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:

We at Smead Capital Management love how gullible and short-term oriented most investors are. One of our favorite ways to understand this is when a company is the subject of a major public relations (PR) campaign. The PR campaign is almost always the product of someone that wants to gain some kind of financial advantage by smearing the company involved. A few examples would probably be helpful.

Did any of you see the documentary six years ago called, “Super Size Me”? A young man ate three meals a day at McDonald’s for six weeks and had to super-size his order if the employee asked him “Would you like to Super Size this?”. He gained 23 pounds and saw his cholesterol shoot through the roof. McDonald’s was viewed as evil at that time and their stock bottomed out around $15 per share. Today it is closer to $55/share.

WalMart has been the recipient of a major, multi-year PR campaign to present them as evil to support a nationwide attempt at unionization. First, the campaign convinced everyone that small business owners in the areas where WalMart put their stores were being knocked out of business. Second, WalMart was vilified for doing what thousands of companies across America do by employing some of their workers for less than 30 hours per week to avoid paying benefits to them. Everyone learned to hate both McDonald’s and WalMart, but a funny thing happened on the way to the public opinion forum. We’ve had an ugly recession and economic contraction and it just so happens that when people tighten their belt and look to save money on fast food and just about everything else, they come running to these two great companies. Notice how the PR campaigns have disappeared from the news. Notice how well the stocks have done in a quantumly difficult environment.

This brings us to today’s great PR campaign to smear the makers of Pharmaceutical products. President Obama seeks to cut the annual cost of healthcare in the U.S. significantly during his time in office. Most gullible Americans and short-term oriented investors believe that the high cost of drugs is the reason that healthcare is so expensive in the U.S. They think that the employees of drug companies care about nothing besides profits and know that if the prices of drugs were fixed by the government and all our healthcare was rationed, then everything would be alright.

The truth is that healthcare is getting more and more expensive because more and more people are demanding it, expensive technology keeps improving it and massive numbers of people over the age of 60 are living way longer than any prior generation. These older folks want quality of life and long life as well. This means they will have to put up with chronic illnesses that are most cost effectively treated with pharmaceutical products. The PR campaign is lead by trial lawyers, who have this wonderful love/hate relationship with the drug companies. They smear the drug companies to win verdicts in jury trials for the damaging side affects of any number of drugs. They then quietly root for the success of the pharmaceutical companies so that the drug companies can afford to pay the judgements that come from the future less than perfect, but effective medicines.

Just like McDonald’s and WalMart used to have depressed price to earnings multiples because of successful negative PR campaigns, the finest big pharma and biotechnology companies have them today. Will the story play out any different over the next few years?

Warm Regards,

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:

As the first four weeks of a powerful upswing in the stock market unfolds, we thought we would use a few moments of your time to ask a few questions.

1) What if the crowds of professional and individual investors are as wrong at extremes this time as they have been in the past?

2) What if the money in money market funds, CDs, savings accounts and T-bills all tries to come back into stocks at the same time?

3) What if Warren Buffett’s Oct 18, 2008 editorial about “Buy American, I Am” proves to be excellent advice?

4) What if the people who were smart enough to avoid some of the bear market on the way down never get back in on the way back up?

5) What if the fact that stocks dramatically outperform Treasury Bonds over long periods of time reasserts itself quickly?

6) What if buying and holding blue chips stocks works significantly better than trading in and out?

7) What if President Obama is the lucky man who leads our country as it successfully comes back from the worst economic contraction since the 1930’s?

8 ) What if gold, which has been trading exclusively on fear, goes down or nowhere for years?

9) What if everybody stops postponing the work they need to do on their home?

10) What if everyone who needs a new car buys one?

11) What if Starbuck’s coffee continues to be legal, addictive and tastes great?

12) What if the major Pharmaceutical companies sell more drugs in the future in China and India than they sell in the U.S.?

13) What if the people who sat through the worst stock market decline in 70 years are fully invested at the bottom and enjoy years of success because of it?

If you are underinvested in common stocks and/or are not investing with us, it is not too late to buy by any means!

Warm Regards,

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:

Three years ago Americans were spending all of their after-tax paycheck and were borrowing above and beyond take-home pay to attain a certain standard of living. Most of the money came from loans against home equity or credit cards which were paid off by borrowing through home equity loans or mortgage refinancing. At Smead Capital Management, we think in terms of the U.S. going from a 104% spending society in 2006 to a 95% spending society today. Government statistics show that above and beyond our 401(k) or 403(b) contributions we are saving close to 5% of our after-tax paycheck. In less than a year we have reduced consumption at the household level by 9%. Since Household Consumption has made up 70% of Gross Domestic Product in recent years, this puts a 6.3% drag on the GDP comparisons beginning in early fall of 2008. Notice that the fourth quarter 2008 GDP figure was revised to -6.3%. This is very similar to our estimate of reset spending patterns.

All companies will need to deal with this reset of spending patterns. The U.S. automobile industry is having a very hard time with this reset because auto purchases are a big-ticket item. A $200 to $1000 per month payment doesn’t fit very well into the budgets of the newly reset households. People are holding on to cars for longer than nine years on average and auto repair businesses are flourishing. Auto industry experts talk about a sales level of 9 to 10 million vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2009 which is down from 15 to 16 million vehicles in 2006. It will take time for them to work through this reset as folks naturally err on the side of being overly conservative for awhile.

We like to think about who is being the least affected by the reset in spending patterns or who has put their companies the farthest ahead in adapting to the new patterns. We expect them to be the leaders of the “Next Great U.S. Stock Market” because we believe they will be maximizing their brand and balance sheet strength during the reset and will hit the ground running when we begin to grow from the reset spending levels. The loss of blockbuster drug revenue due to patents running out has forced Merck and Pfizer to flex their balance sheet muscle to buy Schering-Plough and Wyeth, respectively. People have reduced their doctor visits and cut back in healthcare, but it is much less than a 9% cutback. These companies get a huge part of their income from outside the country and the two most populated countries of China and India are becoming wealthy enough to demand the best in pharmaceutical products for the first time in their history.

Starbuck’s has adapted with a discount membership card, instant coffee and breakfast value meals. They’ve closed poor performing locations and cut corporate expenses. Walmart is grabbing market share as it reminds everyone to “Save Money, Live Better.” The folks who go to Walmart now, who used to think that they were above the fray, will add numerous spur of the moment purchases once the economy rebounds or stops contracting sometime later this year or early next year. Disney will control more and more eyeballs through ESPN, ABC and Disney Channel because people are staying home and watching more T.V. When advertising revenue rebounds, Disney will have gained market share. They will ultimately pick up customers from less well financed theme parks who fail or downsize as well as movie production companies that no longer get funded. Movie ticket sales are up 16% year over year as we escape to the theatres.

There are many more stories among our companies to tell associated with the new household consumption levels, but we believe our portfolios could take advantage of what the future brings despite this difficult transition from households hitting the spending reset button.

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.