the timken story

The company makes tapered roller bearings (71%) and AP cartridge tapered roller bearings (21%), and it also trades in other types of bearings. The traded bearings are sourced from its group companies globally. The company also provides maintenance and refurbishment services.

Its growth largely depends upon that of manufacturing and infrastructure sectors. It has manufacturing facilities in Jamshedpur and Raipur which mainly cater to medium and heavy trucks, off-highway equipment, railways and exports.

As per management, the current size of anti-friction bearings market is approximately Rs.95 b, of which automotive industry has 45% share and industrial sector has 55%. The company had revenues of Rs.10.62 b for the year ended March 2016. So there is space to grow. 

The management also notes that low quality and counterfeit in the market and volatility in prices of metal components (main raw materials: steel, rings and accessories) as major threats to its business. Yet, it appears to be excited about the government's planned expenditure in building road and rail infrastructure corridor, private participation in defense and allied sector, and electrification drive.

Timken India is currently valued by the market at Rs.38.57 b. Timken Singapore Pte holds 75% of shares in the company; the ultimate holding company is The Timken Company, USA, which is worth $2.69 b as priced by the market.

Timken India pays royalty to its holding company; for 2016 it paid Rs.222 m, which is approximately 2% of revenues. It also pays inter-company service charges to the group companies.

It has 68 m shares outstanding. Apart from the institutional placement of 4.26 m shares at Rs.120 per share in 2014, the company has never diluted its shares. The placement had to be done to bring down the shareholding of the parent to 75% to adhere to the regulatory guidelines.

The company never dividends until 2012 when it made a hefty payout of Rs.1.27 b. Then in 2014 it paid dividends of Rs.6.50 per share (remember dilution of the holding company's equity); for 2016, it paid Rs.1 per share. Timken does not have a reliable payout policy yet.

What is interesting is that the market has steadily increased its expectations about the company and accordingly, its price over the last decade.

At the current price of Rs.569.65, the stock is trading at over 42 times its earnings. Although the PE multiple is a pricing measure, it can also be analyzed based upon the intrinsic value of a business. What we get out of the exercise is the implied PE multiple. For instance, if the value of the business is 100 and its earnings are 5, the implied multiple is 20. 

So then there had to be some fundamental change in the business affairs of Timken India for the multiple to expand.

Revenues grew at a cagr of 18.06% in the last 5 years and 12.37% in 10 years. We can choose to ignore the minor variation caused by the change of its financial year end from December to March from 2012 onwards.

Operating income grew at 20.64% and 10.43% during the respective periods; and earnings for common grew at 12.48% and 9.20%.

EPS grew at a slightly lower rate due to the institutional placement in 2014; it grew at 11.03% annually in the last 5 years and at 8.49% in the last 10 years.

That's the past. What we are really interested in is the future story for the business. How much can the revenues grow in the next 5 years? For the moment, let's expect to grow at 20% per annum. During the stable growth period the business cannot grow at a rate higher than the long term growth rate of the economy; therefore, let's set the perpetual growth rate to reflect that.

Operating margins started declining since 2006, but have increased in the last 2 years. Let's expect Timken to better its margins in the future and reach to 15% as a stable business. Note that this margin is expected to be perpetual and therefore sustainable.

2012 had a triple advantage: 15-month period; higher revenues and operating income; and lower operating capital. Therefore the return on capital was much higher. From 2012 onwards, the company spent approximately Rs.3 b in reinvestment; higher capex for expansion projects and also higher working capital requirement. In the previous 6 years, the aggregate reinvestment was Rs.602 m. Let's hope that Timken will be able to maintain a return on capital of 25% as a stable business.

Revenue growth rate of 20% is not going to come easy and free. There has to be right amount of reinvestment. Timken has already planned capacity expansions for railway bearings at Rs.1.24 b, and for tapered roller bearings at Rs.643 m, both at Jamshedpur plant. At 2.33 times capital turnover, the reinvestment is going to be there each year. Let's expect Timken to reach the stable growth period after 10 years of high growth.

Timken has generated free cash flows to firm of Rs.1.55 b in the last decade.

Where does it all end? Based upon our expectations, the projected numbers show that the invested capital is set to grow at 15.21% in the next decade compared to the historical rate of 12.73%; operating income at 16.70% compared to 10.43%; and FCFF at 37.96% compared to 29.96%.

Timken had excess cash of Rs.334 m as of March 2016 and investments in mutual funds of Rs.384 m, the market value of which should be higher. It had debt of Rs.63 m including interest-bearing deposits from dealers and distributors. It also had contingent liabilities (sales tax, income tax, excise, customs and other claims) of Rs.219 m; how much of this is going to be cash outflows is left for us to estimate.

Now the value of Timken's operating business becomes a function of our expected rate of return. If we accept that our expectations of 20% revenue growth, 15% operating margin and 25% return on capital are sustainable, the stock is currently priced (at Rs.569.65) by the market to give a return of 9.23% in the long term. Is that rate of return reasonable?

I would rather ask, is 15% operating margin sustainable for the business? Timken has never reached that in the last 10 years. I would also ask, can it increase its revenues by 4 times its current revenues by 2026? Will the market be able to accommodate that? Then there is the philosophical question, what happens if our expectations about the business and market turn out to be all wrong?

How about some sensitivity? If we tweak a little bit and change revenue growth rate to 15% and sustainable operating margin to 12%, the expected return falls to 7.65%.

If we consider that intrinsic valuation through discounted cash flows is too complex involving estimates of cash flows and growth rates, which we are incapable of being correct, we need not tread that path. We can bring the number of years far less than perpetual and try to price the stock.

Timken earned Rs.13.52 per share in 2016. The price of the stock becomes a function of growth rate in earnings, the multiple at which we expect it to trade and our expected rate of return. Conversely, we can keep the current price of the stock constant (the less we argue with the market, the better) and calculate the expected rate of return.

If we expect earnings per share to grow at 12% in the next 10 years and the stock to trade at 40 times, the stock at its current price would give an annual return of 11.42%. If growth rate is 15%, the rate of return is going to be 14.40%. That's a profound story, isn't it?

So what if earnings grow at 10% and the stock trades at a multiple of 25? Do we like to earn 4.40% in the next decade? At 11% growth rate, which is the last 5-year average, with a multiple of 40, the rate of return is going to be 10.42%; at 8.50%, which is the last 10-year average, the rate of return is 7.93%. Such is life.

buffett's apple

While some of the renowned investors have been talking about downside of investing in Apple, Warren Buffett has been doing something different.  

No technology please

For years he propagated that because he does not understand technology, he does not invest in those stocks. He famously stayed away from the internet boom (and the subsequent bust), and had the last laugh. People admired him even more.

Oh sure

Alas, he bought Apple stock in May 2016 and then again in August. No, he cannot say that it was his managers who bought it. I don't buy the argument that he let them deal with the billions themselves without his approval. Who's kidding who here? 

Why's it now
This article mentions the real reason Buffett may have bought Apple. Those noted include:

1) Apple is no longer a fast grower;

2) Apple has now become an old fashioned value stock;

3) Apple is no longer a technology stock; it is a consumer staple;

4) Apple now is a clear contrarian play.

Well, the author may have come up with some good reasons to perhaps buy the Apple stock. However, I don't think that those are the real reasons for Buffett to be interested in Apple. Why didn't he buy Microsoft on similar grounds? Don't give a bull like his friendship with Bill Gates would have been a conflict of interest. Why not Oracle, or many other slow growth, yet sort of stable, technology stocks? If we have the will, we can come up with reasons backing our will. 

The real reason that Buffett has changed the course is this:

He had better investment ideas when he was dealing with smaller sums of cash in earlier years. He stuck to his philosophy of buying businesses he understood, which had sustainable competitive advantages. The outcome was admirable. He did not have to payout dividends or do buybacks for he supplied superior returns to the shareholders through his capital allocation skills.

Today with $20 b plus cash coming out each year, he is in denial: That he can still continue to deploy capital at a rate that is better than the market. That his rate of return is going to be higher than his fellow shareholders; that his opportunity cost is higher than theirs. He is in denial that Berkshire does not need to payout dividends at all; there is no need to consider buybacks at terms different from his earlier formula.

Buffett and his market
I have noted my thoughts about Berkshire earlier. Whether it is going to lag the market is a question we can answer in hindsight only.

In the last decade, Berkshire's market performance compared to the market itself is not too bad.

Purchase in 2000: Berkshire's market price per share increased by 7.06% annually since 2000 compared to 5.01% for S&P-500 (including dividends). That is good for someone who bought in 2000 and held through 2015. If sold in 2005, the returns would be 4.52% for Berkshire compared to 0.54% for S&P-500. That's a big margin, what I called Buffet's last laugh on the dot-com bust. It would be 5.41% and 1.42% if sold in 2010.

Purchase in 5-year periods: What if the return is compared over the previous 5-year period? If purchase was in 2005 and sale was in 2010, the return would be 6.31% for Berkshire and 2.30% for S&P-500. So far so good for Buffett.

In the last 5 years though Buffett seems to have lost the edge. If the stock was purchased in 2010 and held through 2015, the return would be 10.42%; not bad at all. However, if the cash was invested in S&P-500 instead, the return would be 12.57% dividends included. Perhaps the investor would have been better off if the index was preferred to Buffett.

The desperation
Yet, Buffett is a bit desperate today. He needs more ideas where he can deploy those continuing excess cash flows; and hey, they are not forthcoming as frequently as they used to before; and that is not his fault. Though his fault lies in denying to accept that fact.

He bought Apple stock because he became desperate, and defied his own philosophy. It does not matter whether the stock does well or not.

The lack of edge
The key question now to deal with is: In whose hands that excess cash is going to be more valuable - Buffett or shareholders? If value of a business is the present value of excess cash discounted at the rate that is appropriate, it will be higher with those who can increase that cash at a higher rate over a long period.

Buffett or his fellow shareholders, who's got the answer? 

the spirit of united spirits part 2

The business
The company had revenues of Rs.94 b, operating earnings of Rs.8 b and net earnings of 9.7 b for the year ended 31 March 2016. There were operating losses during the previous year. The company says it is the second largest spirit company in the world and the largest one in India.  93 m cases were produced during the financial year that ended. It has a portfolio of over 140 brands, with 15 brands having sales of over 1 m cases and 3 brands with over 10 m cases. Pretty solid. 

United Spirits is in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol beverages, predominantly in India. It has 19 subsidiaries, one associate and 74 manufacturing facilities. The business strategy is in the process of a significant change since Diageo took full control of the business in July 2014. Diageo is a global leader in alcohol beverages with a collection of premium brands and operates across the world.

United Spirits:

Diageo:

The market
Alcohol beverages market includes beer, distilled spirits and wine. In India it also includes country liquor. United Spirits is primarily into India made foreign liquor (IMFL) market, which accounts for 70% of the total market, and the company has a market share of 40% in volumes and 50% in value. 

Whisky leads both the total market and the IMFL market in India. Beer is the second widely consumed alcohol beverage.

While both popular and premium brands have a ready market, premium brands are gaining market share, albeit slowly. Premium brands also enjoy better margins; therefore, contribute higher to the operating earnings. 

United Spirits competes with Pernod Ricard in premium segment and with Radico Khaitan and Tilaknagar Industries in popular segment. Allied Blenders and Distillers is also a competitor. United Spirits lags its competitors in terms of operating margins. Surely, something must have gone wrong for the company.

The decade that went past

The company has not performed well in the past due to several reasons: increasing burden of excise duties, high debt, inefficient working capital management, increasing raw material prices and bad business execution. It also has had corporate governance issues.

Revenues increased 5% annually in the past 5 years and about 16% in the past 10 years. In 2014, the company impaired Rs.32 b goodwill recognized during its acquisition of Whyte and Mackay. This is what happens when you buy for GBP 600 m in 2007 and sell for GBP 430 m in 2014. High finance costs have been a drag on the company's performance.

Both operating and net margins have been falling.

All this has had an obvious impact on the earnings per share. 

Market price
The story so far has been clear: bad. Yet, the market value of equity has not quite reflected it. So far in 2016, it was valued as high as Rs.585 b and as low as Rs.324 b. Even the lower price has an implied PE of over 33.

As of now, the company is valued by the market at Rs.335 b implying high multiples of its current earnings. Why so? Probably because markets look into the future and discount all information that is available. Efficient market hypothesis, I guess. Here, the market is probably thinking that Diageo will fix all the problems and make the business profitable.

Enter Diageo
The good news, however, is that since Diageo took over control, there have been things that are positive for the business. Now the operating margin is at 8.52% and net profits margin is at 10.32%. EPS is Rs.66.59. Return on capital is 12.96% and return on equity is 146% mainly due to the clean-up of bad assets. Diageo has sold Whyte and Mackay which accounted for 16% of revenues and shares held in United Breweries. Debt is lower than before. It has also brought in changes to the management and the board.

With the current numbers if we try to value the business, the market price appears too high. That means we need to assume much better picture going forward. The operating and net margins will have to go up, revenues will have to grow at a much higher rate. Reinvestment has to be based on efficient use of capital.

Highly regulated; no pricing power
Can this happen for a business which is highly regulated, and laden with high debt and working capital requirements?

Consider this: The company is operating in an environment where the government is involved in licensing, production (setting up the plant), distribution (wholesale and retail) and pricing of products. There are taxes even for the inter-state movement of liquor.

In addition, at least four states have already banned liquor, and Kerala and Tamil Nadu are in the process of implementing the ban. Tamil Nadu has already become a troubled market for United Spirits with limits on volume sales in the state.

The government has also tried to affect the prices of ethanol (which is about 40% of raw materials cost) adversely for United Spirits.

Direct advertisement is not possible for the liquor business. So only people with liquor-sense would appreciate those indirect advertisements which cost about 10% of revenues annually.

Excise duty as a percentage of revenues has increased from 43% in 2006 to 59% in 2016. The company paid Rs.134 b in excise duties for the year 2016 and a total of Rs.801 b in the last 10 years.

Excise duty is a major revenue for the state governments. The fact that liquor has been excluded from GST in its current form says something.

Finally, lack of adequate pricing power puts any business in jeopardy.

Where are the competitive advantages?
The biggest negative is also the biggest positive for United Spirits. Because the industry is highly regulated, there is a huge entry barrier. It is very difficult for a new player to obtain licenses, set up plants and distribution channels across the country and price the products to achieve positive net present value of its cash flows.

Then there are other positives as noted by management and analysts: Demographic structure, low per-capita consumption compared to the world average, rising disposable income, portfolio of brands, production and distribution facilities and Diageo at the top to steer the wheel.

Focus on premium brands
Diageo has plans to repackage the company's top brands and introduce to the market in a more prominent manner. It expects to increase market share of premium brands which are currently 37% (volume) and 51% (value).

It has already sold non-core assets to reduce debt which is Rs.42 b as of now. Management has projected that revenues have the potential to increase by 13% in the next five years. Diageo has an operating margin of 28% compared to United Spirit's 8.52%. I am not sure what will be the sustainable target operating margin. I don't think there is much scope for improvement in reinvestment though; current capital generates revenues 1.65 times. While there is scope for working capital efficiencies, overall capital requirements should be in line with the industry average.

Value and price
I tried to value United Spirits with discounted cash flows and found that market price was quite high. It might be interesting to try to price the stock. In 5 out of last 10 years, the company had negative EPS. I don't want to give too much emphasis on the past. Let's say that its current EPS of Rs.66.59 grows at 12% in the next 10 years. Market price in year 10 then would be a function of the PE multiple applied for the stock.

And the buy price of the stock would be a function of expected rate of return:

Based on the current market price, for instance, if the investor's expected rate of return is 8%, the stock would have to be priced at a PE multiple of 25 at year 10; any higher multiple will increase the rate of return. Is 8% good enough? We don't know especially with the lower inflation and interest rates environment anticipated. For each investor his or her own opportunity cost. I have not factored dividends, if any, in the cash flows; that will be an additional return.

If the expected rate is 10%, the stock would have to be priced at 30 times earnings; and for 15% return, it should be 45 times. The stock has been priced at higher than this multiple many times in the past. In 2016 itself it was priced at about 60 times earnings. If the stock is really going to give an EPS growth of 12% over next 10 years, it would be a high performing stock warranting a higher multiple. How much higher is anybody's guess.

Now these expected prices are based on the performance of 12% growth in EPS. It will be phenomenal if it actually happens, but we are not sure. It could as well be lower. My guess is as good as anybody's. We can price the stock with the lower growth rate too.

The Diageo ride
There is some comfort that one can take if it sounds acceptable. Diageo acquired controlling stake in the business in 2013 and 2014. First it acquired 36 m shares in United Spirits based on a preferential allotment at Rs.1440 per share in 2013. Next it acquired 1.96 m shares at Rs.2400 per share and after that 3.5 m shares at Rs.2474.45 per share from the market. Finally it acquired 37.78 m shares at Rs.3030 per share through a tender offer in July 2014. Its average cost of acquisition of 79.61 m shares (54.78% control) was Rs.2263.86 per share.

This price is close to the current market price. An investor who buys United Spirits stock today will ride along with Diageo in the future. Diageo has noted that it expects its acquisition to be economic profits positive in year 5 assuming 12% cost of capital. Is it that its investment should give a return of 12% in the next 5 years? Whatever that means. I have also written about United Spirits earlier.

The challenges
With entry barriers as the primary long term competitive advantage and brands as the secondary, Diageo will have a test of time.

There is a plethora of qualifications and emphasis of matters from the auditors highlighting breaches of historical agreements, and deficiencies in control environment and corporate governance. New management will have to tackle all this to enhance the image of the company and its business. United Spirits has contingent liabilities of Rs.11.8 b as of 2016. A portion of this might as well be cash outflows in the coming years.

Goodwill
The balance sheet includes Rs.1.12 of goodwill; it is not clear which acquisition it pertains to. Since Diageo has impaired significant value of goodwill where the present value of cash flows were much lower, we can assume that the current carrying value of goodwill is value accretive.

IPL franchise
The carrying value of IPL franchise rights was Rs.3.9 b, and these are surprisingly grouped under operations. Whenever the game of cricket became part of the liquor business operations we cannot tell. The revenues of Rs.1.35 b and direct costs of Rs.1.08 b are classified under operating revenues and operating expenses respectively. There are additional costs related to the franchise probably resulting in a loss for the year. Ideally, these should be separated and shown under other income. We cannot include IPL revenues in cash flows and project it as part of liquor beverage business. Nevertheless, the market value of franchise rights is probably higher than its carrying value.

Diageo India
Diageo also operates independently in India as a private business. There is no clarity as to why this has not merged with United Spirits and how it is going to affect United Spirits operations.

The 12% growth
The job for Anand Kripalu and Diageo is cut out: 1) Increase revenues; 2) Increase operating margin; 3) Reduce debt; 4) Efficiently reinvest capital; 5) Do not dilute equity. These efforts should lead to increase in earnings per share.

valuing berkshire

Berkshire Hathaway is priced by the market at $356 b; and it is now the seventh largest company by market-cap in the US. Amazon and Facebook just went ahead of Berkshire recently. It took Facebook about 12 years and for Berkshire more than 50 years to reach where they are today is another matter. Facebook which went public only 4 years ago is priced at high multiples of its earnings. So growth it is that the market is considering when pricing; low growth for Berkshire and high growth for Facebook.

Berkshire is a conglomerate which acts as a holding company of several diversified businesses. Each business is run by an independent CEO without much interference from the head office. It has an extraordinary business model where there aren't much of corporate meetings, forecasts or guidances. There is no smoothing of earnings either. What is earned in a quarter is what is actually reported. It is always a pleasure to read its annual letter to the shareholders. There is no question that Buffett and Munger have turned Berkshire into what it is today with the most contrarian approach possible to business and investing. 

Everyone is interested how Berkshire would perform post these two exceptional managers. More precisely, how it would reward its shareholders based on its current pricing? The class A share is trading at $216,000. Its class B shares are worth 1/1500 of class A in terms of cash flows, and are also traded in the market. Berkshire had 1.643 m shares of class A equivalent as of December 2015.

Valuing Berkshire is not easy. One has to value each business separately and add up to arrive at the value of the total business. Analysts do not want to get into that hassle. The easy way for them is to price the stock and call it value.

As much as Buffett likes to see Berkshire's stock price trade close to its book value, it is not the right value for the business. This is because Berkshire's operating businesses cannot be marked to market. It now has many capital-intensive businesses which probably should be valued much higher than book value. Therefore, book value of $155,501 per share for the company is actually not meaningful. 

At the very top level, Berkshire is an insurance company; and one of the best runs at that. Premiums received by insurance business are invested in its operating business for acquisitions. The operating business comprises several independent businesses. Premiums and excess cash from operating businesses are also invested in stock markets. Berkshire had an investment portfolio of $159,794 per share as of December 2015. Berkshire also makes underwriting profits consistently. 

Analysts price its stock by applying a multiple to its earnings. As per its 2015 annual report, pretax earnings per share from its operations was $12,304. If we apply a PE of 10, the price of operating business will be $123,040. Including investments, which are market to market, the price of the whole company comes to $282,834 per share (class A equivalent). It seems like there is an upside to its market price.

Since earnings accrue to the shareholders after tax, why should we use pretax earnings? Applying a tax rate of 35%, the after-tax operating earnings will be $7,998 per share. With the PE of 10, the operating business will be worth $79,980, and Berkshire will be priced at $239,774 per share. Still higher than its market price.

In 2015, Berkshire class A shares traded at a high price of $227,500 and a low price of $190,007. Let's consider only the high price and remove investments of $159,794 to arrive at the market price of its operating business of $67,706. This price has an implied PE of 8.47. I have not considered the low price because often the market has failed to recognize the value of its operating business altogether, which is illogical. This implied PE has been falling consistently over the last 10 years; it was 37.47 in 2000 and 4.29 in 2012. If we use the 5-year average implied PE of 8.22, the price of operating business will be $65,709 per share and including investments, Berkshire will be priced at $225,503. Again higher than its current market price, but not much.

How about its cash flows? Going forward if Berkshire is not going to be in acquisition spree, we can assume that its reinvestment requirements will be met by depreciation and other non-cash charges. If this assumption holds good, Berkshire's free cash flows will be equal to its earnings. If so, its free cash flows are going to be $7,998 per share in perpetuity without any growth and more if we assume some growth.

At an expected return of 8% and zero growth, the value of operating business will be $99,970 per share and including investments, Berkshire will be valued at $259,764. If we assume a growth rate of 2% in perpetuity, the value of Berkshire will be $295,753.

If we assume that Berkshire's reinvestment requirement will be a function of its return on equity and growth rate, the value of operating business will be $103,969 and Berkshire value will be $263,763 per share. I have assumed that Berkshire will be able to sustain return on equity of 8.50% and growth rate of 2% forever.

So we have a range of prices and values for Berkshire. Interesting part though is that all are above its current market price of $216,000. Both Buffett and Munger are probably right in their opinion about the future of Berkshire.

I would be surprised if Berkshire fails to achieve a moderate growth in the absence of its star managers. If it will not be a market-beating stock, it will also not be a market-beaten stock. 

motherson sumi, $18 billion and 20.90%

Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd is primarily in the business of manufacture of components to automotive original equipment manufacturers. It is owned by Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd (36.93%) and Sumitomo Wiring Systems Ltd, Japan (25.29%); Sehgal family owns 3.39%. 

The company operates through 93 subsidiaries, 11 joint ventures and 2 associates in 25 countries. It has manufacturing plants in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, UAE, Australia, UK, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, France, Slovakia, China, South Korea, USA, Brazil, Mexico, Czech Republic, Japan, South Africa and Ireland. 

Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems Group BV, The Netherlands (SMRP BV) is a joint venture between the company (51%) and Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd (49%). SMRP BV operates through its subsidiaries, Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec (SMR, 98.50%) and Samvardhana Motherson Peguform (SMP, 100%).

Motherson Sumi had revenues of Rs.345 b in 2015, of which 85% was from outside of India. Its latest annual report for the year ended 31 March 2016 is not yet out. Revenues increased by 38.85% annually for the last 5 years and by 46% for the last 10 years. 

It earned operating profits of Rs.18.35 b and net profits of Rs.8.62 b in 2015. Growth in operating profits was phenomenal at 93.85% per annum in the last 5 years and 33% in the last 10 years. Net profits grew at 28.86% and 26.23% annually during the respective periods. 

Earnings per share in 2015 was Rs.9.78 which grew at 27.70% (last 5 years) and 24.89% (last 10 years). During the last 10 years, the company issued 35.21 m shares by way of conversion of foreign currency bonds and 4.42 m shares through merger with Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineering Ltd. Apart from these issues, all increase in earnings have accrued to the original shareholders. 

The company approved 4 bonus issues during the last 10-year period, because of which the number of shares of increased to 881.92 m. In June 2015, there was another bonus issue and consequently, the number of shares outstanding as of now stands at 1322.88 m. 

Let's get all this hullabaloo out of the way and come to the point. As of now, the market price of the stock is Rs.308.85 and has an implied PE of 47.37. Note that EPS of Rs.6.52 is recalculated based on 2015 earnings but adjusted for bonus shares issued subsequently. 

Targets
Management has set some bold targets for the next 5 years, especially after considering the fact that their previous 5-year targets were easily met.

Revenues

How much do the investors stand to gain if the company is able to achieve these targets? Revenues would be Rs.1206 b in 2020 assuming a constant rupee-dollar exchange rate of Rs.67.

Margins

Both operating profit and net profit margins have been falling over the years. Average operating profit margin during the last 5 and 10 years is lower than 5%. In 2015, they were 5.31% and 2.49%.

If we consider operating margin of 5.50% and net margin of 2.50% as sustainable, operating profit would be Rs.66.33 b and net earnings would be Rs.30.15 b in 2020.

Capital efficiency

The next target for management is to achieve a return on capital of 40% in 2020. This is a quite adventurous if we consider the company's past heroics on this front.

It is not clear whether it is a pretax or after-tax return on capital. I do not like to measure return on capital before tax. However, if we do it for Motherson Sumi, the capital requirement in terms of reinvestment to achieve those target revenues appears to be overly courageous as we can see soon. So I will stick to the before tax target. 

Operating capital in 2015 was Rs.75.12 b without considering the effect of lease debt. Operating capital required to achieve 40% return on capital considering operating profits before tax would be Rs.165.82 b in 2020. 

Reinvestment required as measured by sales-to-capital in the past has been improving.

In 2015, revenues of Rs.4.60 were generated from a rupee of capital. With Rs.165.82 b capital required to achieve Rs.1206 b revenues in 2020, it increases to 7.27. This is already efficient enough. If we consider after-tax return on capital, the sales-to-capital increases to 11.19. This is what I called courageous. As I noted, I will stick to the before tax target. 

Reinvestment

Reinvestment of Rs.90.71 b would be required in the next 5 years to achieve the targeted revenues. Considering the fact that Motherson Sumi has not much diluted its per-share earnings in the past, we would expect to see the same trend to continue. I also assume that all reinvestment would be funded by new debt. 

Earnings per share and market pricing

Keeping the number of shares outstanding constant at 1322.88 m, earnings per share in 2020 would be Rs.22.79. 

I check PE multiples only as a matter of interest, but not necessarily for investment valuation purposes. I prefer to consider it in combination with DCF analysis. Since this analysis is to see where management is able to take its shareholders, I will use PE for coming up with a market price.

There is a range of PE at which the stock has been priced by the market in the past. The average high-PE in the last 5 years was 35.66 and the average low-PE was 19.35. Increase of EPS at 28.44% annually in the next 5 years is a big deal, and market could price the stock at higher multiples. 

I have excluded all cash flows remaining after payment of dividends for the purpose of this analysis, and have assumed that this cash would lead to higher PE multiple.  

If we consider a PE of 35, the market price would be Rs.797.69 in 2020. That is an expected return of about 20.90% per annum over the 5-year period. Dividends are additional cash and would increase the rate of return. Take it if you believe it. 

Debt to capital

The debt ratio as of 2015 was 19.14% in market value terms. This would change to 12.03% in 2020. This is after considering lease debt of Rs.2.29 b. The remarkable increase in return on capital would be the reason for this comfortable position.

The catch

Lofty targets set by management would be a challenge. If those are not met, revenues and earnings would fall; in addition, the PE multiple would fall too. Isn't this usually the catch with any firm?

The sensitivity of these values is captured below.

If revenues in 2020 are $10 b instead of $18 b, which is a growth rate of 14.14% per annum, the rate of return before dividends would be 2.43%.

If return on capital is at 25% instead of 40%, the expected return would not change; however, debt ratio will increase.

My guess on the future would be as good as yours. Heck, all wrong.

a or b, which is more valuable

Recently there was a news story. But before we get to that let's do a small exercise. We have some numbers from two firms in their respective, although unrelated, fields. 

Which firm do you think is more valuable? May be we don't have complete information about their business, prospects and so forth. Yet, B should strike as more valuable, especially when we consider that B is in a stable, not declining, business. 

As of now, the market value of equity of A is $347 b and that of B is $360 b. How did that happen?

Earnings are not better indicators of business value compared to cash flows. So let's check out the cash flows. 

In the last three years, average cash flows to equity of A was $3.74 b while that of B was $20.28 b. Note that although these numbers have been taken from Yahoo Finance (for investment purposes I prefer to pick them from financial statements directly), they may not be far off. So let's move with them.

Has the market gone crazy? More often markets remain rational, but not always. Should we consider that this is one of those times? 

May be A is into some sunshine business on the verge of disrupting the industry. May be A has much higher growth rate than B. May be. However, my aim is to find out under what circumstances should higher value for A be justified.

Let's assume that our expected return from equity is 10%, and also assume that cash flows are perpetual. 

To get to their current market value, cash flows of A will have to grow at 8.92% annually, and those of B will have to grow at 4.36% in perpetuity. 

If we lower the expected return to 8%, the growth rates for A will be 6.92% and for B 2.36%. 

Even when we consider that it is a global market, not restricted to the US, growth rates of A appear to be stretched compared to B.

May be there is some time for A to reach stable period of growth. Let's assume that cash flows to firm go to equity holders in the absence of debt. What the heck is there to assume anyway?

I know that equating firm cash flows to equity is a bad idea. Let's correct it. If we assume two growth periods for A, free cash flows to equity to come to $7 b. This is how we get it: present value of average cash flows to equity of $3.74 b growing at 15% in the next 10 years at 8% cost of equity is $7 b, which is close to $7.3 b. A had revenues of $107 b in 2015; if they grow at 15% in the next 10 years, they would be $433 b in year 10. Walmart had revenues of $482 b in 2015. A would also require adequate reinvestment to achieve the required growth rate.

Even when we consider free cash flows to equity of $7.33 b, A will have to grow them at 5.89% annually forever. Can A pull it off? Time will tell. For the moment though A has a story to tell for those who want to hear.

Is growth rate higher than 15% in the next 10 years sustainable for A? Its revenues grew annually at 29% in the last 5 years. What the heck, if we assume 25% growth rate in the next 10 years? This is how it would look:

Finally, we did it. If A grows at 25% in the next 10 years, and then at 3.34% in perpetuity, it could be valued at $347 b. For that A will have to achieve revenues of $996 b and free cash flows of 35 b in year 10. Is that possible? Time will tell. All I know is that growth does not come free; it needs reinvestment to sustain it, which we have not considered explicitly.

Market value of A's equity has been growing since long. 

I have written about it earlier and before. You know what, I like numbers more than stories, earnings more than numbers and cash more than earnings. So I still ask Amazon, where's the cash? Or should I put that question across to the market?

bonus shares and value

Bonus shares are quite frequently used by the Indian companies for a variety of reasons. These stock dividends are popular among the investors. 

Recently, one of my friends was talking about how an MNC showered shares after shares as a bonus to the stockholders in the past three decades. Little does he know that those gifts did nothing to the value of his shares.

More recently, the shareholders of TCS were demanding bonus shares at their annual meeting. TCS is the most valuable listed company in India with a market-cap of Rs.5,130 b. 

Not many investors understand that value of a business depends upon its cash flows, growth and the risk in those cash flows. If an event does not affect these, it cannot affect the business value. 

Bonus shares represent issue of additional number of shares to the existing shareholders in a specified ratio by way of a transfer from retained earnings. In other words, it is a book adjustment from retained earnings to share capital. Forget doing anything else, it does not even change book equity. The market price, obviously, adjusts to reflect higher number of shares outstanding. 

If you hold 100 shares with a market price of 50, after an issue of 1:1 bonus, you will end up with 200 shares having a market price of 25. You are not going to be any richer with these additional shares. 

Some companies play games with market through stock dividends or stock splits, just to bring down the market price of a share such that it becomes cheaper (of course only in the minds of investors) to buy and sell. These tactics might temporarily change market price; but the intrinsic value of the business remains unaffected. 

TCS will be well served if it concentrates on its operations rather than distractions such as bonus shares. It could consider stock buybacks if market price is considered a bargain; but is it? It could also consider operating independent of other Tata-group companies. The inter-holdings within the group make an investor wonder about what is going to happen to the excess cash.

In the meantime, investors should try to understand the business behind the stock rather than the stock ticker itself. I am not sure when an Indian shareholder will actually understand the real story behind bonus shares.