Dan Naumov

Long only, value, growth at reasonable price, foreign companies
Dan Naumov
Long only, value, growth at reasonable price, foreign companies
Contributor since: 2012
Since SA articles, to my knowledge, are supposed to offer actionable investment ideas, how does that fit with the fact that you can invest into NONE of the unicorns unless your networth is enormous?
Thanks for the catch, should be fixed now!
The wording of that claim makes it sound like it applies to endowments and private equity as a whole / on average. If this is intentional, please cite your sources. If the claim was "SOME endowments, private equity...", I would of course, agree.
Using Swensen as an example is just like saying that stocks return 20% p.a. over the long run just because Warren Buffett has been able to do it.
"Endowments, private equity, and the better hedge funds have had higher returns at lower risk than mainstream investors for the last two to three decades now."
What is this claim based on?
So which is it then? Is the management lying or are the earnings bogus?
Alcoa? The one 70% of whose EPS over the past few years have been made up of one-time non-recurrings? That Alcoa?
It's not entirely fair to compared BHP and S32 dividend yield: after the demerger, S32 payout ratio looks to be around 40% of earnings, but for BHP it is significantly higher. As for the ultimate fate of S32, I think Glasenberg would be silly to not look at it as a potential takeover candidate at these valuations. The assets fit.
Different companies, different cashflow, different amounts of debt.
It matters because efficient use of capital is what drives stock market returns in the first place.
Uh, wow. The company better announce a share buyback program or a major acquisition soon, otherwise a 80% reduction in dividend is uncalled for.
They are being waaaay too conservative here. Low debt, $1.3bn in cash... a 1/3 reduction in dividend I could understand, maybe even a 50% cut, but 80%? The company better announce a share buyback program or a significant acquisition soon as a use for all that "flexibility", because it surely isn't needed for normal operations even at such low oil prices.
On what imaginary stock exchange did it trade at 40 in Jan?
If only there was a residential property REIT with similar characteristics to O. It's just very hard to get excited about long-term return potential of a REIT with such a big exposure to malls and shopping centers.
A 10% yield on a $7bn company implies $700mln/year is being spent on dividends. Their CAPEX is going down by $1,6bn (which is more than twice the amount they spend on dividends) after 2015, so they should have massive free cash flow. Please explain why cutting the dividend would be a prudent move? The only valid reasons I see as valid in the case of ESV are either diverting the cash to share buybacks instead (buying back shares at a significant discount to tangible book value) or acquiring a competitor (but who would that be and why?).
Why would they reduce it? CAPEX is set to drop by almost $2bn/year after 2015 as the newrig build program finishes and the leverage ratio is the lowest among peers.
The reason I believe that Ensco will keep it's dividend unchanged is that fact that after 2015, CAPEX is set to drop by something massive like $2bn/year and the rig build program is set to be finished. This indicates to me that the company should have little issue maintaing the dividend even if the oil price stays at low levels for a significant time.
"I specifically like Philip Morris, which is now 12.7 billion into its 18.0 billion share repurchase program" - you do realize the share buyback has been CANCELLED, right?
IBM's biggest problem is that nobody genuinely WANTS to be using their products and services. They are deeply entrenched in some large institutions, yes, but that isn't going to be winning them any new customers.
The saying used to be "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", but today, the exact opposite is true.
IBM has seen declining revenues for what, 8 quarters now? And the CEO and management have just "awarded" themselves with a huge performance bonus? Err, no thanks.
I am a very heavy user of iCloud and Dropbox. I am also paying 0$/month for either. What can BOX offer me?
"I can't be involved in 50 or 75 things. That's a Noah's Ark way of investing - you end up with a zoo that way. I like to put meaningful amounts of money in a few things."
So why does Berkshire hold stakes or outright own more than 80 companies?
Statistics show that as a whole, stocks that have cut their dividends significantly underperform the broader market over the next 12 months.
I wonder what the author thinks about Sberbank?
Supposedly the talks died off due to the way the rumor was received by Wall Street. Now if only I knew which one company I am supposed to avoid based on the fact how much they care over Wall Street thinks over what makes business sense.
The problem with saying that "IBM is shareholder-friendly" is that the $20 EPS target was completely arbitrary and it could be argued that it was a huge detriment to generating long-term shareholder value, because the company has been utterly gutted by "cost-cutting".
Since when is McDonalds a core holding (or ANY holding) of Warren Buffett?
If the accusations against Yevtushenkov are correct, why did the accusations start now and not back when Sistema purchased the stake (which was in 2007 if I recall correctly)?
I might have an answer to that question: back when Sistema bought into Bashneft, a lot of people made fun of Yevtushenkov, saying he had overpayed by 50-100% for the acquired assets. Several years passed and now that the assets have actually been developed and suddenly look like a fantastic cash cow, everybody's tone has changed with Yevtushenkov being branded a "thief" for having previously acquired the assets for a price that NOW seems like a steal.
As for "other than Yukos and Bashneft, have there been any other situations like this since Putin came to power?" - No, I am not aware of other similar cases, but these 2 are more than enough for me. If it was just Yukos, I could've lived with it, thinking that it was a long time ago and that things are different now. But now with the Yevtushenkov / Sistema situation, it's very clear that things are not only not different, they are actually worse, since even loyalty to Kremlin doesn't keep you safe now.
Vagit Alekperov is no Khodorkovsky, but neither was Yevtushenkov. Yet, it seems that Yevtushenkov will be losing his Bashneft assets. I've previously written bullish articles about Lukoil on SA, but I no longer own it, because the Sistema/Bashneft debacle was a complete game-changer.
Differentiating factors are fleet age, safety records and balance sheets. I am long ESV because it's the least levered member of it's peer group, allowing it to better widthstand an industry downturn and potentially scoop up some competitors on the cheap if they get into real trouble.
Musk. I think he is trying to say that it's scary what you get when you combine very high intellect with absolutely outrageous passion, determination and perseverance.
There is no reason why offshore driller stocks woudln't get hammered even further in the mid-term as it's bound to get worse before it gets better, but I am happy being long ESV @ 47.50 with a yield-on-cost of roughly 6,3% and pretty much the best dividend coverage in the sector along with the best balance sheet.
I've been looking at Ensco and it does look reasonably attractive, BUT... why on Earth has the share count outstanding exploded so much since 2008?