

It’s simply a case of sour grapes from remainers who realise they may not be able to stop Brexit or cause further trouble in resolving the impasse in Parliament. John Bercow is particularly to be criticised because he is supposed to be independent and should not be making such comments on a well-established procedure supported by precedent.

Parliament has been debating Brexit for many months and it is time to draw such debates to a conclusion because it gives the false hope to the EU that the UK will change its mind over leaving. The UK voted to leave and we should get on it with, preferably with some kind of Withdrawal Agreement, or otherwise none. Business is damaged by the on-going uncertainty which is why the pound has been falling. Boris Johnson is simply forcing the pace which is quite right.

If the opposition parties or remainers in the Conservative party do not like what is happening they can call for a vote of no confidence. It that was passed then a general election would no doubt be called, which the Conservatives might actually win, or the election might take place after the Brexit date which would put the remainers in a very difficult position. That is why they are so clamorous. They simply don’t like the position they find themselves in which has actually been caused by those in Parliament who have wanted to debate the matter endlessly without coming to a conclusion.

There are some possible legal challenges but should, or will, the judiciary interfere in what is happening in Parliament? I don’t think they should and I doubt they will. Are Scottish judges, where one challenge is being heard, really going to attempt to rule on a matter of UK wide importance? This seems unlikely in the extreme.

In summary, I think everyone should calm down and let the matter take its course. Those who are not happy with the turn of events can challenge it in Parliament via their elected representatives if they wish. But Brexit needs to be resolved on Oct 31st, one way or another. Not delayed yet again. There are so many other issues that Parliament needs to deal with that more debate on the matter is simply unacceptable.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Eddie Stobart Logistics and Reasons to be Fearful

No sooner had I published a book that says investors cannot trust the accounts of companies when making investment decisions (“Business Perspective Investing”) than we have yet another case of dubious financial reporting. The latest example is that of Eddie Stobart Logistics (ESL) which has announced that “the Board is applying a more prudent approach to revenue recognition, re-assessing the recoverability of certain receivables, as well as considering the appropriateness of certain provisions”. CEO Alex Laffey is leaving with immediate effect, profits seem to now be uncertain, the dividend is being reviewed and the shares have been suspended. In other words, it’s one of those shock announcements that undermines investor confidence in company accounts and in the stock market in general.

That follows on from the case of Burford Capital where revenue recognition has also come into question and I personally doubt the accounts are prudent. We seem to be getting about one case per week recently of accounts that are called into question or where significant restatements are required. I may need to revise my book sooner than expected because it contains a list of examples of dubious and fraudulent accounts in companies which is rapidly becoming out of date!

ESL is of course one of Neil Woodford’s largest investment holdings – he holds 22% of the company. Mr Woodford has also suffered from a write down in the value of his holding via Woodford Patient Capital Trust in Industrial Heat due to slow business progress. This is a company focused on “cold fusion” technology. Mr Woodford seems to be adept at picking risky investments of late which is not how he built his former reputation. Even the Sunday Times is now attacking Neil Woodford with an article today headlined “Neil Woodford’s worthless tech bets” which covers his investments in Precision Biopsy and SciFluor Life Sciences and which are now alleged to be almost worthless. I feel it’s going to be a very long time before his reputation recovers.

As regards more wider issues, there was a very good article by Merryn Somerset Webb in Saturday’s Financial Times under the headline “So many reasons to be fearful”. She points out that due to low interest rates making it seem irrelevant how long it might be before exciting companies actually produce returns, value stocks are trading lower relative to growth stocks than they have for 44 years. The pound is also at a 35-year low against the dollar and US stock prices at a 50-year high relative to US GDP.

Bond yields are so low that even in nominal terms they are negative in many parts of Europe. What should investors do? She comes up with some suggestions such as investing in commodities such as gold or silver, or even oil because there is a risk that with Governments running out of options to stimulate their economies, they may start printing money which will drive up inflation.

She also comments on a likely new “cold war” to be fought by the USA and China over trade which will may profoundly affect many of our investments. She argues that the next 30 years may be very different to the last 30.

Altogether an interesting article well worth reading if just to remind ourselves that the world is rapidly changing and that we live in very unusual times.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%