The Magic Formula Approach - A Case Study
- 1. U.S. For-Profit Education Stocks: A “Magic Formula” Approach Oliver Mihaljevic The Manual of Ideas www.manualofideas.com Value Investing Seminar Italy July 13, 2011
- 2. “Magic Formula” — A Brief Review
- 3. Selected Value-oriented Idea Generation Approaches (That We Like) • “Magic Formula“ • “Net-Nets” (and other • Advocated by Joel Greenblatt balance sheet plays) • “Good” and “cheap” stocks • Advocated by Ben Graham • Earnings-based • (Current assets minus total liabilities) > market value • Asset-based • Sum-of-the-parts • A staple approach of “activists” • Investment case often rests on • Other Approaches monetizing non-core and/or excess assets • Equity “stubs” • Earnings- and/or asset-based • Turnarounds • Spinoffs • “Jockey” stocks 3
- 4. Magic Formula: What Is It? • Stock-screening methodology • Popularized by Joel Greenblatt in The Little Book That Beats The Market (2005) • Ranks companies based on two factors (equal-weight): • “Cheap”: Trailing EBIT / EV • “Good”: Trailing EBIT / Capital employed Goal: Pay a low price for companies likely to reinvest capital at high rates of return. 4
- 5. Magic Formula: Why We Like It? • It works: • Performance vs. S&P 500 Index, 1999-2011* (performance in %) '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 YTD Magic Formula 16 9 36 -21 52 28 22 13 15 -36 43 13 15 S&P 500 Index 15 -9 -12 -22 29 11 5 16 6 -37 30 15 8 • Advocated by Joel Greenblatt • Makes Sense • Simple • Will Continue to Work (institutional imperatives, emotional bias) * Data from 1999-2008 reflects the net performance of the Formula Investing Model Portfolio. 1999 data is from October 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Data since 2009 reflects the Formula Investing U.S. Value Direct Composite returns (net) of actual accounts. 2009 data is from May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Data from January 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009 is not available. However, it appears the “magic formula” outperformed in that four-month period, as the Model Portfolio was up 46% while the S&P 500 Index was up 19% from January 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009. Year-to-date 2011 performance numbers are for the period from January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011. Source: Formula Investing, www.formulainvesting.com 5
- 6. Magic Formula: Recent Selections Top 30 companies with $500+ million of market value (based on July 1, 2011 share prices, sorted by company name)* Market Most Market Most Com pany Value Recent Com pany Value Recent (in alphabetical order) Ticker ($ m illions) Filing Date (in alphabetical order) Tick er ($ m illions) Filing Date Aeropostale ARO 1,418 Apr-30 Lam Research LRCX 5,615 Mar-31 Amedisys AMED 805 Mar-31 Lender Processing Services LPS 1,852 Mar-31 Apollo Group APOL 6,400 May-31 Microsoft MSFT 219,375 Mar-31 H&R Block HRB 4,981 Apr-30 Oshkosh OSK 3,001 Mar-31 Capella Education CPLA 686 Mar-31 PDL BioPharma PDLI 824 Mar-31 Career Education CECO 1,681 Mar-31 Par Pharmaceutical PRX 1,207 Mar-31 Comtech Telecommunications CMTL 741 Apr-30 Pow er-One PWER 850 Mar-31 Dell DELL 32,245 Apr-30 SanDisk SNDK 10,200 Mar-31 Deluxe DLX 1,295 Mar-31 TeleNav TNAV 736 Mar-31 Forest Laboratories FRX 11,493 Mar-31 Teradyne TER 2,812 Mar-31 GT Solar International SOLR 2,034 Mar-31 Tessera Technologies TSRA 883 Mar-31 ITT Educational Services ESI 2,270 Mar-31 Unisys UIS 1,130 Mar-31 Impax Laboratories IPXL 1,423 Mar-31 United Online UNTD 549 Mar-31 InterDigital IDCC 2,125 Mar-31 Veeco Instruments VECO 1,980 Mar-31 Kulicke and Soffa Industries KLIC 819 Mar-31 ViroPharma VPHM 1,472 Mar-31 * Source: www.magicformulainvesting.com 6
- 7. Magic Formula: Evaluating the Selections Key questions: • Are high returns on capital sustainable? “Moat” Some issues to address: cyclicality, technological change, customer value proposition, fads, threats to key revenue source/business model (e.g. regulatory-driven) • Does the business operate in a growing industry? High return reinvestment opportunities 7
- 8. Evaluating the Selections: For-Profit Education • Are high returns on capital sustainable? • Questionable due to regulatory risk: most companies derive 80%+ of revenue from Title IV* federal student financial aid (threat to key revenue source!). • Growing industry? • Yes, but regulatory changes could impede growth (“gainful employment” rule; regulations related to recruitment, marketing and other business practices). For-profit education stocks are easy to dismiss… * Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 covers the administration of federal aid to students. 8
- 9. Evaluating the Selections: Other Companies • Amedisys: 80+% of revenue from Medicare – regulatory threats • Comtech: losing ~50% of revenue as U.S. Army contracts expire • Deluxe: paper check provider – rise of payment cards, e-banking • Forest Labs: branded pharma – 2012 patent expiry, “Obamacare” • SanDisk: tech obsolescence, pricing pressure in data storage • Microsoft: software model under attack from “cloud” computing • Dell: desktop PCs, laptops under attack from netbooks, tablets • H&R Block: paper filings in decline, share gains by Intuit, Internet …other companies are also easy to dismiss. 9
- 10. (Unlikely) Winners from Past Magic Formula Screens • McGraw-Hill (MHP; $13 billion market value) • Shares traded at $24 when featured in the September 2009 “Magic Formula” issue of The Manual of Ideas; Einhorn’s Greenlight shorted MHP due to regulatory risks at Standard & Poor’s; recent price: $42. • Metropolitan Health Networks (MDF; $190 million market value) • Shares traded at ~$2.20 when featured in the September 2009 “Magic Formula” issue of The Manual of Ideas; Metropolitan’s revenue is dependent on Medicare Advantage funding; recent price: ~$4.50. • Travelzoo (TZOO; $1.3 billion market value) • Shares traded at $5 when featured in the November 2008 “Magic Formula” issue of The Manual of Ideas; the online travel-related company faced declining demand due to economic weakness; recent price: $70. 10 All three would have been easy to dismiss.
- 11. Magic Formula: Conclusions • It works. • For-profit education stocks score highly… • …but are easy to dismiss as investments. • Other Magic Formula stocks are also “easily dismissed.” • Past “winners” would have also been easy to dismiss. 11
- 12. U.S. For-Profit Education Stocks — “Value Traps” or Typical “Magic Formula” Candidates?
- 13. Dismissed by the Market, But not by the “Magic Formula” Example: Corinthian Colleges (COCO): May 2009 – July 2011 (selected events and share price reaction) 13
- 14. U.S. For-Profit Education: Recent Valuation Market Enterprise EV / EV / MV / MV / EV / TTM1 Price Value Value TTM 1 TTM 1 TTM1 2012E 2 Student FCF Company Ticker 7/8/2011 ($mn) ($mn) Revenue EBIT Net Income Net Income ($) Yield 3 Apollo APOL $48.88 $6,921 $6,086 1.2x 4.4x 17.7x 15.0x $15,000 13% Bridgepoint BPI 27.25 1,440 1,075 1.4x 4.3x 9.5x 10.6x 12,200 13% Capella CPLA 44.40 698 513 1.2x 5.5x 11.4x 13.7x 12,900 8% Career Ed. 3 CECO 22.72 1,763 1,365 0.6x 4.0x 9.6x 10.2x 11,500 8% 3 Corinthian COCO 4.52 382 546 0.3x 3.1x -4.7x 18.8x 5,300 -19% DeVry DV 62.59 4,306 3,712 1.7x 7.7x 13.2x 13.1x 28,600 6% Grand Cany on LOPE 14.46 649 644 1.6x 8.8x 14.7x 11.8x 15,100 -1% ITT ESI 88.77 2,492 2,301 1.4x 3.8x 6.7x 11.4x 27,400 22% Lincoln LINC 19.43 439 439 0.7x 3.8x 6.6x 13.0x 16,400 16% Stray er STRA 137.48 1,683 1,692 2.6x 7.9x 12.8x 15.9x 29,400 7% Average: 1.3x 5.3x 9.8x 13.3x $17,380 7% Median: 1.3x 4.4x 10.5x 13.1x $15,050 8% EV-to-trailing EBIT of less than 5x for selected companies implies an undemanding valuation even if “normalized” EBIT is 50% lower than trailing EBIT 1 Trailing twelve months refers to the twelve months ended March 31, 2011, except for Apollo (ended February 28, 2011). 2 Based on P/E ratios implied by the average of analyst EPS estimates as of July 8, 2011. All EPS estimates are for calendar 2012, except for Apollo (FY ended August 2012), Corinthian (FY ended June 2012), and DeVry (FY ended June 2012). 14 3 Trailing EBIT excludes impairment of goodwill/intangibles (and, at Apollo only, estimated litigation losses).
- 15. U.S. For-Profit Education: The ”Bear” Case* “Classic Value Trap” (Jim Chanos, Kynikos): • Stocks look cheap • Structural issues • Business funded by government largesse in the form of student loans (risk resides with taxpayer and student) • Questionable educational outcomes • Business fundamentals in decline • Title IV federal student loan funding well “drying up” • New regulations holding companies accountable in relation to “gainful employment” and other performance/integrity criteria • Declining new student enrollment • Revenue pressure, negative earnings leverage, w/c issues * Based on the presentation from James Chanos, Kynikos Associates, at VALUEx Vail (June 16, 2011). 15
- 16. The ”Bear” Case: In Print rs m me r” “U.S. s Ha Secto p n en for-pro ator lashes ro fit out at t D catio 1 n u - Reute education” me 1 rs, Aug roll fit Ed an 20 4, 2010 “ En Pro J 10 F or- bes, r - Fo “For-P ro “For-Profit Education: Fire, S fit Schools to Un Classic Value Trap” Perce cks Down N der nt for - James Chanos, 16 Jun 2011 - CNB the Ye early 30 C, 17 D ar” ec 201 0 Under “For-Pro fit Colleges tiny.” G rowing Scru y 2011 “For-Profit Colleges Mislead - WSJ, 27 Ma Students, Report Finds” - NYT, 3 Aug 2010 16
- 17. Before We Declare the Business Model Dead (and the Stocks Zeroes), Consider… Impact of the "gainful employment" rule enacted on June 2, 2011 (as estimated by the U.S. Department of Education) # of Gainful % of Program s % of Program s Em ploym ent That Fail That Lose School Category Program s At Least Once Eligibility by FY15 Public 37,218 3% 1% Non-Profit 5,072 5% 1% For-Profit 13,155 18% 5% Total 55,445 8% 2% Only 5% of for-profit programs are to lose eligibility by 2015! “The Department believes that institutions will strengthen their educational programs to meet these higher standards, and relatively few programs will fail.” - Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations / 34390 17
- 18. “Gainful Employment” Rule: Not a Red Card for the For-Profit Industry! • Programs must pass at least one of the three metrics to remain eligible for federal student aid funding: • Repayment rate: At least 35% of loans (dollar-based) are being repaid (a $1 decline in the loan balance per year suffices!). • Debt to total earnings ratio: The annual loan payment may not exceed 12% of typical graduates’ total earnings. • Debt to discretionary income ratio: The annual loan payment may not exceed 30% of typical graduates’ discretionary income. • To lose eligibility, programs must fail measures in 3 out of 4 years. • Final rule “watered down” from initial proposals • First programs become ineligible in 2015 (not 2012). • No enrollment growth restrictions. • Debt payment timelines extended up to 20 years (not 10 years) 18 • Emphasis on giving schools the “opportunity to improve”
- 19. Lenient Regulation? Sounds Familiar… Selected regulated industries that are alive and kicking after left for dead by some: •Rating agencies •Sell-side equity research and banking in general •Gulf of Mexico oil drillers •Health insurers •For-profit education companies? 19
- 20. Structural Issues: The Other Side of the Coin • 88 million U.S. adults are without a college degree (67% of population above age 25).1 • 33 million U.S. adults above age 25 have some college experience, but no degree.1 • Current estimates show a shortfall of 13-16 million graduates to meet goals of the Obama Administration.2 Private sector is needed to achieve U.S. educational goals. 1 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), March 2009. 2 Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. 20
- 21. For-Profit Education: Here to Stay • Sizeable: 10%+ of total U.S. postsecondary students attend for-profit colleges (up from ~3% in 2000). There are ~4 million students in for-profit education programs. • Needed to achieve U.S. educational goals: Current estimates show a shortfall of 13-16 million graduates to meet Obama’s goals by 2020. • Benefits from political expedience: Politicians are unlikely to throw millions of students on the street by cutting for-profit funding; for-profit education has an effective lobby and many (voting) students and teachers (90,000+ parties submitted comments on the proposed Dept. of Education rules; 75% opposed the rules). • Tough to attack: Many for-profit students are minorities or people who otherwise would not get an education. Outcomes are difficult to assess. As public schools may not be doing better, crucifying for-profits may expose bigger waste in the system. • Not the first government-funded sector with questionable outcomes/practices: See healthcare, defense contracting, recent bailouts 21 etc.
- 22. The Economy Factor • Educational outcomes difficult to judge in the weak economy of 2009/10. Like in many other industries, bad practices were exposed during weak economic times. But that does not mean the entire industry is a fraud. Job placements and student loan repayment rates have cyclical elements. • Student loan repayments are likely to improve as the economy gets better and unemployment reduces over time. • Recent economic weakness may explain regulators’ multi-year approach when testing programs’ performance and eligibility for future funding. This gives companies time to adapt and improve. 22
- 23. From “Bear” Case to “Base” Case Potential "base" case for selected companies that screen highly on TTM EBIT/EV: Career Corinthian Lincoln Assumes revenue at 20% below the Education Colleges Educational TTM revenue level (industry new student (CECO) (COCO) (LINC) starts declined an estimated ~20% y-y, TTM rev enue (tw elv e months to 3/2011) $2.1 billion $1.9 billion $0.6 billion on average, in 1Q11)1 Discount factor 20% 20% 20% Estimated normalized rev enue $1.7 billion $1.5 billion $0.5 billion In-line or below the average ~10% EBIT Estimated normalized EBIT margin 10% 5% 10% margin of the U.S. defense industry — Estimated normalized EBIT $170 million $80 million $50 million Fair v alue multiple 10x 10x 10x another government-funded sector2 Estimated enterprise v alue $1,700 million $800 million $500 million Plus/(Minus): Net cash/(debt) 400 million -160 million 0 million $2,100 million $640 million $500 million Estimated fair value of the equity $27 per share $8 per share $22 per share Estimated intrinsic values are modestly Implied upside to recent stock price 19% 68% 14% higher than recent market values Implied EV-to-TTM revenue 0.8x 0.4x 0.8x Industry avg est. EV-to-TTM revenue 1.3x 1.3x 1.3x (Discount)/premium to industry average -39% -68% -39% 1 1Q11 new student starts: CECO (-14% y-y); COCO (-22% y-y); LINC (-39% y-y). The industry figure is estimated based on new student starts of the three featured companies, in addition to Apollo, Bridgepoint, Capella, DeVry, Grand Canyon, ITT, and Strayer. 2 EBIT margins (TTM/5-year average): CECO (16%/10%); COCO (9%/7%); LINC (18%/12%). Trailing EBIT margins at CECO and COCO exclude the impairment of goodwill/intangibles. The defense industry EBIT margin of ~10% is based on the five-year average operating margins for Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Boeing for 2006-10. 23
- 24. Potential “Bull” Case? Potential “bull" case for selected companies that screen highly on TTM EBIT/EV: Career Corinthian Lincoln Education Colleges Educational Assumes revenue at 10% below the (CECO) (COCO) (LINC) revenue level of the trailing twelve months TTM rev enue (tw elv e months to 3/2011) $2.1 billion $1.9 billion $0.6 billion Discount factor 10% 10% 10% Estimated normalized rev enue $1.9 billion $1.7 billion $0.6 billion Estimated normalized EBIT margin 15% 10% 15% In-line or modestly above the average Estimated normalized EBIT $290 million $170 million $90 million ~10% EBIT margin of the U.S. defense Fair v alue multiple 10x 10x 10x industry — another government-funded Estimated enterprise v alue $2,900 million $1,700 million $900 million sector Plus/(Minus): Net cash/(debt) 400 million -160 million 0 million $3,300 million $1,540 million $900 million Estimated fair value of the equity $43 per share $18 per share $40 per share Estimated intrinsic values are significantly Implied upside to recent stock price 87% 303% 105% higher than recent market values Implied EV-to-TTM revenue 1.4x 0.9x 1.4x Industry avg est. EV-to-TTM revenue 1.3x 1.3x 1.3x (Discount)/premium to industry average 4% -32% 10% Recent market valuations leave significant upside potential for selected stocks. 24
- 25. Some Last Thoughts and Facts • Bridgepoint’s new student starts grew 13% y-y in the March quarter. • Most for-profit education companies have strong balance sheets and are buying back shares. • Valuations are diverging (Corinthian’s EV-to-trailing adjusted EBIT is ~3x versus Strayer and DeVry at ~8x). Potential for M&A? • Internet-focused companies have inherently scalable, high-margin models, which may not change drastically with increased regulation. • Intriguing non-U.S. opportunities (e.g. Apollo/Carlyle JV in the U.K.). • Increasing entry barriers due to regulatory scrutiny? 25
- 26. For-Profit Education: Conclusions • Typical “Magic Formula” Candidates • “Bear Case” May Have Run Its Course • Current Risk-Reward Appears Attractive for Specific Candidates (or for a “Basket” Approach) • “Magic Formula” Beats Shorting! 26
- 27. Resources and Contact Information • Magic Formula • Joel Greenblatt: “The Little Book That Beats The Market” • www.magicformulainvesting.com • www.formulainvesting.com • U.S. For-Profit Education • Bear case: Jim Chanos at Ira Sohn (May 2009) and VALUEx Vail (June 2011); Steve Eisman at Ira Sohn (May 2010) • Bull case: Case Study—University of Phoenix, Nexus Research & Policy Center (August 2010) • The Manual of Ideas • www.manualofideas.com • oliver@manualofideas.com 27
- 28. © 2008-’11 by BeyondProxy LLC. All rights reserved. All content is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of BeyondProxy and any third-party providers of such content. The U.S. Copyright Act imposes liability of up to $150,000 for each act of willful infringement of a copyright. THE MANUAL OF IDEAS is published monthly by BeyondProxy. Subscribers may download content to their computer and store and print materials for their individual use only. Any other reproduction, transmission, display or editing of the content by any means, mechanical or electronic, without the prior written permission of BeyondProxy is strictly prohibited. Terms of use: Use of this presentation and its content is governed by the Terms of Use described in detail at www.manualofideas.com. For your convenience, a summary of certain key policies, disclosures and disclaimers is reproduced below. This summary is meant in no way to limit or otherwise circumscribe the full scope and effect of the complete Terms of Use. No Investment Advice This presentation is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation would be illegal. This presentation is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. It does not constitute a general or personal recommendation or take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual investors. The price and value of securities referred to in this presentation will fluctuate. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of all of the original capital invested in a security discussed in this presentation may occur. Certain transactions, including those involving futures, options, and other derivatives, give rise to substantial risk and are not suitable for all investors. Disclaimers There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth in this presentation. BeyondProxy will not be liable to you or anyone else for any loss or injury resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the information contained in this presentation, caused in whole or in part by its negligence in compiling, interpreting, reporting or delivering the content in this presentation. Related Persons BeyondProxy’s officers, directors, employees and/or principals (collectively “Related Persons”) may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated in this presentation. John Mihaljevic, Chairman of BeyondProxy, is also a principal of Mihaljevic Capital Management LLC (“MCM”), which serves as the general partner of a private investment partnership. MCM may purchase or sell securities and financial instruments discussed in this presentation on behalf of the investment partnership or other accounts it manages. It is the policy of MCM and all Related Persons to allow a full trading day to elapse after the publication of this presentation before purchases or sales of any securities or financial instruments discussed herein are made. Compensation BeyondProxy receives compensation in connection with the publication of its newsletters only in the form of subscription fees charged to subscribers and reproduction or re- dissemination fees charged to subscribers or others interested in the newsletter content. Contact information: For all customer service, subscription or other inquiries, please visit www.manualofideas.com, or contact us at BeyondProxy, 427 N Tatnall St #27878, Wilmington, DE 19801-2230; telephone: 415-412-8059. Editor-in-chief: John Mihaljevic, CFA. Annual subscription price: $1,285 and up; for detailed information, visit www.manualofideas.com/pmr.html To subscribe, visit www.manualofideas.com/pmr.html 28