Berkshire Hathaway is the brainchild of Warren Buffett. He has a unique mindset that gives the company an unassailable edge in the insurance industry.
One of my heroes in the investment industry is Warren Buffett. His brainchild, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A)(NYSE: BRK-B), is one of the 50-plus companies in my family’s investment portfolio. We’ve owned Berkshire shares since August 2011, and I shared my investment thesis on the company recently in The Good Investors.
In my Berkshire thesis, I discussed the fantastic track record of profitability that the company’s insurance subsidiaries have produced over the years. I shared that the track record is the result of Buffett’s unique mindset in managing the insurance subsidiaries:
“Next, Buffett also does not push for short-term gains at the expense of Berkshire’s long-term business health. A great example can be seen in Berkshire’s excellent track record in the insurance industry: Its property and casualty (P/C) insurance business has recorded an underwriting profit for 15 of the past 16 years through to 2018. In contrast, the P/C industry as a whole often operates at a significant underwriting loss; in the decade ended 2018, the industry suffered an underwriting loss in five separate years.”
A missing piece
Years ago, I read a document from Buffett suggesting that Berkshire does notpay its insurance employees based on the policy-premiums they bring in. That’s because Buffett does not want to incentivise his insurance employees to chase unprofitable insurance deals when premiums across the industry do not make sense.
I wanted to include Buffet’s unique remuneration structure for his insurance employees in my Berkshire investment thesis. I thought it was a beautiful illustration of a simple but unreplicable competitive advantage that Berkshire has in the insurance industry. But when I was writing the thesis, I forgot where I came across the information and I could not find it after a long search. So I decided to leave it out.
Found again
As luck would have it, I finally found it again. All thanks goes to my friends Loh Wei and Stanley Lim! Stanley runs the excellent investment education website, Value Invest Asia. He recently interviewed Loh Wei, who talked about Berkshire and Buffett’s unique mindset for remunerating his insurance employees.
After watching the interview, I asked Loh Wei where he found the information and was guided toward the source that I came across years ago: Buffett’s 2004 Berkshire shareholders’ letter.
Wisdom from the Oracle of Omaha
Here’s what Buffett wrote (emphases are mine):
“What we’ve had going for us is a managerial mindset that most insurers find impossible to replicate. Take a look at the facing page. Can you imagine any public company embracing a business model that would lead to the decline in revenue that we experienced from 1986 through 1999? That colossal slide, it should be emphasized, did not occur because business was unobtainable. Many billions of premium dollars were readily available to NICO [National Indemnity Company] had we only been willing to cut prices. But we instead consistently priced to make a profit, not to match our most optimistic competitor. We never left customers – but they left us.
Most American businesses harbor an “institutional imperative” that rejects extended decreases in volume. What CEO wants to report to his shareholders that not only did business contract last year but that it will continue to drop? In insurance, the urge to keep writing business is also intensified because the consequences of foolishly-priced policies may not become apparent for some time. If an insurer is optimistic in its reserving, reported earnings will be overstated, and years may pass before true loss costs are revealed (a form of self-deception that nearly destroyed GEICO in the early 1970s).
Finally, there is a fear factor at work, in that a shrinking business usually leads to layoffs. To avoid pink slips, employees will rationalize inadequate pricing, telling themselves that poorly-priced business must be tolerated in order to keep the organization intact and the distribution system happy. If this course isn’t followed, these employees will argue, the company will not participate in the recovery that they invariably feel is just around the corner.
To combat employees’ natural tendency to save their own skins, we have always promised NICO’s workforce that no one will be fired because of declining volume, however severe the contraction. (This is not Donald Trump’s sort of place.) NICO is not labor-intensive, and, as the table suggests, can live with excess overhead. It can’t live, however, with underpriced business and the breakdown in underwriting discipline that accompanies it. An insurance organization that doesn’t care deeply about underwriting at a profit this year is unlikely to care next year either.
Naturally, a business that follows a no-layoff policy must be especially careful to avoid overstaffing when times are good. Thirty years ago Tom Murphy, then CEO of Cap Cities, drove this point home to me with a hypothetical tale about an employee who asked his boss for permission to hire an assistant. The employee assumed that adding $20,000 to the annual payroll would be inconsequential. But his boss told him the proposal should be evaluated as a $3 million decision, given that an additional person would probably cost at least that amount over his lifetime, factoring in raises, benefits and other expenses (more people, more toilet paper). And unless the company fell on very hard times, the employee added would be unlikely to be dismissed, however marginal his contribution to the business.
It takes real fortitude – embedded deep within a company’s culture – to operate as NICO does. Anyone examining the table can scan the years from 1986 to 1999 quickly. But living day after day with dwindling volume – while competitors are boasting of growth and reaping Wall Street’s applause – is an experience few managers can tolerate. NICO, however, has had four CEOs since its formation in 1940 and none have bent. (It should be noted that only one of the four graduated from college. Our experience tells us that extraordinary business ability is largely innate.)
The current managerial star – make that superstar – at NICO is Don Wurster (yes, he’s “the graduate”), who has been running things since 1989. His slugging percentage is right up there with Barry Bonds’ because, like Barry, Don will accept a walk rather than swing at a bad pitch. Don has now amassed $950 million of float at NICO that over time is almost certain to be proved the negative-cost kind. Because insurance prices are falling, Don’s volume will soon decline very significantly and, as it does, Charlie and I will applaud him ever more loudly.”
In the quotes above, Buffett referenced a table of financials for NICO. The table is shown below. Note the red box, which highlights the massivedecline in NICO’s revenue (written premium) from 1986 to 1999.
Source: Berkshire Hathaway 2004 shareholders’ letter
Can you do it?
“What we’ve had going for us is a managerial mindset that most insurers find impossible to replicate.” This is the simple but unreplicable competitive advantage that Buffett and Berkshire has in the insurance industry. It is simple. You just have to be willing to tolerate a huge decline in business volume – potentially for a long time – if the pricing for business does not make sense. But it is unreplicable because it goes directly against our natural human tendency to be greedy for more.
If we spot similar simple but unreplicable competitive advantages in companies, it could lead us to fantastic long-term investment opportunities. Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN), shared the following in his 2003 Amazon shareholders’ letter (emphasis is mine):
“Another example is our Instant Order Update feature, which reminds you that you’ve already bought a particular item. Customers lead busy lives and cannot always remember if they’ve already purchased a particular item, say a DVD or CD they bought a year earlier.
When we launched Instant Order Update, we were able to measure with statistical significance that the feature slightly reduced sales. Good for customers? Definitely. Good for shareowners? Yes, in the long run.”
Bezos was able to cut through short-term greediness and focus on long-term value. I also shared Bezos’s quote above in my recent investment thesis for Amazon. My family’s investment portfolio has owned Amazon shares for a few years. Here’s a chart showing much a $10,000 investment in Amazon shares would have grown to since the company’s 1997 listing:
Competitive advantages need not be complex. They can be simple. And sometimes the really simple ones end up being the hardest, or impossible, to copy. And that’s a beautiful thing for long-term investors.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
We run the risk of losing more than we can afford when we’re shorting stocks. So going short in the stock market can be far riskier than going long.
Shorting is the act of investing in stocks in a way that allows you to profit when stock prices fall. It is the opposite of going long, which is investing in a way that allows you to profit when stock prices rise.
I’ve been investing for nearly a decade now and have done fairly well. But I’ve never shorted stocks. That’s because I recognise that shorting requires different skills from going long. In the financial markets, I only want to do things that I’m sure I know well. In this article, I want to share two real-life examples on why it’s so difficult to short stocks.
My investment club
The first example starts with an informal investment club I belong to named Kairos Research. It was founded by Stanley Lim, Cheong Mun Hong, and Willie Keng. They are also the founders of the excellent Asia-focused investment education website, Value Invest Asia.
I’ve been a part of Kairos for many years and have benefited greatly. I’ve made life-long friends and met countless thoughtful, kind, humble, and whip-smart people who have a deep passion for investing and knowledge. Being in Kairos Research greatly accelerated my learning curve as both an investor and human being.
To join the club and remain in it requires a membership “fee” of just one stock market investment idea per year. It’s a price I’ve gladly paid for many years and I will continue to do so in the years ahead.
Riding all the way up
In one of our gatherings in June 2019, a well-respected member and deeply accomplished investor in the club gave a presentation on Luckin Coffee (NASDAQ: LK).
Luckin is a company that runs coffee stores in China. Its stores mainly cater for to-go orders and the company was expanding its store count at a blistering pace. Within a year or so from its founding near the end of 2017, it already had more than 2,000 stores in China. Luckin is considered a formidable competitor to US-based Starbucks in China; Starbucks counts the Middle Kingdom as its largest international growth market.
At the time of my club mate’s presentation, Luckin’s share price was around US$20, roughly the same level from the close of its IPO in May 2019. He sold his Luckin shares in January 2020, around the time when Luckin’s share price peaked at US$50. Today, Luckin’s share price is around US$4. The coffee chain’s share price tanked by 76% from US$26 in one day on 2 April 2020 and continued falling before stock exchange operator NASDAQ ordered a trading halt for Luckin shares.
Not the first time…
In January 2020, Muddy Waters Research said that it believes Luckin is a fraud. Muddy Waters Research is an investment research firm. Luckin denied the accusations and its share price only had a relatively minor reaction. There was a gradual slide that occurred in Luckin’s share price since then, but it happened with the backdrop of stock markets around the world falling because of fears related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The wheels came off the bus only on 2 April 2020. On that day, Luckin announced that the company’s board of directors is conducting an internal investigation. There are fraudulent transactions – occurring from the second quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2019 – that are believed to amount to RMB 2.2 billion (around US$300 million). For perspective, Luckin’s reported revenue for the 12 months ended 30 September 2019 was US$470 million, according to Ycharts. The exact extent of the fraudulent transactions has yet to be finalised.
Luckin also said that investors can no longer rely on its previous financial statements for the nine months ended 30 September 2019. The company’s chief operating officer, Liu Jian, was named as the primary culprit for the misconduct. He has been suspended from his role.
Given the announcement, there could potentially be other misdeeds happening at Luckin. After all, Warren Buffett once said that “What you find is there’s never just one cockroach in the kitchen when you start looking around.”
It’s tough being short
Here’s a chart showing Luckin’s share price from its listing to 2 April 2020:
The first serious allegations of Luckin committing fraud appeared only in January 2020, thanks to Muddy Waters Research. But it turns out that fraudulent transactions at Luckin could have happened as early as April 2019. From 1 April 2019 to 31 January 2020, Luckin’s share price actually increased by 59%. At one point, it was even up by nearly 150%.
If you had shorted Luckin’s shares back in April 2019, you would have faced a massive loss – more than what you had put in – even if you had been right on Luckin committing fraud. This shows how tough it is to short stocks. Not only must your analysis on the fundamentals of the business be right, but your timing must also be right because you could easily lose more than you have if you’re shorting.
Going long though is much less worrisome. If you’re not using leverage, poor timing is not an issue because you can easily ride out any short-term decline.
Even the legend fails
The other example I want to highlight in this article is one of the most fascinating pieces of information on shorting stocks that I’ve ever come across. It involves Jim Chanos, who has a stellar reputation as a short seller. A September 2018 article from finance publication Institutional Investor mentioned this about Chanos:
“Chanos, of course, is already a legend. He will go down in Wall Street history for predicting the demise of Enron Corp., whose collapse resulted in a wave of prosecutions and the imprisonment of top executives — the kind of harsh penalties that have not been seen since.”
The same Institutional Investor article also had the following paragraphs (emphasis is mine):
“The secret to Chanos’s longevity as a short-seller is Kynikos’s flagship fund, the vehicle where Kynikos partners invest, which was launched alongside Ursus in 1985. Kynikos Capital Partners is 190 percent long and 90 percent short, making it net long. Unlike most long/short hedge funds, however, the longs are primarily passive, using such instruments as exchange-traded funds, as the intellectual effort goes into the short side.
Chanos argues that by protecting the downside with his shorts, an investor can actually double his risk — and over time that has proved a winning strategy. Through the end of 2017, Kynikos Capital Partners has a net annualized gain of 28.6 percent since launch in October 1985, more than double the S&P 500. That has happened even though the short book — as represented by Ursus — has lost 0.7 percent annually during the same time frame, according to a recent Kynikos document Institutional Investor has obtained.”
It turns out that Chanos’s main fund that shorts stocks – Ursus – had lost 0.7% annually from October 1985 to end-2017! That’s Jim Chanos, a legendary short-seller, losing money shorting stocks over a 32-year period!
My conclusion
Stocks with weak balance sheets, inability to generate free cash flow, and businesses in rapidly declining industries are likely to falter over the long run. But it’s far easier to identify such stocks and simply avoid them than it is to short them.
Besides, the math doesn’t work in my favour. The most I can make going short is 100% while my potential loss is unlimited. On the flipside, the gain I can earn going long is theoretically unlimited, while my potential loss is capped at what I’ve invested.
When we go short, we run the risk of losing more than we can afford – that’s true even for fraud cases. As a result, I’ve always invested with the mentality that going short in the stock market is far riskier than going long.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
My family’s investment portfolio has held Okta shares for just over a year and it has done well for us. Here’s why we continue to invest in Okta shares.
Okta (NASDAQ: OKTA) is one of the 50-plus companies that’s in my family’s portfolio. I first bought Okta shares for the portfolio in March 2019 at a price of US$79. I’ve not sold any of the shares I’ve bought.
The purchase has worked out well for my family’s portfolio, with Okta’s share price being around US$128 now. But we’ve only owned the company’s shares for slightly more than a year, and it is always important to think about how the company’s business will evolve going forward. What follows is my thesis for why I still continue to invest in Okta shares.
Company description
Okta’s vision is to enable any organisation to use any technology. To fulfill its vision, Okta provides the Okta Identity Cloud software platform where all its products live. Okta’s cloud-based software products help other companies manage and secure access to applications for their employees, contractors, partners, and customers.
The internal use-cases, where Okta’s solutions are used by organisations to manage and secure software-access among their employees, contractors, and partners, are referred to as workforce identity by Okta. An example of a workforce identity customer is 20th Century Fox. The external-facing use cases are known as customer identity, and it is where Okta’s solutions are used by its customers to manage and secure the identities and service/product access of their customers. Adobe is one of the many customers of Okta’s customer identity platform.
There’s a rough 80:20 split in Okta’s revenue between the workforce identity and customer identity solutions.
Source: Okta April 2020 investor presentation
At the end of FY2020 (fiscal year ended 31 January 2020), Okta had more than 7,950 customers. These customers come from nearly every industry and range from small organisations with less than 100 employees to the largest companies in the world.
For a geographical perspective, Okta sourced 84% of its revenue in FY2020 from the US.
Investment thesis
I had previously laid out my six-criteria investment framework in The Good Investors. I will use the same framework to describe my investment thesis for Okta.
1. Revenues that are small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or revenues that are large in a fast-growing market
Okta estimates that its market opportunity for workforce identity is U$30 billion today. This is up from US$18 billion around three years ago. The company arrived at its current workforce identity market size of US$30 billion in this way: “50,000 US businesses with more than 250 employees (per 2019 US.Bureau of Labor Statistics) multiplied by 12-month ARR [annual recurring revenue] assuming adoption of all our current products, which implies a market of [US]$15 billion domestically, then multiplied by two to account for international opportunity.”
For customer identity, Okta estimates the addressable market to be US$25 billion. Here’s Okta’s description of the method behind its estimate: “Based on 4.4 billion combined Facebook users and service employees worldwide multiplied by internal application usage and pricing assumptions.” I am taking Okta’s estimate of its customer identity market with a pinch of salt. But I’m still confident that the opportunity is huge, given the growth and size of the entire SaaS (software-as-a-service) market. A November 2019 forecast from market research firm Gartner sees global SaaS spending growing by 15% annually from US$$86 billion in 2018 to US$151 billion in 2022.
In FY2020, Okta’s revenue was just US$586.1 million, which barely scratches the surface of its total estimated market opportunity of US$55 billion. I also think it’s likely that Okta’s market is poised for growth. Based on Okta’s studies, the average number of apps that companies are using has increased by 52% from 58 in 2015 to 88 in 2019. Earlier this month, Okta’s co-founder and CEO, Todd McKinnon, was interviewed by Ben Thompson for the latter’s excellent tech newsletter, Stratechery. During the interview, McKinnon revealed that large companies (those with over 5,000 employees) typically use thousands of apps.
The high and growing level of app-usage among companies means it can be a massive pain for an organisation to manage software-access for its employees, contractors, partners, and customers. This pain-point is what Okta Identity Cloud is trying to address. By using Okta’s software, an organisation does not need to build custom identity management software – software developers from the organisation can thus become more productive. The organisation would also be able to scale more efficiently.
2. A strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt
As of 31 January 2020, Okta held US$1.4 billion in cash and short-term investments. This is significantly higher than the company’s total debt of US$937.7 million (all of which are convertible notes that are due in 2023 or 2025).
For the sake of conservatism, I also note that Okta had US$154.5 million in operating lease liabilities. But the company’s cash, short-term investments and long-term investments still comfortably outweigh the sum of its debt and operating lease liabilities (US$1.1 billion)
3. A management team with integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset
On integrity
Todd McKinnon cofounded Okta in 2009 with Frederic Kerrest. McKinnon, who’s 48 years old, has served as Okta’s CEO since the company’s founding. He has a strong pedigree in leading software companies, having been with salesforce.com from 2003 to 2009, and serving as its Head of Engineering prior to founding Okta. salesforce.com is one of the pioneering software-as-a-service companies. Kerrest, 43, is Okta’s COO (chief operating officer) and has been in the role since the year of the company’s founding. Kerrest is also a salesforce.com alumni; he joined in 2002 and stayed till 2007, serving as a senior executive. In my view, the young ages of McKinnon and Kerrest, as well as their long tenures with Okta, are positives.
The other important leaders in Okta include:
Source: Okta website and FY2019 proxy statement
In FY2019, Okta’s senior leaders (McKinnon, Kerrest, Losch, Race, and Runyan) each received total compensation that ranged from US$2.3 million to US$5.1 million. These are reasonable sums. Furthermore, 72% to 88% of their total compensation was in the form of stock awards and stock options that vest over multi-year periods. This means that the compensation of Okta’s senior leaders are tied to the long run performance of the company’s stock price, which is in turn driven by the company’s business performance. So I think that my interests as a shareholder of Okta are well-aligned with the company’s management.
Source: Okta FY2019 proxy statement
Moreover, both McKinnon and Kerrest own significant stakes in Okta. As of 1 April 2019, McKinnon and Kerrest controlled 7.98 million and 3.65 million shares of the company, respectively. These shares have a collective value of roughly US$1.5 billion right now. The high stakes that Okta’s two key leaders have lend further weight to my view that management’s interests are aligned with the company’s other shareholders.
I note that the shares held by McKinnon and Kerrest are mostly of the Class B variety. Okta has two stock classes: (1) Class B, which are not traded and hold 10 voting rights per share; and (2) Class A, which are publicly traded and hold just 1 vote per share. McKinnon and Kerrest only controlled 10.1% of Okta’s total shares as of 1 April 2019, but they collectively held 50.7% of the company’s voting power. In fact, all of Okta’s senior leaders and directors together controlled 54.7% of Okta’s voting rights as of 1 April 2019 (this percentage dipped only slightly to 53.1% as of 31 January 2020). The concentration of Okta’s voting power in the hands of management (in particular McKinnon and Kerrest) means that I need to be comfortable with the company’s current leadership. I am.
On capability
From FY2015 to FY2020, Okta has seen its number of customers increase six-fold (43% per year) from 1,320 to 7,950. So the first thing I note is that Okta’s management has a terrific track record of growing its customer count.
Source: Okta FY2020 annual report and IPO prospectus
To win customers, Okta currently offers over 6,500 integrations with IT (information technology) infrastructure providers, and cloud, mobile, and web apps. This is up from over 5,000 integrations as of 31 January 2017. The companies that are part of Okta’s integration network include services from tech giants such as Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon.com, salesforce.com and more. Impressively, software providers are increasingly being told by their customers that they have to be integrated with Okta before the software can be accepted.
In my view, the integration also creates a potentially powerful network effect where more integration on Okta’s network leads to more customers, and more customers leads to even more integration. During the aforementioned Stratechery interview, McKinnon shared about the competitive edge that Okta enjoys because of its efforts in integrating thousands of apps:
“[Question]: The average enterprise — maybe it’s hard to say because it varies so widely — how many SaaS services does a typical enterprise subscribe to?
[Todd McKinnon] TM: Especially for any company with over 5,000 employees, it’s thousands of apps. Apps that they’ve purchased commercially, the big ones you’ve heard of, the ones that are in niche industries or verticals you haven’t heard of, and then the ones built themselves, it’s thousands.
[Question]: And then Okta has to build an integration with all of those
[Todd McKinnon] TM: Yeah. One of the big things we did very early on was we got really good at a metadata-driven integration infrastructure, which allowed us to have this burgeoning catalog of pre-packaged integrations, which was really unique in the industry because it is a hundreds or for a big company, it’s thousands of applications.
[Question] And it ends up being a bit of a moat, right? It’s a traditional moat where you dig it up with hard work where you actually went in and you built all of these thousands of integrations, and anyone that wants to come along, if they have a choice of either recreating all the work you did or, we should just use Okta and it’s already sort of all taken care of.
[Todd McKinnon] TM: Yeah, and it’s one of the things people misunderstand on a couple of different levels. The first level is they just get the number wrong. “I think there’s ten, right?” Or I’ve heard of ten big applications, so I think if I connected the ten, that would be enough, which is just off by multiple orders of magnitude.
And then the second thing they get wrong is they think that, especially back in the day it was like, “Oh, there it’s going to be standards that do this.” It’s going to be SAML as a standard. There’s this standard called Open ID. And what we’ve found is that the standards were very thin, meaning they didn’t cover enough of the surface area of what the customers needed, so it might do simple login but it didn’t do directory replication, or not enough of the applications adhere to the standard. So there’s a lot more heterogeneity than people thought of so that moat was a lot wider, a lot faster than people expected.
[Question] Is it fair to say that it’s your goal or maybe it has happened that people thought there would be a standard like SAML that would take care of all of this, but it’s going to end up being that Okta as the standard?
[Todd McKinnon] TM: That is the goal and I think it’s evolving to where there are de facto standards. A big shift is that we have big companies that tell software vendors that if you want to sell to us, you have to integrate to Okta and they have to go to our platform, build the integration, have it be certified. So that’s not a technical standard per se, but it’s a de facto standard of an application that can be sold to a large enterprise.”
I also credit Okta’s management with the success that the company has found with its land-and-expand strategy. The strategy starts with the company landing a customer with an initial use case, and then expanding its relationship with the customer through more users or more use cases. The success can be illustrated through Okta’s strong dollar-based net retention rates (DBNRRs). The metric is a very important gauge for the health of a SaaS company’s business. It measures the change in revenue from all of Okta’s customers a year ago compared to today; it includes positive effects from upsells as well as negative effects from customers who leave or downgrade. Anything more than 100% indicates that the company’s customers, as a group, are spending more – Okta’s DBNRRs have been in the high-teens to high-twenties range over the past few years. There has been a noticeable downward trend in Okta’s DBNRR, but the figure of 119% in FY2020 is still impressive.
Source: Okta FY2020 annual report and IPO prospectus
I also want to point out the presence of Ben Horowitz on Okta’s board of directors. Horowitz is a co-founder and partner in a venture capital firm I admire and that was partly named after him, Andreessen Horowitz (the firm, popularly known as a16z, is an early investor in Okta). Having Horowitz as a director allows Okta’s management to tap on a valuable source of knowledge.
On innovation
Okta is a pioneer in its field. It was one of the first companies that realised that a really important business could be built on the premise of a cloud-based software that secures and manages an individual’s digital identity for cloud-based applications. To me, that is fantastic proof of the innovative ability of Okta’s management. Stratechery’s interview of Todd McKinnon provided a great window on the thinking of him and his team in the early days of Okta’s founding:
“[Question] When Okta first came on the scene, it was Single Sign-on, so you could sign on in one place and then you’d be logged into other places, now it’s an Identity Cloud. Is that an actual shift in the product or strategy or is that just a shift in a marketing term?
[Todd McKinnon] TM: It’s interesting. When we started the company, you could see that cloud was going to be the future. We started 11 years ago, so in 2009, Amazon Web Services was out, Google Apps for Domains was out. So you could kind of see that infrastructure was going to go to the cloud, you could see that collaboration apps were going to go to the cloud. I was working at Salesforce at the time, so it was really clear that the apps stack was going to be in the cloud and we got really excited about what could be possible or what new types of platforms could be built to enable all this.
When we started, it’s funny, we called the first product, which was going to be a cloud single sign-on, we called it Wedge One. So not only was it the wedge, but it was like the first, first wedge. Now it turns out that in order to build cloud single sign on you had to build a lot of pretty advanced stuff behind the scenes to make that simple and seamless, you had to build a directory, you had to build a federation server, you had to build multi-factor authentication, and after we were into it for two or three or four years, we realized that there’s a whole identity system here so it’s much more than a wedge. In fact, it really can be a big part in doing all that enablement we set out to do.
[Question] That’s very interesting, so are you still on Wedge One? Did you ever make it to Wedge Two?
[Todd McKinnon] TM: (laughs) The Wedge keeps getting fatter. The Identity Cloud is pretty broad these days. It’s directory service, it’s reporting analytics, it’s multi-factor authentication, it does API Access Management. It’s very flexible, very extensible, so really the Identity Cloud now is an Identity Platform, it’s striving to really address any kind of identity use cases a customer has, both on the customer side, customer identity, and on the workforce side.
What’s interesting about it is that at the same time over the last eleven years, identity has gone from being something that’s really important maybe for Windows networks or around your Oracle applications to there are so different applications connected from so many types of devices and so many networks that identity is really critical, and we’re in this world now where ten years ago people were telling me “Hey, I’m not sure if it’s possible to build an independent identity company” to now it’s like everyone says, “Oh, it’s such an obvious category that the biggest technology companies in the world want to own it.” So it has been quite a shift.”
4. Revenue streams that are recurring in nature, either through contracts or customer-behaviour
Okta runs its business on a SaaS model and generates most of its revenue through multi-year subscriptions, which are recurring in nature. In FY2020, 94% of Okta’s total revenue of US$586.1 million came from subscriptions. The company’s average subscription term was 2.6 years as of 31 January 2020 and iInterestingly, Okta’s contracts are non-cancelable. The remaining 6% of Okta’s revenue in FY2020 was from professional services, where the company earns fees from helping its customers implement and optimise the use of its products.
It’s important to me too that there’s no customer concentration in Okta’s business. No single customer accounted for more than 10% of the company’s revenue in each year from FY2018 to FY2020.
5. A proven ability to grow
There isn’t much historical financial data to study for Okta, since the company was only listed in April 2017. But I do like what I see:
Source: Okta IPO prospectus and annual reports
A few key points to note about Okta’s financials:
Okta has compounded its revenue at an impressive annual rate of 70.2% from FY2015 to FY2020. The rate of growth has slowed in recent years, but was still really strong at 46.7% in FY2020.
Okta is still making losses, but the good thing is that it started to generate positive operating cash flow in FY2019 and positive free cash flow in FY2020..
The company’s balance sheet remained robust throughout the timeframe under study, with significantly more cash and investments than debt.
At first glance, Okta’s diluted share count appeared to increase sharply by 29.5% from FY2018 to FY2019. (I only started counting from FY2018 since Okta was listed in April 2017, which is in the first quarter of FY2018.) But the number I’m using is the weighted average diluted share count. Right after Okta got listed, it had a share count of around 91 million. Moreover, Okta’s weighted average diluted share count showed an acceptable growth rate (acceptable in the context of the company’s rapid revenue growth) of 9% in FY2020.
6. A high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future
Okta has already started to generate positive free cash flow and positive operating cash flow. Right now, the company has a poor trailing free cash flow margin (free cash flow as a percentage of revenue) of just 4.7%.
But over the long run, I think it’s likely that there is plenty of room for Okta’s free cash flow margin to expand. I showed in my recently published investment thesis for Alteryx (NYSE: AYX) that there are other larger SaaS companies such as Adobe, salesforce.com, and Veeva Systems that have much fatter free cash flow margins. Here’s the table I showed in my article on Alteryx:
Source: Companies’ annual reports and earnings updates (data as of 23 March 2020)
Valuation
Okta has a target to grow its revenue by 30% to 35% annually from now till FY2024, and to have a free cash flow margin of between 20% and 25% at the end of that period. These goals were communicated by management just earlier this month during Okta’s Investor Day event. For perspective, Okta is projecting total revenue growth of 31% to 33% in FY2021.
Right now, Okta has a market capitalisation of US$16.08 billion against trailing revenue of US$586.1 million, which gives rise to a pretty darn high price-to-sales (PS) ratio of 27.4.
For perspective, if I assume that Okta has a 25% free cash flow margin today, then the company would have a price-to-free cash flow ratio of 110 based on the current P/S ratio (27.4 divided by 25%).
But there are strong positives in Okta’s favour. The company has: (1) Revenue that is low compared to a large and possibly fast-growing market; (2) a software product that is mission-critical for users; (3) a large and rapidly expanding customer base; and (4) sticky customers who have been willing to significantly increase their spending with the company over time. I believe that with these traits, there’s a high chance that Okta will continue posting excellent revenue growth – and in turn, excellent free cash flow growth – in time to come.
The risks involved
Okta has a short history in the stock market, given that its IPO was just three years ago in April 2017. I typically stay away from young IPOs. But I am willing to back Okta because I think its business holds promise for fast-growth for a long period of time (the company’s identity-as-a-service business is very important for the digital transformation that so many companies are currently undergoing). But Okta’s young age as a publicly-listed company is still a risk I’m keeping tabs on.
Competition is a risk I’m watching too. In its FY2018 and FY2019 annual reports, Okta named technology heavyweights such as Alphabet, Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle as competitors. In its FY2020 annual report, Okta singled out Microsoft as its “principal competitor.” All of them have significantly stronger financial might compared to Okta. But I’m comforted by Okta’s admirable defense of its turf – the proof is in Okta’s strong DBNRRs and impressive growth in customer-numbers over the years. Moreover, in late 2019, market researchers Gartner and Forrester also separately named Okta as a leader in its field.
Okta’s high valuation is another risk. The high valuation adds pressure on the company to continue executing well; any missteps could result in a painful fall in its stock price. This is a risk I’m comfortable taking.
Hacking is also a risk I’m keeping an eye on. Logging into applications is often a time-sensitive and mission-critical part of an employee’s work. Okta’s growth and reputation could be severely diminished if the company’s service is disrupted, leading to customers being locked out of the software they require to run their business for an extended period of time.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in severe disruptions to economic activity in many parts of the world, the US included. I think that the mission-critical nature of Okta’s service means that its business is less likely to be harmed significantly by any coronavirus-driven recession. But there are still headwinds. In an April 2020 statement, Okta’s CFO William Losch said:
“We continue to closely monitor the business environment and impacts related to COVID-19. We remain optimistic about the demand for our solutions. Our highly recurring business model enables a high degree of predictability and allows us to maintain confidence in our revenue outlook for the first quarter and fiscal year 2021, which we are reaffirming.
We do, however, expect some near-term billings headwinds as customers adjust to the current business environment. Conversely, we expect our operating loss and loss per share to be better than expected as a result of reduced spend. This is primarily related to lower sales and marketing costs, driven in part by temporary travel restrictions, lower employee-related costs, and moving Oktane and other events to virtual formats. We have the ability to further adjust spend depending on the market environment and will be flexible in how and when we invest to extend our market leadership.”
Lastly, the following are all yellow-to-red flags for me regarding Okta: (1) The company’s DBNRR comes in at less than 100% for an extended period of time; (2) it fails to increase its number of customers; and (3) it’s unable to convert revenue into free cash flow at a healthy clip in the future.
The Good Investors’ conclusion
In summary, Okta has:
A valuable cloud-based identity-as-a-service software platform that is often mission-critical for customers;
high levels of recurring revenue;
outstanding revenue growth rates;
positive operating cash flow and free cash flow, with the potential for much higher free cash flow margins in the future;
a large, mostly untapped addressable market that could potentially grow in the years ahead;
an impressive track record of winning customers and increasing their spending; and
capable leaders who are in the same boat as the company’s other shareholders
Okta does have a rich valuation, so I’m taking on valuation risk. There are also other risks to note, such as competitors with heavy financial muscle, and headwinds due to COVID-19. But after weighing the pros and cons, I’m happy to continue having Okta be in my family’s investment portfolio.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
Blindly following famous investors is incredibly dangerous. “I’m buying because Warren Buffett is buying” is not a valid investment thesis.
Financial markets all over the world have been in a state of turmoil in recent weeks because of the COVID-19 crisis. In uncertain times like these, you may look up to famous investors to emulate their actions. That’s understandable. After all, following authoritative figures can provide a sense of security.
But I’m here to tell you that following famous investors blindlyis incredibly dangerous.
Blind faith
A few weeks ago, I recorded a video chat with Reshveen Rajendran. During our conversation, Resh shared the story of his friend’s investment in Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY), an oil & gas company. Resh’s friend had invested in Occidental’s shares at around US$40 each, only to see the share price fall sharply. At the time of recording, Occidental’s share price was around US$16 (it is around US$14 now). Resh’s friend did not know what to do with his/her Occidental investment.
After we finished recording, I had a further discussion with Resh. I thought there could be a really good educational element in the story of his friend’s investment in Occidental.
I found out that the friend’s investment thesis for Occidental was to simply follow Warren Buffett. But here’s the thing: Buffett’s investment in Occidental is radically different from what we as individual investors can participate in.
Buffett’s bet
In August 2019, Buffett invested in Occidental through his investment conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A)(NYSE: BRK-B). What Buffett bought was US$10 billion worth of preferred shares in Occidental. He wanted to provide Occidental with capital to finance its planned US$38 billion acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, a peer in the oil & gas industry.
Occidental’s preferred shares that Buffett invested in are not publicly-traded. So individual investors like you and I can’t invest in them. The preferred shares come with an 8% annual dividend that Occidental is obliged to pay until they are redeemed; the dividend means that Occidental has to pay Berkshire US$800 million every year (8% of Berkshire’s US$10 billion investment) in perpetuity or until redemption of the preferred shares happen. Occidental has the option to redeem the preferred shares at US$10.5 billion any time after August 2029. In other words, Berkshire is guaranteed to make a return of at least 8% per year from its Occidental preferred shares as long as the oil & gas company does not go bust.
Investing in Occidental’s preferred shares the way that Buffett did is very different from buying Occidental shares in the stock market. The normal Occidental shares we can purchase (technically known as common shares or ordinary shares) don’t come with any dividend-guarantees. Occidental is also not obliged to redeem our shares at a small premium to what we paid. If we buy Occidental shares, how well our investment will do over a multi-year period will depend solely on the business performance of the company. Buffett’s investment in the preferred shares comes with protection that we can’t get with the ordinary shares.
No cover
To the point about protection, consider the following. In March 2020, Occidental slashed the quarterly dividend on its ordinary shares by 86% – from US$0.79 per share to just US$0.11 per share – to save around US$2.2 billion in cash. That was the company’s first dividend reduction in 30 years. Occidental needed to take extreme measures to protect its financial health in the face of a sharp decline in oil prices. Meanwhile, there’s nothing Occidental can do about the 8% dividend on Buffett’s US$10 billion preferred shares investment – Occidental has to continue paying the preferred dividends. To add salt to the wound, Occidental’s US$0.11 per share in quarterly dividend works out to just US$392 million per year, which is less than half of the US$800 million that Buffett’s preferred shares are getting in dividends annually.
Yes, Buffett did buy some ordinary Occidental shares after his August 2019 investment in the oil & gas company’s preferred shares. But the total invested sum in the ordinary shares is tiny (around US$780 million at the end of 2019, or an average share price of US$41.21) compared to his investment in the preferred shares.
We can end up in disaster if we follow Buffett blindly into an investment without understanding his idea’s key traits. Buffett’s reputation and Berkshire’s actual financial clout gives him access to deals that we will never have.
Following authority into disaster
Resh’s story about his friend’s investment in Occidental shares reminded me of something that Morgan Housel once shared. Housel is currently a partner with the venture capital firm Collaborative Fund. Prior to this, he was a writer for The Motley Fool for many years. Here’s what Housel wrote in a 2014 article for the Fool:
“I made my worst investment seven years ago.
The housing market was crumbling, and a smart value investor I idolized began purchasing shares in a small, battered specialty lender. I didn’t know anything about the company, but I followed him anyway, buying shares myself. It became my largest holding — which was unfortunate when the company went bankrupt less than a year later.
Only later did I learn the full story. As part of his investment, the guru I followed also controlled a large portion of the company’s debt and and preferred stock, purchased at special terms that effectively gave him control over its assets when it went out of business. The company’s stock also made up one-fifth the weighting in his portfolio as it did in mine. I lost everything. He made a decent investment.”
Housel also committed the mistake of blindly following a famous investor without fully understanding the real rationale behind the investor’s investments.
In conclusion
It’s understandable if you want to follow the ideas of famous investors. That’s especially so during uncertain times, like the situation we’re in today. But before you do, please note that a blind adherence can be dangerous. Famous investors can invest in financial instruments in the same company that we can’t get access to. Or, their investment motives may be completely different to ours even for the same shares.
It’s always important to know why we’re investing in something. “I’m buying because Buffett or [insert name of famous investor] is buying” is not a valid investment thesis.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
It may not make sense to depend on broad economic conditions to tell you when to invest in stocks. Really good stocks find a bottom way before the economy.
This is a short article about important data you have to note if you’re reading broad economic conditions as a gauge for when to buy stocks. It was inspired by a recent question from a friend:
“While I understand that it’s impossible to time the market precisely, doesn’t it make sense to sell stocks and keep cash when you are fairly certain of a sustained economic decline (e.g. Covid)?”
During the 08/09 Great Financial Crisis, the S&P 500 in the US bottomed in early-March 2009. But interestingly, many stocks actually bottomed months before that, in November 2008. In The Good Investors, I have shared my investment theses for a number of US-listed companies in my family’s investment portfolio. Some of these companies were listed back in November 2008, and they include Netflix, Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, Intuitive Surgical, MercadoLibre, Booking Holdings, and Mastercard.
The chart immediately below shows the share price changes from January 2008 to December 2009 for the individual stocks mentioned and the S&P 500. Notice the two red bubbles showing the time when most of the individual stocks bottomed (the one on the left) versus when the S&P 500 bottomed (the one on the right).
The individual stocks I talked about – Netflix, Berkshire, Amazon, Intuitive Surgical, MercadoLibre, Booking, and Mastercard – are companies that I think have really strong business fundamentals. They wouldn’t be in my family’s portfolio, otherwise!
Now, let’s look at another chart, this time showing the US’s economic numbers from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010. The economic numbers are the country’s unemployment rate and GDP (gross domestic product). Notice the red bubble: It corresponds to November 2008, the time when most of the aforementioned stocks with strong business fundamentals bottomed. Turns out, the US’s GDP and unemployment rate continued to deteriorate for months after the individual stocks bottomed.
The observations I just shared have never been widely discussed, based on my anecdotal experience. But they highlight something crucial: It turns out that individual stocks – especially the companies with strong fundamentals (this is subjective, I know!) – can find a bottom significantly faster than economic conditions and the broader market do.
The highlighted thing is crucial for all of us to note, in today’s investing environment. Over the next few months – and maybe even over the next year – It’s very, very likely that the economic data that are going to be released by countries around the world will look horrendous. But individual stocks could potentially reach a bottom way before the deterioration of economic conditions stops. If you miss that, it could hurt your portfolio’s long run return since you would miss a significant chunk of the rebound if you came in late.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
We are hosting a one-day investment webinar. Come join us!
It’s only a few days into the second quarter of 2020, but what a year it has already been. COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the lives of billions of people in practically all countries around the world, including Singapore, our home. The human suffering, especially when it comes to our frontline heroes – those in healthcare, food & beverage, delivery, law enforcement, and countless other essential services – is immense. But so is the courage and grace and grit that has been shown. Corporations are also stepping up, overhauling their manufacturing lines and/or working on overdrive to produce all-important masks, sanitisers, ventilators, face shields, cures, vaccines, and more.
At The Good Investors, Jeremy and I have been looking to see how we can help in this fight against COVID-19. Our efforts are miniscule compared to what I just described above. But we do what we can.
One of the things we have been doing is to guide people toward better investment behaviours by regularly providing the appropriate context and information about the current market situation. “The investor’s chief problem – and even his worst enemy – is likely to be himself,” the legendary Ben Graham once said. We are our own worst enemies, and this is a problem Jeremy and I have been trying to help tackle at The Good Investors. If we succeed in helping even just one investor exhibit better investment behaviour in this current climate, then society as a whole, will come out of this crisis in slightly better financial shape.
To widen the reach of our good fight, Jeremy and I are partnering with Online Traders’ Clubfor a one-day investment webinar that is open to the general public. Online Traders’ Club is a non-profit organization formed in 2005 for members who have a deep interest in the financial markets. Learn more about it here. Online Traders’ Club has kindly offered to handle all the logistics and provide a webinar-platform for Jeremy and I to share our investing thoughts.
Access: Access from any connected devices. There is nothing to install. Please update your desktop/mobile browser (eg. Chrome) to the latest version.
What Jeremy and I will share during the webinar: (1) The key mindsets you need to be a good investor; (2) my investment framework for evaluating companies; (3) how to find long-term investment opportunities during the COVID-19 crisis; (4) Q&A
The key takeaways you will have: (1) Understand what the stock market is; (2) understand the right mindsets to be a successful investor; and (3) have a sound framework to analyse investment opportunities
Cost of attending webinar: FREE!
Capacity for webinar: (1) 200 pax, for webinar room where attendees can ask questions; (2) Unlimited pax for Watch-Only experience on Youtube
Jeremy and I hope to see you at the webinar in 2 weeks! In the meantime, stay safe, and stay strong. We. Will. Get. Through. This.
Editor’s note: We published the recorded webinar and the presentation deck on 27 April 2020. They can be found here.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
DocuSign has only been in my family’s portfolio for a short time, but it has done well for us. Here’s why we continue to own DocuSign.
DoucSign (NASDAQ: DOCU) is one of the 50-plus companies that’s in my family’s portfolio. I first bought DocuSign shares for the portfolio in December 2018 at a price of US$41 and I’ve not sold any of the shares I’ve bought.
The purchase has worked out very well for my family’s portfolio thus far, with DocuSign’s share price being around US$79 now. But we’ve not even owned the company’s shares for two years, and it is always important to think about how the company’s business will evolve going forward. What follows is my thesis for why I still continue to hold DocuSign shares.
Company description
DocuSign provides DocuSign eSignature, currently the world’s leading cloud-based e-signature solution. This software service enables users to sign a document securely using almost any device from virtually anywhere in the world. It is the core part of the broader DocuSign Agreement Cloud, which is a suite of software services – again all delivered over the cloud – that automates and connects the entire agreement process. DocuSign Agreement Cloud includes:
Automatic generation of an agreement from data in other systems;
Support of negotiation-workflow;
Collection of payment after signatures;
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse agreement-documents for risks and opportunities; and
Hundreds of integrations with other systems, so that the agreement process can be seamlessly combined with other business processes and data
At the end of its fiscal year ended 31 January 2020 (FY2020), DocuSign had over 585,000 paying customers and hundreds of millions of users. From its founding in 2003 through to FY2019, the company had processed over 1 billion successful transactions (around 300 million in FY2019 alone). DocuSign defines a successful transaction as the completion of all required actions (such as signing or approving documents) by all relevant parties in an Envelope; an Envelope is, in turn, a digital container used to send one or more documents for signature or approval to the relevant recipients.
DocuSign serves customers of all sizes, from sole proprietorships to the companies that are among the top 2,000 publicly-traded enterprises. The company’s customers also come from many different industries, as the chart below illustrates.
For a geographical perspective of DocuSign’s business, its users are in over 180 countries. But in FY2020, 82% of the company’s revenue came from the US.
Investment thesis
I had previously laid out my six-criteria investment framework in The Good Investors. I will use the same framework to describe my investment thesis for DocuSign.
1. Revenues that are small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or revenues that are large in a fast-growing market
Has it ever occured to you that the innocuous act of signing documents with pen-and-paper can actually be a significantly wasteful activity for companies? The thought struck me when I was doing research on DocuSign before I bought its shares. Think about it. Signing a paper document requires you to fax, scan, email, snail-mail, courier, and file. DocuSign’s solution can save us both time and money.
There are many use-cases for DocuSign’s software services, ranging from sales contracts to employment contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and more. In fact, DocuSign has a customer that has implemented over 300 use-cases. DocuSign documents are legally accepted and protected with cryptographic technology from tampering. The documents also have a full audit trail, including party names, email addresses, public IP addresses, and a time-stamped record of each individual’s interaction with a document.
DocuSign estimated that it had a total addressable market of US$25 billion in 2017, using (1) the number of companies in its core markets, and (2) its internal estimate of an annual contract value based on each respective company’s size, industry, and location. This estimate remains unchanged (it was mentioned in the company’s FY2020 annual report), though recent business moves may have significantly expanded its addressable market. More on this later. At just US$974.0 million, DocuSign’s revenue in FY2020 is merely a fraction of its estimated market opportunity.
I believe that DocuSign’s addressable market will likely grow over time. There are clear benefits to e-signatures. A 2015 third-party study by Intellicap (commissioned by DocuSign) found that the company’s enterprise customers derived an average incremental value of US$36 per transaction (with a range of US$5 to US$100) when using the company’s software as compared to traditional paper-processes. In FY2020, 82% of all the successful transactions that flowed through DocuSign’s platform were completed in less than 24 hours, while 50% were completed within just 15 minutes. DocuSign’s services help companies save money and time.
2. A strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt
As of 31 January 2020, DocuSign held US$895.9 million in cash, short-term investments, and long-term investments. This is nearly twice the company’s total debt of US$465.3 million (all of which are convertible notes). For the sake of conservatism, I also note that DocuSign had US$183.2 million in operating lease liabilities. But the company’s cash, short-term investments and long-term investments still comfortably outweigh the sum of the company’s debt and operating lease liabilities (US$648.5 million).
3. A management team with integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset
On integrity
Leading DocuSign as CEO is Daniel Springer, 57, who joined the company in January 2017. Among other key leaders in DocuSign are:
Scott Olrich, Chief Operating Officer, 48
Michael Sheridan, Chief Financial Officer, 55
Loren Alhadeff, Chief Revenue Officer, 41
Kirsten Wolberg, Chief Technology and Operations Officer, 52
Most of them have relatively short tenure with DocuSign, but have collectively clocked decades in senior leadership roles in other technology companies.
Source: DocuSign proxy statement
DocuSign has opted not to share details about its compensation structure for senior management because of its status as an “emerging growth company.” And Springer’s total compensation for FY2019 was a princely sum of US$13.4 million. But I take heart in this: 94% of Springer’s total compensation in FY2019 came from stock awards, and around 70% of the stock awards vest over a period of four years. The multi-year vesting of the stock awards means that Springer’s compensation is tied to the long run performance of DocuSign’s stock price, which is in turn governed by its business performance. So I think Springer’s interests are aligned with mine as a shareholder of the company.
Notably, Springer also controlled 2.3 million shares of DocuSign as of 31 March 2019, a stake that’s worth a sizable US$211 million at the current share price.
On capability
From FY2013 to FY2020, DocuSign has seen its number of customers increase more than 10-fold (41% per year) from 54,000 to 585,000. So the first thing I note is that DocuSign’s management has a terrific track record of growing its customer count.
Source: DocuSign June 2018 investor presentation and annual report
To win customers, DocuSign’s software service offers over 300 pre-built integrations with widely used business applications from other tech giants such as salesforce.com, Oracle, SAP, Google, and more. These third-party applications are mostly in the areas of CRM (customer relationship management), ERP (enterprise resource planning), and HCM (human capital management). DocuSign also has APIs (application programming interfaces) that allow its software to be easily integrated with its customers’ own apps.
I also credit DocuSign’s management with the success that the company has found with its land-and-expand strategy. The strategy starts with the company landing a customer with an initial use case, and then expanding its relationship with the customer through other use cases. The success can be illustrated through DocuSign’s strong dollar-based net retention rates (DBNRRs). The metric is a very important gauge for the health of a SaaS (software-as-a-service) company’s business. It measures the change in revenue from all of DocuSign’s customers a year ago compared to today; it includes positive effects from upsells as well as negative effects from customers who leave or downgrade. Anything more than 100% indicates that the company’s customers, as a group, are spending more – DocuSign’s DBNRRs have been in the low-teens to mid-teens range in the past few years.
Source: DocuSign IPO prospectus and earnings call transcripts
On innovation
I think DocuSign’s management scores well on the innovation front, since the company has been busy with using blockchain technology and AI to improve its services.
Blockchain technology is the backbone of cryptocurrencies and DocuSign has been experimenting with blockchain-based smart contracts since 2015. In June 2018, DocuSign joined the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance and showed how a DocuSign agreement can be automatically written onto the Ethereum blockchain. Here’s an example of a smart contract described by DocuSign:
“A smart contract turns a contract into something like a computer program. The Internet-connected program monitors data and triggers actions relevant to the contract’s terms. For example, a crop-insurance smart contract might use a trusted Internet feed of weather data. If the temperature goes above 85 degrees Fahrenheit in April, the smart contract will automatically trigger a crop-insurance payout, again via the Internet. This total automation eliminates ambiguity and promises large savings in time and effort for all parties involved.”
It’s early days for DocuSign’s use of blockchain, but I’m watching its moves here. DocuSign’s management acknowledges that many of the company’s customers don’t yet see the value of blockchain technology in the agreement process. But the company still believes in blockchain’s potential.
DocuSign has been working with AI since at least 2017 when it acquired machine-learning firm Appuri during the year. In February 2020, DocuSign inked an agreement to acquire Seal Software for US$188 million. The acquisition is expected to close in the first half of DocuSign’s FY2021. Seal Software was founded in 2010 and uses AI to analyse contracts. For example, Seal Software can search for legal concepts (and not just keywords) in large collections of documents, and automatically extract and compare critical clauses and terms. Prior to the acquisition, DocuSign was already tacking Seal Software’s services onto DocuSign Agreement Cloud. The combination of Seal Software and DocuSign’s technologies have helped a “large international information-services company” reduce legal-review time by 75%. Ultimately, DocuSign thinks that Seal Software will be able to strengthen DocuSign Agreement Cloud’s AI foundation.
Speaking of DocuSign Agreement Cloud, it was released in March 2019. As mentioned earlier, it includes multiple software services. DocuSign sees DocuSign Agreement Cloud as a new category of cloud software that connects existing cloud services in the realms of marketing, sales, human resources, enterprise resource planning, and more, into agreement processes.
I see two huge positives that come with the introduction of multi-product sales. Firstly, it will likely lead to each DocuSign customer using more of the company’s products. This means that DocuSign could be plugged into an increasing number of its customers’ business processes, resulting in stickier customers. Secondly, DocuSign thinks that covering a wider scope of the entire agreement process could roughly double its market opportunity from the current size of US$25 billion to around US$50 billion.
4. Revenue streams that are recurring in nature, either through contracts or customer-behaviour
DocuSign’s business is built nearly entirely on subscriptions, which generate recurring revenue for the company. Customers of DocuSign gain access to the company’s software platform through a subscription, which typically ranges from one to three years. In FY2020, FY2019, and FY2018, more than 93% of DocuSign’s revenue in each fiscal year came from subscriptions to its cloud-based software platform; the rest of the revenue came from services such as helping the company’s customers deploy its software efficiently.
It’s worth noting too that there is no customer-concentration with DocuSign. There was no customer that accounted for more than 10% of the company’s revenue in FY2020.
5. A proven ability to grow
There isn’t much historical financial data to study for DocuSign, since the company was only listed in April 2018. But I do like what I see:
Source: DocuSign annual reports and IPO prospectus
A few notable points from DocuSign’s financials:
DocuSign has compounded its revenue at an impressive annual rate of 40.4% from FY2016 to FY2020. The rate of growth has not slowed much, coming in at a still-impressive 38.9% in FY2020.
DocuSign is still making losses, but the good thing is that it started to generate positive operating cash flow and free cash flow in FY2018.
Annual growth in operating cash flow from FY2018 to FY2020 was strong, at 45.1%. Free cash flow has increased at a much slower pace, but the company is investing for growth.
The company’s balance sheet remained robust throughout the timeframe under study, with significantly more cash and investments than debt.
At first glance, DocuSign’s diluted share count appeared to increase sharply by 30.7% from FY2019 to FY2020. (I only started counting from FY2019 since DocuSign was listed in April 2018, which is in the first quarter of FY2019.) But the number I’m using is the weighted average diluted share count. Right after DocuSign got listed, it had a share count of around 152 million. Moreover, DocuSign’s weighted average diluted share count showed acceptable year-on-year growth rates (acceptable in the context of the company’s rapid revenue growth) in the first, second, and third quarters of FY2020.
Source: DocuSign quarterly earnings updates
6. A high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future
DocuSign has already started to generate free cash flow. Right now, the company has a poor trailing free cash flow margin (free cash flow as a percentage of revenue) of just 4.5%.
But over the long run, I think it’s likely that there is plenty of room for DocuSign’s free cash flow margin to expand. I showed in my recently published investment thesis for Alteryx (NYSE: AYX) that there are other larger SaaS companies such as Adobe, salesforce.com, and Veeva Systems that have much fatter free cash flow margins. Here’s the table I showed in my article on Alteryx:
Source: Companies’ annual reports and earnings updates (data as of 23 March 2020)
Valuation
Right now, DocuSign has a market capitalisation of US$14.34 billion against trailing revenue of US$974.0 million. These numbers give rise to a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 14.7, which makes the company look pretty darn expensive. For perspective, if I assume that DocuSign has a 30% free cash flow margin today, then the company would have a price-to-free cash flow ratio of 49 based on the current P/S ratio (14.7 divided by 30%).
But DocuSign also has a few strong positives going for it. The company has: (1) revenue that is low compared to a fast-growing addressable market; (2) a business that solves important pain points for customers; (3) a large and rapidly expanding customer base; and (4) sticky customers who have been willing to significantly increase their spending with the company over time. I believe that with these traits, there’s a high chance that DocuSign will continue posting excellent revenue growth – and in turn, excellent free cash flow growth – in the years ahead.
The current high valuation for DocuSign does mean that its share price is likely going to be more volatile than the stock market as a whole. I’m also keeping in mind that stocks have been very volatile of late because of COVID-19 fears. But the potential volatility is something I’m very comfortable with.
The risks involved
DocuSign has a short history in the stock market, given that its IPO was just two years ago in April 2018. I typically stay away from young IPOs. But I’m making an exception for DocuSign because I think its business holds promise for fast-growth for a long period of time. But the company’s young age as a publicly-listed company is still a risk I’m watching.
Adobe is a much larger SaaS company with trailing revenue of US$11.7 billion. Through its Adobe Sign product, Adobe is the primary competitor of DocuSign. So far, DocuSign has defended its turf admirably. This is shown in DocuSign’s strong revenue and customer growth rates. But Adobe’s larger financial might compared to DocuSign means competition is a risk.
Another important risk for DocuSign relates to data breaches. DocuSign handles sensitive information about its customers due to the nature of its business. If there are any serious data breaches in DocuSign’s software services, the company could lose the confidence of customers and the public, leading to growth difficulties. The signing of documents may be highly time-sensitive events. So if there is any significant downtime in DocuSign’s services, it could also lead to an erosion of trust among existing as well as prospective customers. So far, DocuSign has done a great job by providing 99.99% availability in FY2020.
Valuation is another risk to consider. DocuSign’s high P/S ratio means that the market expects rapid growth from the company. So if the business performance disappoints subsequently, market sentiment could turn quickly on DocuSign, leading to a cratering stock price.
Earlier, I discussed the advantages that the launch of DocuSign Agreement Cloud brought to the company. But there are downsides too. For instance, multi-product sales involves higher complexity and a longer sales cycle; these factors negatively affected DocuSign’s billings growth and net dollar-based retention rate in the first quarter of FY2020. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused business activity around the world to slow tremendously, with many countries being in various states of lockdown. A lengthy sales cycle could hamper DocuSign’s business in the current environment. For now, DocuSign’s business does not seem to have been impacted by COVID-19. Here’s CEO Dan Springer’s comment on the matter in DocuSign’s FY2020 fourth-quarter earnings call:
“[T]he vast majority of our implementations are done remote. And of course, if you think about the perfect example of that it’s our web and mobile customers, where they never actually have to speak. Not only do they don’t have to have us in person they don’t need to speak to us to onboard. … We do find with some of our larger enterprise customers that they get more value when some of the installation is done on their premises. But we have not had the opportunity in the past to consider doing that completely remotely. And it may be in the new way of business over the next X period of time here then we’ll do more of it.”
And when DocuSign’s management was asked in the same earnings call if its growth would be affected by a recession, Springer answered:
“Yes, I don’t. Because, I think, for most of our customers, at least half of the focus is around efficiency. And people see the incredibly high ROI. And I can’t speak for all-digital transformation programs, of course, but as I think about the ones that are DocuSign-centric people are laser-focused on the ROI they get from getting rid of those manual processes, the wasted labor, getting rid of things like the transportation cost, the shipping, et cetera.
That’s a big focus. So I don’t think in a recession you would see people pull back on that. I would say that any time if you had a significant recession, you expect people to kind of shoot first ask questions later and that could lead to some delays. But, in general, we think the business case just gets stronger when people need to find those efficiencies.”
Lastly, the following are all yellow-to-red flags for me regarding DocuSign: (1) The company’s DBNRR comes in at less than 100% for an extended period of time; (2) it fails to increase its number of customers; and (3) it’s unable to convert revenue into free cash flow at a healthy clip in the future.
The Good Investors’ conclusion
Summing up DocuSign, it has:
Valuable cloud-based software services in the agreements space that solves customers’ pain-points;
high levels of recurring revenue;
outstanding revenue growth rates;
positive operating cash flow and free cash flow, with the potential for much higher free cash flow margins in the future;
a large, growing, and mostly untapped addressable market;
an impressive track record of winning customers and increasing their spending; and
capable leaders who are in the same boat as the company’s other shareholders
The company does have a premium valuation, so I’m taking on valuation risk. There are also other risks to note, such as strong competition and a longer sales cycle that may not be conducive for a business environment that’s struggling with COVID-19. But after weighing the pros and cons, I have to agree with the idea of having DocuSign continue to stay in my family’s investment portfolio.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
Booking Holdings is suffering because of the coronavirus, COVID-19. Can the company survive the crisis? I think it can. Here’s why.
A few days ago, I received a text from a friend asking the question that is the title of this article. He knew that Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG), an online travel agent, is one of the 50-plus companies that’s in my family’s investment portfolio.
Stalled growth
On 18 February 2020, I published my investment thesis on Booking. In it, I wrote that “The world – particularly China – is currently battling COVID-19. If the situation worsens, Booking’s business could be hurt.” Little did I know how badly Booking would suffer. International travel activities have essentially grounded to a halt since the publication of my thesis for Booking, with many countries closing their borders to control the spread of COVID-19.
In particular, the businesses of hotels and airlines across the globe have been crushed. A few days ago, Arne Sorenson, CEO of hotel operator Marriott International, said that the company’s seeing revenue declines of more than 75% in the US. At home, Singapore Airlines cut 96% of its flight capacity last week. Booking, as an online travel agent focusing on accommodations, is also facing a brutal operating environment.
Confidence
What gives me the confidence that Booking can survive? The company is the largest online travel agent in the world. The entire travel industry is awash in pain at the moment. But this also gives Booking the opportunity to win even more market share if some of its smaller/weaker competitors falter.
I believe that the COVID-19 crisis will blow over eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later, so that the incredible human suffering that’s currently happening can end as soon as possible). This will allow the travel industry to return to strength. When this happens, Booking will be in an even stronger position compared to before.
But Booking has to survive from now till then. I think the chances are very good that the company will. At the end of 2019, Booking held US$8.5 billion in cash, short-term investments, and long-term investments (this sum excludes US$3.3 billion in strategic investments) against total debt of US$8.6 billion.
I would prefer Booking to have significantly more cash than debt. But Booking’s debt is mostly long-term in nature (88.5% comes due on or after 31 December 2020). Moreover, the company’s debt has well-staggered maturities as shown in the table below. The earliest due-date for Booking’s long-term debt is September 2021 and it involves a manageable sum of US$1 billion. So there’s plenty of time for Booking to maneuver, and to wait for the travel industry’s health to improve.
Source: Booking 2019 annual report
No guarantee
But there’s no guarantee that Booking will survive. It could eventually crumble should the travel market undergo a long winter if COVID-19 proves to be a particularly tricky disease to combat. This is where diversification is important.
I mentioned earlier that Booking is one of the 50-plus companies in my family’s investment portfolio. Even if Booking fails to survive, my family’s portfolio will. Diversification is how I guard the portfolio against specific-company risks. With diversification, my family and I are able to stay invested in Booking and participate in its potential recovery without having to worry about a significant hit to the portfolio.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
Here are 3 lessons I’ve picked up from my biggest investing mistakes, so that you can benefit from my experience without going through the same pain.
It’s great to learn from our own mistakes. But it’s even better to learn from those of others. COVID-19 has brought extreme market volatility and economic distress to the world. In a time like this, it’s easier for us to make investment mistakes.
I’m here to share the eggs I’ve had on my face in the stock market and what I’ve learnt from them, so that you can benefit from my errors.
The backdrop
I started investing for my immediate family on 26 October 2010. The portfolio I help manage consists of stocks listed in the US market. There are currently over 50 stocks in it.
Some of the biggest losers in the portfolio include Atwood Oceanics, Ford (NYSE: F), Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ: GILD), GoPro (NASDAQ: GPRO), National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV), Tapestry (NYSE: TPR), Under Armour (NYSE: UAA), and Zoe’s Kitchen.
Source: Yahoo Finance for current prices
Atwood Oceanics and Zoe’s Kitchen were privatised in October 2017 and November 2018, respectively, and I sold their shares on September 2016 and November 2018. I sold National Oilwell Varco in June 2017. I still own the other stocks mentioned.
Lesson 1: It’s okay to fail if you have the right investment framework
My family’s investment portfolio has clearly had many epic losers. But from 26 October 2010 (the inception of the portfolio) to 29 March 2020, the portfolio has still grown in value by 16.0% annually, without including dividends. This is significantly higher than the S&P 500’s return of 10.7% per year over the same period, with dividends.
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence; Google Finance; author’s calculations (from 26 October 2010 to 29 March 2020)
It’s okay to have multiple failures in your portfolio. There’s an investment framework that I’ve been using for my family’s portfolio for years. It has guided me towards massive winners, such as Netflix(NASDAQ: NFLX), Amazon(NASDAQ: AMZN), and MercadoLibre(NASDAQ: MELI). The winners in the portfolio have more than made up for the losers.
If you’re investing with a sound investment framework, then don’t beat yourself up too hard if some of your stocks are down big. Look at your performance from a portfolio-perspective, and not harp on how each position is doing.
Lesson 2: Diversify smartly, and stay away from commodity-related companies
Atwood Oceanics and National Oilwell Varco are companies in the oil & gas industry. When I invested in them, Atwood was an owner of oil rigs while National Oilwell Varco was supplying the parts and equipment that kept oil rigs running.
They were among my first-ever investments, back when I was a greenhorn in the stock market. I invested in them because I wanted to be diversified according to sectors. I also thought that oil & gas was a sector that is worth investing in since demand for the commodities would likely remain strong for a long time. My views were right, but only to a small extent. I was wrong on two important areas.
First, it is important to be diversified according to sectors (and geography too!). But there are some sectors that are just not worth investing in for the long run becausetheir economic characteristics are poor. For instance, the energy, materials, and transport sectors have historically produced poor returns on invested capital. This is illustrated in the chart below from a 2006 McKinsey report which mapped out the average return on invested capital for various sectors from 1963 to 2004. Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s long-time lieutenant, once said:
“Over the long term, it’s hard for a stock to earn a much better return that the business which underlies it earns. If the business earns six percent on capital over forty years and you hold it for that forty years, you’re not going to make much different than a six percent return – even if you originally buy it at a huge discount.”
Second, demand for oil did indeed grow from 2010 to 2016. But oil prices fell significantly over the same period. The trends in oil consumption and oil prices for that period are depicted in the chart below.
The sharp fall in oil prices despite the rising demand illustrates the difficulty in predicting oil prices. In fact, it’s practically impossible. I recently learnt about a presentation that Peter Davies gave in 2007 titled What’s the Value of an Energy Economist? In it, he said that “we cannot forecast oil prices with any degree of accuracy over any period whether short or long.” Back then, Davies was the chief economist of British Petroleum, one of the largest oil & gas companies in the world.
With lower oil prices, the business results and share prices of Atwood Oceanics and National Oilwell Varco plummeted. The chart below shows National Oilwell Varco’s share price and earnings per share from 2010 to 2016 (data for Atwood Oceanics is not available since it’s now a private company). I think the predicament of Atwood Oceanics and National Oilwell Varco can be extrapolated to other commodity-related companies. It’s tough to predict the price movements of commodities; this in turn makes it difficult to have a good grasp on the business results of a commodity-related company over a multi-year period.
Lesson 3: Not selling the losers is as important as not selling the winners
You’ll notice that my family’s portfolio is still holding onto many of the big losers. The sales of Atwood Oceanics and National Oilwell Varco happened because of something that Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner shared a few years ago:
“Make your portfolio reflect your best vision for our future.”
Part of the vision I have for the world is that our energy-needs are entirely provided by renewable sources that do not harm the precious environment we live in. For this reason, I made the rare decision to voluntarily part ways with stocks in my family’s portfolio (referring to Atwood Oceanics and National Oilwell Varco).
I sell stocks very rarely and very slowly. This aversion to selling is by design – because it strengthens my discipline in holding onto the winners in my family’s portfolio. Many investors tend to cut their winners and hold onto their losers. Even in my earliest days as an investor, I recognised the importance of holding onto the winners in driving my family portfolio’s return. Being very slow to sell stocks – even the big losers – has helped me hone the discipline of holding onto the winners. And this discipline has been a very important contributor to the long run performance of my family’s portfolio.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
Recently, Singapore Airlines announced a complex rights issue and mandatory convertible bonds offering. I’m breaking down the factual numbers.
Singapore Airlines (SGX: C6L) recently announced a massive round of fundraising. In all, Singapore’s national carrier is looking to raise S$15 billion. The first slice of the fundraising involves a S$5.3 billion rights shares issue, and a S$3.5 billion tranche of mandatory convertible bonds (MCBs).
Temasek Holdings is one of the Singapore government’s investment arms and the current major shareholder of Singapore Airlines (SIA) with a 55% stake. It has committed to mop up all the rights shares issue and MCBs that other SIA shareholders do not want.
My blogging partner Jeremy Chia published a wonderful article yesterday. He shared his thoughts on why he’s not interested in investing in SIA despite Temasek’s promise to provide up to S$15 billion in capital. I’m not here to share my thoughts on investing in SIA. Instead, I’m here to provide you with a factual breakdown of the numbers behind SIA’s rights shares issue and MCBs.
I recognise that SIA’s latest fundraising activity is complex, and there’s a lot of confusion about it. I want to help clear the air, to the best of my abilities. The Good Investors exists to demystify investing for you – so here I am!
Details of the rights shares issue of Singapore Airlines
Here are the important numbers concerning SIA’s rights shares issue:
Total sum: S$5.3 billion.
Number of rights shares to be issued: Up to 1.778 billion rights shares to be issued, on the basis of 3 rights shares for every 2 shares of SIA that currently exist. There are 1.185 billion SIA shares that exist right now.
Price per rights share: S$3.00.
Renounceable? Yes, this rights shares issue is renounceable, so you will get to trade the rights.
Changes in SIA’s book value per share (BVPS) and earnings per share (EPS) because of the rights issue: As of 31 December 2019, SIA’s BVPS and trailing-12-months EPS were S$10.25 and S$0.67, respectively. After the rights shares issue, the BVPS will fall to around S$5.89 while the EPS will decline to S$0.27, assuming everything else stays constant.
What you have to effectively pay for SIA’s shares: At the time of writing (11:20 am, 30 March 2020), SIA’s share price is S$5.82. If you subscribe for your full allotment of rights shares, you’re effectively paying a price of S$4.13 per share for SIA’s shares. The math works this way: Effective price per share = [S$5.82 + (S$3.00 x 1.5)] / 2.5.
The effective valuations you’re getting: At an effective share price of S$4.13, SIA will have a price-to-book ratio of 0.7 and a price-to-earnings ratio of 15.
Details of the MCBs of Singapore Airlines
For the MCBs, do note that the total sum SIA is looking for is S$9.7 billion. But the current tranche involves just S$3.5 billion. The key financial numbers for the current tranche of MCBs are as follows:
Total sum: S$3.5 billion.
Number of rights MCBs to be issued: Up to S$3.5 billion, in the denomination of S$1.00 per rights MCB, on the basis of 295 rights MCBs for every 100 shares of SIA that currently exist. As mentioned earlier, there are 1.185 billion SIA shares that exist right now.
Issue price per rights MCB: S$1.00, meaning you’ll pay S$1.00 to purchase each rights MCB.
Renounceable? Yes, this rights MCB issue is renounceable, so you will get to trade the rights.
Maturity date of MCB: 10 years from the date of issue of the rights MCBs.
Conversion terms of MCB: SIA is obliged to convert the rights MCBs into SIA shares when the MCBs mature. The conversion price is S$4.84 per SIA share. When the MCBs are converted at the maturity date (10 years from the date of issue), every S$1,000 worth of the MCBs will “grow” to S$1,806.11. This S$1,806.11 will then be converted into SIA shares at a price of S$4.84 each, giving us 373 SIA shares. The math works this way: Number of shares obtained upon conversion = S$1,806.11 / S$4.84
Redemption terms of the MCB: SIA has the right – but not the obligation – to redeem the MCBs every six months from the date of issue at a certain price, giving you a certain yield. If the MCBs have yet to be redeemed when we hit the 10-year mark from the date of issue, SIA is obliged to convert the MCBs into SIA shares, as mentioned earlier. The redemption prices and yields are given in the table below. Note that you cannot ask for the redemption – it is entirely up to SIA to decide.
What you’re effectively paying for SIA’s shares under the MCB, assuming it is converted: As mentioned earlier, if the MCBs are converted, every S$1,000 in MCBs will be converted into 373 shares. This gives rise to an effective price of S$2.68 per SIA share under the MCB. The math works this way: Effective price paid = S$1,000 / 373 shares.
What you’re effectively paying for SIA’s shares, in all, under the MCB, assuming it is converted: But to get hold of the MCBs, you’ll have to own SIA shares. Every 100 shares has a full allotment of 295 rights MCBs. At the time of writing, SIA’s share price is S$5.82. This works out to an overall effective price of S$3.47 per share. Here’s the math: Overall effective price paid = ([100 x S$5.82) + (295 x S$2.68)] / (100 +295).
Circumstances where you’ll make money on the MCBs alone (ignoring what happens to your SIA stake): There are a few scenarios where you’ll make a profit: (1) SIA redeems the MCBs before they are converted; (2) SIA allows the MCBs to convert into shares 10 years later and SIA’s share price is significantly higherthan S$2.68 at that point in time. To be clear, the price of S$2.68 is the price you’re effectively paying for SIA’s shares in the event of the MCBs’ conversion. If SIA’s share price is around S$2.68 at the point of conversion, it’s very likely you’ll be losing money on the MCBs; if SIA’s share price is lower than S$2.68 at the point of conversion, you’ll be losing money on the MCBs.
When is it beneficial for SIAto redeem the MCBs? Redemption of the MCBs will require SIA to fork out cash, which negatively impacts SIA’s financial health. On the other hand, the conversion of the MCBs does not require SIA to dole out any cash. So from this perspective, it’s beneficial for SIA to not redeem the MCBs at all. This is important to note for the MCB holders for cash-flow-planning purposes, since SIA could very well choose not to redeem the MCBs.
Other important points to note
Shareholders of Singapore Airlines can choose to participate in the company’s fundraising activity in one of the following ways:
Subscribe for both the rights issue and rights MCBs
Subscribe for just the rights issue but not the rights MCBs
Subscribe for the rights MCBs but not the rights issue
Do not subscribe for both the rights issue and rights MCBs
If you’re a Singapore Airlines shareholder and you choose the fourth option, you can still recover some capital by selling the rights issues and rights MCBs (both are renounceable, so the rights can be actively traded). But you will face massive dilution, since the airline’s share count will increase significantly.
I hope laying out all these numbers will help you – if you’re a Singapore Airlines shareholder or are interested in its shares and/or MCBs – to make a better-informed decision.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.
