Thursday, June 28, 2018

Will tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy push the dollar higher?


I recently read Jack Schwager's trader-interview book The New Market Wizards, which includes an interview with Stanley Druckenmiller. Many people consider Druckenmiller one of the best investors alive, and he lives up to his reputation in the interview, sharing a number of fascinating anecdotes and ideas.

One idea in particular caught my attention. Druckenmiller tells Schwager that:

I never had more conviction about any trade than I did about the long side of the Deutsche mark when the Berlin Wall came down. One of the reasons I was so bullish on the Deutsche mark was a radical currency theory proposed by George Soros in his book, The Alchemy of Finance. His theory was that if a huge deficit were accompanied by an expansionary fiscal policy and tight monetary policy, the country's currency would actually rise. The dollar provided a perfect test case in the 1981-84 period. At the time, the general consensus was that the dollar would decline because of the huge budget deficit. However, because money was attracted into the country by a tight monetary policy, the dollar actually went sharply higher. When the Berlin Wall came down, it was one of those situations that I could see as clear as day. West Germany was about to run up a huge budget deficit to finance the rebuilding of East Germany. At the same time, the Bundesbank was not going to tolerate any inflation. I went headlong into the Deutsche mark. It turned out to be a terrific trade.


Today the United States has a similar combination of tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy. The Federal Reserve has begun raising interest rates and shrinking its balance sheet ahead of its European and Japanese counterparts, while the US fiscal deficit is set to surge following a large corporate tax cut.

So after reading the interview, my initial reaction was to assume that the current regime is positive for the dollar. But after further research, I think the U.S. today has enough differences with Druckenmiller's two examples that any comparison is meaningless. I want to emphasize that I'm not a macro expert, so some of these arguments may be flawed, but here are what I see as the differences:


• The dollar is already relatively high.

In 1980, the dollar had fallen by half against yen and mark during the previous decade. In November 1989, the mark was off its highs versus the dollar and had been flat for the previous three years despite a large and rising trade surplus. Whereas today, the dollar's real effective exchange rate is near a decade high:


A chart of the trade-weighted US dollar index also puts the dollar's strength in stark relief:



• Anecdotally, sentiment is also high.

The consensus of Wall Street currency strategists seems to be that, since the US growth has accelerated at the same time that economic data have surprised to the downside in many other countries, the dollar can only continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

By contrast, as Druck mentions, in the early 1980s “the general consensus was that the dollar would decline because of the huge budget deficit.”

Likewise, he tells Schwager that in 1989, “[Buying Deutsche Marks] was made easier by the generally bearish sentiment at the time. The Deutsche mark actually fell during the first two days after the wall came down because people thought that the outlook for a growing deficit would be negative for the currency.”


• The U.S. current account and NIIP are weak.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. ran trade deficits that were relatively small by today's standards, and it had a strong net international investment position. Germany's trade surplus steadily grew throughout the 1980s.

Today the U.S. has both a weak NIIP and a weak current account. A chart from Horseman Capital illustrates how much the US NIIP has deteriorated since the early '80s:


Simply, the U.S. has less wherewithal to run government deficits without incurring major risks.

Also, my hunch—and I'll reiterate here that I'm not a macro expert, so this may be completely wrong—is that the NIIP plays a major role in determining whether deficits are good or bad for a currency. 

Most investors have a home-country bias, i.e. they prefer to invest domestically so long as domestic investments have a competitive risk/reward. So if a country increases its supply of government securities (expansionary fiscal policy) and also guarantees that those securities earn high returns (tight monetary policy), and its citizens own significant foreign assets (a positive NIIP), some of them will sell those foreign assets to buy the newly-created domestic securities, which will push the country's currency higher. Whereas if its citizens have significant international debts (a negative NIIP), this dynamic isn't possible.


• The “return on deficit” will be lower.

In the early 1980s, the U.S. experienced two recessions that kept its economy below potential. In 1989, Germany had a significant identifiable need for investment in the form of integrating East Germany. By contrast, today the U.S. is nine years into an economic recovery, the unemployment rate is low, and there are many anecdotal signs of labor shortages.

An economy with minimal spare capacity and full employment will be less responsive to fiscal stimulus than one that with significant spare capacity and unemployment, so I would expect the current US deficit to be far less stimulative than the two deficits Druckenmiller mentions.

And even before the tax cut, the U.S. government was running large deficits in the midst of a long economic expansion. This suggests that a large part of the deficit is structural, so rather than being economically beneficial it's a sign of weakness.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Book review: "Long-Term Front-Running" by Michael Fritzell

Many stock traders try to make money by predicting the immediate future: Will tax reform spark a stock-market rally? Will Apple beat earnings estimates next quarter? Et cetera.

Long-Term Front-Running suggests a different tack: instead of guessing at the near future, investors should try to predict which companies will take off in the next few years and buy their stocks before other people catch on. By getting in before the crowd, they'll benefit both as the company's earnings rise and as investors catch on to the story and award the company a higher price/earnings multiple. In my experience, the best-performing stocks are usually a product of those two things paired together, so investors who look for “compounders” should find the book interesting.

Short-term traders should also find it interesting. Trading off immediate events can induce tunnel vision and make one's trading strategy essentially reactive. Looking past the near term should give traders both more perspective and less competition.

A big strength of Long-Term Front-Running is its versatility: it discusses both corporate fundamentals and investor sentiment, both macroeconomic and company-specific events and processes, etc. It also touches on the importance of “reflexivity,” i.e. how perception can affect reality in the financial world and create positive feedback loops.

Unfortunately, in a way the book's versatility is also a drawback. Since it covers a lot of ground in just 100 pages, its specific ideas are mostly rules of thumb, i.e. guidelines on what to do in typical situations. And as I get more investing experience, I've come to believe that many of the best investment opportunities involve atypical situations.

For instance, Fritzell writes that “The best time to bet on a commodity is when inventory is tight; future supply is likely to be low while demand is racing ahead.” This is generally true, but the shale-drilling revolution provides a counterexample. There have been times in the recent past when natural gas inventories were low, yet prices didn't rise. The shale revolution seems to have overwhelmed the traditional relationship between inventories and future prices.

Lest I seem too critical, I'll say that I enjoyed many of the book's rules of thumb. For instance, it includes a checklist for identifying corporate fraud that I found very useful. I also liked its case studies, particularly the one about Delclima, an Italian HVAC manufacturer that began life as a neglected spin-off but soon became a stock market darling.


Notable and quotable

To give you a flavor of the book, here are some of my favorite passages:

The potential to tap future customer demand can be summarized in the term “consumer surplus.” It can be defined as the difference between the price customers are willing to pay and the what the product costs. If there is a huge gap, then the company is potentially sitting on a goldmine.


Return on invested capital itself is not a useful metric: it often reflects a cyclical peak in the industry or the mature phase of the ramp-up of a particular technology.


Products that aren't particularly functional – Tamagochi, baseball cards, Beanie Babies, etc. - are fun for a while but we usually get tired of them. If the product is fashionable and also serves a real functional purpose – for example UGG shoes or Canada Goose jackets – they may survive for a longer period of time.

(In my opinion, this mix of fashion and function explains much of Apple's popularity. Apple's smartphones cost much more than competing phones—they clearly have a fashion premium. Yet they're also cheaper and more functional than what preceded smartphones—the iPhone is like a mobile phone, laptop, digital camera, watch, and GPS rolled into one. The combination of so many things in a convenient device lets people justify paying the fashion premium.)


Not every company is able to take advantage of industry growth... in a commodity industry, ruthless competition may take away most of the opportunity for gain, despite a solid underlying growth trend.


Sometimes people criticize new technology due to certain weaknesses but fail to realize that those weaknesses will disappear over time. Online streaming in the early 2000s was unbearably slow, but with the spread of fixed broadband, online streaming was almost certain to take off.


High credit growth not only pushes money into the stock market, it also improves the value of assets used as collateral in loans, improving creditworthiness and fueling further credit growth.


Whenever a particular method of investing becomes popular, flows into that strategy start to accumulate. Those flows can by themselves help that strategy perform and attract further inflows.

Thoughts on convertible bonds

A convertible bond becomes “busted” when the issuer's stock price falls so far below the strike price as to render the conversion feature nugatory. When this happens, the convertible begins to trade like a regular bond. For instance, if bonds of similar size and credit quality trade at a 9-10% yield to maturity, the convert will typically trade at a price—almost certainly a big discount to par—that gives it a similar YTM.

Busted converts were great investments during the 2001-02 market downturn and again during the Global Financial Crisis. Their strong performance during those periods of stress piqued my interest, and I read as much as I could about the convert market, assuming that it would offer similar opportunities during the next crisis.

After a couple days of reading, I no longer think that will be the case. Actually, my reading suggests that converts will be relatively unattractive going forward, for several reasons:

The market has shrunk. Since 2007, the face value of outstanding convertible bonds has fallen from approximately $700bn to $500bn worldwide and from $300bn to $200bn in the United States. (By comparison, Apple's market cap is $870bn.) There are two reasons why the market is smaller: One, many companies issue converts to save money on interest, and historically low interest rates obviate that. Two, convertible arbitrage funds are major buyers of converts, and since the GFC they've been forced to use less leverage than they'd previously used, reducing their buying power.

With arbs using less leverage, there's less potential for forced selling to create bargains. Investor psychology has also changed. The convertible selloff after Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy was so ferocious in part because it took people by surprise. Nothing like that had happened before, at least not on the same scale. Now investors know it's within the realm of possibility, which I think makes it less likely to happen again. As the old cliché goes, a watched pot never boils.

Transaction costs during the post-Lehman selloff were exorbitant, with bid/ask spreads equal to 7% or more of the midpoint price for many converts:

(Source: The Handbook of Convertible Bonds by de Spiegeleer and Schoutens)

The market was chaotic and illiquid, with December 31, 2008 13f-hr filings showing that various hedge funds had one bond—Ciena's $300mm May 2013 issue—valued at anywhere from 48 to 53 cents on the dollar. Buying converts in 2008 was a great trade on paper, but trading costs made the true returns lower.

Convert issuers tend to be smaller, more speculative, lower-quality companies. Many of these companies also have debt that's senior to their converts—typically, converts are subordinated to all other existing and future debt issues. The GFC was painful but brief; in a protracted recession, converts would likely experience much higher defaults.


Tech industry over-represented

Technology companies are over-represented among convert issuers. I think this is because a convert is most attractive when the issuer's stock is volatile but it has low credit risk. Usually the two conditions don't go together: a company that's less likely to default will typically have a less volatile stock price. But tech companies often trade at high valuations because investors expect them to grow quickly. Hence the stocks are very sensitive to investors' beliefs about the future, and they can be quite volatile without implying anything about the companies' creditworthiness.


Issuers with net cash

In looking at dozens of convert issuers, I found a surprising number that had more cash than debt. Even more surprisingly, the net cash didn't necessarily make them safe credits.

Many tech companies issued convertibles during the dot-com bubble. In 2001, after the bubble had burst and the tech industry was suffering, some of these companies still had net cash. How their converts performed from that point on depended on how they had financed themselves. Some issuers that had raised money primarily through converts defaulted, while the ones that had raised money through a mix of equity and convert issuance almost all survived. In the latter group, many converts paid off at par even after the issuer's stock had fallen 95-99%.

A couple of tech issuers managed to stay afloat only by repurchasing most of their outstanding bonds at a big discount to par. These buybacks meant that they technically satisfied their obligations, but most of their bondholders didn't benefit.

While the dotcom-era tech issuers generally treated their creditors well, that wasn't the case during the GFC. Many issuers with net cash took creditor-unfriendly actions:

ADC Telecom bought back stock in late 2008 while its converts traded at 45 cents on the dollar.
Ciena made a big all-cash acquisition in 2009 as the GFC appeared to be ending, taking it from a net cash position to a significant net debt position. Integrating the acquisition was more difficult than expected and Ciena lost money for several years.
Energy Conversion Devices invested most of its cash in growth initiatives, only to find that its niche solar technology wasn't cost-competitive with polycrystalline solar cells.
TTM Industries made a big acquisition in 2009 that took it from having working capital in excess of all liabilities to having significant net debt, primarily bank loans that were senior to its converts.

Energy Conversion Devices went bankrupt within a few years. The other companies survived and repaid their converts, but the expectation that their net cash provided a margin of safety turned out to be wrong.

By looking at issuers' recent actions, investors may be able to find net-cash issuers that are more favorably disposed to creditors:

In 2002, Juniper Networks had $1.7bn of cash and $1.15bn of outstanding convertible bonds. That May, it acquired Siemens' networking business. Juniper had enough money to buy the business entirely for cash, but instead it paid in a mix of cash and stock, leaving it with a net cash position. A few months after the acquisition, it bought back ~18% of its converts at a discount to par. In 2003, it tendered for the remaining bonds at par.

In 2007, Arris Group acquired C-Cor. Like Juniper, Arris made the acquisition with a mix of cash and stock that left it with a net cash position. It later bought back some of its converts during the GFC and stated in its 2008 10-K that “Maintain[ing] a strong capital structure, mindful of our 2013 debt maturity” was a key part of its corporate strategy.

Book review: "Common Stocks and Common Sense" by Edgar Wachenheim

Common Stocks and Common Sense has the same format as Peter Lynch's One Up on Wall Street: it's a loose autobiography of a fund manager with a few case studies, some homespun philosophy, and a lot of rule-of-thumb advice.

Unfortunately Wachenheim is no Lynch, and I strongly recommend against reading this book. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but most of the ideas in Common Stocks are dangerously simplistic--this is an investment book by an investment manager who doesn't really understand investing.

I'll give a couple examples.


Centex

Wachenheim began investing in property developers in the 1990s. In 1999, he bought shares of Centex on the assumption that the largest developers were becoming growth stocks: the savings-and-loan crisis in the early '90s had cut off credit to many smaller developers, so the biggest companies were taking share and growing much faster than the sector as a whole. Centex was trading at $12, but he forecast that it would reach $63 in a few years as sales rose in a straight line, margins increased with scale, and investors rewarded Centex with a higher price-to-earnings ratio on higher earnings.

"Because the homebuilding industry was becoming a growth industry... I valued Centex at 12 times earnings [in 2003]," he writes, adding, "I was literally jumping up and down with excitement."

There are a few problems with this rationale:
1.) The savings and loan crisis was over by 1999, so it wouldn't have been an impediment to smaller developers from then on. If anything, small banks might have been more willing to lend to developers because they were losing out to larger banks in mortgage origination, a volume business, and needed other places to put their deposits to work.
2.) Developers earn much of their money from land appreciation. If they buy a plot of land and then land prices rise faster than their cost of borrowing, they can earn huge profits. Since building houses is a competitive business with low barriers to entry, land appreciation is sometimes their only source of profit. And land doesn't care who owns it--a large builder doesn't have land-appreciation economies of scale. So when Wachenheim forecast steadily rising margins, in my opinion he misunderstood how these companies make money.
3.) Profits from land appreciation are mean-reverting. If land prices surge, developers can earn fat margins on their existing inventory, but when they buy new plots of land they'll have to pay the new, higher prices and margins will come back down--assuming prices don't rise perpetually.


Wachenheim concludes by writing:
In the fall of 2005, Centex’s shares were selling at about $70. We had earned close to a sixfold profit on our investment. I should have been ecstatic, but I was not. The shares still were trading at far less than 10 times earnings. 

The investment was a complete winner, but I felt that it could have been even more profitable if the housing bubble had not occurred because the homebuilders eventually would have earned respect and sold at much higher PE ratios.


Union Pacific

Wachenheim bought shares of Union Pacific in early 2004. Here I'll let him speak for himself:
[Union Pacific] did not appear to be a particularly exciting investment opportunity, but the stock market and our stocks had been strong in 2003, and we did not have alternatives that appeared to be more attractive...

There was another reason to own shares of Union Pacific rather than holding cash. Over a period of many decades, the stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, has enjoyed an average annual total return of roughly 9½ percent—and our best guess was that returns could average somewhere around 9½ percent over the next few decades. When we purchase a stock, we believe that it will appreciate by far more than the stock market appreciates. However, what if we are wrong and the stock appreciates only as much as the market? Then, if the stock is typical, it should earn an average annual return of about 9½ percent over time, which is much better than holding cash.


One important lesson

While the specific ideas in Common Sense are useless, the book does teach one very important lesson: that intellect isn't only determinant of investing success.

Wachenheim has been a fund manager for 30 years and has handily beat the S&P 500 index during his career. His ability to do so despite a weak understanding of the stock market shows, in my opinion, the value of intuition. By intuition, I mean a mix of common sense and knowledge that one has gained from experience but can't necessarily articulate. Wachenheim writes that he sold Centex in late 2005, at the exact peak of the housing bubble, because he thought housing starts had risen too quickly and there were anecdotal signs that the market was overheating.

Notably, Wachenheim's idea about large property developers having economies of scale became popular after the housing bubble took off. Having a bad idea can be profitable if many other people later adopt the same bad idea.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Articles of interest

Auto lending
The Wall Street Journal reports that used-car prices have been resilient in 2017 despite a sharp increase in expiring leases.


China
Brad Setser critiques the popular argument that China's credit growth is losing its stimulative power.

The Wall Street Journal describes how HNA Group's international acquisition binge has faltered, writing that "Instead of targeting profitable companies, HNA sought assets with considerable revenues that would hasten its rise up the Fortune 500."

According to Dow Jones Newswires, Chinese house buyers are using consumer loans to get around restrictions on real-estate lending, with one researcher estimating that "at least one third of short-term consumer loans issued since March have gone toward property purchases."

Caixin Global speculates that Chinese microloans' risk of default is higher than it appears, noting that many borrowers are in the habit of repaying debts to one lender by borrowing from another.


Commodities
Reuters reports that a Chinese coal miner has amassed a $3bn long position in copper futures, presumably contributing to the metal's year-to-date price rise.


Crypto-currencies
Alpha Vulture argues that Bitcoin is overhyped and describes some of its inherent flaws.

Cole Frank of the Council on Foreign Relations states that while Chinese capital outflows might have contributed to Bitcoin's rising price in 2015-16, that has not been the case this year.


Emerging markets
Miguel Kiguel, a former Argentine government official, writes about the aftermath of Argentina's 2001 debt default.

Al-Monitor reports that many of Turkey's large infrastructure projects are earning poor economic returns.

In a two-part interview (part one and part two) Porter Erisman discusses his new book Six Billion Shoppers, offering his thoughts on how e-commerce has developed in emerging markets and how and why it differs from e-commerce in developed countries.


Incentives
Ockham's Notebook writes about Goodhart's Law and how it contributed to problems at American Realty Capital/VEREIT.


Investing strategy
The Wall Street Journal interviews Joel Tillinghast about his investing principles.

Giles Parkinson of Aviva offers some potential explanations for why American stocks have outperformed their foreign counterparts over the past thirty years.


Media
Vanity Fair reports that Amazon "is poised to spend around $4.5 billion on their video streaming this year... only $1.5 billion less than Netflix’s $6 billion budget for their 2017 content."

Similarly, Variety reports that the cost of producing streaming video programs has surged as an increasing number of deep-pocketed companies produce an increasing amount of streaming content.


Oil
John-Paul Burke of Horseman Capital argues that OPEC's actions are responsible for oil going into backwardation and that this will constrain shale production growth.


Retailing
IHL Group argues that news reports of a "retail apocalypse" overstate the problems retailers face.


Short selling
Russell Clark of Horseman Capital describes his short-selling strategy in a public presentation. I consider this a must-read because Clark's strategy is radically different from the ones that most short sellers use.


Valuation
Crescat Capital's latest investor letter includes a lot of sobering statistics about the stock market's valuation.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Articles of interest

Anti-trust law
Lina Khan from Yale Law School describes how Amazon is vulnerable to changes in anti-trust philosophy.

Wired reports that as leading internet companies become more powerful, some anti-trust officials are arguing that "privacy is a competition issue."


Billionaires
Bloomberg interviews Aliko Dangote, Africa's richest entrepreneur.


Brands
Intrinsic Investing describes the things that have traditionally made large consumer brands successful and looks at the forces that are now eroding those brands' market power.


China
Dim Sums descibes the fraud and lack of trust that pervade China's food distribution system.

On a more positive note, The New York Times looks at China's advanced and rapidly growing system of mobile payments.

Trivium China gives an overview of the Chinese Communist Party's upcoming congress.


Innovation
Andrew King and Baljir Baatartogtokh offer a balanced critique of Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation.


Master limited partnerships
SL Advisors explains why MLPs have underperformed other kinds of dividend-paying investments in 2017.


Medical devices
UndervaluedJapan has a nice writeup of Fukuda Denshi, a Japanese medical-device maker. He writes that the company trades at an abnormally low valuation despite a history of earning consistent profits and returning capital to shareholders.


Oil and gas
Reuters describes how shale energy players are using financially-creative joint ventures to raise money for drilling.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Enervest, a $2 billion private-equity fund that makes energy investments, has lost nearly all its money.


Philosophy
Petrichor Capital provides an overview of a lecture that Richard Hamming gave to the Naval Postgraduate School. Although the lecture is about Hamming's academic career, many of the concepts seem relevant to investing.


Restaurants
Ockham's Notebook shares some excerpts from Ray Kroc's autobiography Grinding It Out.


Retail
The New York Times describes how Best Buy has improved its operations to better compete with Amazon.


Saudi Arabia
Reuters reports on the palace coup that removed Mohammed bin Nayef from the royal line of succession and made Mohammed bin Salman Saudi Arabia's heir apparent.


Software
Jeremy Reimer from ArsTechnica provides a fascinating history of OS2, the IBM operating system that lost out to Windows 95.


Venture capital
TechCrunch describes Softbank's new $100 billion venture-capital fund.

A critical reappraisal of "Margin of Safety"

A few years ago, I wrote a favorable review of Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety. I recently re-read the book, and today my opinion of it is far less charitable. There are three reasons for that:


1. It's derivative of Ben Graham
When I originally read Margin of Safety, I wasn't familiar with Graham's work. Since then I've read Security Analysis, which made me realize that MoS is essentially a carbon copy of SA. Some of the commentary in SA is specific to the stock market of the 1920s and 1930s, and some of the commentary in MoS is specific to the stock market and junk-bond boom of the 1980s, but beyond that Klarman lifted MoS's writing style, its layout, and even its title from SA.

The main difference between the two books is that SA is longer and more detailed. Anyone who's interested in Klarman's ideas can get a more sophisticated treatment of the same topics from Graham.


2. The writing is moralistic
Klarman is an old-school value investor who buys stocks that trade at low price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios. There's nothing wrong with that--I prefer to buy statistically-cheap stocks too--but he's dismissive of other investing strategies, and the dismissal has a distinct moral element. He presents his style of value investing as the one true way and portrays speculation as nothing more than a "greater-fool game." There's no acknowledgement that riskier stocks can have positive expected value. Klarman calls art and rare coins "rank speculations" and denigrates short-term traders. The moralistic tone is grating.

When I started investing in 2002, I was a regular reader of Bill Fleckenstein's column on MSN Money. Fleckenstein was a permabear and dogmatically argued that the stock market was overvalued. Despite that, he had great trading instincts. On several occasions, he wrote that the market was due for a bounce right before it did, in fact, bounce. But as far as I know, he never acted on these instincts. He seemed to think that buying high-P/E tech stocks was immoral and that the only legitimate way to trade them was to bet on prices falling back to fair value.

I'm sure that attitude kept his returns far lower than they could've been, and for me, his column was a powerful argument against having ideological biases in investing. MoS evinces the same kind of rigid ideological thinking.


3. Many of the case studies were value traps
Klarman illustrates his investing philosophy with short case studies of stocks that he bought during the 1980s and early 1990s. The case studies are too brief to give a sense of why these investments were successful, but they piqued my interest, and I looked online for more information about the stocks in question.

What I found suggests that many of them had major risks that MoS doesn't mention, while others were classic value traps.


Bucyrus-Erie
Bucyrus was the recipient of a leveraged-buyout offer in July 1987. After the October '87 crash, investors worried that the offer would be withdrawn, and the stock traded at $10 versus the offer's value of $14 in cash and new securities. At the time, Bucyrus had $9 per share of net cash and an "unprofitable but asset-rich mining-machinery business," and Klarman reasoned that the stock was "a real bargain."

The buyout was consummated, and the stock might have been an intelligent gamble on the deal going through, but the net cash provided less of a margin of safety than one might assume. Sales of Bucyrus's mining equipment had surged in the 1970s, but this gave way to an extended downturn in the 1980s and '90s as demand fell and coal miners reused surplus machinery from the '70s rather than buy new equipment. The company finally filed for a prepackaged bankruptcy in 1994 after years of operating losses. Its 10-K for that year states that "meaningful new machine shipments to domestic coal customers cannot be expected until after the mid 1990's."


City Investing Liquidating Trust
City Investing Company decided to liquidate in 1984, and the following year it put a hodgepodge of assets that it couldn't sell into a liquidating trust. The trust's units traded at $3 compared to tangible book value of $5 and distributions of $9 per unit over the following six years. Sounds great, except that much of the trust's return came from distributing its ownership interest in General Development Corp, a Florida land developer whose stock surged while the trust was liquidating but later became worthless.

GDC was a glorified Ponzi scheme. It sold plots of land on installment, promising that it would improve the land once the buyer had finished paying off the installment loan. GDC underpriced the land and lost money on every sale, but as long as the volume of new installment contracts exceeded the volume of maturing contracts, the company was cash-flow positive. When the U.S. entered a recession in 1990, the number of new installment contracts plummeted and GDC experienced a cash crunch. It filed for bankruptcy in 1991.

An investor who recognized the flawed nature of GDC's business could have hedged the trust's interest in GDC by shorting its stock proportionally, but in doing so, the investor would have tied up more money for a much lower profit.


Esco Electronics
Emerson Electric spun off Esco, its military electronics unit, in 1990 when the outlook for defense spending was bleak. After the spinoff, Esco traded at less than 15% of tangible book value even though it was profitable. Over the next five years, the stock doubled, which would normally be a good return, except that every other defense stock performed better. Northrop Grumman and Alliant Techsystems quadrupled, while General Dynamics was up 550%.

I'm sorry if it seems churlish to criticize Klarman for recommending a stock that doubled, but Esco's underperformance despite the astoundingly low valuation suggests the company had problems he doesn't acknowledge.


Intertan
Intertan operated RadioShack's international stores. In 1986 its stock traded at $11, which was less than its tangible book value and equal to its net working capital. The stock was cheap because losses in Europe were offsetting healthy profits in Australia and Canada. Klarman mentions that the company turned around its European division and that by 1989 the stock was trading above $60.

Unfortunately that was the high point, and Intertan spent most of the 1990s trading below $10. The company never paid a dividend. Circuit City eventually acquired Intertan for $14 per share in 2004, giving shareholders a total return below the inflation rate.



Obviously I don't recommend the book, but if you're still interested in reading it, here's a PDF copy.