Connect with us

Uncategorized

Perreault Resigns from CSL, having already written some of the next chapter

When investors, like Montgomery, and our partners, Australian Eagle, talk about quality Australian companies – those with wide and deep economic moats…

Published

on

When investors, like Montgomery, and our partners, Australian Eagle, talk about quality Australian companies – those with wide and deep economic moats or competitive advantages, relatively low debt, high returns on equity and growing profits – Australian biotech CSL Limited (ASX:CSL) invariably appears near the top of the list. Even global quality-based investors such as Polen Capital count CSL among their holdings.

CSL is a global leader in the manufacture of flu vaccines and in the highly regulated market for blood plasma derivatives from which immunodeficiencies and Haemophilia, for example, are treated. CSL operates a global network of blood collection centres, fractionating the blood into its separate components, which become the base for life-saving treatments and specialty products for immunodeficiencies, bleeding disorders, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, as well as hereditary angioedema and Alpha 1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

CSL benefits from high barriers to entry

CSL benefits from a spaghetti-like network of global regulation and capital intensity that together form meaningful barriers to entry. CSL’s scale enables a higher level of sales than competitors, which in turn affords it the ability to invest circa 10 per cent of its sales on Research and Development. This allows CSL to commercialise more products from each litre of plasma it collects, leading to even higher sales and margins. CSL reinvests this cash in investments and acquisitions that may ultimately drive significant future growth opportunities.

CSL’s CEO, Paul Perreault, joined CSL in 2004 with the acquisition of Aventis Behring. Prior to CSL, he had spent more than 15 years in key senior roles at Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, now part of Pfizer. Perreault was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of CSL Limited in July 2013 and was appointed to the CSL Board of Directors the same year. Since Perreault’s appointment, CSL has grown to become the third-largest biotech company in the world, with more than 30,000 employees bringing lifesaving medicines to people in more than 100 countries.

In early 2020, under Perreault’s leadership, CSL briefly pipped Commonwealth Bank and BHP Billiton – excluding the mining giant’s then London-listed shares – as the biggest listed company on the ASX.

CSL’s performance under Paul Perreault

Perreault however has just announced he will step down from his role in March 2023.

We thought it worthwhile measuring CSL’s performance during Perreault’s tenure, helping to set some benchmarks for his successor, current COO Paul McKenzie.

For the year ended 30 June 2013, the day before Perreault’s appointment as CEO, CSL had equity on its balance sheet of US$3.4 billion, generated US$1.22 billion of earnings, and a return on average equity of 37.5 per cent.  In the nine completed years since then, earnings have grown 85 per cent (7.1 per cent p.a.), total dividends have grown 108 per cent (8.4 per cent p.a.), US$2.7 billion of net equity has been raised (US$5.1 billion of that amount was raised last year) and almost $8 billion of debt has been raised (almost half of it raised last year). 

The large equity and debt raised in the 2022 financial year helped fund CSL’s December ’21 acquisition of Vifor Pharma, diversifying its predominantly vaccine and blood plasma business into kidney disease and iron deficiency franchises. With the fruits (or otherwise) of that acquisition unlikely to be fully realized and harvested by CSL investors for some years, it is sensible to adjust our numbers when assessing Perreault’s performance to exclude the year of the most recent capital and debt raisings. We, therefore, assess performance over the years 2014 through 2021. In five years or so, it would be useful to reassess the numbers, painting a picture of the Perreault/Vifor legacy.

Re-examining the numbers over the eight years from 2014 to 2021, we find, under Perreault’s stewardship, profits have grown 95 per cent (8.7 per cent p.a.), dividends have grown 92 per cent (8.5 per cent p.a.), earnings have exceeded dividends by US$8.5 billion, which has been retained, US$2.3 billion of equity has been bought back and US$4.1 billion of debt has been raised.

With the change in issued capital being a negative number, we cannot calculate a sensible result for Return on Incremental Capital (ROIC). Suffice to say, Perreault has managed to double CSL’s earnings while reducing, through share buybacks, the equity required to produce those earnings. Without the buybacks, equity at the end of 2021 would have been 50 per cent higher. This is, without question, an impressive result.

There is, however, the small matter of debt; interest-bearing liabilities have risen by US$4.1 billion, with half of that amount raised in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The debt, of course, does help to boost return on equity and the return on equity picture is shown in Table 1. 

Given 42 per cent of earnings were paid out in dividends, during the period of Perreault’s tenure, we can say the retained earnings were sufficient to entirely fund the share buybacks. Nevertheless, some of the debt, it could be argued, has served to boost return on equity.

Table 1. CSL Return on Equity during Perreault’s tenure

Table 1., reveals Perreault’s tenure coincided with a substantial initial rise in return on equity (ROE). After taking over the helm of a business generating a 37.5 per cent ROE in 2013, Perreault drove CSL’s ROE much higher, reaching a peak of 47.7 per cent in 2018.  Since then, ROE has declined to below 2013s level but still an impressive 31.9 per cent in 2021; remember, this is now a much larger business. As an aside, for 2022, Table 1. shows the ROE based on average equity, remembering a very large equity raise occurred to help fund the Vifor acquisition. Suppose we use beginning equity instead of average equity as the denominator in our calculation. In that case, the return on equity is more impressive, but it fell for another consecutive year, to 26.9 per cent.

Whether or not the job of maintaining returns on equity of over 30 per cent, and therefore the pace of value creation, is becoming more difficult, time will prove the arbiter. Perreault can point to a ten-year track record of impressive returns, solid growth in earnings and dividends, a share price that has risen approximately 367 per cent and, hopefully for McKenzie, a new source of impressive returns and growth in Vifor.

Based on 2022 beginning equity, we can agree that Perreault leaves CSL returning 26.9 per cent on equity. He has also grown profits and dividends at an average annual rate of roughly seven per cent and 8.4 per cent, respectively, over the nine years since the end of the 2013 financial year, equity has been reduced through net buybacks of US$2.3 billion, but debt has risen from US$1.7 billion in 2013 to US$9.7 billion in 2022, thanks substantially to the Vifor acquisition. Returns on equity and capital have been declining annually since 2018, and this possibly explains the share price being virtually unchanged for almost three years.

Overall, it is an impressive track record. Still, the acquisition of Vifor and its impact on equity, debt, and return on equity also means Perreault’s track record shouldn’t end with his departure. For serious investors, one of CSL’s key metrics (future ROE) largely hangs on the Vifor acquisition, which is substantial in its size and impact on the balance sheet.  Vifor was acquired for US$12.3 billion and is expected to contribute US$330 million to NPAT for 11 months in 2023. On an annualised basis, that’s a return on the purchase price in year one of just under three per cent.

Some might argue a CEO’s reputation should continue to be weighed on the future performance impact of a substantial acquisition made a little more than a year before that CEO’s departure. Could CSL’s next chapter have already been substantially written? If so, the previous CEO remains the co-author, if not the author.

Isolating responsibility for the subsequent performance of a major acquisition is challenging when a new CEO takes over the strategy and operations. But unless the new CEO, while in his former role as COO, was solely responsible for that acquisition and the price paid, they cannot be held solely responsible for subsequent changes in ROE and, therefore, value creation. 

In 2015, when CSL purchased the Novartis influenza vaccine business for US$275 million, combining it with BioCSL to create a new CSL subsidiary called Seqirus, many believed too much was paid. At the time of the acquisition, while Novartis might have been the global leader in cell-based (rather than hen egg-based) influenza vaccines, it was highly unprofitable. CSL turned it around to create a profitable leader in cell-based vaccines, the importance of which was highlighted by the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. In FY22 Seqirus represented 25 per cent of CSL’s 25 per cent of profit, generated revenue growth of 13 per cent to US$1,964 million, EBIT growth of 52 per cent to US$735 million, and a 630 basis-point increase in EBIT margin to 37.4 per cent.

With Perreault’s resignation, the performance of Vifor will become his legacy and is something CSL investors will watch keenly. In the years to come, Vifor’s performance will play a large part in whether the impressive 367 per cent growth in the price of CSL shares during Perreault’s tenure is repeated.    

The Montgomery Funds own shares in CSL. This article was prepared 15 December 2022 with the information we have today, and our view may change. It does not constitute formal advice or professional investment advice. If you wish to trade CSL you should seek financial advice.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending