Can Software Companies Continue To Grow Despite Macroeconomic Uncertainties?

The economic news coming out of the USA has been bleak of late. Can software and digital infrastructure companies grow despite a weak economy?

There’s been plenty of discussion among market participants and business executives over the past few months on the uncertainties confronting the US economy, and how the businesses from various industries in the country will perform in an uncertain economic environment.

For companies that are focused on providing software and/or digital infrastructure, their businesses may continue to shine regardless of the macroeconomic uncertainties thrown their way. I say this based on comments – see below – shared by the leaders of these companies during their latest earnings conference calls that took place over the past two months. There was no specific reason why these companies were chosen, other than me having a vested interest in them.

Adobe (17 June 2022)

I think the other part of the conversation that you all have with enterprise CEOs right now is they all recognize it’s an uncertain time, and that’s the conversation that we have. But despite that uncertain macroeconomic environment, the thing that all of them recognize is that digital is a priority. And they really want to continue to have conversations with us as to how they can do digital. I’ll have Anil maybe add a little bit of what he’s seeing across different verticals as well. But the importance of digital remains undiminished.

Amazon (29 April 2022)

So yes, I mean, we’re continuing to see what the backlog is, right? It’s the increase of AWS [Amazon Web Services] customers making long-term commitments for AWS. At the March period ended, we had $88.9 billion balance for that. So that’s up about 68% year-over-year. And the weighted average remaining kind of life term for those is 3.8 years.

Datadog (5 May 2022)

We believe that digital and cloud projects are still very high priority and are not being de-prioritized, we haven’t seen that. We think we’re still early on. So, with the data we have so far, we think there will be continued strong investment. There is always some volatility across our customer base. Our customer base is very well diversified across industries and we benefited from that over time. So, whereas we’re not macro forecasters and there may well be some sensitivity, we believe the long-term trends in digital migration and cloud will also be very strong throughout that cycle.

Microsoft (27 April 2022)

The second thing is in the conversations we are having with our customers, the interesting thing I find from perhaps even past challenges, whether macro or micro, is I don’t hear of businesses looking to their IT budgets or digital transformation projects as the place for cuts. If anything, some of these projects are the way they’re going to accelerate their transformation or, for that matter, automation, for example. I have not seen this level of demand for automation technology to improve productivity because in an inflationary environment, the only deflationary force is software. So that’s the second micro thing, the tone thing that’s different.

MongoDB (2 June 2022)

That being said, we understand that there is heightened focus on the macroeconomic outlook because of geopolitical tensions, inflationary pressures and the risks of a slowing global economy. Since macro-related questions are dominating investor conversations, it makes sense to share with you what we are seeing as well as to discuss our framework on how we plan to manage through this macro uncertainty. Starting with what we’re seeing in the market. First quarter was a robust quarter for new business. Driving innovation remains a top priority for our customers, and they’re investing in modern technologies to facilitate this. We had strong engagement with the C-suite, and our deal cycles were in line with normal patterns. The tone of our quarterly business review meetings at the start of the second quarter was that of confidence. Our sales force indicated that our message is resonating in the marketplace, and they remain bullish about the opportunities to win new business.

Salesforce (1 June 2022)

And so far, we’re just not seeing any material impact from the broader economic world that all of you are in. Our demand environment where demand is very strong, and if you look over the last 23 years, Salesforce has proven to be incredibly resilient based on this incredible business model. We have an incredible technology model that we have, where we’ve been through all kinds of dot-com crashes and recessions and financial crises and global pandemics and all of you have watched us go through every possible storm, but we continue to weather these storms through the power and strength of our model.

Veeva Systems (2 June 2022)

This is really a long-term thinking move by the customer. They’re thinking of this in 10- and 20-year horizon, so they wouldn’t be really fazed by specifics of the macro environment. So this is about, yes, applications in the clinical area but also in the quality and the regulatory area, not all of our Development Cloud but a big portion of it. So when they’re doing that, it’s a very top-down decision. It’s like building a huge factory. That’s why it’s not affected by the macro environment. And then if you get it, what they’re trying to do, it’s laying the foundation for efficiency, digital efficiency, getting drugs to market faster to help patients. So it’s a long-term play by the customer and sort of executive-level decision.

Twilio (5 May 2022)

I think, obviously, if like the economy were to dip into like some sort of significant recession, we’re not necessarily immune from that. But what we see based on both our internal studies, and we alluded to the customer engagement report as well as a number of external studies, is that digital transformation remains a top boardroom priority. That obviously benefits Twilio as a variety of companies look to invest in their engagement strategies going forward. And we’re not — it’s not like we don’t see the macro environment, whether it’s economic or geopolitical, but we just think this business is extremely well positioned to capitalize on ongoing companies’ digital transformation efforts.

Zoom Video Communications (24 May 2022)

[Question:] I’m wondering, have you seen any paring back or moderation of investment from some customers in light of growing macro concerns? And if so, has it varied by either geography or customer size?

[Answer:] I mean we really have it — especially in enterprise, we have continued to see strength in renewals as well as additional new customers and expansion into additional products. So we really haven’t seen that in terms of concern. I think we’ve heard from other people that what they’re really focused on might be — if they’re limiting spending, it’s focused more around potentially hiring or travel. And of course, Zoom is a great alternative if they’re focusing on limiting internal travel. And so we really haven’t seen that impact today.

Final thoughts

One underlying theme among the comments seen above is that companies continue to invest in their digital transformations, and they are doing so despite the uncertainties that abound, such as the risk of a recession in the USA. This is a tailwind for businesses that are providing the tools for organisations to embrace the digital world. 

The economic news coming out of the USA has been bleak of late. Only time can tell if technology companies are able to grow their businesses even in the face of a weak economic environment. At the very least, their managers are confident.

It’s worth noting too that there’s at least one precedent of a software company posting admirable growth rates even when the economy was weak. This happened during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008/09, when the USA’s real GDP fell by 4.3% from a peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 to a bottom in the second quarter of 2009. The unemployment rate also rose from 5% in December 2007 to 10% in October 2009. While the US economy was in trouble, Salesforce’s revenue grew by 51% in 2007, 44% in 2008, and 21% in 2009. Salesforce provides customer relationship management software over the cloud and it was able to grow rapidly during the financial crisis because its software was better than incumbent solutions.

If software and digital infrastructure companies today are able to provide better solutions for their customers than what they’re currently using, they could continue to grow even if the economy worsens from here, just like what happened to Salesforce a dozen years ago. But even if they struggle to grow in the near term, the long run picture still looks healthy. According to Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella, around 5% of global GDP is currently spent on technology. It’s hard for me to imagine this percentage going down in the years ahead – what do you think?


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. I have a vested interest in Adobe, Amazon, Datadog, Microsoft, MongoDB, Salesforce, Veeva Systems, Twilio, and Zoom Video Communications. Holdings are subject to change at any time

What Stocks Would You Pick In This Volatile Market?

How can we make better investment decisions in this volatile market.

If you could go back in time to the start of this year, which of the following groups of real-life companies would you be interested to invest in? 

Table 1 below shows the historical revenue and free cash flow for the two companies in Group 1, namely, Company A and Company B. It’s clear that Company A has not grown its revenue much over the past four years and its free cash flow has also not been steady. Meanwhile, Company B’s revenue has barely budged and although its free cash flow has improved in every year, there’s only so much juice that can be squeezed from improving the free cash flow margin*.

Source: Tikr

Next we have Table 2 below, which shows the historical revenue and free cash flow for Group 2 consisting of Company C and Company D. Both companies have displayed excellent revenue growth for 2017 to 2021, with Company C quadrupling its revenue and Company D increasing its topline by nearly five times. Both companies have also experienced consistent and impressive growth in free cash flow over the period. 

Source: Tikr and company annual reports

So would you prefer to invest in Group 1 or Group 2 when you take your time-machine back to the start of this year? It’s clear that Group 2 contains the superior businesses – not only do they have fat free cash flow margins, their revenues have also been growing rapidly. If you’re a business-focused investor – like me – you likely would have picked Group 2. But if you did, you would now be nursing a big loss of around 50% for both companies in the group. On the other hand, the stock prices for the companies in Group 1 have been about flat. Table 3 shows the identities of the companies in the two groups, and their year-to-date stock price performances.

Source: Yahoo Finance

But interestingly, over the past five years, Trade Desk’s stock price is up by 823% whereas Kellogg’s and Coca-Cola’s stock prices have delivered much poorer returns of -7% and 31%. Adyen was listed only on 13 June 2018 and from then to today, its stock price is up by 175%; in this time period, Trade Desk, Kellogg and Coca-Cola’s returns are 404%, 4%, and 34%, respectively.

What this fun exercise shows are a few important traits of the stock market: 

  • In the short run, business fundamentals and stock prices can move in completely opposite directions in unpredictable ways
  • But in the long run, business fundamentals are what dominates stock prices 

The stock market has been really rough in the past few months, especially for higher-growth companies. Keeping the aforementioned traits of the stock market in mind should help you make better decisions in, and react better to, the volatile stock market we’re all experiencing right now. 

*The free cash flow margin refers to a company’s free cash flow as a percentage of revenue


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. I have a vested interest in Adyen and The Trade Desk. Holdings are subject to change at any time

Lessons From An Investor’s Tragic Experience In Russia

Bill Browder was the largest foreign investor in Russia until it all went downhill.

Red Notice, published in 2015, is one of the best books I’ve read recently. Written by investor and human rights activist, Bill Browder, it’s a riveting account of his experience investing in Russia from the early-1990s to the mid-2000s. Browder was galvanised into writing the book after one of his associates, tax-law expert Sergei Magnitsky, tragically died in November 2009 in a Russian jail. Magnitsky had been detained by Russian authorities for nearly a full-year without trial. 

In 1996, Browder, a US-born resident of the UK, started his investment firm, Hermitage Capital Management, to invest in the Russian stock market. He thought that bargains were plentiful among Russian stocks because the country had exited communism and embraced capitalism, somewhat chaotically, only a few years earlier. In the process of unlocking the bargains, Browder became renowned for shareholder-activism in Russia and for exposing corruption within the country’s political and business elite. Over the years after its birth, Hermitage grew to become the largest foreign investor in Russia.

But in 2005, Browder was refused entry to Russia and was labelled “a threat to national security” by the country. The Russian offices of Hermitage were raided by Russian security forces in 2007 and Browder tasked Magnitsky, along with a few other lawyers, to investigate the raid. Magnitsky’s investigations caused him to become a target of the Russian authorities and this eventually led to his detention in November 2008 and his demise nearly a year later.

To me, Red Notice was equal parts educational, exhilarating, and infuriating. It taught me that crazy bargains could be found in massive dislocations in a country’s economy or financial markets, that shocking acts of theft by management teams can happen to listed companies, and that investing in countries with authoritarian governments can come with immense risks. It also read like a spy novel at times, and it stirred up anger and indignation in me because of the corruption, unjust, and cruelty displayed by certain members of Russia’s political system. Here, I want to discuss my most striking and poignant takeaways from the book.

State-owned companies in formerly-communist-Poland were returned to the private sector at incredibly low valuations in the early 1990s

Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder was working as a management consultant and was tasked to help restructure a bus company in Poland in June 1990. Back then, the country had only recently exited the Soviet Union and was feeling its way around democracy. 

While in Poland for his restructuring project, Browder came to know of the country’s privatisation program, where formerly state-owned companies were now being owned by the private sector. These companies’ shares were trading on the Polish stock exchange for incredibly low valuations. In the book, Browder shared an example of one company he found with US$160 million in profit but a market capitalisation of only US$80 million. In other words, the company had a price-to-earnings ratio of just 0.5! Shortly after learning about the cheap valuations that Polish companies were trading at after they were privatised, Browder invested in a number of Polish stocks. This portfolio went on to increase in value by almost 10 times over a year or so.

Russian companies were available for incredibly low valuations throughout the 1990s

The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 meant that Russia, like Poland, was thrust into a capitalistic regime in the early 1990s. It was a chaotic time for Russia’s financial markets, so much so that even by the mid- and late-1990s, Browder was able to learn about Russian stocks that had incredibly low valuations. 

One example came in the early 1990s, from a component of Russia’s own privatisation program where formerly state-owned companies had their ownership transferred to the private sector. The component was known as voucher privatisation, where the Russian government gave one privatisation certificate to each Russian citizen. Back then, there were around 150 million citizens, so there were around 150 million certificates. These certificates, which were free to purchase by anybody – including foreigners – collectively represented 30% ownership of nearly all Russian companies. But their market price was only US$20 per certificate, which meant that a 30% stake in all Russian companies could be bought for just US$10 billion ($20 per certificate multiplied by 150 million certificates). This was significantly lower than Russia’s economic output; back then, Russia accounted for 24% of global natural gas production, 9% of oil production, and 6.6% of steel production, for example. The voucher privatisation gave such low valuations to Russian companies because it was dysfunctional. Here’s why the market price for each certificate was only US$20:

  • After living for decades under communism, the general Russian population had no concept of stocks or company ownership. As a result, individuals were happy to trade the privatisation certificates for a few dollars’ worth of goods.
  • There were people who bought these certificates in villages and sold them for US$12 apiece in small batches to consolidators.
  • The consolidators, in turn, packaged these small batches of certificates into larger packages that consisted of a few thousand certificates each and sold them to dealers for a price equivalent to US$18 per certificate.
  • The dealers would further consolidate the packages into bundles of 25,000 certificates each. These bundles would then be sold for a per-certificate price of US$20.

Adding to the dysfunction was the way the certificates were then used to exchange for shares in Russian companies. Owners of the certificates had to participate in weird voucher auctions. Browder wrote:

“These auctions were unlike any other, since the buyers didn’t know the price they were paying until the auction concluded. If only one person showed up with a single voucher, then the entire block of shares being auctioned would be exchanged for that one voucher. On the other hand, if the whole population of Moscow showed up with all their vouchers, then that block of shares would be evenly divided among every single voucher that was submitted at that auction. The scenario was ripe for abuse, and many companies whose shares were being sold would do things to prevent people from attending the voucher auctions so that insiders could buy the shares cheaply.

Surgutneftegaz, a large oil company in Siberia, was rumoured to have been behind the closure of the airport the night before their voucher auction. Another oil company supposedly put up a roadblock of burning tyres on the day of their auction to prevent people from participating. Because these auctions were so bizarre and hard to analyse, few people participated – least of all Westerners. This resulted in an acute lack of demand, which meant that the prices were remarkably low, even by Russian standards.”

At the time these voucher auctions were taking place, Browder was working for the investment bank Solomon Brothers and was investing US$25 million of the bank’s capital in these auctions. Through them, he turned the US$25 million portfolio into US$125 million in short order.

Another example of a low-valuation situation Browder discovered involved a company named MNPZ. This was in the mid-1990s, and he had already started Hermitage. At the time, publicly-available information on listed Russian companies was not available and investors had to speak to company officials to obtain data. During a meeting with a representative of MNPZ, Browder found that the company’s preferred shares were entitled to dividends amounting to 40% of the company’s profit whereas the ordinary shares had no such privilege. There were no other major differences between the two types of shares. But amazingly, MNPZ’s preferred shares were trading at a 95% discount to the ordinary shares. Even more incredibly, Browder soon realised that there were many other Russian companies with ordinary shares that were trading at discounts of 90% or more to their ordinary shares.

In yet another instance of low valuations that were available among Russian stocks, Browder came across an unknown oil company called Sidanco, which had six billion barrels of oil reserves. This was in August 1996. He was offered an opportunity by a broker to buy a 4% stake in Sidanco for US$36.6 million, a price which valued the whole company at US$915 million.

But as he studied Sidanco, Browder realised that the company was effectively trading at US$0.15 per barrel of oil reserves, at a time when the market price for oil was US$20 per barrel. Even more interestingly, there was a more widely known oil company in Russia at the time called Lukoil. Both Sidanco and Lukoil had near-identical assets and financial characteristics and the only difference was that Lukoil had significant research-coverage from brokerage firms whereas Sidanco had none. As a result, Sidanco was six times cheaper than Lukoil. Browder decided to invest in Sidanco’s shares. The company’s stock price did not move for many months after Browder’s investment – 96% of Sidanco’s shares were controlled by management, so there was very little trading of the shares. But in October 1997, BP bought 10% of management’s Sidanco shares at a price 600% higher than what Browder had paid and he made a killing.

My last example of the bargains that Browder found in Russia was the oil & gas company, Gazprom. Browder started to invest in Gazprom in the late 1990s. Through his research, he found that Gazprom was trading at a 99.7% discount to Western oil & gas companies. At the time, Gazprom had a market value of US$12 billion, but yet had hydrocarbon reserves that were eight times that of ExxonMobil’s and 12 times that of BP’s.  There was a huge discount because of investors’ perception that Gazprom’s managers were stealing all of the company’s assets. But Browder realised this perception was wrong.

Yes, Gazprom’s managers were egregiously stealing the company’s assets (more on this in the “The oligarchs were incredibly brazen with the way they mistreated minority shareholders” section below). But only 10% of the company’s assets were misappropriated by the company’s management team. Browder started a shareholder activism campaign against Gazprom’s management team by sending his research findings to major Western news outlets. The subsequent media coverage on Gazprom was heavy and this led to public outroar within Russia. Initial investigations on Gazprom’s management by Russian authorities and auditors concluded that there were no wrongdoings. But Russia’s then-president, Vladimir Putin, eventually fired Gazprom’s CEO, Rem Vyakhirev. A new CEO was installed, who promised to secure Gazprom’s remaining assets and recover what the previous managers stole. Gazprom’s stock price rocketed in response and by 2005, was up 100 times what Hermitage initially paid.  

Russia’s voucher privatisation was ripe for abuse

As I mentioned earlier, Russia’s voucher privatisation program in the early 1990s was riddled with problems and I shared excerpts from Browder’s book showing how the managers of some Russian companies were gaming the system. 

But the biggest problem for Russia was that voucher privatisation – and the massive room for abuse that the program had – led to the emergence of the oligarchs in the early- and mid-1990s. The oligarchs were a group of around 20 individuals who controlled nearly 40% of Russia’s economy while the general population was mired in poverty.

The oligarchs were incredibly brazen with the way they mistreated minority shareholders

Sidanco was one of Browder’s earlier victories investing in the Russian stock market. But the company was also the source of one of his earliest conflicts with the oligarchs. When Browder invested in Sidanco, it was being led by an oligarch named Vladimir Potanin. Shortly after BP bought 10% of Potanin’s Sidanco shares – the event which helped lift Browder’s investment in Sidanco by 600% in value – Potanin wanted Sidanco to nearly triple its share count by issuing new shares.

The problem for Browder was that the new shares would be issued at nearly 95% lower than the market price, and Browder and his partners were not allowed to participate. This meant that Browder and his partners’ original stake in Sidanco would be diluted by nearly two-thirds. When Browder met with Potanin’s lawyers, they openly said that his intention was simple: Potanin wanted to inflict financial pain on Browder. Here’s an excerpt from the book:

“It was Leonid Rozhetskin, a thirty-one-year-old Russian-born, Ivy League educated lawyer whom I’d met on a few occasions (and who would, a decade later, be murdered in Jurmula, Latvia, after a spectacular falling out with various people he did business with). Leonid, who’d clearly watched the film Wall Street one too many times, had slicked-back, Gordon Gekko-styled hair and sported red braces over a bespoke, monogrammed, button-down shirt.

He took the chair at the head of the table and laced his fingers over one knee. ‘I’m sorry Boris couldn’t make it,’ he said in lightly accented English. ‘He’s busy.’

‘I am too.’

‘I’m sure you are. What brings you here today?’

‘You know what, Leonid. I’m here to talk about Sidanco.’

‘Yes. What about it?’

‘If this dilution goes forward, it’s going to cost me and my investors – including Edmond Safra – eighty-seven million dollars.’

‘Yes, we know. That’s the intention, Bill.’

‘What?’

‘That’s the intention,’ he repeated matter-of-factly.

‘You’re deliberately trying to screw us?’

He blinked. ‘Yes.’

‘But how can you do this? It’s illegal!’

He recoiled slightly. ‘This is Russia. Do you think we worry about these types of things?’

I thought of all my clients. I thought of Edmond. I couldn’t believe this. I shifted in my seat. ‘Leonid, you may be fucking me over, but some of the biggest names on Wall Street are invested with me. The pebble may drop here, but the ripples go everywhere.’

‘Bill, we’re not worried about that.’ 

Browder was not cowed by Potanin. He came up with a plan to thwart the oligarch. First, he contacted Potanin’s Western business partners to warn them about the scheme. Browder hoped that these partners would pressure Potanin to give up. This failed, which led to the second part of Browder’s plan, which was to tap on Western media outlets to share his predicament and tussle with the oligarch. There was fiery media coverage, but Potanin refused to back down. Browder then enacted the third part of his plan. He filed official complaints with Russia’s financial markets regulator about Potanin’s abuse of minority shareholders. This worked, as the regulator stepped in to prevent Potanin from going through with the dilutive share issue. It was not an easy fight for Browder as his personal safety was at risk. During his conflict with Potanin, Browder was protected by a convoy of over a dozen heavily-armed bodyguards at all times. 

Coming to Gazprom, a prominent example of how management stole from the company was Sibneftegaz, a subsidiary producing natural gas in Siberia. Sibneftegaz’s assets included licenses for a gas field that contained 1.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent in 1998. Based on conservative estimates on the value of Sibneftegaz’s assets, the subsidiary had a value of around US$530 million. But 53% of Sibneftegaz was sold to a group of buyers for only US$1.3 million. These buyers included Gennady Vyakhirev and his family (Gennady is the brother of Gazprom’s then-CEO, Rem Vyakhirev; Rem was fired by Vladimir Putin after Browder’s successful shareholder activism campaign). Altogether, Browder’s research unearthed a total of seven blatantly dishonest asset transfers at Gazprom under the watch of Rem, and the transfers amounted to around 10% of the company’s total assets.

The sheer lawless-ness of the Russian authorities and how dangerous they can be

After Browder’s successful shareholder activism campaign at Gazprom, he went after more oligarchs, exposing the corruption and unsavoury actions taking place at their respective companies. These companies included Russia’s national electric company UES, and the country’s national savings bank, Sberbank.

In each of Browder’s campaigns, Vladimir Putin’s government would step in and clean up the abuses. Because of this, Russia’s oligarchs dared not harm Browder, even though people could be easily murdered in Russia for a lot less. They thought he was working in concert with Putin. But the reality was that Putin was taking advantage of Browder’s work to take down his own enemies – the oligarchs. The situation began to change in the early 2000s when Mikhail Khordovkorsky, then Russia’s richest oligarch, was arrested and jailed by Putin. Browder wrote:

“After Khodorkovsky was found guilty, most of Russia’s oligarchs went one by one to Putin and said, ‘Vladimir Vladimirovich, what can I do to make sure I won’t end up sitting in a cage?’

I wasn’t there, so I’m only speculating, but I imagine Putin’s response was something like this: ‘Fifty per cent.’

Not 50 per cent to the government or 50 per cent to the presidential administration, but 50 per cent to Vladimir Putin. I don’t know this for sure. It could have been 30 per cent or 70 per cent or some other arrangement. What I do know for sure was that after Khordovkorsy’s conviction, my interest and Putin’s were no longer aligned. He had made the oligarchs his ‘bitches’, consolidated his power and, by many estimates, become the richest man in the world. 

Unfortunately, I wasn’t paying enough attention to see that Putin and I were on a collision course. After Khodorkovsky’s arrest and conviction I didn’t alter my behaviour at all. I carried on exactly as before – naming and shaming Russian oligarchs. There was a difference this time, though. Now, instead of going after Putin’s enemies, I was going after Putin’s own economic interests.

The increasing misalignment of Putin and Browder’s interests came to a head in 2005 when Browder was denied entry to Russia on the grounds that he was a threat to the country’s national security. Browder was concerned about Hermitage’s employees and assets after he was exiled from Russia. While working out of London, Browder successfully sold all of Hermitage’s Russian stocks and transferred his firm’s investment capital out of Russia by early-2006. At the same time, he also managed to get Hermitage’s employees out of Russia safely. 

The threats to the security of Hermitage’s people were grave. Shortly after Browder’s expulsion, one of his close employees, Vadim, was contacted in early-2006 by a man named Aslan. Aslan identified himself as an employee of the Russian government and the Hermitage circle surmised that he was probably with the FSB, Russia’s secret police. Aslan claimed that there was a power struggle within Russia’s government and that he was in conflict with the group that was targeting Hermitage. He also told Vadim that the FSB was responsible for Browder’s problems, that the authorities were after Hermitage’s assets, and that Vadim would soon be arrested. Here’s a chilling excerpt from Browder about Vadim after his encounter with Aslan:

“I saw things differently, and I implored Vadim to talk to Vladimir Pastukhov, a Moscow lawyer Hermitage had used as outside counsel over the years. Vladimir was the wisest man I knew and like no one else I’d ever met. He was nearly blind, and the Coke-bottle glasses he wore made him look like a scribe from a Dickens novel. Because of his disability however, Vladimir’s mind was sharper, bigger and more well-rounded than that of anyone else I’ve ever known. He had a rare gift: the ability to read any complex situation to the deepest level and the smallest detail. He was like a great chess player, able to anticipate an opponent’s every move not merely before it was made but also before his opponent even realised it was available. 

Even though Vadim wouldn’t leave, he did agree to see Vladimir. When Vladimir opened the door to his flat just before midnight, Vadim put a finger to his lips, indicating that they shouldn’t talk – just in case Vladimir’s apartment was bugged. He stepped aside and Vadim entered. They made their way in silence to Vladimir’s computer. Vadim sat and started to type. 

I’ve been warned by somebody in the government that I’m going to be arrested. Can they do that?

Vladimir took a turn at the keyboard. Are you asking me as a lawyer, or as a friend?

Both.

As a lawyer, no. There are no grounds to arrest you. As a friend, yes. Absolutely. They can do anything.

Should I leave?

How credible is your source?

Very. I think.

Then you should leave.

When?

Right away.”

Browder’s problems did not stop even after Hermitage had no significant investment interests in Russia. Around the middle of 2007, Hermitage’s office in Russia was raided by 25 Russian plainclothes police, led by Artem Kuznetsov. This was the same man who contacted Browder in February 2007, after Browder had unsuccessfully tried to appeal for a Russian visa through many diplomatic routes. Kuznetsov was with the Interior Ministry and wanted to see Browder or his associates in person to explain the entire situation concerning Hermitage and Browder. But as most of Hermitage’s people were not in Russia, a physical meeting was impossible. Browder figured that something was wrong: 

“This wasn’t a normal inquiry. In a legitimate investigation Russian officials always sent their questions in writing. What became apparent to me from my decade in Russia was that when an official asks to meet informally, it means only one thing: they want a bribe. In the many instances where officials had tried to shake me down, I’d uniformly ignored them and they always went away.

Kuznetsov finished the conversation by saying, ‘The sooner you answer these questions, the sooner your problems will disappear.’”

While Kuznetsov was raiding Hermitage’s Russian office in the middle of 2007, a group of 25 Russian policemen were simultaneously raiding the office of Hermitage’s law firm, Firestone Duncan, without a valid warrant. During the raid, the Russian police confiscated Firestone Duncan’s client files, computers, servers, and corporate stamps and seals that belonged to clients. The police were also brutal. When one of Firestone Duncan’s lawyers, Maxim, said that the warrant was not valid, he was beaten up badly and had to go to the hospital. The police also threatened Maxim – if he filed a complaint, they would accuse him of pulling a knife and jail him.

Shortly after the raids on Hermitage and Firestone Duncan’s offices happened, Browder engaged Sergei Magnitsky for help with investigations. Magnitsky was from Firestone Duncan and Browder considered him to be the best tax lawyer in Moscow. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Browder and his associates realised that the Russian police had raided Firestone Duncan with the intention of stealing ownership of Hermitage’s investment holding companies. In Russia, a company’s owners can be changed illegally without the actual owners knowing if the thief has the company’s original seals, certificates of ownership, and registration files. These happened to be the items the Russian police had confiscated from Firestone Duncan. The ownership of three Hermitage investment companies ended up being re-registered to a company named Pluton that was owned by Viktor Markelov, a person convicted for manslaughter in 2001. Backdated contracts were also forged to show that one of the investment companies – Mahaon – owed US$71 million to a shell company that had never done business with Hermitage.

It was not until June 2008 when Magnitsky finally worked out the whole scam. The people who stole Hermitage’s investment companies had opened accounts at two obscure banks: Universal Savings Bank (USB) and Intercommerz Bank (IB), with a combined capital of only US$13.5 million. Their small size meant that any large movement of capital within them was noticeable on the website of Russia’s central bank. Magnitsky saw that USB and IB received deposits of US$97 million and US$147 million, respectively, in December 2007, shortly after Hermitage’s stolen investment companies opened accounts with these banks.

Magnitsky realised that the deposits were nearly identical to what Hermitage’s investment companies paid in taxes in 2006. Further light bulbs went on. The US$71 million Mahaon supposedly owed a shell company was exactly the same as its profit in 2006. Parfenion, another of Hermitage’s stolen investment companies, was slapped with a US$581 million judgement against it, the same amount as its profit in 2006. In all, corrupt Russian officials had cooked up US$973 million of fake judgments against Hermitage to offset US$973 million in real profits. Piecing all the information together, Magnitsky discovered that the bank accounts opened by Hermitage’s stolen investment companies had collectively received deposits of US$230 million, a sum identical to what these companies had paid in taxes in 2006. Corrupt Russian officials had stolen Russian taxpayers’ money, and they wanted to frame Browder and Hermitage for the crime.

After working out the intricacies of the scam against Hermitage, in July 2008 , Browder and his associates started to find ways to indict the corrupt officials. They filed detailed complaints about the tax fraud to Russia’s law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies, and also contacted the media. But this caused a backlash, so much so that two other lawyers engaged by Hermitage to help with investigations – Vladimir Pastukhov and Eduard Khayretdinov – had to flee Russia. In particular, Khayretdinov’s experience was terrifying. On 23 August 2008, he disappeared under the radar – going so far as to remove the battery of his mobile phone – so that Russian officials could not locate him. Khayretdinov hid for a few months in a cabin in a Russian forest, using a satellite phone and depending on a generator for electricity. It was only on 18 October 2008 that he managed to escape Russia. Browder described Khayretdinov’s harrowing journey:

“The man leaned forward. ‘Because Eduard, I wanted to tell you face to face – you must leave Russia. You’re in danger of being killed. These people who are after you will stop at nothing.’ This shook Eduard to the core. After this meeting, he called Mikhail and said, ‘I need to get out of Russia. Can you help?’

‘I’ll do what I can,’ Mikhail said. Since Russia is such a decentralised country, the power of an influential businessman in some areas could rival that of the Moscow Interior Ministry. Mikhail was one of the most important businessmen in the region, and Eduard had no choice but to put his faith in Mikhail’s influence. He had to hope that it would help him navigate the security and immigration checkpoints that every traveller had to pass through on their way out of the country.

Mikhail arranged to have a local fixer escort Eduard through the airport all the way to the gate. Eduard asked over and over if this fixer would be able to get the border agents to let him pass. Mikhail just told him not to worry. Of course, Eduard couldn’t help but worry.

On 18 October 2008, at 10.00am, Eduard went to the airport and was met by the fixer, a short man with friendly eyes in a well-tailored grey suit. Eduard already had a UK visa, so he went to the Asiana ticket desk and bought a round-trip economy ticket to London via Seoul. Eduard checked in and waited until an hour before the flight to go through security and passport control. When he couldn’t wait any longer, he and the fixer walked towards security.

They walked straight to the front of the security line and went through. The fixer stayed with Eduard the whole time, nodding and winking to the security people, and even shaking a few hands. Eduard put his bags on the scanning belt, presented his boarding pass and went through the metal detector.

They then moved towards passport control, and when they reached the immigration booth, the fixer shook hands with the border guard and they exchanged pleasantries. The guard then took Eduard’s passport. He placed it on his desk, looked at Eduard, looked back to the fixer, found a blank spot in the passport, slammed his stamp on a red-ink pad and punched the stamp on to the paper. He didn’t even bother to look at his computer. He closed the passport and handed it back. Eduard’s eyes met those of the fixer. He winked. ‘Thank you,’ Eduard said. He turned and hurried to his gate. He had only a few minutes until the doors closed. He made the flight, and the plane took off. Not until two hours later, when Eduard could see that the plane was flying over the Sea of Japan and was therefore out of Russian airspace, did he finally, after all these weeks, feel at ease.

He was out.”

Around the time Vladimir Pastukhov fled Russia and Eduard Khayretdinov was on the run in the country, Browder also desperately wanted Sergei Magnitsky to leave. But Magnitsky refused. He still believed in the rule of law in Russia, and wanted to punish the corrupt officials who stole from his countrymen. Browder wrote:

“After this, Vadim tried to convince Sergei to leave, but Sergei steadfastly refused. He insisted that nothing would happen to him because he had done nothing wrong. He was also indignant that these people had stolen so much money from his country. He was so adamant and believed so faithfully in the law that, on 7 October he actually returned to the Russian State Investigative Committee to give a second sworn witness statement. Once again, he sought to use procedure to insert more evidence into the official record, and this time he provided a number of additional details about the fraud and who was behind it.

This was a bold move. It was also a worrying one. While I couldn’t help but be impressed by Sergei’s determination and integrity, given what they had tried with Eduard and Vladimir, I was terrified that they would just detain him on the spot. Remarkably, they didn’t.”

Unfortunately, Magnitsky was eventually arrested on 24 November 2008 by a team of officers led by Artem Kuznetsov. Two days later, Magnitsky appeared in court for his bail hearing. An investigator from the Interior Ministry, Oleg Silchenko, claimed that Magnitsky was a flight risk. He lied that Magnitsky had bought a plane ticket to Kiev and had applied for a UK visa. The judge wouldn’t hear Magnitsky’s defence and said, ‘I have no reason to doubt the information provided from investigative bodies.’ Ultimately, Magnitsky was denied bail and would be held in Russian prisons – without trial – for 358 days before his death.

While Magnitsky was detained, Browder was desperately seeking help for him. In early-2009, Browder got in touch with Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, a German MP and former justice minister. At the time, she was recently appointed by the Council of Europe to investigate Russia’s criminal justice system. After meeting with Browder, Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger agreed to report on Magnitsky’s case. In April 2009, she wanted to physically meet with Russian law enforcement agencies but they rebuffed her. Instead, they replied to her in writing with lies that would be hilarious if only they did not concern the safety of a human being. Browder recounted:

“Her first question was simply, ‘Why was Sergei Magnitsky arrested?’ The answer: ‘Sergei Magnitsky was not arrested.’

Of course he was arrested. He was in their prison. I couldn’t imagine what the Russians were thinking when they said this to her. 

Her second question was ‘Why was he arrested by Interior Ministry officer Kuznetsov, whom he testified against before his arrest?’ She got an equally ridiculous answer. ‘The officer with such a name doesn’t work in the Moscow Interior Ministry.’ We had proof that Kuznetsov worked in the Interior Ministry for many years! They must have thought Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was stupid.

Nearly all the other answers were similarly absurd and untrue. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger would put all these lies and absurdities in her final report, but it wouldn’t be ready until August and Sergei didn’t have the luxury of time.”

After Magnitsky died, Browder and his team were determined to seek justice for their fallen friend. While doing so, they came to know Alexander Perepilichnyy in August 2010, who was residing in London at the time. He provided valuable information to Browder and his team regarding the financial transactions of two of the Russian officials who were involved in the tax fraud against Hermitage, Vladlen and Olga Stepanova. Perepilichnyy was a former private banker in Russia and the Stepanovas were his clients. As their banker, Perepilichnyy helped the Stepanovas to invest their money but the couple incurred losses in 2008 when the markets crashed. The Stepanovas were unwilling to accept the losses and wanted Perepilichnyy to cover their hole, which he refused. Olga Stepanova was then the head of the tax office in Russia and subsequently abused her power to pursue Perepilichnyy for tax-evasion, causing him to flee the country. In November 2012, Perepilichnyy died one day while jogging near his London home. The initial post-mortem had no conclusive findings – his cause of death was a mystery. Given the entire chain of events leading up to Perepilichnyy’s sudden death, Browder was deeply concerned that the Russian authorities had an assassin on the loose in the UK.

And even when Red Notice was published in 2015, a few years after the deaths of Magnitsky and Perepilichnyy, Browder still feared for his life. But he sees the book as a form of protection for himself. He warned:

“I have to assume that there is a very real chance that Putin or members of his regime will have me killed some day. Like anyone else, I have no death wish and I have no intention of letting them kill me. I can’t mention most of the countermeasures I take, but I will mention one: this book. If I’m killed, you will know who did it. When my enemies read this book, they will know that you know.”

Sergei Magnitsky’s immense bravery in the face of impossible cruelty by corrupt Russian officials

Magnitsky had to put up with atrocious conditions while he was detained by Russian authorities. For example, he was in a cell where the lights were on 24 hours a day to deprive him of sleep. One cell he was moved to had choked sewage that was so bad he had to climb onto his bed and chair. Oleg Silchenko also refused to allow Magnitsky to have any contact with his family – this was psychologically painful because Magnitsky was a family man. Browder wrote:

“When Sergei applied for his wife and mother to visit, Silchenko replied, ‘I reject your application. It’s not expedient for the investigation.’ Sergei then applied for permission to speak to his eight-year-old son on the phone. ‘Your request is denied,’ Silcheko said. ‘Your son is too young to have a phone conversation.’ Silchenko also refused a request for Sergei’s aunt to visit because Sergei ‘couldn’t prove’ she was a relative.

The purpose of everything Silchenko did was simple: to compel Sergei to retract his testimony against Kuznetsov and Karpov. Yet Sergei never would, and every time he refused Silchenko made Sergei’s living conditions increasingly worse, further isolating him from the life he knew and the freedom he had so recently enjoyed.”

What was even more despicable was the fact that Silchenko and his conspirators cruelly denied Magnitsky any healthcare even when he was gravely ill. By June 2009, while detained in Matrosskaya Tishina, a Russian detention facility, Magnitsky was diagnosed with pancreatitis, gallstones, and cholecystitis, and was scheduled for possible surgery on 1 August 2009. But a week before the date, Silchenko moved Magnitsky to Butyrka, a maximum-security prison that had no medical facilities capable of treating him. While at Butyrka, Magnitsky was repeatedly denied any form of medical care. Browder wrote heartbreakingly:

“It was now clear that the authorities were deliberately withholding medical attention from Sergei. They were using illnesses he had contracted in detention as a cudgel against him. They knew that gallstones were one of the most painful conditions anyone could suffer from. In the West, you might last two hours before you crawl to casualty, where the doctors will immediately give you a dose of morphine before treating you. Sergei though, had to deal with untreated gallstones for four months without any painkillers. What he had to endure was unimaginable.

Sergei and his lawyers wrote more than twenty requests to every branch of the penal, law-enforcement and judicial systems of Russia, desperately begging for medical attention. Most of these petitions were ignored, but the replies he received were shocking.

Major Oleg Silchenko wrote, ‘I deny in full the request for a medical examination.’ A Tverskoi District Court judge, Aleksey Krivoruchko, replied, ‘Your request to review complaints about withholding of medical care and cruel treatment is denied.’ Andrei Pechegin from the Prosecutor’s Office replied, ‘There’s no reason for the prosector to intervene.’ Judge Yelena Stashina, one of the judges who ordered Sergei’s continued detention, said, ‘I rule that your request to review the medical records and conditions of detention is irrelevant.”

But through it all, Magnitsky never gave in. He refused to cover up for the perpetrators of the tax fraud he had uncovered. Browder detailed:

“From inside his prison cell, Sergei was also bravely trying to explain the truth even after all the torture he had been subjected to.

On 14 October 2009, he submitted a formal twelve-page testimony to the Interior Ministry in which he further documented the role of officials in the financial fraud and the subsequent cover-up. He provided names, dates, and locations, and left nothing to the imagination. At the end, he wrote, ‘I believe all members of the investigation team are acting as contractors under someone’s criminal order.’

It was a remarkable document, and he was incredibly brave to have filed it. It’s hard to describe to someone who doesn’t know Russia just how dangerous it was for him to do this. People in Russia are regularly killed for saying much less. That Sergei was saying it from jail, where he was at the mercy of the people who had put him there and whom he had testified against, showed how determined he was to expose the rot in the Russian law enforcement agencies and go after his persecutors.”

On 12 November 2009, Magnitsky was scheduled to appear in court for another hearing on his detention. He wrote more than a dozen complaints to be read in court, only for the judge, Yelena Stashina, to reject them, at times cutting him off before he could even finish reading. The hearing’s verdict was to simply extend Magnitsky’s detention. Then in the same night, Browder received a distressing voice message on his mobile: It was a two-minute recording of a man wailing in pain while being brutally beaten up. 

Around 16 November 2009, while still being held in Butyrka, Magnitsky was sent to Matrosskaya Tishina, on the pretext that he would get the necessary medical care there (remember, Magnitsky was still riddled with disease). But when Magnitsky reached his destination, he was handcuffed to a bedrail in an isolation cell and beaten to death by eight prison guards. Browder recounted:

“‘Keeping me in detention,’ Sergei had written in his prison diary, ‘has nothing to do with the lawful purpose of detention. It is a punishment, imposed merely for the fact that I defended the interests of my client and the interests of the Russian state.’

Sergei Magnitsky was killed for his ideals. He was killed because he believed in the law. He was killed because he loved his people, and because he loved Russia. He was thirty-seven years old.”

The Russian authorities’ cruelty did not end even with Magnitsky’s death. A few hours after learning of Magnitsky’s passing, Browder and his team contacted the media and sent them a press release and a 40-page document handwritten by Magnitsky that detailed his entire ordeal. Major news outlets picked up the story and contacted Russian authorities for comments. Browder described the atrocities that happened next: 

“The press officer at the Interior Ministry was a plump blonde woman in her early forties named Irina Dudukina… According to her, Sergie hadn’t died of pancreonecrosis and toxic shock as the prison official had told Natalia [Magnitsky’s mother] earlier, but rather of ‘heart failure, with no signs of violence’. 

Later that day, Dudukin went further, posting an official statement on the Interior Ministry’s website saying, ‘There has not been a single complaint from Magnitsky about his health in the criminal case file’ and ‘his sudden death was a shock for the investigators.’…

…Dudukina also lied about the time and place of Sergei’s death. She claimed that Sergei died at 9.50 p.m. on a bed in Matrosskaya Tishina’s casualty department as doctors tried to resuscitate him. This was directly contradicted by the civilian doctor who was first on the scene, who said that Sergei had died around 9:00 p.m. on the floor of an isolation cell…

…Two days later, Natalia asked for Sergei’s body to be released so the family could conduct their own autopsy. This was also denied on the grounds that ‘there is no reason to doubt the results of the state autopsy.’

Later that day, Natalia went to Morgue No.11. When she arrived, she was told that Sergei’s body wasn’t being stored in a refrigeration unit because the morgue had too many corpses, and that his body would decompose if he wasn’t buried immediately. When Natalia asked whether Sergei’s body could be released to the family so they could conduct a religious service with an open casket, the official categorically refused: ‘The corpse will only be released to the cemetery.’

Justice prevails

In his quest for justice for Magnitsky, Browder sought help from Western governments. In March 2010, he met an American politician named Kyle Parker. Parker knew about Magnitsky’s case even before his death; while Magnitsky was detained in jail, Browder had also sought help from the US government and Parker was the official handling the issue. Although Parker had not done much to push for a solution back then, his reaction to the March 2010 meeting with Browder was different – this time, Parker was deeply moved by Magnitsky’s tragic death. Eventually, both Parker and Browder would collaborate closely to push for the Magnitsky Act.

Under the Magnitsky Act, which was signed into law in 2012 by then-US-president Barack Obama, all the Russian officials who were involved with Magnitsky’s death would be barred from entering the USA or accessing its banking system. Browder and Parker had to endure an arduous journey – with heavy politicking – to see the Magnitsky Act become law. In Red Notice’s final paragraph, Browder described how triumphant he felt when Sergei Magnitsky and his family were able to receive some measure of justice, and that his financial successes could never match that:

“Early in this book, I said that the feeling I got from buying a Polis stock that went up ten times was the best thing that ever happened to me in my career. But the feeling I had on that balcony in Brussels with Sergei’s widow and son, as we watched the largest lawmaking body in Europe recognize and condemn the injustices suffered by Sergei and his family, felt orders of magnitude better than any financial success I’ve ever had. If finding a ten bagger in the stock market was a highlight of my life before, there is no feeling as satisfying as getting some measure of justice in a highly unjust world.”  


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. I have no vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

My Favourite Story On Investing Risk

Our investments can be hurt by the most absurd things that we can’t even think about. Diversification is one way to protect ourselves.

Howard Marks is the co-founder of Oaktree Capital, an investment firm with a phenomenal long-term track record of investing in distressed debt, and an investor I deeply respect. He once shared a story (likely fictional) that is important for understanding risk when investing:

“I tell my father’s story of the gambler who one day hears about a race with only one horse in it, so he bet the rent money. Halfway around the track the horse jumped over the fence and ran away.”

The gambler would never have even considered that the horse he betted on could escape the track. But this is why it’s such an important story about investing risk. As financial advisor Carl Richards once said, “risk is what’s left over after you think you’ve thought of everything.”

I recently learnt of a real-life example of the horse-escaping-the-track story. It comes from Joel Greenblatt, another of the all-time greats in the investing world. It has become my favourite story about investing risk. During a recent episode of The Investor’s Podcast Network family of podcasts, Greenblatt recounted his own experience investing in a company when he was interviewed by William Green (emphases are mine):

“Well, the interesting thing, a Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, which was a publisher, but also owned amusement parks in Florida, believe it or not, went to buy a very small company called Florida Cypress Gardens, which I remembered as a kid going to, and they had water skiing Santa Claus, during Christmas time, and all kinds of water shows and beautiful gardens. It was a very unique, interesting, and very memorable place to visit when you’re five or six years old.

When I saw they were getting taken over, and this was literally in the first month I went into business for myself. I was pretty nervous. I was 27 and I had gotten money from a very famous guy and I want to do a good job. I saw this opportunity where Florida Cypress Gardens was being taken over, and there was a nice spread in that deal where I could make a lot of money if it went through. I thought the deal made a lot of sense at the time. I was able to have a big smile on my face and buy Florida Cypress Gardens as one of the first investments I made when I went out on my own.

A few weeks before the deal was supposed to close, unfortunately, Florida Cypress Gardens fell into what’s called a sinkhole, meaning the main pavilions of Florida Cypress Gardens literally fell into a hole that appeared out of nowhere. Apparently that happens a lot in Florida, I wasn’t that familiar with it, and thank God I wasn’t at Florida Cypress Gardens when it happened, but the Wall Street Journal wrote a real humorous story about it. I was like, “Why is this funny? I’m about to lose my business. I had taken a pretty decent sized bet in the deal.”

It just tells you, things can happen that you don’t anticipate, that it’s not really your fault. I’d never even heard of a sinkhole before I read about this happening, so it’s a risk that I… When you’re doing a merger deal, you’re not really saying risk of sinkhole is in your checklist of things to look for, so stuff happens, less kind words for that. It’s a good lesson to learn, especially out of the box. I was sweating pretty good. They ended up re-cutting the deal at a lower price and I lost money, but not that terrible.”

A sinkhole that appeared spontaneously – something Greenblatt did not even think of – nearly derailed his investment in the amusement park company Florida Cypress Gardens. I don’t think anyone who’s investing in a real estate-related company would contemplate that the company’s assets could be harmed by a sinkhole. This goes to show that our investments can be damaged by things we cannot even imagine of. I am a big proponent of diversification when investing. I do so for many reasons, and one of them is to prevent sudden sinkholes or horses escaping a race from causing my entire portfolio to crumble.


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. I do not have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time 

Making Sense Of Singapore Post’s Latest Perpetual Securities

Singapore Post just issued perpetual securities. Here’re the ins and outs.

Two weeks ago, I was told that my relative had invested in Singapore Post’s (SGX: S08) recently issued perpetual securities.

I thought it would be helpful for my relative if I shared a factual breakdown of the numbers. I also figured that my sharing could be done on The Good Investors to benefit any reader who happens to have invested in or are interested in the same perpetual securities. Before I start, it’s important to note that some key details of the perpetual securities are complex, and I cannot guarantee that my understanding of them is correct. But I think I’m still able to give a good rundown of what’s happening. Here goes!

1) Total sum raised by Singapore Post: S$250 million, excluding any relevant fees

2) Distribution to be paid by Singapore Post for the perpetual securities: There are different distribution rates that Singapore Post will be paying, depending on the time frame:

  • There are three time frames. The First Time Frame is from 6 April 2022 to 6 July 2027; the Second Time Frame is from 6 July 2027 to 6 July 2047; and the Third Time Frame refers to 6 July 2047 and beyond.
  • For the First Time Frame, Singapore Post will be paying a distribution rate of 4.35% per year.
  • For the Second Time Frame, there are a series of Reset Dates, with 6 July 2027 termed the First Reset Date. Each subsequent Reset Date occurs in five-year intervals from 6 July 2027. From 6 July 2027 to the Second Reset Date, Singapore Post will be paying a distribution rate of 2.183% per year, plus 0.25% per year, plus the 5-year SORA-OIS that is seen on 6 July 2027. From the Second Reset Date to the Third Reset Date, Singapore Post will be paying a distribution rate that works out to 2.183% per year, plus 0.25% per year, plus the 5-year SORA-OIS that is seen on the Second Reset Date. For subsequent Reset Dates, the same dynamic for the distribution rate applies. The acronym “SORA-OIS” stands for the Singapore Overnight Rate Average Overnight Indexed Swap. The SORA is an important interest-rate benchmark in Singapore for pricing loans and debt products in the country and the rate can be found here. The SORA-OIS is a derivative of SORA, so the term “5-year SORA-OIS” refers to the SORA-OIS with a 5-year tenor. Unfortunately, I can’t find any publicly-available pricing data for the 5-year SORA-OIS.  
  • For the Third Time Frame, there are also Reset Dates that occur at the same five-year intervals. From 6 July 2047 to the next Reset Date, Singapore Post will be paying a distribution rate of 2.183% per year, plus 1.0% per year, plus the 5-year SORA-OIS that is seen on 6 July 2047. From the next Reset Date to the next-next Reset Date, Singapore Post will be paying a distribution rate of 2.183% per year, plus 1.0% per year, plus the 5-year SORA-OIS that is seen on the next Reset Date. For subsequent Reset Dates, the same dynamic for the distribution rate applies.

3) Implication of the distribution to be paid by Singapore Post: As mentioned, the distributions for the Second Time Frame and Third Time Frame involve a fixed distribution rate ranging from 2.433% (2.183% plus 0.25%) to 3.183% (2.183% plus 1.0%). Both are lower than the distribution rate for the First Time Frame. Meanwhile, the distribution rates for the Second Time Frame and Third Time Frame also have a floating-rate component that depends on the 5-year SORA-OIS – and the 5-year SORA-OIS can fluctuate with time. Because of these dynamics, the overall distribution rate for the Second Time Frame and Third Time Frame could be lower than the rate for the First Time Frame.

4) When will the distribution of the perpetual securities be paid by Singapore Post: Singapore Post will pay the distribution twice every year, on 6 January and 6 July in each year.

5) Will Singapore Post return the capital: Singapore Post can choose to redeem the perpetual securities any time within three months of 6 July 2027, or on each distribution-payment-date that comes after 6 July 2027. But Singapore Post has no obligation to redeem the perpetual securities. This means the capital an investor uses to invest in the perpetual securities will be permanently locked up inside Singapore Post if the company does not redeem them. Of course, there’s the option for the investor to sell his or her perpetual securities on the open market – but in this scenario the sale price would be determined by market conditions as well as the business-health of Singapore Post.

6) When will the perpetual securities be available for trading on the Singapore Exchange: The perpetual securities were listed for trading on 7 April 2022.

7) Can Singapore Post afford to pay the distribution attached to the perpetual securities: I can calculate with certainty that the distributions for the perpetual securities for the First Time Frame will cost Singapore Post S$10.875 million annually (4.35% of S$250 million). But it is impossible to answer definitively whether the company can afford to pay the distributions. The best an investor can do is to determine the riskiness of the perpetual securities by looking at Singapore Post’s financial condition. On this front, there are a few things to note, both positive and negative (data’s from Tikr):

  • On the positive end, Singapore Post has been generating positive operating cash flow in each financial year going back to at least the last 10, and each year’s operating cash flow is comfortably higher than S$10.875 million as shown in Table 1 below.
  • On another positive end (though this is only slightly positive), Singapore Post has a balance sheet with slightly more cash than debt; as of 30 September 2021, the company’s cash and debt stood at S$465.0 million and S$308.4 million, respectively.
  • On the negative end, Table 1 makes it clear that Singapore Post has failed to produce any sustained growth in operating cash flow for a long time.    
Table 1; Source: Tikr

8) Can Singapore Post choose to not pay the distributions attached to the perpetual securities: Yes, Singapore Post can, at its sole discretion, choose not to pay the distributions – and it can choose not to pay the distributions in perpetuity. But doing so comes at a massive cost to Singapore Post; for example, the company will not be allowed to pay any dividend to owners of its ordinary shares. But since Singapore Post can still choose to not pay the distributions on the perpetual securities, in the worst case scenario, an investor who invests in the perpetual securities could find his or her capital permanently locked up in Singapore Post, and yet receive zero income. 

9) Final word: To repeat, what I’m doing here is merely providing a factual breakdown of Singapore Post’s latest perpetual securities based on publicly available information – I’m not trying to make a case for or against an investment in them. To whoever’s reading this, I hope laying out these numbers will help you make a better-informed decision on Singapore Post’s latest perpetual securities.


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. I do not have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time

How We Invest

A series of videos explaining how we invest.

Jeremy and I recorded a series of videos recently with iFAST TV talking about how we invest, all the way from the framework we use to analyse companies to how we value companies.

A new initiative by Singapore-based fintech company iFAST, iFAST TV is “an investment-focused channel committed to creating relevant, informative and engaging video content for all investors.”

We want to thank Ko Yang Zhi from iFAST for being a wonderful host during our videos. We also want to thank the iFAST TV crew for their excellent shooting and production work. Yang Zhi and iFAST TV deserve all the credit for everything that’s great about the videos. Mistakes though, are entirely the responsibility of Jeremy and myself!

The videos – all six of them – can be found below. Enjoy!


Video 1 – What Type Of Markets Should You Invest In?


Video 2 – Should You Invest In Companies With More Debt Than Cash?


Video 3 – How Do You Assess A Company’s Management Team?


Video 4 – Revenue Vs Earnings – Which Is More Important?


Video 5 – Should You Invest In Companies Not Producing Free Cash Flow?


Video 6 – How To Value Companies?


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. Jeremy and I may have a vested interest in the companies mentioned in the videos. Holdings are subject to change at any time

The Future Of China’s Economy

How would China’s economy be like in the future? Lessons from two great books give us clues.

A few weeks ago, I finished reading China’s Crisis of Success. The book, authored by Willam Overholt and published in 2018, contained many thought-provoking ideas on China’s past economic successes and future economic development. I summarised the lessons from the book in an article I published on 28 February 2022 titled Lessons From “China’s Crisis Of Success”. From here on, Lessons From “China’s Crisis of Success” will be termed Article 1.  

While writing Article 1, I was also reminded of a piece I published on 4 March 2020 titled China’s Future: Thoughts From Li Lu, A China Super Investor. This article, hereby termed Article 2, is an English translation of investor Li Lu’s review and thoughts in Mandarin on the 2018 book The Other Half of Macroeconomics and the Fate of Globalization written by economist Richard C. Koo.

As I wrote Article 1, I noticed a similar thread in Article 2. In both articles, an important element is that the pace of China’s future economic growth depends heavily on the Chinese government’s willingness and ability to relinquish central-control of the country’s economy.

Here’s the relevant section from Article 1: 

“Xi’s administration [referring to the administration of Xi Jinping, China’s current president]  has a well thought-out plan for economic reform that emphasises market allocation of resources, but there’s still a really strong element of central-control. On political liberalisation, there does not seem to be much signs that Xi’s administration is loosening its grip. How Xi’s administration reacts to China’s need for both political and economic liberalisation will have a heavy influence on how bright or dim China’s future is.”

The relevant passages from Article 2 are:

“In the Golden Era, the crucial players are entrepreneurs and individual consumers. The focus and starting point for all policies should be on the following: (1) strengthening the confidence of entrepreneurs; (2) establishing market rules that are cleaner, fairer, and more standardised; (3) reducing the control that the government has over the economy; and (4) lowering taxes and economic burdens. Monetary policy will play a crucial role at this juncture, based on the experiences of many other developed countries during their respective Golden Eras.

During the first stage of development, China’s main financial policy system was based on an indirect financing model. It’s almost a form of forced savings on a large scale, and relied on government-controlled banks to distribute capital (also at a large scale) at low interest rates to manufacturing, infrastructure, exports and other industries that were important to China’s national interests. This financial policy was successful in helping China to industrialise rapidly. 

At the second stage of development, the main focus should be this: How can society’s financing direction and methods be changed from one of indirect financing in the first stage to one of direct financing, so that entrepreneurs and individual consumers have the chance to play the key borrower role?”

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in Article 1, China’s government appears to have tightened its grip on the country’s economy in recent years:

“Since the publication of China’s Crisis of Success, there are signs that Xi’s administration has moved in the opposite direction of allowing the market to allocate resources. A good example, in my view, would be the well-documented crackdowns on the Chinese technology sector seen over the past year or so.”

Using the frameworks presented in Article 1 and Article 2, the future of China’s economy could be a lot brighter if the government embarks on effective economic liberalisation. But right now, the government appears to be doing the opposite. 


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. I do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time. 

Lessons From “China’s Crisis Of Success”

A great book on China, and what it can tell us about the future of the country’s economic and political development.

A few months ago, a friend of mine, who’s an impressive investor working in a multi-billion-dollar fund management company, introduced me to the book, China’s Crisis of Success. The book, published in 2018, is written by William Overholt, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University. 

Overholt correctly foresaw the rise of China over the past two-plus decades in his aptly-titled 1993 book, The Rise of China. I have investments in a number of Chinese companies, so I was curious to know what I can learn about the potential future of China from Overholt’s 2018 book. Below are the key takeaways I have from his work:

  • There are a number of Asian countries – including South Korea, Taiwan, and a few others – that experienced decades of remarkable economic growth beginning in the 1960s. This growth helped to lift large swathes of their populations from poverty and made the countries prosperous. 
  • These countries, collectively termed the “Asia Miracles” by Overholt, all had a number of similar traits near the start of their growth spurt. Their respective governments: (a) ruled with an iron fist, with an emphasis on tough implementations of radical economic and social reforms; (b) deeply feared their country’s collapse, a fear shared by their citizens who also harboured a strong sense of shared national identity; and (c) partook in strong central planning of their respective economies.
  • As the economies of the Asia Miracles grew over the years, the countries reached an inflection point. The collective fear of societal collapse that gripped their citizenry dissipated. The citizens, now wealthier, more knowledgeable, and more confident of their country’s future, also grew increasingly frustrated with the “rule with an iron fist” approach by their respective governments. The economies meanwhile, became too complex for the governments to control via central planning. 
  • Upon reaching their inflection points, the Asia Miracles started liberalising, both politically and economically. Not liberalising would have been a major risk to the Asia Miracles’ future prosperity and continued development. Within the Asia Miracles, a style of governance with much stronger democratic elements emerged, while their economies were increasingly allowed to develop from the bottom-up through the private sector.
  • Beginning from Deng Xiaoping’s regime that started in the late 1970s, China embarked on a path of economic and political development that was similar to the Asia Miracles at the start of their growth spurts. As a result, a significant majority of China’s citizens were elevated from the sufferings of poverty in the next few subsequent decades, and the country’s economy grew to become a global behemoth.
  • But as China grew over the years, it started reaching its inflection point around a decade or so ago, coinciding with Xi Jinping’s ascension to the foremost political leadership role in the country. Xi’s administration has a well thought-out plan for economic reform that emphasises market allocation of resources, but there’s still a really strong element of central-control. On political liberalisation, there does not seem to be much signs that Xi’s administration is loosening its grip. How Xi’s administration reacts to China’s need for both political and economic liberalisation will have a heavy influence on how bright or dim China’s future is.

I’m not taking China’s Crisis of Success as the authoritative framework for analysing China’s past successes and future growth. The framework may well turn out to be inaccurate. But I think it is a well-written book with thought-provoking ideas that I find to be logical. 

Since the publication of China’s Crisis of Success, there are signs that Xi’s administration has moved in the opposite direction of allowing the market to allocate resources. A good example, in my view, would be the well-documented crackdowns on the Chinese technology sector seen over the past year or so. Meanwhile, on the political front, Xi’s administration does not seem to have introduced any substantial measures to enable a relatively less-repressive political environment to develop (do note: I am far from being well-informed on politics!). Using the framework presented in China’s Crisis of Success and the developments in China that I just mentioned, the country’s long run future seems less bright to me than before I had read the book.


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. I do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

War and Investing

What’s the relationship between war and stocks? With the Russia potentially invading Ukraine any time now, what should stock market investors do?

It’s a scary time to be an investor in stocks now. The US government has warned the world that Russia could launch a large-scale invasion of Ukraine at any moment. With the historically frosty relationship between the USA and Russia, any use of military force by Russia against Ukraine could result in the USA stepping in.

War between countries is a painful tragedy, not just for the citizens involved, but for humanity as a whole. Without downplaying the horrors of war, how should stock market investors approach the current tense situation between the USA and Russia?

Thankfully, there’s one classic investing book, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, first published in the late 1950s in the USA, that provides a useful framework for thinking about this. The book is written by Phillip Fisher, who’s an excellent investor in his own right, but is perhaps most famous for being an influential figure in Warren Buffett’s own evolution as an investor. Buffett has said that his investing style is 85% Graham and 15% Fisher.

With the current backdrop of Russia’s potential invasion of Ukraine – and the USA’s possible involvement – I thought it would be useful to share Fisher’s passages in Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits that discuss why investors should not fear buying stocks during a war scare. They are found between the two horizontal grey lines below (highlights are mine):


Common stocks are usually of greatest interest to people with imagination. Our imagination is staggered by the utter horror of modern war. The result is that every time the international stresses of our world produce either a war scare or an actual war, common stocks reflect it. This is a psychological phenomenon which makes little sense financially

Any decent human being becomes appalled at the slaughter and suffering caused by the mass killings of war. In today’s atomic age, there is added a deep personal fear for the safety of those closest to us and for ourselves. This worry, fear, and distaste for what lies ahead can often distort any appraisal of purely economic factors. The fears of mass destruction of property, almost confiscatory higher taxes, and government interference with business dominate what thinking we try to do on financial matters. People operating in such a mental climate are inclined to overlook some even more fundamental economic influences.

The results are always the same. Through the entire twentieth century, with a single exception, every time major war has broken out anywhere in the world or whenever American forces have become involved in any fighting whatever, the American stock market has always plunged sharply downward. This one exception was the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. At that time, after an abortive rally on thoughts of fat war contracts to a neutral nation, the market soon was following the typical downward course, a course which some months later resembled panic as news of German victories began piling up. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of all actual fighting – regardless of whether it was World War I, World War II, or Korea – most stocks were selling at levels vastly higher than prevailed before there was any thought of war at all. Furthermore, at least ten times in the last twenty-two years, news has come of other international crises which gave threat of major war. In every instance, stocks dipped sharply on the fear of war and rebounded sharply as the war scare subsided

What do investors overlook that causes them to dump stocks both on the fear of war and on the arrival of war itself, even though by the end of the war stocks have always gone much higher than lower? They forget that stock prices are quotations expressed in money. Modern war always causes governments to spend far more than they can possibly collect from their taxpayers while the war is being waged. This causes a vast increase in the amount of money, so that each individual unit of money, such as a dollar, becomes worth less than it was before. It takes lots more dollars to buy the same number of shares in stock. This, of course, is the classic form of inflation. 

In other words, war is always bearish on money. To sell stock at the threatened or actual outbreak of hostilities so as to get into cash is extreme financial lunacy. Actually just the opposite should be done. If an investor has about decided to buy a particular common stock and the arrival of a full-blown war scare starts knocking down the price, he should ignore the scare psychology of the moment and definitely begin buying. This is the time when having surplus cash for investment becomes least, not most, desirable. However, here a problem presents itself. How fast should he buy? How far down will the stock go? As long as the downward influence is a war scare and not war, there is no way of knowing. If actual hostilities break out, the price would undoubtedly go still lower, perhaps a lot lower. Therefore, the thing to do is to buy but buy slowly and at a scale-down on just a threat of war. If war occurs, then increase the tempo of buying significantly. Just be sure to buy into companies either with products or services the demand for which will continue in wartime, or which can convert their facilities to wartime operations. The great majority of companies can so qualify under today’s conditions of total war and manufacturing flexibility.

Do stocks actually become more valuable in war time, or is it just money which declines in value? That depends on circumstances. By the grace of God, our country has never been defeated in any war in which it has engaged. In war, particularly modern war, the money of the defeated side is likely to become completely or almost worthless, any common stocks would lose most of their value. Certainly, if the United States were to be defeated by Communist Russia, both our money and our stocks would become valueless. It would then make little difference what investors might have done. 

On the other hand, if a war is won or stalemated, what happens to the real value of stocks will vary with the individual war and the individual stock. In World War I, when the enormous prewar savings of England and France were pouring into this country, most stocks probably increased their real worth even more than might have been the case if the same years had been a period of peace. This, however, was a one-time condition that will not be repeated. Expressed in constant dollars – that is, in real value – American stocks in both World War II and the Korean period undoubtedly did fare less well than if the same period had been one of peace. Aside from the crushing taxes, there was too great a diversion of effort from the more profitable peace-time lines to abnormally narrow-margin defense work. If the magnificent research effort spent on these narrow-margin defense projects could have been channelled to normal peace-time lines, stockholders’ profits would have been far greater – assuming, of course, that there would still have been a free america in which any profits could have been enjoyed at all. The reason for buying stocks on war or fear of war is not that war, in itself, is ever again likely to be profitable to American stockholders. It is just that money becomes even less desirable, so that stock prices, which are expressed in units of money, always go up. 


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. I do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

The Right Level of Diversification

It depends on you.

What is the right amount of stocks an investor should have in his/her portfolio to achieve diversification? Is it 10? Is it 20? Is it 100?

I currently believe that the right level of diversification is different for each investor. Some investors have an investment process and psyche that suits a highly concentrated portfolio, say, of 10 companies or less. I know I do not belong in this group. I am well-suited for a portfolio that has significantly more companies.

When I was investing for my family, the portfolio had slightly more than 50 companies by the time I liquidated most of its stocks in June 2020 so that the capital could be invested in an investment fund I’m currently running with Jeremy. I was comfortable managing around 50 companies and I could sleep soundly at night. 

Why do I say that the right level of diversification is different for each investor? Let’s consider the case of three legendary US-based investors. 

First there’s Peter Lynch, the manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990. During his tenure, he produced a jaw-dropping annual return of 29%, nearly double what the S&P 500 did. Toward the end of Lynch’s stint, the Magellan Fund owned more than 1,400 stocks in its portfolio.

Then there’s Walter Schloss, who produced an astonishing return of 15.3% per year from 1956 to 2000; in comparison, the S&P 500’s annualised gain was a little below 11.5%. Schloss typically held around 100 stocks in his portfolio at any given time.

The third investor is Charlie Munger, who achieved an annual return of 13.7% per year when he was managing an investment fund from 1962 to 1975. Over the same period, the Dow was up by just 5.0% per year. At any point in time, Munger’s portfolio would only have a handful of stocks.

Lynch, Schloss, and Munger are all stock market investors with incredible long-term track records (and I consider all of them as my investment heroes!). But their levels of diversification are so different. I think this is the best example of how there’s no magic number when it comes to diversification. You have to first understand your own temperament before you can know what’s the right level of diversification, for you.


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. I do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.