Market Commentary - September

Glenmore Asset Management

October 2023

Funds operated by this manager:

Glenmore Australian Equities Fund

10k Words

Equitable Investors

October 2023

October Edition

Funds operated by this manager:

Equitable Investors Dragonfly Fund

Disclaimer

Nothing in this blog constitutes investment advice - or advice in any other field. Neither the information, commentary or any opinion contained in this blog constitutes a solicitation or offer by Equitable Investors Pty Ltd (Equitable Investors) or its affiliates to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments. Nor shall any such security be offered or sold to any person in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, purchase, or sale would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.

The content of this blog should not be relied upon in making investment decisions. Any decisions based on information contained on this blog are the sole responsibility of the visitor. In exchange for using this blog, the visitor agree to indemnify Equitable Investors and hold Equitable Investors, its officers, directors, employees, affiliates, agents, licensors and suppliers harmless against any and all claims, losses, liability, costs and expenses (including but not limited to legal fees) arising from your use of this blog, from your violation of these Terms or from any decisions that the visitor makes based on such information.

This blog is for information purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice. The information on this blog does not constitute a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. Although this material is based upon information that Equitable Investors considers reliable and endeavours to keep current, Equitable Investors does not assure that this material is accurate, current or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any opinions expressed on this blog may change as subsequent conditions vary.

Equitable Investors does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained on this blog and does not warrant that the functions contained in this blog will be uninterrupted or error-free, that defects will be corrected, or that the blog will be free of viruses or other harmful components. Equitable Investors expressly disclaims all liability for errors and omissions in the materials on this blog and for the use or interpretation by others of information contained on the blog

Ferrari: The case for RACE (RACE IM)

Alphinity Investment Management

September 2023

Funds operated by this manager:

Alphinity Australian Share Fund, Alphinity Concentrated Australian Share Fund, Alphinity Global Equity Fund, Alphinity Sustainable Share Fund

Disclaimer
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial needs or objectives. Before acting on any information, you should consider the appropriateness of it and the relevant product having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. In particular, you should seek independent financial advice and read the relevant Product Disclosure Statement or other offer document and the relevant Target Market Determination (available on the Apply Now page on this website) before making a decision whether to buy or hold a financial product.

Who will benefit from the energy transition?

Magellan Asset Management

September 2023

Net Zero is not a new ambition for governments and companies, with some sectors like utilities focused on this climate risk for quite some time now.  David Costello,  CFA, Portfolio Manager - Energy Transition Strategy discusses the opportunities we see from the energy transition and companies that may benefit from this transition. 

Funds operated by this manager:

Magellan Global Fund (Hedged), Magellan Global Fund (Open Class Units) ASX:MGOC, Magellan High Conviction Fund, Magellan Infrastructure Fund, Magellan Infrastructure Fund (Unhedged), MFG Core Infrastructure Fund

Important Information: 

This material has been delivered to you by Magellan Asset Management Limited ABN 31 120 593 946 AFS Licence No. 304 301 ('Magellan') and has been prepared for general information purposes only and must not be construed as investment advice or as an investment recommendation.  This material does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. This material does not constitute an offer or inducement to engage in an investment activity nor does it form part of any offer documentation, offer or invitation to purchase, sell or subscribe for interests in any type of investment product or service. You should obtain and consider the relevant Product Disclosure Statement ('PDS') and Target Market Determination ('TMD') and consider obtaining professional investment advice tailored to your specific circumstances before making a decision about whether to acquire, or continue to hold, the relevant financial product. A copy of the relevant PDS and TMD relating to a Magellan financial product may be obtained by calling +61 2 9235 4888 or by visiting www.magellangroup.com.au.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and no person guarantees the future performance of any financial product or service, the amount or timing of any return from it, that asset allocations will be met, that it will be able to implement its investment strategy or that its investment objectives will be achieved. This material may contain 'forward-looking statements'. Actual events or results or the actual performance of a Magellan financial product or service may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements.

This material may include data, research and other information from third party sources. Magellan makes no guarantee that such information is accurate, complete or timely and does not provide any warranties regarding results obtained from its use. This information is subject to change at any time and no person has any responsibility to update any of the information provided in this material.  Statements contained in this material that are not historical facts are based on current expectations, estimates, projections, opinions and beliefs of Magellan. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and undue reliance should not be placed thereon. No representation or warranty is made with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information contained in this material. Magellan will not be responsible or liable for any losses arising from your use or reliance upon any part of the information contained in this material.

Any third party trademarks contained herein are the property of their respective owners and Magellan claims no ownership in, nor any affiliation with, such trademarks.   Any third party trademarks that appear in this material are used for information purposes and only to identify the company names or brands of their respective owners. No affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement should be inferred from the use of these trademarks. This material and the information contained within it may not be reproduced, or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Magellan.

Investing Essentials: Understanding fund fees - price versus value

Bennelong Funds Management

September 2023

While understanding the price of an investment is relatively straightforward, measuring value is more difficult. 

Everyone has a different view of what represents value. Some people are more thrifty and therefore focused on achieving a lower price point. Others are happy to pay more if they believe they'll get better quality.

Value can sometimes be hard to quantify, but when it comes to investing, fees are a good place to start. It's pretty easy to work out if an investor in one fund has obtained a greater return than an investor in a similar product with a different fee. This can give a good comparison of the price paid, provided the calculation is done after the suggested investment time frame.

To effectively decide whether a fund presents good value or not, you need to understand the different types of fees in a fund.

Annual management fee - this should be clear-cut and is easy to compare between two funds.

Management expense ratio (MER) - this represents the management fee plus other fund expenses (such as audit costs). Again, it's usually straightforward to compare the MER of two funds.

Performance fee - this, however, can be more complex. Performance fees rarely encompass the same information and can be structured differently from fund to fund, making them more difficult to compare.

To help understand the interplay between different types of fees, the indirect cost ratio (ICR) can be useful. This represents the overall cost of a fund at a particular point in time, including the MER and any related performance fee that has been paid during a financial year.

The ICR, however, is backwards-looking. It's usually calculated after the end of the financial year, and looks solely at that past financial year. While it's a decent indicator, and certainly a good way to compare two different funds, investors should understand that it doesn't represent what they will pay for the year ahead.

Investors should particularly take into account the performance of the relevant fund during that 12-month period. The ICR may look high, but were returns also strong? Don't dismiss a fund from consideration simply because of a high ICR, without also taking into account what performance has been like - that is, making a comparison on price and not a comparison on the value that has been delivered.

This also relates to the 'active versus passive" management debate. Passive funds often have lower fees on face value. Then again, the levers available to an active manager give them more flexibility in adjusting their exposure to the stocks they hold to take advantage of economic themes in the current environment.

For many investors, it may be the case that a combination of both approaches will serve them best, both in terms of price and value. The important thing is understanding the different fees being paid, what those fees are paying for, and why and when the merits of one approach over the other can be most beneficial.

But in the end, the decision to invest in anything should be made by considering more than just the cost.

For more insights visit www.bennelongfunds.com

Disclaimer

The content contained in this article represents the opinions of the author/s. The author/s may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the article. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely as an avenue for the author/s to express their personal views on investing and for the entertainment of the reader.

New Funds on FundMonitors.com

Below are some of the funds we've recently added to our database. Follow the links to view each fund's profile, where you'll have access to their offer documents, monthly reports, historical returns, performance analytics, rankings, research, platform availability, and news & insights. 

View Profile

Want to see more funds?

Subscribe for full access to these funds and over 700 others

What are Warrants and what is a Bond/Warrant?

PURE Asset Management

September 2023

What is a warrant?

A warrant is much like an option. Both are financial instrument that grant the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy a specific underlying asset (such as a share) at a specific price (strike price) on or before a specified date (expiration date).

Options are more common instruments and are used for a variety of purposes such as employee incentive programmes, or in lieu of fees to a third party.

In smaller companies they can be offered as part of an equity raise, as an incentive for investors to participate. The terms and conditions of company-issued options are typically determined by the issuer Company.

The key difference is that warrants are usually negotiated between the Company and the incoming investor, be they debt or equity providers. As a bilateral negotiation the terms can vary widely, whereas options tend to be more standardised.

What are the main differences between warrants and options?

Warrants and options issued by a Company as an investor incentive are similar to warrants, with the key differences being:

1. Warrants are negotiated with the investor, but option terms are determined by the Company, typically without consultation.
2. Warrants tend to have a longer life until expiry than options, which can be up to several years. Options typically have expiration dates of 6-18 months.
3. Warrants often have strike prices that are at a higher premium to the current market price of the underlying shares.
4. Warrants are typically priced based on several factors, such as the underlying asset's price, the strike price, the expiration date, and the issuer's creditworthiness. Options, on the other hand, are typically priced based on the volatility of the underlying asset and the time until expiration.
5. Options are sometimes listed on the exchange, offering the holder the opportunity to sell the option, whereas warrants are normally unlisted, and although tradable, this happens rarely.
6. During negotiation with the Company a warrant holder can include more sophisticated clauses to protect the owner from dilution, or the loss of value in the event of a takeover.

What are the attractions of warrants/options?

Primarily the attraction of a warrant or option is leverage to the underlying share price.  The value of a warrant/option, in its simplest terms, if made up of two components:

• Intrinsic value - if the share price is above the strike price, intrinsic value is the difference between the strike price (the cost of exercising) and the share price (the value the investor receives when exercised. If the share price is below the share price there is no intrinsic value.
• Time value - this is a mathematical formula (typically a Black & Scholes model) that tries to value the potential for future profit. This component tries to value the probability by reference to how long the warrant/option has to run before expiry (the longer the better); how much the share price needs to increase before it rises above the strike price; and the likelihood of that happening, which is a function of the volatility of the share price.

What this all means is that although a warrant/option may not have intrinsic value, it can still be valuable if the potential of future profit remains high. The longer the time frame until expiry; the smaller the gap between the strike price and the share price; and the higher the volatility of that share price, are all positive attributes. And vice versa.

The appeal of warrants or options is that the holder may not have paid to acquire them or may have paid very little for this future potential profit. Over time, if the share price rises above the strike price, the investor will enjoy the opportunity of exercising and converting into shares for a profit, which may be far greater than the price paid to acquire the instrument.

For example:

A share price is trading a $2.00 and the warrant/option was acquired for $0.10, with a strike price of $2.50, with a two-year life. At the time of issue, the only value is time value. This value will rise as the share price moves closer to the strike price, but this increased value will be offset be the decline in the time that is left to exercise.

If after two years, the share price is $3.00, and the investor exercises the warrant/option and immediately sells the shares, they will be able to realise a $0.40 profit. This is calculated as follows:

The appeal is that, compared to simply investing the shares, there is much more leverage to the rising share price. Using the same example above, but instead buying the shares, the investor would have made a 50% return.

Therefore, although the investor is taking more risk by buying a warrant or option, because of the limited time frame until expiry, they can achieve the same profit while deploying far less capital. See below, where both scenarios yield a $5,000 profit, but the investor in the warrant/option has had to invest just 12.5% of the capital to achieve the same outcome:

What is a Bond/Warrant?

A bond/warrant is Convertible Loan broken into its two constituent parts, being a bond (or loan to a Company), with a detached Warrant (an option to buy the shares).

Just like a convertible loan, when the warrants are exercised, the investor is effectively converting from debt into equity. This is achieved by making the cost of exercising the warrant the same as the value of the loan, so that when the Company receives the proceeds from exercise, they can be used to extinguish the loan. In turn, the investor has effectively cancelled the loan, in exchange for shares from the Company.

Just like a convertible loan, the attraction to the investor is that they prior to conversion they receive the benefits of a loan structure: interest and more protection in the capital structure, but they also have the opportunity to make an additional profit if the share price rises above the strike or conversion price.

Often a traditional convertible note does not allow the flexibility of early repayment because when the loan is repaid the investor loses the optionality of converting into shares. Convertible notes often prohibit early repayment because issuer Companies may be incentivised to repay or refinance the convertible note, just before the investor can profit from the rising share price.

Therefore, a bond/warrant structure can be attractive to the Company versus a traditional convertible loan as the Company retains the right to repay the bond whenever it chooses. Likewise, the investor is happy because if the loan is repaid early, they retain the warrant and keep the optionality to make a profit from the rising share price, but without any capital at risk i.e., they have created a free warrant.

Bond/warrants are a win-win for both the investor and the Company, but they are also a win for other shareholders. This is because the inherent attraction of the structure means the warrant strike price can justify at a material premium to the prevailing share price, therefore shareholders are less diluted, compared to raising capital via the issuance of shares. It's a win-win-win!

Funds operated by this manager:

PURE Income & Growth Fund, PURE Resources Fund

Is Tesla just another car company?

Montgomery Investment Management

September 2023

In the ever-evolving landscape of the automotive industry, few companies have captured the world's attention quite like Tesla. Thirteen years ago, electric cars were synonymous with virtue signalling rather than high-performance excitement. However, Tesla disrupted this perception, transforming electric vehicles into something thrilling and aspirational. Its journey, from a modest initial public offering (IPO) in 2010 to a valuation exceeding $1 trillion in 2019, has been nothing short of remarkable. Yet, recent stagnation in Tesla's stock price has prompted a critical question: Is Tesla still the visionary pioneer it once was, or is it merely becoming "just another car company"?

A background to Tesla

Thirteen years ago, in 2012, hybrid electric cars were unsexy and uninspiring. Think of the Toyota Prius here in Australia, or the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf in the U.S. These were virtue-signaling vehicles designed without mass appeal in mind. Manufacturers also had a vested interest in their legacy internal combustion engine (ICE) models and weren't tooled up for mass adoption of electric vehicles (EV).

Tesla changed all that, first delivering exciting luxury cars that also happened to be fast and battery-powered, before widening the appeal by launching more affordable models that were also powerful and equally good-looking.

Around thirteen years ago, a small company called Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) launched its initial public offering (IPO) on the NASDAQ stock exchange, raising a total of U.S.$226.1 million at a (split adjusted) share price of U.S.$3.40. Three years later, in 2013/14, Tesla transitioned from being essentially a start-up with highly uncertain survival prospects to being a credible auto business, redefining public expectations around electric vehicles with its introduction of the Model S, and in 2013, generating its first quarterly profit.

Excitement in the stock market for Tesla, however, was arguably greater. Between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2014, consensus full-year earnings forecasts for Tesla were revised up sharply, with 2015 net income forecasts moving from U.S.$247 million to U.S.$432 million and 2016 net income forecasts moving from U.S.$415 million to U.S.$784 million.

The less-than-doubling of earnings expectations however, resulted in a 10-fold increase in the share price as the discount associated with doubts about the company's survival unwound.

Tesla's profits fell well short of those forecasts, with the company reporting a net loss in 2015 of U.S.$889 million and another net loss in 2016 of U.S.$773 million. Yet the market's excitement didn't wane. The share price gains didn't continue, but the price gains didn't reverse either. Profitable hopes were simply deferred.

At the start of 2015, Tesla commanded a market valuation of close to U.S.$30 billion, well short of the value ascribed to the world's largest automakers, but still around half that of Ford and General Motors.

It wasn't until 2019 that the fortunes of Tesla started to take off, with its shares jumping from U.S.$12.65 in May 2019 to a split-adjusted U.S.$409.97 on November 04, 2021, and a market capitalisation of over U.S.$1 trillion.

In mid-2020, Tesla achieved four consecutive quarters of positive net income for the first time in its history, and over the prior 12 months consensus net income forecasts for Tesla increased substantially. The 2021 forecast increased to U.S.$3.15 billion from U.S.$1.72 billion, and the 2022 number rose to $5.03 billion from $3.44 billion. This less-than-doubling of earnings forecasts had driven another 10x share price move.

Tesla today

Today, however, the share price is roughly where it was almost three years ago. If the gas has been let out (pun intended) of the share price's ascent, it begs a question: what if Tesla is just another car company?

Tesla is still the market leader in battery-powered electric car sales in the U.S., with a market share of above 60 per cent, and the company's flagship Model 3 is the best-selling EV model in the U.S..

Meanwhile, Tesla's market capitalisation today of U.S.$777 billion is more than the combined market capitalisation of the next eight biggest manufacturers, including (in descending order) Toyota, Porsche, BYD, Mercedes Benz, VinFast Auto, BMW, Volkswagen, and Ferrari.

Not unlike Apple, Tesla has adopted a closed-ecosystem approach to its products, owning the cars, the servicing, and the charging directly, setting it apart from other manufacturers.  But does this deserve the hefty multiple placed on the company's earnings that renders it as valuable as the world's next eight biggest manufacturers?

Investors can buy Toyota for $22,000 per vehicle sold in 2022, BMW for $27,825, BYD for $53,800 per vehicle sold, or they can buy Tesla for nearly U.S.$591,000 per vehicle sold.

The economics between Tesla and every other car manufacturer in the world, in the long run, might be slightly different. Still, they cannot be sufficiently dissimilar to justify such a disparity in either absolute market capitalisation terms or in relative terms. 

Despite a share price today that is 40 per cent below its all-time high, enthusiasm for the world-changing potential of EV technology has clearly translated to an equally transformative approach to stock market valuation for Tesla.

What investors are forgetting, however is that Tesla will ultimately be a car company.

As competitors catch up, the competitive advantage of Tesla will erode. Meanwhile, any differences in the economics of car manufacturing between Tesla and its rivals will also diminish as more of each brand's fleet moves to electric. In time it will be harder to justify such a disparity between Telsa's market valuation and that of its competitors. 

Ten reasons why the differences will narrow

Increased competition: As we have written about many times, an increasing number of automobile manufacturers, including traditional giants and EV startups, are producing electric vehicles that compete directly with Tesla's lineup. Brands like Ford, Rivian, Lucid, and Chevrolet have rolled out new electric models that, in some cases, outperform Tesla in terms of range, performance, and looks (the latter being subjective of course). And while the market for EVs overall is growing, Tesla's dominance in EV market share in the U.S. has already slipped from 72 per cent to 62 per cent in just the first year of rising competition and brand choice.

Meanwhile analysts believe Telsa's market share could fall to as little as 18 per cent by 2026 from 78 per cent in 2018.

Ageing product line: Tesla first new passenger vehicle model in three years is the just released updated Model 3. This 'stagnation' in model releases provides competitors with an opportunity to entice potential Tesla customers with newer and potentially more advanced options resulting in Tesla losing further share.

Struggles in key markets: China, the world's largest auto market, has been a significant growth engine for Tesla. However, the company has experienced a softening in demand in China. Local competitors, of which BYD Co. is the largest by no means alone, are making significant strides, offering a more diversified range of models that cater to various price points. Critics in China suggest Tesla does not fully understand the preferences of Chinese consumers.

Marketing and branding issues: Tesla's decision to offer discounts to boost sales is a departure from its earlier stance, indicating potential demand challenges and lower margins. Furthermore, Elon Musk's controversial takeover of Twitter Inc. has affected Tesla's brand perception, pushing some potential buyers away.

Distracted Elon Musk: Many shareholders are concerned that Elon Musk, the driving force behind Tesla, has been distracted with his acquisition and management of Twitter, now called X. Such diversions annoy analysts who believe they could impact Tesla's strategic directions and operational efficiency.

Share price malaise: Tesla's share price is unchanged from almost three years ago, suggesting investors are acknowledging the challenges Tesla faces and waking up to the reality of the long-term economics of manufacturing cars.

Inability to meet growth targets: Despite aggressive scaling efforts, Tesla is falling short of its annual growth targets. With a 40 per cent annual growth rate in 2022 compared to 87 per cent in 2021, the company's exponential growth might be plateauing if Elon Musk's target of two million vehicles in 2023 is not met.

Shifting strategies: Elon Musk's statement back in July 2021 that the "goal is not to be a car company" suggests a broader and potentially more diffuse focus and remains a reminder for analysts who focus too closely on the company's position and growth in the automobile industry.

Over-reliance on existing models: Rather than diversifying its lineup, Tesla is focused on scaling up and churning out as many of its existing models as possible. This strategy is at odds with conventional (and capex intensive) wisdom that releases new models almost annually. The traditional auto industry belief is car makers need to offer a wide range of updated and more advanced models to keep buyers interested and part of their brand 'family'.

Valuation metrics: At September 2023 Tesla is trading at 63.1 times trailing twelve-month (TTM) earnings. This compares to 120 times at the end of 2021. At either measure the price-earnings (PE) is a market valuation more typical of high-growth tech companies than a car manufacturer.

Conclusion

If Tesla does indeed become 'just a car company', the sharp drop in PE will continue and reflect a growing realisation in Tesla's growth prospects, its position in the auto industry, and its economics are less exciting than once believed.

Tesla remains a global leader in the EV market with strong fundamentals, however, there are clear signs that it faces increasing challenges from competitors, potential demand issues, and market sentiment shifts. The lofty valuations and hype surrounding the company needs to be re-evaluated considering these inescapable realities.

Author: Roger Montgomery

Funds operated by this manager:

Montgomery (Private) Fund, Montgomery Small Companies Fund, The Montgomery Fund

The hidden value in securitisation warehouses

Challenger Investment Management

September 2023

Funds operated by this manager:

Challenger IM Credit Income Fund, Challenger IM Multi-Sector Private Lending Fund

China - the re-opening trade that never quite was

4D Infrastructure

September 2023

Funds operated by this manager:

4D Global Infrastructure Fund (Unhedged), 4D Global Infrastructure Fund (AUD Hedged), 4D Emerging Markets Infrastructure Fund

For more information about 4D Infrastructure, visit https://www.4dinfra.com/

^{The content contained in this article represents the opinions of the authors. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely as an avenue for the authors to express their personal views on investing and for the entertainment of the reader.}