William Smead
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer

Printable Version

Dear Fellow Investors:

At Smead Capital Management we have made it a high priority to pay attention to the investors who have proven over decades that their work proves worthy of great respect and admiration. In baseball, you can make the All-Star team with one great season, but to make the Hall of Fame, you need a long career at very high levels of success to be inducted. Our industry is wonderful because we can look very closely at the investments and writing of these people we have great respect for.

All great money managers reach a point in their career where adulation and self confidence detracts from their better judgment. This interruption in judgment usually coincides with the discipline in use becoming the most popular discipline in the marketplace or the investing style being overdue for a three to five-year correction. Studies of the equity managers with the best long term records show that the best underperform the S&P 500 Index 35% of the time. The pride associated with multi-decade success and the reinforcement of an army of folks enjoying your work is probably the most dangerous thing that can happen in the money management business.

To understand these phenomena, we will review the work of Warren Buffett, Bill Miller and Kenneth Heebner on a backward-looking basis. Then we will examine Jeremy Grantham and Bill Gross looking forward. Our supposition is the following. These men make up a short list of five of the best money managers of all time! However, there is a point in their career when their pride can get in the way of their better judgment and capital can get destroyed.

Warren Buffett is the most successful money manager of all time, in our opinion. His long-term compounding of book value at a rate in excess of 20% is legendary. To this day, I’d rather be a fly on the wall in his office than one in anybody else’s office in money management. In 1998, he was uniformly admired by the media, by a slew of book writers and by a huge army of professional and individual investors. He wrote in his 1996 annual shareholder letter that stocks like Coke (KO) and Gillette (now part of Proctor and Gamble) were the “inevitables”. In Buffett’s eyes, these companies had such dominant moats, sustainable profit margins, strong balance sheets and other strengths that he could ignore the fact that they reached PE multiples of as high as 57 times trailing earnings. These stocks were “maniacal” and were trading at PE multiples which doomed their stock prices for ten years. Coke peaked at around $88 in 1998 and bottomed in 2009 around $38 per share. Warren’s big mistake list is so small that you need a magnifying glass to read it. I believe that everything going on around him in 1998, the adulation and the uninterrupted success got the better of him. His popularity dropped in 1999 as the Tech Bubble went into its highest gear. By early 2000, many writers were asking if Warren Buffett’s investment discipline was old-fashioned and out-dated.

Bill Miller beat the S & P 500 Index for 15 years from 1991-2005. He has the unusual ability to recognize deeply out of favor stocks in widely diverse industries and then has the constitution to hold his winners for many years. He specializes in high reward and volatile positions and is unafraid to average down far longer than most admirable money managers. By the end of those 15 years his streak was followed heavily by the media, his parent company (Legg Mason) boomed and financial advisors nationwide poured billions of dollars into the two funds that he manages. We at SCM believe that he is as brilliant a thinker and money manager today as he was in 2005. He’s only out-performed the market once since 2005 in the year 2009. His five-year numbers are 99th percentile in his category. We assume that the circumstances brought pride into the picture and that these last five years have been incredibly humbling.

Kenneth Heebner manages money in a way that is unfathomable to this writer. He takes concentrated positions based on strong opinions and analysis. He had the best 15-year track record among mutual fund managers in 2008. He produced stunning results in the first eight years of the decade of the 2000’s. However, he turns his portfolio over aggressively and constantly. In May of 2008, he was called “the best money manager around” and featured on the cover of Fortune magazine. Enormous adulation was heaped on him by the media and billions flowed into his mutual funds. At the top of the commodity markets in the late spring of 2008, Ken Heebner was massively over-weighted in energy, basic materials and heavy industrial companies. He immediately went from there to an aggressive over-weighted position in financials. His performance over the three years since the overwhelming adulation has been dismal. He is one of the most talented managers of money, but pride temporarily got the best of him.

Jeremy Grantham and Bill Gross are Hall of Fame money managers. Grantham leads the firm of Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo (GMO) which is a leading strategic wide-asset allocation firm. He has been unusually accurate in his long-term predictions in everything from lumber to large caps and emerging markets to energy. His firm is drowning in new money and his specialty area, asset allocation, is the darling of institutions, registered investment advisors, consulting firms and financial advisors. Even stock pickers like us pay attention to Grantham’s thoughts on asset allocation and GMO’s 7-year prediction for inflation-adjusted forward performance expectations. He has been spot on and his research director, Ben Inker, has done some of the best investment research in the marketplace. Grantham is currently known for his “7 lean years” thesis and in his latest quarterly letter titled “Danger: Children at Play” he nearly exhausted himself taking victory laps around the nine pages and an addendum. This comes just three months after Grantham boldly predicted that commodities were in a “paradigm shift” and had , in effect, reached a “permanently” higher plateau!

Bill Gross is the most successful bond mutual fund manager in history. His company, PIMCO, manages over $1 trillion for institutions and individual investors. During the bull market in bonds from 1981 to today, he has handled every environment well and produced a market beating track record. His monthly missives are followed closely by the same crowd which feasts on Grantham’s quarterly letter. The bond bull market in the US has culminated the last three years in an avalanche of money drowning bond managers like Bill Gross. Those investors, advisors and institutions will recite statistics about how much better bonds have done than stocks the last 10 and 20-year periods. Bill Gross even has a very similar forward thesis to Grantham’s which he calls the “New Normal”. It is a relatively negative belief that the US has more than a decade of penance to pay for the financial and real estate sins of the decade from 1998-2008. His firm travels around the world explaining how they are looking for bonds in countries which benefit from emerging market growth to protect against both currency declines and to get a decent rate of interest. When Bill Gross and other major players at PIMCO are on CNBC, the world seems to stop to find out what the markets wisest players have to say. The adulation from all corners is thick enough to cut with a knife and the pride in PIMCO’s opinion continues to rise.

If this piece were a trial rather than a missive, it is safe to say that Jeremy Grantham and Bill Gross are in a very similar and guilty position compared to the Hall of Famers we mentioned in the beginning. Buffett stumbled when his favorite kind of stocks (large-cap/wide moat/strong balance sheet/powerful brands) were wildly popular. Bill Miller became the most respected equity mutual fund manager at the height of eclectic stock picking. Kenneth Heebner headed into the tank right after he got unusual media attention and his “go anywhere” discipline squeezed every dollar out of the marketplace it could. They have been in Jeremy and Bill’s shoes.

Therefore, what could happen to ruin the party for these two great money managers? They would have to have a very rough three to five years of performance and the thesis they are operating on would have to be wrong. We believe bonds will never be more popular in the next thirty years than they are now. We believe that so many people are practicing wide asset allocation that it will be a “nightmare” the next five to ten years. We believe that a bear market has started in oil and commodity indexes which will embarrass today’s bulls. Lastly, we believe that the ability of the US economy to heal itself is being badly underestimated by these two great money managers.

As contrarians, we can’t run away from the opinion of these great money managers fast enough. This is not because they aren’t deserving of Hall of Fame status, but because they are trapped in today’s two most popular disciplines with all the same adulation and pride that our other great managers had before them. Both favor emerging markets over the US, have confidence in commodities, assume China’s economy will grow uninterrupted; both think the US consumer is dead for years and both think that the US is a political disaster area. We will still admire them when those who fawn over them today no longer have respect for them. This will be after the “pride that leads to destruction” turns into humility in the marketplace.

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. Some of the securities identified and described in this missive are a sample of issuers being currently recommended for suitable clients as of the date of this missive and 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:

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.