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:

There are two opinions we hold at Smead Capital Management which are very contrary to the conventional wisdom in the marketplace. First, we feel that we are much closer to behavioral changes in the automobile and environmental world than most people think. Second, we believe we are about to enter a long stretch of outperformance among U.S. stocks by large capitalization companies which fit our eight criteria. We think our “gut feelings” on these subjects are correct, but once in a while you need a little encouragement when your opinion is especially contrary. Jeremy Grantham, of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. (GMO) fame, is probably the most respected institutional asset allocator in the world today. He chose in the last few weeks to forcefully back us on our arguments and reasoning.

For our thoughts on Oil and Oil-oriented investments, see our recent Missive titled “Bull Markets in Oats and Hay”. Our thesis assumes that the change to electric and hybrid cars will be much swifter than most investors think (5 to 10 years). This swift transition could destroy the “Peak Oil” mentality which had developed last year as oil reached $147 per barrel. It took 25 years for the U.S. to move from horses to cars (1900 to 1925) and we believe everything changes much faster now than in the past. We are under-weighting Oil and Oil service stocks despite their recent popularity.

Grantham seems to be in agreement on the changes in autos, but his opinion is driven by climate change. In a recent interview with Smart Money he said this: “The people who move quickly in this market can make money. The people who invest in energy alternatives will make more. Alternative energies and combating climate change are the single most important economic initiatives over the next 10 years-really over the next 50 years. It will be a very exciting next 50 years.” A victory for energy alternatives is a loss for Oil and Oil Service companies in our opinion.

We always like our investment style of seeking out high quality “blue chips” companies which are out of favor, but once every 10 to 15 years they get especially attractive relative to all the other places people can put their money in the U.S. Grantham and his firm run intense mathematical models to try and determine which asset classes should perform the best over the next seven years. They now manage directly over $80 billion in assets. Here is what Grantham said in a series of interviews at Morningstar’s recent investor conference and Forbes magazine:

Grantham expects a subset of U.S. stocks — those he labels “high quality” — to produce after-inflation annualized returns of 11.5% over the next seven years. Five-and-a-half percentage points on an annualized basis is an enormous difference — and gives investors plenty of incentive to identify those “high quality” stocks.

Although Grantham doesn’t directly define “high quality,” he provides some clues in an interview with Forbes in which he said, “And the best bet, for my money, then and now, a year later, was to buy the great franchise companies, the great quality companies.” This suggests that he favors companies that possess a moat — a sustainable competitive advantage — and that earn excess returns over their cost of capital.

At Smead Capital Management we have solved Jeremy Grantham’s dilemma and have come up with the eight criteria below to define high quality and use it to create our common stock portfolios.

1) Strong Balance Sheet – Preferably more cash than debt, the ability to pay off debt in the next couple years out of free cash flow or companies with debt that have very consistent customer bases

2) Long History of Profits and Dividends (or stock buybacks)

3) History of Shareholder Friendliness – Making shareholder friendly choices with available capital

4) Strong Insider Ownership – Preferably with recent purchases

5) Easy to Understand – Business meets a sustainable economic need

6) High levels of free cash flow

7) Wide Moat – High levels of profitability maintained by barriers to entry

8 ) Low Price in relation to the fundamentals of the business (price-to-earnings/sales/cash flow/book value) in comparison to the last five years

Grantham believes as we do that economic growth could be muted by the debts over-hanging the economy from the last ten years. He thinks that China and India can’t grow as fast without the U.S. returning to our prior spending levels and he doesn’t foresee that in the next seven years. We believe a huge number of retirement age baby boomers could result in sustained high unemployment figures. This “New Boomer Austerity” or attitude could cause the existing spending “reset” (like what we’ve seen since September of 2008) to last for as long as a decade. In that environment, competing with financially strong and well entrenched companies like WalMart, Microsoft, Merck and Disney could be difficult at best and impossible in many cases. The ultimate irony of all this is these “quality” companies trade at or below market P/E ratios and pay above average dividends for the most part. Numerous years of under-performance and reversion to the mean is driving GMO’s computer models and Jeremy’s opinion. Our stomachs are strengthened!

Stay thirsty for investment success my Friends,

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

Dear Clients and Prospective Clients:

In his wonderful book A Short History of Financial Euphoria, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that human beings ascribe higher and higher levels of intelligence to people based on how much money they make and business success they have. The opposite would be that a lower and lower level of intelligence are ascribe to investors and business people as difficult economic and stock market circumstances dominate the news. Charlie Munger, who is the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, told Stanford Business School MBA candidates a few years ago that psychology is the most undervalued discipline in business. I’d like to combine the wisdom of the timeless academic Galbraith and the respect for psychology from the super-successful investor Munger to ponder our current market conditions.

The stock market in the U.S. has already fallen 50% from peak to trough since October of 2007 to today. Among many admirable money managers and stock pickers, we at Smead Capital Management appear to have very little intelligence and our IQ seems to get lower by the week. This decline ranks as the worst bear market by magnitude since the 1929-32 market, which lost over 80% of its value from peak to trough.

Perma-bear, Jeremy Grantham, who because of his negative stance on the stock market over the last 10 years is ascribed a great deal of intelligence. He has written extensively recently that he believes “high quality” U.S. stocks provide good long-term value at these levels, but strongly cautions investors that these kind of psychological business crises can overshoot to the downside. He therefore urges consistent buying, but warns that the S&P 500 Index could drop as low as 600 (around 770 today) before it makes a bottom. His main reason for the concern about the downside is that negative psychology and a negative feedback loop can dictate a great deal of panic through human behavior.

It is our view that additional major downside movement in the U.S. stock market could only be justified by a much greater economic contraction than the one we have seen so far (5% contraction year to year) or a substantial increase in U.S. Treasury bond interest rates. Many of the most negative stock market prognosticators look at the market bottoms in 1932, 1974 and 1982. Those market bottoms averaged price-to-earnings ratios of 6-8 and dividends yields of 6%. The 1932 bottom included 25% unemployment and was part of four years averaging 12% year to year contraction in the economy. The economy was chopped in half in four years. The other two bottoms at those historically low average P/E ratios (1974 and 1982) saw Treasury interest rate peaks of 9 to 10% and 13 to 15%, respectively. Therefore, without a near complete collapse in the economy or dramatically higher Treasury interest rates, we don’t see those worst-case scenarios being realized.

None of this makes the bullets we are all sweating fit through our pores any better. However, Grantham points out that his quantitative models show above average returns the next seven years on the S&P 500 Index. Bargain prices on outstanding companies with bright futures outweigh the negative psychology around us and the low level of intelligence ascribed to us for saying so.

Best Wishes,

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.