The Socially Responsible Investing Blog That Delivers Up-to-Date Green Investment Analyses

Brad Pappas provides dynamic socially responsible investing analyses fused with old school investing information for an in-depth understanding of green investing.

Please visit the Rocky Mountain Humane Investing Blog often.

Mead Instruments Corp.

September 2nd, 2010

We believe that the value investing style is frequently overlooked by Green, Clean and Socially Responsible Investors.   Meade Instruments Corp. the manufacturer of telescopes and telescopic products could be classified as a Clean Investment with negligible environmental impact.

Meade Instruments Corp (symbol: MEAD) is a classic Benjamin Graham Net Net stock which we are long in equity portfolios.   Meade is a manufacturer of telescopes and telescopic instruments, with hardly a taint of excitement or sex appeal.  Meade is your typical boring, mundane, blase…well you get the picture, its a boring company in a boring industry.

Unless you’re a financial geek in search of Margin of Safety stocks where looking at the company’s balance sheet Net Current Asset Value (NCAV) is larger than the valuation of Meade’s market value by a sizable amount.

As of 9/2/2010 Meade shares are trading at $3.24 a share.   They have 1.17 million shares outstanding and the total market cap is a nano-sized $3.79 million dollars.

Cash on hand amounts to $3.33 a share, which is a drop of $1.2 million from last year due to losses in the company’s operations.

Inventory amounts to $6.72 a share

Book Value $10.18 a share

Current Assets $12.27 minus Current Liabilities $3.42 = $8.85 a share

At present Meade is losing money and the cash drain might tap out current cash levels in one to two years, assuming no reduction to inventory levels which could be converted to cash.  The company is faced with increasing foreign competition resulting in lower sales, reduced distribution outlets and the reality of being the manufacturer of a discretionary item in a weak domestic economy.   Higher end and more profitable telescopes are less favored by consumers nowadays than lower end, lower margin scopes.

To compensate Meade is cutting costs on many levels ranging from administration and employment costs, reduction to R&D and reducing manufacturing costs.  In addition, Meade has sold three divisions: Simmons, Weaver and Redfield for gross proceeds for approximately $15 million.

It would be hard to make a valid rationale for the purchase of shares from a growth perspective since there is no growth, quite the opposite in fact.   Meade is facing the reality that the manufacture of telescopes with competition from lower cost manufacturers in China is likely going to be a losing proposition.

The investment appeal:  Management has a great deal of incentive to at least preserve the value of the company and its shares.   Management owns approximately 36% of the shares.  Based on the latest SEC filings Hummingbird Capital (a private small stock value oriented hedge fund) Paul Sorkin owns at least another 10% of MEAD shares.  There are a few other value managers who might take an activist role who’ve purchased shares.

My belief is the company is preparing itself for the potential of being sold.  The disparity between the share price and current cash + inventory of $10 a share is much too great a gap.    The majority of shareholders have a great incentive to close the gap, preserve the Meade brand name and allow it to operate as a division of a larger company.

Estimates to the potential sale price might largely depend on the value given to their sizable inventory of $6.72 a share.   If we were to reduce the value of inventory to half or $3.35 a share then add back the current cash of $3.33 we arrive at $6.68 which could be a conservative estimate.   The aggressive estimate would likely be closer to the current book value of $10.18.

This is a risky stock and shares are thinly traded.   The company may choose to nothing which would drain their cash reserves and further reduce book value.   The company could sell off its entire operations and convert to an all cash company and reinvent itself.  Time will tell but I do feel the rewards could be in the range of 100% to 200%.

Be careful out there

Brad

Long MEAD

Should a Socially Responsible Investor Invest Heavily In Bonds Now?

September 1st, 2010

Green and SRI investors along with investing professionals are always asked to make the best decisions under pressure, and the most common one we face today is should “Socially Responsible Investors abandon stocks in favor of bonds?”

It is my opinion based on close to thirty years of trading that the best trades are those done when you’re in the minority not the majority opinion, otherwise who’s left to buy or sell?

For this question of stocks sold off in favor of bonds, bad news has to be considered good news.    Any good news on the economy will be treated negatively at this point in time for bonds.   Today’s stock market strength and weakness in bonds is due to the better than expected August PMI report which came in at 56.3 versus the consensus of 52.9 and the August report is an improvement upon July’s 55.3.   Adding fuel to the rally is survey from Investors Intelligence which shows that just 29% of newsletter writers are bullish which is the lowest percentage since the crash in 2008.   Remember folks, the more extreme the consensus the greater chance of a reversal in market direction.   A bull figure at just 29% might be enough to halt the decline at worst…..but its certainly in the range to mark the bottom where a new rally can emerge.

Good news is bad news for bonds.  The 10 year Treasury has moved from 2.48% to 2.6% today while the 30 Year Treasury Bond has moved from 3.53% to 3.68%.  Bond yields are now at levels seen in late 2008 and very early 2009 and we all know how productive it was to buy bonds in February of 2009.

The stampede into bonds has been nothing short of epic and the Consensus Survey of bond investors maxed out at approximately 80% recently.   Rarely has such a consensus opinion been profitable.   These are the kinds of surveys we frequently see at major market tops which begs to ask whether bonds are in a Bubble.    Bubble talk has been pervasive in the media much just as talk of Deflation has been over commented upon.

Frankly there’s more contradictory information and confusion in the media to rival a Republican politician who wants to reduce the deficit while maintaining tax cuts.  The bottom line is we do not have Deflation in the U.S. at present as Deflation is a very rare event here.

But are bonds really in a Bubble?   My answer would be “not at present”.  My definition of Bubble for the any investor including the Green Investor or the Socially Responsible Investing community is that for a Bubble to truly exist the risk of a significant and permanent loss of capital must be present.   A Treasury bond will eventually pay off at par upon maturity, so while its very possible to lose 20% or more in a bond, the loss would be temporary if you were patient enough to wait till maturity.  The reality is only a very few investors have that kind of patience.   In addition, many of the investors who are retirees and have been buying Treasuries will not be around in time for their bonds to mature, so a loss could be taken.

With Consensus opinions at present in the range of 70% to 80% Bullish on Bond prices, should the tone of economic data change (I believe its starting to happen now) the rush to exit bonds could be swift and very dramatic, especially in this day of algorithmic and program trading.

A by product of the rise in bond prices and drop in yield is the relative valuation of bonds to stocks.


As the chart above highlights, the relative valuation of bonds to stocks is at extreme levels and the other two times in the past century this relationship was reached, buying bonds in lieu of equities was a significant mistake.   Can we say that in the two past examples that bond investors lost money?  No, not unless they held to maturity but they lost “opportunity” to be in equities as the mean relationship between stocks and bonds eventually asserted itself once more.

We’re faced with the challenge of “getting back to pre-crash levels” and by over allocating to bonds now is essentially giving up that goal at time when the odds are stacked against you.

To be a successful Green or Socially Responsible Investor sometimes means enduring pain and the pressure of the media, not to mention friends who offer their opinions in an effort to “help”.   Diversification between bonds and equities is always a good thing and proper re-balancing when one asset class becomes overvalued is essential, but to join the mass entrance into bonds at this stage may very well lead to a mass exit when the weak patch of our economy passes and moderate growth re-emerges.

Utilizing Investor Sentiment for the Green Investor

August 26th, 2010

Too few individual investors how to use Investor Sentiment to their advantage.    Last week when the New York Times ran a front page story regarding individual investors fleeing equity mutual funds in favor of bond mutual funds, it should have made any long term Socially Responsible Investor giddy with glee.

Why?

Extreme negative sentiment as depicted in the NY Times should be used as an inverse barometer of when to invest.  However, more often group think sets in and investor is intimidated by being the lone wolf buying shares while the herd is stampeding in the other direction.

Right now, sentiment as expressed by the American Association of Individual Investors is getting extremely negative….and thats a good thing.   Who’s left to sell when only 21% of members polled are positive on the markets?  21% happens to be one of the lowest polls recorded in the past 15 years.   You may be right in your views of why you want to sell…….but, and this is the tricky part that the majority of investors never learn to master:  You may be right in your thesis but if you’re in the majority with your views, chances are your opinions have already been absorbed by the markets.

Using data supplied by www.sentimentrader.com:

Since 1987, there have been 47 instances where AAII sentiment fell to 21% or below.  The results are:

3 months later: the average return was 5.8% for the S&P 500 with 98% of the 47 instances positive.

6 months later: the average return was 10.9% for the S&P 500 with 91% of the 47 instances positive.

In conclusion, many investors think they can manage their assets completely on their own but unfortunately do not know how to interpret sentiment data.  Going against the herd is never easy but you must be able to master your emotions in order to be a successful investor, otherwise you might consider hiring an adviser who’s weathered a great many storms in their career.


Deflation / Double Dip still not the baseline projection

August 19th, 2010

More chatter about the Double Dip recession this morning, despite the building proof that the DD is not a likely outcome.   Apparently Mr. Market has not taken his Wellbutrin this morning, so we sell off.

This morning Credit Suisse published a research note between the differences in our economy at present versus Japan in the late 80′s and 90′s.

The U.S. is not Japan 15 years ago. We find many more differences than similarities between the U.S. today and Japan 15 years ago:

  1. The U.S. has had far more proactive fiscal/monetary policy. (Japanese monetary conditions were tight until 1995. Unlike the U.S. today, Japan fiscal easing was small.)
  2. Japan had falling wages since 1997 and negative inflation expectations since 1993. (U.S. wage growth and inflation expectations are >2%.) Falling wages creates sustained deflation.
  3. Asset deflation was more acute in Japan, with house prices declining by almost 80% in the big cities.
  4. The U.S. moved to recapitalize banks quickly and has already written down 85% of their estimated losses (Japan needed 13 years.)
  5. Japan was very slow to deregulate, and hence the price of labor fell as opposes to the quantity. With companies having little incentive to maximize return on equity, the return on capital is one-third that of the U.S.
  6. Deflation became economically and politically acceptable because Japanese households have net financial assets of 41% of GDP, so they benefit from deflation.

If this remains the case, its quite bullish for equities although the road will likely be bumpy and a potential for a major bubble in US bonds, especially Treasuries.

No Positions

Brad Pappas

Congratulations kiddo!

August 19th, 2010

Congrats kiddo on your first day at the University of Colorado!

Lotsa love,
Dad aka The Checkbook