Even though FutureBlind started as an investment blog, I almost never write about investments anymore. I’m still an investor of course but writing about it just isn’t as interesting to me anymore. ¯\(ツ)/¯
This is an exception. I first purchased shares of Planet ($PL) in the private markets almost 4 years ago. They went public via SPAC this past December, and shares promptly got cut in half along with many other former SPACs and high growth companies. I added more to my position between $5 and $6 as it fell (currently around a 5% allocation, a mid-size position for the fund I manage).
Planet Labs is an Earth observation (EO) company. It creates tiny imaging satellites, pays to launch them into space, collects and analyzes imagery from them, and sells that data to customers. Their largest satellite constellation (called “Doves”) are built from mostly off-the-shelf components, making them much cheaper than traditional satellites. Planet is currently the only company that images the entire globe every day.
Here are the main points:
Competitive advantage comes from both the capital barriers to entry and their data flywheel. The more past imagery they have, the easier it is to build detection models for future imagery. And because it currently takes a lot of money and time to launch that many satellites, Planet is ahead of any competition by many years. (It won’t be until Starship is launching regularly that this gap can be easily narrowed.)
Market currently isn’t large but it has the potential to be huge. The biggest applications are in agriculture, defense/intelligence, climate, energy, finance, and mapping (Google is an investor and partner for map data).
Opportunity to move up the stack. Most of their prior business was in selling access to raw imagery data. This can be really useful for some (think tech cos and intelligence agencies) but a hard sell for most. Planet is now selling services like the ability to analyze and detect specific things, which has a much bigger and more profitable market. Like “give me a chart of how many cars are in these parking lots in the last year” or “what is the crop yield on these fields” or “how many Russian tanks got destroyed in this convoy”.
I see Planet as a “utility for data”, similar to Bloomberg, FactSet or Compustat. They have an installed hardware base that needs some maintenance — new satellites to replenish + ground communication costs — but most of the future opportunity lies in software.
The bear case it seems is primarily that the market won’t be able to profitably expand much. I don’t have any counter evidence but it just feels like this data is too valuable for that to happen — customers just don’t know how to use it yet. The biggest risk I see for Planet is competitors giving access to different light spectrums. This can allow customers to do things like see through clouds. But if Planet can get to this space soon it should help mitigate the risk. They just deployed 48 “SuperDoves” that have access to more spectral bands.
So there are risks. But this to me is a clear case of a lollapalooza of positive factors. Good managers, good product, huge market size potential, recently public and more incentivized for growth/profits, and optionality of moving up stack. As always, do your own research — but I think Planet is a good buy here.
The following is a writeup I did for Wal-Mart on Sum Zero, included in its entirety below. Also at the end of the post are some charts that show how Wal-Mart has evolved over time. There is no doubt that Sam Walton and Wal-Mart are one of the, if not the greatest success story over the past 50 years. So it’s a great case study to take a look at. (I believe Warren Buffett once said that his greatest error of omission was not investing in Wal-Mart, a business he could understand very well, in its early days–which is clearly seen in the charts below.)
Wal-Mart is often listed as a cheap large-cap, but is owned by surprisingly few value investors. One reason is that it’s big and well scrutinized and hence its price is more “efficient.” This is partly true, and you won’t get stellar returns investing in Wal-Mart. But it is a cheap, well-managed company that returns cash to shareholders and should fare well under a number of different macro scenarios.
The U.S. stores division of Wal-Mart (about 3/4 of pre-tax profit) has significant competitive advantages. To consumers, Wal-Mart’s brand represents one thing: low prices. Customers in the vicinity of a Wal-Mart remain loyal because they can be certain that they will have the lowest prices. And as long as Wal-Mart doesn’t slack off in the service and facility departments, there will be no good reason for customers to switch.
Wal-Mart can have the lowest prices because of their (1) efficient operations and (2) economies of scale. Operationally, expenses are lower because of their non-unionized workforce and other shrewd cost management (shrinkage, inbound logistics, etc.). This penny-pinching mentality has been ingrained in the company since it was founded by Sam Walton. The biggest cost advantages are from Wal-Mart’s economies of scale. The most obvious consequence is purchasing power—Wal-Mart can buy products at lower prices because they can purchase in such enormous quantities. But the biggest and most un-replicable scale advantage is geographic concentration. Wal-Mart has a “hub and spoke” system of a distribution centers with 100-150 stores around them, all within about a day’s drive. Because of this concentration, costs can be distributed over a larger base of potential customers: distribution, advertising, regional management, etc. Wal-Mart also has some of the most technologically advanced merchandise and logistics systems in the world. This is something that smaller or more spread-out retailers can’t match. Continue reading “On Wal-Mart Stores Inc.”→
I’ve owned BreitBurn Energy Partners (BBEP) both personally and through Braewick Holdings LP for the past year and a half. The following is a clip from my letter to partners explaining our investment in the company:
BreitBurn is an oil and gas production company structured as an MLP (see my July 2009 letter for a similar discussion of Linn Energy, another MLP). BreitBurn’s business model is fairly simple: their only job is to extract and sell oil and gas from wells they own throughout the U.S. These are wells they have acquired—they don’t take the risk of exploring or drilling for new wells. Basically, BreitBurn is like a portfolio of interest-only bonds—assets (petroleum in the ground) that pay interest (production revenue minus extraction and administration costs) until the bond is paid off (reserves are depleted). Here’s a quick summary of BreitBurn’s goal from their 10-K:
“Our objective is to manage our oil and gas producing properties for the purpose of generating cash flow and making distributions to our unitholders.”
Because BreitBurn wants fairly steady cash flow to fund their distributions, much of their oil and gas production is hedged. That level of hedged production is immune from fluctuations in energy prices. By the summer of 2008 when prices were high, they had managed to hedge about 70-80% of production for three years out. So when energy prices (and the stock market) subsequently collapsed that fall, BreitBurn’s cash flow remained mostly unharmed. However, as with many of the MLPs, Lehman Brothers was both counterparty to their hedges and a large owner of the stock. The “perfect storm” of falling energy prices, a crashing stock market, and Lehman’s liquidation caused BreitBurn’s unit price to fall from over $20 in the summer to under $6 in December.
Claude Bébéar is the founder and former CEO of the insurance company AXA. I believe the AXA group is currently the third largest insurance company in the world (just behind Allianz and Generali Group). Bébéar built AXA through mergers and acquisitions, most notably the Drouot Group and the American insurer Equitable. More can be found about AXA at Wikipedia.
The following are some excerpts from a great interview of Bébéar done by Michael Villette (mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell’s essay “The Sure Thing”). In the interview, Villette’s goal was to test the common belief that Bébéar took more risks than others (both in business and insurance), was a business innovator, and took advantage of others using insider “industry” information.
MV: Explain to me how starting in 1981 you managed to carry out an uninterrupted sequence of acquisitions in France and then in other countries. I would like an explanation with no magic, with facts and figures.
CB: There’s no magic in any of it, nothing extraordinary. The first coup was Drouot, which we bought at a bargain price, because of the panic after the left won the elections.
On the Drouot acquisition:
… the result: we acquired for 250 million francs a company that was valued at 5 billion francs four years later. . . .
MV: Why was Drouot worth so little to start with and so much later?
CB: It’s just like Equitable. People study the issues very poorly. They look at things superficially. Drouot was a company with a very good business that had done some stupid things in real estate. It was taken over hastily by Bouygues. Bouygues knew nothing about the profession of insurance, so he stuck with thinking like a financial analyst, that is, in the short term. He said to himself: “Oh, there’s a hole in this business, it’s terrible!” He didn’t see the value of the underlying business. We bought at a very low price because it seemed to be a company practically on the skids, but since we were insurance professionals, we restored the business immediately, we increased premiums, and so on, and the business took off very quickly. When we bought it, it was losing 200 million. The following year, the budget was balanced, and the third year it earned 200 million.
This is a long-form article about the restaurant industry and the turnaround of Steak-n-Shake in 2008–2009. It tells the stories of how McDonalds, In-N-Out Burger, and Steak n Shake were founded and have stayed successful for so long. A PDF of the article can be found here. Please enjoy, and checkout the update at the end regarding the Biglari story.
In March, 2008, Sardar Biglari won the most important victory of his life. In an activist campaign to gain control of the board of directors of The Steak n Shake Company, Biglari and his partner received nearly triple the number of votes of the directors they were replacing.
It hadn’t been easy—their proxy fight with incumbent management had been going on for more than six months. Biglari and the entities he controlled first purchased seven percent of Steak n Shake during the summer of 2007. In August, the initial filing was made with the S.E.C. stating that Biglari had been in discussions with management. At this point, as with many activist investors, Biglari hoped that management would be open to his suggestions and criticisms of the company. He was the third largest owner of Steak n Shake at the time, holding more shares than all executive officers and directors combined. Only days earlier, C.E.O. Peter Dunn had unexpectedly resigned, stating his intent to “pursue other interests.” It seemed like the perfect time to reform the faltering restaurant chain.
Yet, after Biglari’s initial meeting with the Board and interim C.E.O., he was denied representation and otherwise rebuffed from any involvement with the company. To management, he was as a nuisance—one that if ignored, would go away. But Biglari was not the kind of investor to be ignored. While continuing to accumulate shares, he launched the first blow in the proxy fight on October 1. Along with an official solicitation to shareholders, Biglari wrote a brief letter outlining his intentions and frustration with the performance of Steak n Shake.
The Black-Scholes model does an admirable job at valuing short-term options. If an option expires in a few weeks, the current price of the underlying stock and its recent volatility have a good deal of influence on the outcome of the option investment. A simple Black-Scholes calculation has a lot of flaws (none of which I’ll go over), but in my opinion it does alright on the short-term options. However, the further away the expiration date, the worse it gets.
Value investors know that the historic volatility of a stock has nothing to do with its long-term value, and therefore should never be used when making a purchase. However, when purchasing equities, value investors have the luxury of waiting however long they need until price eventually reaches fair value.
If a stock is worth $30, that doesn’t mean a call option with a strike of $20 is worth $10. The option value must also depend on the duration of the option: the further out the expiration, the greater the underlying valuation should affect the option price (and the less volatility should matter). A lot of value investors purchase LEAPs, or options a year or more out, for this very reason.
Chart: 10-year trailing Graham (“Real”) P/E Ratio. Price of the S&P 500 divided by the 10-year average of earnings, inflation adjusted. Current value (10/31/08): 15.9x
Chart: Profit Margin of U.S. Economy. Annualized corporate profits as a percentage of GDP. (A good reason why the Graham P/E Ratio is a better valuation measure than the TTM version.) Current value (6/30/08): 9.40%
Chart: Bond Yield over Equity Yield. 10-year treasury yield minus inverse of Graham P/E Ratio (10-year average equity earnings yield). Current value (10/31/08): -2.4% (equities yield 2.4% more than bonds)
Keep calm & carry on. Sound advice during the current bear market.
Forget about Mr. Market’s terrible mood swing. He is there to serve you, not to guide you. Why would he be offering such low prices for the businesses he owns? Who knows. Take advantage of his irrationality. If hearing it from me isn’t enough, listen to John Bogle. (Image credit: The Principles of Uncertainty)
The first version of the bailout bill (3 pages). The third version of the bailout bill (110 pages). And finally, the current version of the bailout bill (451 pages). It seems it is in the nature of politicians to needlessly increase complexity.
Warren Buffett’s interview with Charlie Rose. As usual, Buffett gives a great explanation of the current crisis. On the bailout bill: “It’s better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.”
I agree with Roger Ehrenberg in his post “Investment Banking 2.0“: the best thing for the financial industry is smaller, more nimble banks that aren’t part of large conglomerates. This forces more redundancy into the system and mutes the domino effect that a single bank’s collapse can have on the industry.