Equity analysis: Beyond corporate stenography

I normally don't write very much about company analysis, because I have spent most of my professional life as a quant. Nevertheless, I was fortunate to have been a small cap/special situations analyst early in my career. That experience from the school of hard knocks taught me that, indeed, different industries have very different value-drivers and therefore different valuation metrics, which was a invaluable lesson for me later in my life as an equity quantitative analyst.

Two recent events prompt me to write this post. Firstly, I volunteered to be a team mentor in the CFA Institutes' Global IRC Challenge, where teams from universities around the world compete by performing investment analysis. As well, I was asked to give advice to a junior company seeking a stock exchange listing on the issues of raising capital and investor relations.

I therefore write this post with those two groups in mind.


The basics of company analysis
The basics of company analysis depend on how an investor answers the following two questions:

1. What is the company's competitive "moat"? Why does it exist in the first place? For example, a corner grocery store's competitive position is likely it's location - convenience is probably the main factor here. On the other hand, a company like Apple depends mainly on its technology, design and "coolness" factor - which is why customers line up overnight for new releases of iPhones.
2. How do you value the company? Answering this question depends on how you answered the first question. What kinds of margins are sustainable in that business? If the "competitive moat" is large enough, then the company can extract above average margins and returns on capital for a long time. On the other hand, a corner grocery store in a commoditized business can only earn market rates of return, barring other competitive advantages.

Don't just focus on valuation
IMHO, way too much of the focus in business schools is on valuation. No doubt, corporate valuation modeling is a skill that need to be learned. Once learned, however, it's a highly commoditized skill and offers the analyst little or no competitive advantage over his peers. Analysts who mainly focus on building company financial models often wind up just becoming a stenographer for the company and add little new investment insight.


Adding independent investment insight
I have found that the analysts that really stand out from the crowd are the ones who have effectively mastered the principles in Michael Porter's books Competitive Advantage and Competitive Strategy.

It doesn't mean, however, that the analyst needs to do a 50 page Porter analysis of a company's competitive position, i.e. threats from suppliers, customers, existing competitors and new entrants, etc. It does mean that the analyst should be aware of these issues and flag the positives (competitive advantage) and negatives (risks) faced by the company.

To give an anecdotal example, I recall researching Nokia, a darling stock during the days of the Tech Bubble. It was the American based analysts who were very good at understanding the Nokia competitive position at a top down level. The story at the time, was that Nokia had a leading market share in handsets and a valuable brand. It could therefore use its volume muscle to drive down margins for its competitors and remain dominant.

On the other hand, the European based analysts who knew where all the figurative bodies were buried. They were much better at the bottom-up analysis and the channel checks. I depended on the European analysts for alerts about problems in the telecom business, e.g. relationships with major customers, production lines going down and their possible implications, etc.

Both are forms of competitive analysis. One is strategic in nature and the other tactical. Both are valuable. Without both, financial modeling becomes a GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out) exercise in fundamental analysis.

A modest proposal to restore America

As we approach the G20 summit and America faces a decline in status during this global financial crisis, I would like to offer a modest proposal to restore America’s prestige and power.

The critics have it all wrong. It’s not all about AIG or Goldman Sachs. It’s not all about the financial system. It's not about GM or Chrysler. Go back to the writings of Michael Porter and consider what are America’s competitive advantages?

• The world’s premier reserve currency, Chinese objections notwithstanding; and
• The world’s foremost military, having a roughly 50% of total world military spending.

What is America’s problem? It’s deflation and the specter of unemployment.

Given American pre-eminence in military matters, she can leverage that advantage by invading a populous emerging market country and then forcing everyone at gunpoint to buy American cars. There is one problem, though. As demonstrated by the Iraqi adventure, the U.S. Army has become too high tech and didn’t have enough boots on the ground. The solution is to bring back the draft, which will have the additional benefit of soaking up pockets of U.S. unemployment.

During the 19th Century, Europeans relied on their colonies as captive markets for their industrial output. Why can’t America today?

America's leaders need to learn to think outside the box.

Jacobs & Porter on Development

Back in the days when I had the occasion to interview job candidates often one of my questions was “name the two or three most important people in shaping your life so far, either personally or professionally (and it’s OK to say it’s your mother).” That was, I could get a sense of the person’s interests, passions and more importantly, how he looks at the world.

If asked the same question, I would say a couple of people who have influenced my thinking were Michael Porter and Jane Jacobs. My interest came from my stint as an emerging markets manager during the mid 1990s.

When I used to get assigned a country or region, I used to try to talk to the local investment managers, local brokers and then the companies, in that order of preference. Usually local investors drove the market and it was important to understand their analytical viewpoint. The local brokers also instinctively understand this and will tailor how they cover the local companies and industries accordingly. Until an investor understands how the local companies trade it will be impossible or risky to develop a quantitative framework for those companies.

After going through these exercises a few times, I came back to the same question over and over again.

Why are China and India booming and Kenya not? Typical academic development economic study programs focus on the China and India success stories but don’t focus on the failures. (Incidentally, one of the questions back in my youth was “why can’t India be like Japan?”)

I found the answer first in Michael Porter’s The Competitive Advantage of Nations. In the book Porter talks about how countries go through different stages of development as they migrate up the value chain and also of the importance of industry clusters. Later I also discovered Jane Jacobs’ work, see examples here and here. Her writing is more academic and less punchy but essentially say the same thing as Porter on the issue of moving through stages of development. The important difference is that Jacobs identified city and city-states as the units of growth, rather than nations. While Porter alluded to this point with his industry cluster comment, Jacobs was more explicit.

Could these lessons be generalized to other development economic problems, such as the issue of how to revive inner cities? This is a controversial topic and comments are not only welcome but invited.