William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Printable Version
Subscribe to the Missives Podcast
Click here to listen to this Missive

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

In a recent interview on CNBC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Chief Market Strategist Tobias Levkovich talked about the “Mythical Argument” that consumers are never going to spend again. The thesis is that the behavior of consumers will be permanently changed as a result of the depth and length of this recession. In turn, high levels of unemployment could decline doggedly. High sustained levels of unemployment and large over-hanging consumer and government debt could serve as a force field, preventing meaningful real economic growth for years. Leading proponents of this argument are Bill Gross (PIMCO) and Jeremy Grantham (GMO). Tobias argued that their argument is so ingrained in existing portfolio management actions that it just might be a myth. At Smead Capital Management, we believe we are positioned to do well in that environment. We believe our large-cap recession-resistant brand name companies could thrive if that argument holds water.

However, we must constantly harken back to the idea that “When everyone knows’ something to be true, nobody knows nothin’”. Belief in the “weak economy for years” argument has caused a huge amount of U.S. investor capital to chase commodities and worldwide infrastructure investments. These investors are going where they think the economic growth is going to be and want to protect themselves from whatever inflation comes from the policy decisions made to avert an economic depression and come out of this recession. There are some big problems with their approach. First, the BRIC trade or idea that the economic world will be led by the emerging markets of the world peaked last year (2008) in a bubble. Bubbles take a minimum of 5 to 7 years to correct and many times take as long as 10 years or more to return as a profitable concept. Therefore, if history is any guide, Oil, commodities and emerging markets could be dead money for a number of years.

Second, even if emerging market economies do lead us out of this recession and into a period of prosperity, they may not be a good place to invest. Franklin-Templeton’s emerging market strategist Mark Mobius said on Bloomberg recently that an enormous amount of new shares of common stock will be issued as Chinese companies go public in the next five years. Fast growing nations and their economies can be capital absorbers, rather than capital multipliers. How can this be so? When our nation’s residential real estate markets and economy boomed between 2002 and 2006, capital was drawn away from most stock market sectors. Basic materials, commodities and heavy industrial stocks gained capital and affection, while most other sectors suffered capital withdrawals. Individuals have been massive net sellers of U.S. equities since the peak of the market in early 2000 when they held $10 trillion of individually owned shares. At the recent March of 2009 lows, that figure was close to $5 trillion. The economic growth absorbed the capital and the same thing could happen in China. It happened in the U.S. as we built the railroad system in the second half of the 1800’s. Our nation grew immensely and spread westward, but we absorbed massive capital and much of it never got paid back to the countries like Britain and France which loaned it to us.

I will say the unspeakable. From the “reset” levels of the 2008-09 contraction, consumers could make a consistent comeback as they become convinced that our system will continue to succeed and gasoline isn’t going to cost $4 per gallon or higher. If the idea that American consumers won’t make a comeback is a “Mythical Argument”, what could happen the next few years? Unbelievable profits could come out of the income statements of lean and mean corporations. What would a year-to-year sales gain of 5% do for the profits of Nordstrom, Starbucks or WalMart? How much money could Home Depot make if people quit worrying about their job and the price of gas and started fixing everything that is wrong with the home they want to live their life in? What if all the kids who want to go to Disneyland and DisneyWorld get to go next year? What if you could have a good economy for years without building up debts in the process? What if this cleansing of the last two years really worked and we ended up with one of the best long-term economies we’ve ever had?

Best Wishes,

William Smead

The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The securities identified and described in this missive do not represent all of the securities purchased or recommended for our clients. It should not be assumed that investing in these securities was or will be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management with in the past twelve month period is available upon request.

William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Printable Version
Subscribe to the Missives Podcast
Click here to listen to this Missive

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

Paul Lim is a business writer for the New York Times and he had an interesting thesis in his article on July 19th entitled, “Picking Winners in the Next Bull Market”. He correctly acknowledged that it would be highly unusual for the leading sector of the previous Bull Market to lead the next one. For this reason, he advised hesitation on an urge to chase the emerging markets and those companies (like oil) which benefitted most from the last bull market. We can give you numerous examples from our 29 years in the investment business which back up his thesis.

From the 1974 low of 550 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average to the 1983 high around 1200, technology companies with fast earnings growth were popular. This wave crested soon after Apple and Genentech went public. Investors wanted fast growth to offset double-digit inflation rates and handed out high P/E ratios to those fast growers. When Paul Volker broke the back of inflation through tight credit and President Reagan stood down the Air-Traffic Controllers in late 1981, the game changed. Inflation began to decelerate and investor interest moved away from these popular names. Technology stocks spent seven to eight years in the dumper during a Roaring Bull Market which took the Dow to 3000 by 1990. The high P/E ratios came back to haunt investors.

Paul used the example of the Tech stocks leading the Bull Market which peaked in early 2000. The next Bull Market started in late 2002 and just like today, some of the best early gains came from the last Bull Market’s leaders—Technology. It was a head fake. Energy and emerging markets turned out to be the big winners. Microsoft, Cisco and Intel skipped the last Bull Market for the most part.

More important to us is who could lead the next Bull Market in U.S. stocks. To understand which groups might be the best place to be you have to ask what were the characteristics at the bottom of prior market lows of the leading sector. First, they were out of favor. This is primarily from poor stock price performance, but also usually because of bad news incorporated in their stock prices which they have no control over. The sector to buy at the 1982 low was consumer staples. The stocks were depressed and they were about to gain the economic benefit of commodity prices dropping dramatically. Lower input prices expanded profit margins and earnings. Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, General Mills, General Foods and Beatrice Foods were some of the names that lead that 1980’s Bull Market.

Second, to be the leading sector of the next Bull Market it helps to be the center of attention of the worst things that happened in the prior Bear Market. Banks and Savings and Loan institutions couldn’t have been any more out of favor coming out of our national financial crisis between 1988 and 1992. They were despised for being the heart of the problem which caused the first President Bush to not get re-elected because it was “the economy, stupid”. With Enron and the collapse of energy trading in 2001 and 2002 leading the Bear Market down, it was only natural that energy-related stocks bottomed at such depressed prices that they were a powerhouse for stock buyers from 2002 to 2007.

Third, and most importantly, the Bull Market’s leading sector offered its future success at a huge discount to the future success of other sectors and the market itself. We measure this by comparing P/E ratios and dividend payout ratios to the market overall and to the sector compared to the last 30 to 40 years. In other words, to find good long-term sectors to roost in, you try to buy the most future success for the least amount of money. What a novel concept!

Which group or sector fits these characteristics today? We believe the drug stocks are an obvious candidate. They have some of the lowest P/E ratios they’ve had in 20 years and they pay way above average dividends to the market. Their stocks have been poor performers since 2001 and they have the threat of socialized medicine breathing down their neck. Ironically, we also believe they are a great way to play the economic growth in emerging markets (see our missive “Playing Emerging Markets”).

Best Wishes,

William Smead

The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The securities identified and described in this missive do not represent all of the securities purchased or recommended for our clients. It should not be assumed that investing in these securities was or will be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management with in the past twelve month period is available upon request.

William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Printable Version
Subscribe to the Missives Podcast
Click here to listen to this Missive

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

There are very good reasons to avoid investing in emerging markets. Below is a list of some of those reasons:

1. Political Instability (Russia, Honduras, Venezuela, etc.)
2. Small Markets (less liquid)
3. Poorly Regulated
4. Unusual Accounting
5. Currency Risk

However, I’d like to make the case for investing to make money from emerging markets. Five years ago my family and I took a trip to the Bay Islands of Honduras. While there I noticed that one of the only companies selling products to these Honduran Islanders was the Coca-Cola Company by way of the Fanta soda line. It reminded me of 1988 and Warren Buffett stepping outside of his usual proclivity to buy into the stock of a great company when the share price falls into some significant distress. Coke had gone up about five-fold since the bottom in 1982 and sported a trailing 12-month P/E ratio of 18. Buffett bought a major stake in the company and dumbfounded his fondest admirers in the process. Buffett said at that time that he “could go away for ten years” and he’d know that Coke would be doing well.

One of the main reasons that Buffett could have that kind of confidence was that the Berlin Wall was preparing to fall. Countries in Eastern Europe and Latin America were getting political freedom and adopting free-market capitalism. Any improvement in a third-world country’s circumstances was going to create a chance to sell something clean to drink. Nobody does that better than Coca Cola. With Coke he never had to take the risks listed above to make money from emerging markets. He only had to trust the brand, the balance sheet, the distribution system, the economies of scale and the management of the company.

A front page article in last week’s Wall Street Journal that discusses the distribution of drugs in emerging market countries tells you everything you need to know to make money investing in emerging markets in the next ten years. IMS Health reports that in 2003 there was $67.2 billion of prescription pharmaceuticals purchased in emerging market nations. In 2008 it had grown to $152 billion and IMS predicts it will hit $265 billion in 2013. How many companies in the world have the brands, balance sheets, patents, distribution, economies of scale and management to do this? Exporting health to the world will be an incredibly rewarding business both financially and ethically. It will help other businesses succeed by improving the quality and length of life for people in countries ranging from China and India to the smallest countries in Latin America and Africa. The difference this time is the companies that we are interested in like Merck and Pfizer are trading at distressed P/E levels as compared to the last twenty five years. Buffett did well on his investment in Coke, but the drug stocks start this cycle trading at distressed prices the way Buffett usually likes to buy shares.

Best Wishes,

William Smead

The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The securities identified and described in this missive do not represent all of the securities purchased or recommended for our clients. It should not be assumed that investing in these securities was or will be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management with in the past twelve month period is available upon request.

William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Printable Version
Subscribe to the Missives Podcast
Click here to listen to this Missive

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

When a market has been strong, there is no limit to the number of people who will tell you how good it is going to be for the foreseeable future. When a market has gone down for a long time, a multitude will tell you how far down it is going and how long the downtrend will last.

At Smead Capital Management we have developed a term for this that we call a “Well-Known Fact”. By definition (Smead Unabridged Dictionary), a “Well-Known Fact” is a body of economic information which is known by all market participants and has been acted upon by nearly everyone who could care or has the financial wherewithal to care to act. It is best understood through the comments of former Intel CEO, Andy Grove, who said that the best advice he ever got in business came from a professor at the City College of New York. The professor said, “When everyone knows that something is so, nobody knows nothin’.” By nothin’ the professor infers nothing that could do you any good. When everyone believes a fact and has acted on it to an extreme, nothing good can come to you from believing it from an investment standpoint.

Here is a series of “Well-Known Facts” from recent history. Also noted are the assets that were purchased to act on the fact and the end result of the extreme:

Fact 1: The Internet will change our lives. — Asset Purchased: Tech Stocks — Result: From the peak of early 2000, tech stocks fell 80% in 2.5 years.

Fact 2: Residential Real Estate only goes up. — Asset Purchased: Homes in sunshine states of Arizona, Florida, Nevada and California. — Result: 40-50% price drops and a majority of the nation’s foreclosures.

Fact 3: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) will grow faster than the industrialized world. — Assets Purchased: Commodities and Emerging Market Mutual Funds. — Result: Commodities drop 60-80% and Emerging Markets fall 50-70%.

At the extreme, whatever value that is connected to the assets involved with the “well-known fact” doesn’t matter in either direction and there is no shortage of both expert and non-expert opinion on how high or low the asset prices will go. Henry Blodgett saw the moon for Qualcomm and internet stocks in 1999. No shortage of cable shows taught you to “Flip this House” in 2005. And in 2008, Goldman Sachs’ Oil analyst put a $200-250 price possibility on a barrel of oil. Not to mention T. Boone Pickens, who has been attempting to talk oil prices up since it peaked at $147 per barrel last year.

In the opinion of SCM, here is the new “Well-Known Fact”.

Fact 4: The massive amount of borrowing attached to homes and personal finances in the U.S. over the last ten years dooms us to a three to four-year recession/depression which is not treatable by policy makers and could ultimately cause a total collapse of our financial system. — Assets Purchased: U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds; Gold and “virtuous non-U.S. currencies”. — Assets Sold: Common Stocks including the finest companies in America. – Experts: Nouriel Roubini, Jimmy Rogers, Marc Faber, etc., etc. etc.

The T-bills and gold are easy for us to see through. There is a bubble of fear and uncertainty. Therefore, any asset which seems to give protection against fear should get way over-priced at the height of the fear. We wonder how people are going to feel about earning little or no interest for years. I drove by a guy on Pima Road in North Scottsdale today selling Safes on the side of the road. Gun sales are through the roof. These actually make more sense to me than the money-market funds, savings accounts, CD’s and T-bills. If the premier U.S. companies don’t survive and prosper, there will be no tax revenue to insure deposits, back money-market funds and redeem government debt. If our Disney, Abbott Labs and WalMart don’t make it, you need a one-acre garden, a nearby water supply and a set of big guns and lots of ammo.

As bad as this decline has beaten our stocks in the short-run, you’d think that we wouldn’t love it just as much as the other “well-known facts”. You’d be wrong. This one is possibly setting up faithful and persevering blue-chip stock investors for the positive ride of their lifetime. First, today’s Wall Street Journal is talking about an additional decline of more than 20% off a stock market which has been pummeled more than any market other than the 1929-32 “Great Depression” decline. Second, sentiment polls from the American Association of Individual Investors and Bespoke Research show that a MAJORITY of market participants believe that the stock market will fall more than 20% from here. Third, our wonderful and well-trained clients have called me more times in the last two weeks to tell me that the market is going down more and is going down for another one to two years. All these prognostications coming from folks we’ve worked for for years and have n ever had an personal opinion about the short-term stock market direction prior to this year.Fourth, there is more cash on the sidelines in money-market funds relative to total U.S. stock market capitalization than any time in the last 60 years.

We could go on all day with additional evidence, but we think you get the picture. We believe there has probably never been a better day to buy quality U.S. stocks (for a two to three-year holding period) in our lifetime than today. The reason is that everyone knows that the opposite is so and, therefore, “nobody knows nothin’.”

BUY-BUY-BUY

Warm Regards,

William Smead

The securities identified and described in this missive do not represent all of the securities purchased or recommended for our clients. It should not be assumed that investing in these securities was or will be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management with in the past twelve month period is available upon request.

William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

Before the next ten years of successful stock market investing gets away from us, we at Smead Capital Management would like to remind everyone that the purpose for investing is to build wealth to enhance future purchasing power. If you watch investment shows on T.V. or read investment magazines, newspapers or websites, you’d think that the object of the game is to be smart. However, let’s look at some of today’s key topics to see what is currently considered dumb and smart in the investment world. Then, let’s ask if they build wealth over long periods of time.

Ultra-Smart—Sitting in Cash, preferably U.S. Treasuries.
Those who were smart in 2008 held inordinate parts of their assets in cash or treasuries and missed some part of the stock market’s horrendous decline. They earned anywhere from 3% interest to as low as 0% toward the end of the year. It can be a very smart strategy in the short run, but has always been blown away as soon as everything returns to something more normal. We believe when normality returns those who sat in cash will have to stare longingly at the portfolios of their “dumb” friends who sat through abusive declines in the value of their blue chip stocks to get long-term returns averaging 10%.

Smart—Trading in and out of stocks.
Wade Cook hasn’t been out of business that long, but it is hard for you all to remember his advertisements which told people to “cash flow” their stocks. He said, “Buy a stock at $1 and sell it at $2, wait for it to go back down to $1 and do it again.” Wade spent time in jail for his misrepresentations, but the “Fast Money” people or Jim Cramer’s followers won’t. You’d have to be pretty “dumb” to sit through last year’s volatility when you could have been trading the enormous market swings (mostly down swings, they fail to mention). I think that if you add up the gains and losses, commissions taxes and you find that trading almost never builds wealth (unless your Charles Schwab).

Smart—Participating in highly sophisticated and esoteric asset classes.
Commodities, hedge funds, private equity, emerging international markets, short selling and the like always look and sound smart because of the exclusivity and complexity. The exclusivity and complexity contributes to dramatically higher participation costs (a leading cause of wealth destruction) and who knows if anyone ends up building wealth (see Bernard Madoff).

Smart—Gold.
Gold was $1000 an ounce when I was in college 30 years ago. It is $870 today. Am I missing something?

Dumb—Buy and Hold Blue Chip Stocks.
How could anyone be so dumb as to buy and hold the finest companies in the world like Disney or Microsoft or Nordstrom? Don’t they know that we have the worst recession since the 1930’s? Don’t they know what Professor Roubini says? Haven’t they been in China with Jimmy Rogers? Didn’t they see how bad it was last year?

Dumb—Buy American Stocks
Everyone knows that the smart people are investing in China and emerging markets! They must know that Warren Buffett will be wrong this time (NY Times Op-Ed Oct. 16, 2008—Buy American, I did). Didn’t he get wealthy?

Dumb—Leaving your stocks to your alma-mater.
I love reading the stories of the elderly man or woman who leaves their stock certificates to their favorite charity. A schoolmarm who left the school millions or the guy who left the Union Gospel Mission thousands and thousands of dollars of utility stocks buried under his mobile home. It was never gold or trading techniques or complex investments they left, it was common stocks.

At any given time the best investments can look smart or dumb depending on when you look and where we are in the market. However when traditionally solid wealth creation disciplines are challenged, it could be time to get excited. We love what we do at SCM and we hope you all join us in this worthy and hopefully wealth building endeavor.

Happy New Year!

William Smead