Abbott Earnings Rise More Than Expected on Humira

by Meg Tirrell

For more information go to www.bloomberg.com.

The information contained in this article 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 article 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.

“The weakness in the dollar is going to be incredibly good for the large drug companies over the next three to five years, as the emerging market nations load up brand new hospitals and brand new health clinics with products. We want to provide that to them.” – CIO Bill Smead

Click here to read more

The information contained in this article 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 article 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:

Oppenheimer’s Chief Market Strategist, Brian Belski, put out a great piece of research last week (”US Strategy Weekly: Shifting Focus to Value Over Growth”) on the composition of the companies which make up the Value half of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 Index. The index is divided into growth and value partitions by the factors listed in the table below. High ratios in the growth factors show investor’s expect a bright or growing future. High yields in the value factors infer low future expectations on the part of investors.

The two accompanying charts appear to “paint a thousand words” in the opinion of Smead Capital Management. The first chart shows the number of companies in the value side of the index has grown immensely in the last 15 years. We believe it is not unusual for this to happen in the aftermath of a major market decline.

The second chart shows which sectors of the S&P 500 Value Index are the most over and under-represented in the S&P 500 Value Index today as compared to the average of the Value Index over the last 15 years.

We have only begun to decipher the “thousand words”, but here are a few. First, what would have caused the growth half of the index to require far fewer companies than before to equal 50 percent of the S&P 500 Index’s market capitalization? When the growth factors improved in the energy industry, investors moved massive amounts of capital into the sector. Energy is the most under-represented in the value side of the index (4.7%) compared to normal (12.6%). These energy companies tie up a massive amount of capital due to their capital intensive nature, taking money away from other sectors. Many other cyclical stocks hold above-average growth factors as the lemmings have overcrowded the BRIC trade, giving market premiums to capital and labor intensive companies. We have admired the stock picking of folks like FPA’s Robert Rodriguez and the sector analysis of Jimmy Rogers for 20 years, but they both need to consider that owning energy and living in Singapore is not lonely contrarianism today. If this was the course of action to take, we should move Smead Capital Management to the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area to be closer to the drug companies to show our bold contrarian spirit.

Second, what is over-represented in the Value half of the Index compared to normal? Consumer staples and healthcare, by a whopping margin! Consumer Staples represent 14.9% today versus the normal 4.4% in the value index while healthcare is 13.6% today versus its normal 4.5% weighting in the value half of the S&P 500 Index. Many of these companies have beautiful balance sheets, strong international brands, generate massive free cash flow and earn high returns on capital. We haven’t done the research yet, but we believe we will find that consumer staples and healthcare are normally as under-represented in the S&P 500 Value Index at this point in the cycle as energy is this time.

I heard Warren Buffett tell a story about raising money for his early partnership. We believe it does a great job of illustrating why we at SCM don’t want to own BRIC trade cyclical companies. He went to see the owner of the largest farm equipment dealer in Omaha when he was raising money for his partnership in the 1950’s. He asked the owner how he had done this year. The owner told him he had done great. Warren asked what he did with the profits. The owner went over to the office window and pulled open the drape. He told him that it was all sitting on the lot as he showed Warren the inventory for the coming year. In many cases, a great year in a capital intensive business leads to more capital expenditures and little free cash flow for investors. Consumer staple and healthcare companies have a history of producing consistent free cash flow which the owners/management of the company can use any way they see fit to enhance shareholder value.

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.

If you have trouble viewing these clips, click here.

The information contained in this tv appearance 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 tv appearance 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.