Connect with us

The price you pay determines the base earning yield

The price you pay determines the base earning yield

Published

on

Buffett Tech Gruesome Stocks buffett bank stocks Berkshire Hathaway 2020 Annual Meeting Warren Buffett top 10 largest holdings

One advantage of investing in stocks has over investing property is that you can start small with only 1,000 dollars and all without the need to carry the heavy burden of debt.

Get The Full Warren Buffett Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Warren Buffett in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues

Q1 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

But, is starting with such a small amount of money worth it?

Especially if you are not using debt as leverage?

Yes, absolutely.

The Little Bluey Portfolio.

This is the primary purpose of the Little Bluey $1,000 Portfolio.

Along with showing the Share Investors Blueprint members, and prospective members, the seven investment steps in practice.

These seven steps are the same lessons you will find on the page Have You Given Up?

And, I’m going to explain how I have grown little Bluey from 1,000 dollars from January this year to $4,500 today.

Start with the End in Mind.

The goal is to grow Little Bluey into $2 million within 20 years.

Let’s look at what is required to achieve this goal.

I will need to contribute 2,000 dollars each year and earn a compounded annualised return of 20%.

According to Noel Whittaker’s compound interest calculator, it would take approximately 16 years to grow the value into $2 million. This gives me a four-year buffer, which will help cover the down years and taxes payable.

Timeline of Investments to date.

My first stock purchase was Vita Group (VTG.ASX), purchasing 826 shares on the 12th of January at $1.20 per share.

On the 13th of March, I purchased an additional 588 shares of Vita Group, Which lowered my Purchase per share cost down to $1.117 per share.

The second stock purchase was Adairs (ADH.ASX), purchasing 847 shares on the 19th of March at 71 cents per share.

Six days later purchasing more shares at 69 cents per share, this slightly reduced my total average purchase price per share.

By purchasing, both Adairs and Vita Group, when the share price fell at a lower share price, I was dollar-cost averaging down. An effective strategy to lower your purchase price per share, which reduces the profit breakeven point.

For example, Vita Group has a profit breakeven point of $1.117 per share, but if I didn’t buy more shares, the profit breakeven point would have been $1.20

March was the month the market fell due to the Covid-19 pandemic. And, it was the month I contributed 1,819 dollars, so I could take advantage of the fall in share prices of Adairs and Vita Group.

On the 27th of May, a few days ago, I brought my third stock – People Infrastructure (PPE.ASX). I was buying 478 shares at $2.09 per share.

The People Infrastructure share purchase was paid for out of the profits made selling half of the shares I owned in Adairs, which was 585 at $1.574 on the 8th of May.

The table below is the current state of the Little Bluey Portfolio.

Little Bluey Portfolio

In the Share Investors Blueprint I had wrote the following:

‘In Step 1, we were aiming for a 9% compounded annual return to grow our wealth, which is our required rate of return (RRR)…. And, we can see that [Woolworths] share price is double our EPV, and by dividing our Owner Earnings figure by the share price, it tells us that buying at the current share price we would be earning a 4.30% yield (1.6/37.34).’

The earning yield is crucial as it relates to the goal of earning a 20% compounded annualised rate of return over 20 years.

And you can see that the Bluey portfolio is earning a 14.50% average earning yield.

Slightly, below our target of 20%.

And there are three essential points to make:

  • Growth in net earnings increases the earnings yield.
  • The price you pay for shares determines the base earnings yield.
  • The average earnings yield on the total portfolio is used to assist in answering question two.

The earnings yield measures the net earnings return on investment.

Warren Buffett’s purchase of See’s Candy provides a great example.

“[We] brought See’s [Candy] early in 1972 for $25 million, at the time See’s had about $8 million of net tangible assets. This level of tangible assets was adequate to conduct the business without the use of debt, except for short periods seasonally. See’s was earning about $2 million after tax at the time, and such earnings seemed conservatively representative of future earning power in constant 1972 dollars. In 1972 (and now) relatively few businesses could be expected to earn 25% after tax on net tangible assets that were earned by See’s.”

By 1983, Buffett and Charlie Munger’s purchase of See’s was earning about $13 million after tax on $20 million of net tangible assets. The earning yield grew to 52%.

And, by 1990, See’s was earning about $24 million after tax, close to a yield of 100%.

I’m expecting People Infrastructure to grow net earnings over the next five years at close to a 10% compounded growth rate. If they manage to achieve this growth rate, their net earnings per share will grow from 0.147 cents per share to 0.499 cents per share.

At $0.499 net earnings per share, my original earnings yield grows from 7.30% to 28.90%.

The price you pay determines the base earning yield.

If I had paid $2.22 per share for People Infrastructure, the earnings yield would have been 6.80%, but if I had paid 99 cents per share back in late March, then earnings yield would have been 15.30%.

https://www.corona-stocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/528cf41245ca01ca3afa9d0cd91c373c.png

ASX.PPE Share Price

As you can see, on the Little Bluey portfolio screenshot, the average portfolio earnings yield is 14.50%.

I use this yield as one benchmark for buying new stocks.

For instance, if had brought People Infrastructure at 99 cents per share, then the portfolio’s average earnings yield would have grown from 14.50% to 17.70%.

Whereas, before I brought People Infrastructure, the portfolio had an average earnings yield of 18.10%.

But, the because I brought People Infrastructure shares at $2.09, the 7.30% earnings yield ended up lowering the portfolio’s average earnings yield.

In regards to People Infrastructure, there is a real risk that the net earnings increases but the earning yield slightly decreases.

Why this is okay and how it occurs is because People Infrastructure’s management has issued several shares to raise capital so they can fund the acquisition of new businesses.

The acquisition of new businesses should increase revenues and thus, net profits. I would have preferred that they used debt instead of issuing new shares, as the interest payable on debt is lower than the market’s equity risk premium.

The market’s equity risk premium is the share markets fancy way of saying our Required Rate of Return (RRR).

Which is what investors expect the rate of return on shares should be in addition to the risk free rate of return on bonds.

What about the 100%+ share price rise in Adairs?

So, far I haven’t mentioned the gains made from the share price appreciation.

That’s because if you focus on identifying high quality businesses and buying them at reasonable prices, the share price gains take care of themselves.

If a stock I own sees it shares rise in price within 12 months, I put it down to luck most of the time. You do put the odds in your favour when you buy a lot of value at a low price that is the aim of the game.

As uncle Buffett says…

‘[Share] prices will be determined by future earnings. In investing, just as baseball, to put runs on the scoreboard one must watch the playing field, not the scoreboard.’

I had no idea that Adair’s share price would rise 100%+ above the average price I paid for their shares, only two months later.

Or, that People Infrastructure would immediately rise 4% the next day after buying their shares.

Vita Group has only now moved above the average price I paid for their shares back in January and March.

You are invited to join us at the Share Investors Blueprint – Click Here.

Oh, and join before the 1st of July, as the price of the membership – $399, will increase to $418.95.

Yours in investing

Adam C. Parris

The post The price you pay determines the base earning yield appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Southwest and United Airlines have bad news for passengers

Both airlines are facing the same problem, one that could lead to higher airfares and fewer flight options.

Published

on

Airlines operate in a market that's dictated by supply and demand: If more people want to fly a specific route than there are available seats, then tickets on those flights cost more.

That makes scheduling and predicting demand a huge part of maximizing revenue for airlines. There are, however, numerous factors that go into how airlines decide which flights to put on the schedule.

Related: Major airline faces Chapter 11 bankruptcy concerns

Every airport has only a certain number of gates, flight slots and runway capacity, limiting carriers' flexibility. That's why during times of high demand — like flights to Las Vegas during Super Bowl week — do not usually translate to airlines sending more planes to and from that destination.

Airlines generally do try to add capacity every year. That's become challenging as Boeing has struggled to keep up with demand for new airplanes. If you can't add airplanes, you can't grow your business. That's caused problems for the entire industry. 

Every airline retires planes each year. In general, those get replaced by newer, better models that offer more efficiency and, in most cases, better passenger amenities. 

If an airline can't get the planes it had hoped to add to its fleet in a given year, it can face capacity problems. And it's a problem that both Southwest Airlines (LUV) and United Airlines have addressed in a way that's inevitable but bad for passengers. 

Southwest Airlines has not been able to get the airplanes it had hoped to.

Image source: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Southwest slows down its pilot hiring

In 2023, Southwest made a huge push to hire pilots. The airline lost thousands of pilots to retirement during the covid pandemic and it needed to replace them in order to build back to its 2019 capacity.

The airline successfully did that but will not continue that trend in 2024.

"Southwest plans to hire approximately 350 pilots this year, and no new-hire classes are scheduled after this month," Travel Weekly reported. "Last year, Southwest hired 1,916 pilots, according to pilot recruitment advisory firm Future & Active Pilot Advisors. The airline hired 1,140 pilots in 2022." 

The slowdown in hiring directly relates to the airline expecting to grow capacity only in the low-single-digits percent in 2024.

"Moving into 2024, there is continued uncertainty around the timing of expected Boeing deliveries and the certification of the Max 7 aircraft. Our fleet plans remain nimble and currently differs from our contractual order book with Boeing," Southwest Airlines Chief Financial Officer Tammy Romo said during the airline's fourth-quarter-earnings call

"We are planning for 79 aircraft deliveries this year and expect to retire roughly 45 700 and 4 800, resulting in a net expected increase of 30 aircraft this year."

That's very modest growth, which should not be enough of an increase in capacity to lower prices in any significant way.

United Airlines pauses pilot hiring

Boeing's  (BA)  struggles have had wide impact across the industry. United Airlines has also said it was going to pause hiring new pilots through the end of May.

United  (UAL)  Fight Operations Vice President Marc Champion explained the situation in a memo to the airline's staff.

"As you know, United has hundreds of new planes on order, and while we remain on path to be the fastest-growing airline in the industry, we just won't grow as fast as we thought we would in 2024 due to continued delays at Boeing," he said.

"For example, we had contractual deliveries for 80 Max 10s this year alone, but those aircraft aren't even certified yet, and it's impossible to know when they will arrive." 

That's another blow to consumers hoping that multiple major carriers would grow capacity, putting pressure on fares. Until Boeing can get back on track, it's unlikely that competition between the large airlines will lead to lower fares.  

In fact, it's possible that consumer demand will grow more than airline capacity which could push prices higher.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Simple blood test could predict risk of long-term COVID-19 lung problems

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to…

Published

on

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to suffer “long-haul” lung problems. That finding could help doctors better personalize treatments for individual patients.

Credit: UVA Health

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to suffer “long-haul” lung problems. That finding could help doctors better personalize treatments for individual patients.

UVA’s new research also alleviates concerns that severe COVID-19 could trigger relentless, ongoing lung scarring akin to the chronic lung disease known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the researchers report. That type of continuing lung damage would mean that patients’ ability to breathe would continue to worsen over time.

“We are excited to find that people with long-haul COVID have an immune system that is totally different from people who have lung scarring that doesn’t stop,” said researcher Catherine A. Bonham, MD, a pulmonary and critical care expert who serves as scientific director of UVA Health’s Interstitial Lung Disease Program. “This offers hope that even patients with the worst COVID do not have progressive scarring of the lung that leads to death.”

Long-Haul COVID-19

Up to 30% of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 continue to suffer persistent symptoms months after recovering from the virus. Many of these patients develop lung scarring – some early on in their hospitalization, and others within six months of their initial illness, prior research has found. Bonham and her collaborators wanted to better understand why this scarring occurs, to determine if it is similar to progressive pulmonary fibrosis and to see if there is a way to identify patients at risk.

To do this, the researchers followed 16 UVA Health patients who had survived severe COVID-19. Fourteen had been hospitalized and placed on a ventilator. All continued to have trouble breathing and suffered fatigue and abnormal lung function at their first outpatient checkup.

After six months, the researchers found that the patients could be divided into two groups: One group’s lung health improved, prompting the researchers to label them “early resolvers,” while the other group, dubbed “late resolvers,” continued to suffer lung problems and pulmonary fibrosis. 

Looking at blood samples taken before the patients’ recovery began to diverge, the UVA team found that the late resolvers had significantly fewer immune cells known as monocytes circulating in their blood. These white blood cells play a critical role in our ability to fend off disease, and the cells were abnormally depleted in patients who continued to suffer lung problems compared both to those who recovered and healthy control subjects. 

Further, the decrease in monocytes correlated with the severity of the patients’ ongoing symptoms. That suggests that doctors may be able to use a simple blood test to identify patients likely to become long-haulers — and to improve their care.

“About half of the patients we examined still had lingering, bothersome symptoms and abnormal tests after six months,” Bonham said. “We were able to detect differences in their blood from the first visit, with fewer blood monocytes mapping to lower lung function.”

The researchers also wanted to determine if severe COVID-19 could cause progressive lung scarring as in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. They found that the two conditions had very different effects on immune cells, suggesting that even when the symptoms were similar, the underlying causes were very different. This held true even in patients with the most persistent long-haul COVID-19 symptoms. “Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is progressive and kills patients within three to five years,” Bonham said. “It was a relief to see that all our COVID patients, even those with long-haul symptoms, were not similar.”

Because of the small numbers of participants in UVA’s study, and because they were mostly male (for easier comparison with IPF, a disease that strikes mostly men), the researchers say larger, multi-center studies are needed to bear out the findings. But they are hopeful that their new discovery will provide doctors a useful tool to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for long-haul lung problems and help guide them to recovery.

“We are only beginning to understand the biology of how the immune system impacts pulmonary fibrosis,” Bonham said. “My team and I were humbled and grateful to work with the outstanding patients who made this study possible.” 

Findings Published

The researchers have published their findings in the scientific journal Frontiers in Immunology. The research team consisted of Grace C. Bingham, Lyndsey M. Muehling, Chaofan Li, Yong Huang, Shwu-Fan Ma, Daniel Abebayehu, Imre Noth, Jie Sun, Judith A. Woodfolk, Thomas H. Barker and Bonham. Noth disclosed that he has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech and Confo unrelated to the research project. In addition, he has a patent pending related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Bonham and all other members of the research team had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The UVA research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, grants R21 AI160334 and U01 AI125056; NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, grants 5K23HL143135-04 and UG3HL145266; UVA’s Engineering in Medicine Seed Fund; the UVA Global Infectious Diseases Institute’s COVID-19 Rapid Response; a UVA Robert R. Wagner Fellowship; and a Sture G. Olsson Fellowship in Engineering.

  

To keep up with the latest medical research news from UVA, subscribe to the Making of Medicine blog at http://makingofmedicine.virginia.edu.


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending