Street Capitalist: Event Driven Value Investments

I woke up at 7AM yesterday to have a chance to read Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway 2009 letter to shareholders (PDF). This year’s letter did not disappoint. I would like to highlight a few key ideas from the letter.

Intrinsic Value

At the beginning of each letter, you will see a table of how Berkshire Hathaway’s growth in book value fared versus the S&P 500’s. Now, as Buffett states below, book value does not precisely peg intrinsic value but it comes close:

The ideal standard for measuring our yearly progress would be the change in Berkshire’s per-share intrinsic value. Alas, that value cannot be calculated with anything close to precision, so we instead use a crude proxy for it: per-share book value. Relying on this yardstick has its shortcomings, which we discuss on pages 92 and 93. Additionally, book value at most companies understates intrinsic value, and that is certainly the case at Berkshire. In aggregate, our businesses are worth considerably more than the values at which they are carried on our books. In our all-important insurance business, moreover, the difference is huge. Even so, Charlie and I believe that our book value – understated though it is – supplies the most useful tracking device for changes in intrinsic value. By this measurement, as the opening paragraph of this letter states, our book value since the start of fiscal 1965 has grown at a rate of 20.3% compounded annually.

Whitney Tilson takes a different approach for figuring out the company’s intrinsic value: you take the company’s per share investments and add them to pretax earnings per share with a multiple attached. This is closer to what Warren Buffett has recommended for pegging Berkshire’s intrinsic value, but it is also more difficult to determine. For most people, the book value approach should be sufficient enough.

Float

Most people don’t understand float, but it is probably the key factor in Berkshire Hathaway’s growth over the last 40 years. Let’s say you are a value investor and you manage to take control of a company. In general, your opportunities range from reinvesting in the business you have acquired, to looking at outside opportunities. These can be acquisitions of other businesses or simple investments in securities. Normally, such investments must be paid for using free cash flow or debt. But if you were to acquire an insurance company, you would have one more weapon in your arsenal, float:

Insurers receive premiums upfront and pay claims later. In extreme cases, such as those arising from certain workers’ compensation accidents, payments can stretch over decades. This collect-now, pay-later model leaves us holding large sums – money we call “float” – that will eventually go to others. Meanwhile, we get to invest this float for Berkshire’s benefit. Though individual policies and claims come and go, the amount of float we hold remains remarkably stable in relation to premium volume. Consequently, as our business grows, so does our float.

If premiums exceed the total of expenses and eventual losses, we register an underwriting profit that adds to the investment income produced from the float. This combination allows us to enjoy the use of free money – and, better yet, get paid for holding it. Alas, the hope of this happy result attracts intense competition, so vigorous in most years as to cause the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss. This loss, in effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. Usually this cost is fairly low, but in some catastrophe-ridden years the cost from underwriting losses more than eats up the income derived from use of float…

Our float has grown from $16 million in 1967, when we entered the business, to $62 billion at the end of 2009. Moreover, we have now operated at an underwriting profit for seven consecutive years. I believe it likely that we will continue to underwrite profitably in most – though certainly not all – future years. If we do so, our float will be cost-free, much as if someone deposited $62 billion with us that we could invest for our own benefit without the payment of interest.

Let me emphasize again that cost-free float is not a result to be expected for the P/C industry as a whole: In most years, premiums have been inadequate to cover claims plus expenses. Consequently, the industry’s overall return on tangible equity has for many decades fallen far short of that achieved by the S&P 500. Outstanding economics exist at Berkshire only because we have some outstanding managers running some unusual businesses. Our insurance CEOs deserve your thanks, having added many billions of dollars to Berkshire’s value. It’s a pleasure for me to tell you about these all-stars.

Bolded for emphasis. The $16M to $62B figure is absolutely amazing and speaks to the power of a disciplined insurance operation. Not to detract from the 2009 letter, but I think the following discussion on National Indemnity from the 2004 is quite insightful here. Indeed, in Buffett’s 2004 letter, he said that without the acquisition of National Indemnity, Berkshire would be nowhere close to its size today:

So, you may ask, how do Berkshire’s insurance operations overcome the dismal economics of the industry and achieve some measure of enduring competitive advantage? We’ve attacked that problem in several ways. Let’s look first at NICO’s strategy.

When we purchased the company – a specialist in commercial auto and general liability insurance – it did not appear to have any attributes that would overcome the industry’s chronic troubles. It was not well-known, had no informational advantage (the company has never had an actuary), was not a low-cost operator, and sold through general agents, a method many people thought outdated. Nevertheless, for almost all of the past 38 years, NICO has been a star performer. Indeed, had we not made this acquisition, Berkshire would be lucky to be worth half of what it is today.

What we’ve had going for us is a managerial mindset that most insurers find impossible to replicate. Take a look at the facing page. Can you imagine any public company embracing a business model that would lead to the decline in revenue that we experienced from 1986 through 1999? That colossal slide, it should be emphasized, did not occur because business was unobtainable. Many billions of premium dollars were readily available to NICO had we only been willing to cut prices. But we instead consistently priced to make a profit, not to match our most optimistic competitor. We never left customers – but they left us.

Many insurance companies end up chasing premiums without adequate risk management and blow up. They never have the time to really endure and grow, the way that Berkshire has done with National Indemnity and its other operations. Now, back to the 2009 letter.

Buffett uses the rest of the insurance section of the letter to praise Ajit Jain’s activities at Berkshire Reinsurance and mentions that GEICO has gone from the country’s 6th largest auto insurer to the third largest in just 15 years. One of the best things about Buffett is he always owns up to his mistakes. It seems as if a foray into the credit card business did not work out so well for GEICO:

And now a painful confession: Last year your chairman closed the book on a very expensive business fiasco entirely of his own making.

For many years I had struggled to think of side products that we could offer our millions of loyal GEICO customers. Unfortunately, I finally succeeded, coming up with a brilliant insight that we should market our own credit card. I reasoned that GEICO policyholders were likely to be good credit risks and, assuming we offered an attractive card, would likely favor us with their business. We got business all right – but of the wrong type.

Our pre-tax losses from credit-card operations came to about $6.3 million before I finally woke up. We then sold our $98 million portfolio of troubled receivables for 55¢ on the dollar, losing an additional $44 million.

GEICO’s managers, it should be emphasized, were never enthusiastic about my idea. They warned me that instead of getting the cream of GEICO’s customers we would get the – – – – – well, let’s call it the non-cream. I subtly indicated that I was older and wiser.

I was just older.

That kind of honesty is unparalleled in shareholder letters, which usually read more like corporate propaganda than honest assessments of the business.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe

(Flickr: SP8254)

The regulated utilities section of the letter provides some insights on why the Buffett chose to acquire Burlington Northern. I think that for the most part, guys like Bruce Berkowitz were right in their assessment on Burlington Northern:

CONSUELO MACK: Let me ask you about the Burlington Northern acquisition, the largest acquisition that Berkshire Hathaway has ever made. The Wall Street Journal coverage of it saidWarren Buffett is turning Berkshire Hathaway into a big industrial operator and it’s no longer thenimble investment firm that it was once. What’s your view of what Warren is doing in buying thesebig industrial companies?

BRUCE BERKOWITZ: Berkshire has a tremendous amount of flow from the premiums received from long-term insurance policies. That flow has to be invested in very secure, sound financial instruments such as: electric utilities cost plus or a railroad business which has the stability unlikemany businesses. So here he’s taking money that’s actually got a zero cost to it and then investing itat a reasonable, not at an egregious yield, but at a reasonable investment yield. But when the cost iszero, the returns are phenomenal. He’s brilliant. Warren Buffett is being Warren Buffett in that he’smarried another great big business to Berkshire Hathaway that’s going to make a sizeable difference overtime

Buffett believes that BNSF should be looked at as a utility as well:

Our BNSF operation, it should be noted, has certain important economic characteristics that resemble those of our electric utilities. In both cases we provide fundamental services that are, and will remain, essential to the economic well-being of our customers, the communities we serve, and indeed the nation. Both will require heavy investment that greatly exceeds depreciation allowances for decades to come. Both must also plan far ahead to satisfy demand that is expected to outstrip the needs of the past. Finally, both require wise regulators who will provide certainty about allowable returns so that we can confidently make the huge investments required to maintain, replace and expand the plant…

In the future, BNSF results will be included in this “regulated utility” section. Aside from the two businesses having similar underlying economic characteristics, both are logical users of substantial amounts of debt that is not guaranteed by Berkshire. Both will retain most of their earnings. Both will earn and invest large sums in good times or bad, though the railroad will display the greater cyclicality. Overall, we expect this regulated sector to deliver significantly increased earnings over time, albeit at the cost of our investing many tens – yes, tens – of billions of dollars of incremental equity capital.

Buffett does not say explicitly what he thinks the returns on invested capital will be for the railroad business but that it should increase over time. Burlington Northern should definitely have the kind of pricing power it needs to ward off the frictional forces of inflation, should regulators act properly.

NetJets

(Course Correction: NetJets)

When David Sokol took the reigns at NetJets, I think people looked at the situation in two ways. 1. This would be a test for Sokol, to see if he has what it takes to be the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. 2. Berkshire’s businesses aren’t infallible and may need guidance from time to time. Here is what Buffett said of the situation:

We tend to let our many subsidiaries operate on their own, without our supervising and monitoring them to any degree. That means we are sometimes late in spotting management problems and that both operating and capital decisions are occasionally made with which Charlie and I would have disagreed had we been consulted…

The major problem for Berkshire last year was NetJets, an aviation operation that offers fractional ownership of jets. Over the years, it has been enormously successful in establishing itself as the premier company in its industry, with the value of its fleet far exceeding that of its three major competitors combined. Overall, our dominance in the field remains unchallenged.

NetJets’ business operation, however, has been another story. In the eleven years that we have owned the company, it has recorded an aggregate pre-tax loss of $157 million. Moreover, the company’s debt has soared from $102 million at the time of purchase to $1.9 billion in April of last year. Without Berkshire’s guarantee of this debt, NetJets would have been out of business. It’s clear that I failed you in letting NetJets descend into this condition. But, luckily, I have been bailed out.

Dave Sokol, the enormously talented builder and operator of MidAmerican Energy, became CEO of NetJets in August. His leadership has been transforming: Debt has already been reduced to $1.4 billion, and, after suffering a staggering loss of $711 million in 2009, the company is now solidly profitable.

Most important, none of the changes wrought by Dave have in any way undercut the top-of-the-line standards for safety and service that Rich Santulli, NetJets’ previous CEO and the father of the fractional- ownership industry, insisted upon.

With the debt reduced to $1.4B and the company profitable, David Sokol looks as if he has passed the test. Sokol has gradually had the opportunity to get more face time with the media. We saw this with his activities at NetJets and the investment in BYD. I think he is poised to be the right operations guy at Berkshire, with Ajit Jain handling the insurance operations and the still unnamed CIO handling investments.

Financial Products and Derivatives

On occasion, Buffett has criticized the government’s lending policies with good reason. Berkshire is unable to get the kinds of lending rates that TARP recipients received in the past, which put the company at a decided disadvantage when it came to bidding on parts of companies such as AIG. But in this year’s letter, Buffett sheds light on another problem:

The residential mortgage market is shaped by government rules that are expressed by FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Their lending standards are all-powerful because the mortgages they insure can typically be securitized and turned into what, in effect, is an obligation of the U.S. government. Currently buyers of conventional site-built homes who qualify for these guarantees can obtain a 30-year loan at about 51⁄4%. In addition, these are mortgages that have recently been purchased in massive amounts by the Federal Reserve, an action that also helped to keep rates at bargain-basement levels.

In contrast, very few factory-built homes qualify for agency-insured mortgages. Therefore, a meritorious buyer of a factory-built home must pay about 9% on his loan. For the all-cash buyer, Clayton’s homes offer terrific value. If the buyer needs mortgage financing, however – and, of course, most buyers do – the difference in financing costs too often negates the attractive price of a factory-built home…

Our product is first-class, inexpensive and constantly being improved. Moreover, we will continue to use Berkshire’s credit to support Clayton’s mortgage program, convinced as we are of its soundness. Even so, Berkshire can’t borrow at a rate approaching that available to government agencies. This handicap will limit sales, hurting both Clayton and a multitude of worthy families who long for a low-cost home.

These kinds of double standards hurt buyers of Clayton’s homes, especially considering that Clayton’s buyers are not speculators. Most are simply people looking to buy a home and live in it. They aren’t the gluttonous home flippers that helped fuel the excess supply in the housing market.

One of the problems with the media and Warren Buffett is that they often try to over simplify what he says, boiling things down into sound bytes that don’t give the full picture. This is definitely the case with derivatives.

A number of commentators have criticized Buffett for investing in derivatives contracts after calling derivatives weapons of mass destruction. The thing is, Buffett was criticizing how most financial institutions were using derivatives. For the most part, companies like AIG were writing billions upon billions of dollars worth of CDS contracts using faulty math behind defaults. They were totally unrealistic. We see now that Greece tried to use contracts to fudge their budgetary accounting and make their deficits appear artificially lower. These kinds of uses of derivatives are pretty stupid and can cause the mass destruction that Buffett described. Actually, if you look at AIG and the state of Greece, you could argue that they have already caused that destruction.

The Berkshire approach to derivatives is different. For the most part, Buffett looks at these like he does insurance. He is trying to find mispricings where the risk is limited and the duration from now till when money must be exchanged is sufficiently long enough to earn enough from the float to limit any kind of damage that would occur if Berkshire is on the losing side of these contracts:

We have long invested in derivatives contracts that Charlie and I think are mispriced, just as we try to invest in mispriced stocks and bonds. Indeed, we first reported to you that we held such contracts in early 1998. The dangers that derivatives pose for both participants and society – dangers of which we’ve long warned, and that can be dynamite – arise when these contracts lead to leverage and/or counterparty risk that is extreme. At Berkshire nothing like that has occurred – nor will it.

It’s my job to keep Berkshire far away from such problems. Charlie and I believe that a CEO must not delegate risk control. It’s simply too important. At Berkshire, I both initiate and monitor every derivatives contract on our books, with the exception of operations-related contracts at a few of our subsidiaries, such as MidAmerican, and the minor runoff contracts at General Re. If Berkshire ever gets in trouble, it will be my fault. It will not be because of misjudgments made by a Risk Committee or Chief Risk Officer.

Most people incorrectly assume that value investing means just investing in well run large cap stocks. It doesn’t. Value investing is buying a dollar for 50 cents. Where that dollar exists should not matter. A good investor should be willing to travel across asset classes in search of these bargains, and that is what great investors like Seth Klarman, Prem Watsa, and Warren Buffett have done in the past.

The entire letter is worth reading, especially for getting a more detailed insight into some of Berkshire Hathaway’s lesser known subsidiaries and overall performance for 2009.

(Click for video)

The play here looks familiar to other theses that I’m seeing from hedge funds. Namely, that after TARP and the government’s intervention, the worst is over for a company like Citi. It does not have to worry about failing and now, an investor just has to look at their prospects for income generation from newer loans to pay for loan losses:

Michael Breen: Speaking of mulligans, you just bought a firm that probably wish it had one for the past couple of years: Citigroup. Maybe you can let us know how you got comfortable with that, because a few years back, you were speaking about how you couldn’t get transparency on the big banks and the financials.

So is it a case of the blind now being able to see, or have things been shored up to a point that anybody can get comfortable with it? Why don’t you give us the thesis for Citigroup?

Bruce Berkowitz: I think it’s a bit of both. In the U.S., this was not a bankruptcy, but it’s gone through a scrubbing process, very similar to a bankruptcy, by the U.S. Treasury. Citigroup has spent a good amount of time with the U.S. government and many of its financial regulators, going through every liability and asset in the books.

After such a period of time, you normally are able to count the cockroaches. That is, the liabilities have been under a microscope for quite a period of time. There’s been huge capital injections by the government. There’s been a massive amount of dilution to old shareholders. And you’re starting to see some stability, the beginnings.

It’s very much what I call now the pig in the python. You have to look at their liabilities. So you have to look at their bad debt, and you have to continue to watch how the company is digesting its bad debt.

At the same time, you have to see the new debt that’s coming in, the new loans that they’re giving out. It’s fascinating. It amazes me, with financial institutions, the extent, the amount of new loans that are being created in relation to the total loan portfolio.

So it’s just now, in my opinion, a question of time, an ingestion period, where how many more quarters is it going to take before the new loans start to outweigh the old, existing loans?

…

Breen: And so for Citigroup, it’s safe to say they are far enough out of the woods that you’re comfortable with the equity, where, with the real-estate debt, with the bankruptcy, it’s a different situation, and you’re taking a different spot on the capital structure.

Berkowitz: Right. We’re in there. Our major partner is the U.S. government. I mean, Citigroup is woven into the fabric of the United States. Citigroup will be around. I hope it will be around in a smaller form. It will be around in a better form, it most likely will be around with different management, and Citigroup will move on.

How Berkowitz Got Comfortable with Citi (Morningstar)

Bruce Berkowitz of the Fairholme Fund recently disclosed his portfolio positions and there are some changes:

via Dataroma

1. Citigroup (NYSE:C): Citi is a new position, but not entirely unfamiliar to most readers of this blog. A number of famous investors have taken positions in Citi, most likely due to the fact that on a normalized basis, the earnings power of Citi is pretty strong relative to where the company is currently trading. In the past, Berkowitz has professed no edge in being able to analyze financial companies but we saw him take a stake in American Express (NYSE:AXP) in the middle of the crisis. He may find that the balance sheets are a lot easier to analyze now than pre-crisis.

2. Pfizer (NYSE:PFE): Berkowitz has pared down his Pfizer stake. There could be a number of reasons for this, he has increased stakes in Humana and WellPoint, which will expose him to increased healthcare spending so it could be a relative valuation issue where he sells something trading for 50 cents on the dollar for a company trading at 25 cents on the dollar. In addition, there was also Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth, which I don’t believe Berkowitz really envisioned. From his previous talks, Berkowitz had hoped Pfizer would become a merchant bank for the Pharma sector, acquiring small but innovative drug makers. The Wyeth acquisition sort of equated to one big acquisition which had the potential to be less efficient use of free cash flow from an investor perspective.

3. Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.B): In the past, Berkowitz has actually reduced his Berkshire position. He is never one to get too comfortable. So the fact that he has been buying shares indicates that he may see Berkshire as undervalued right now — a sentiment that I have been hearing a lot.

The people over at Advisor Perspectives have a great interview with Bruce Berkowitz of the Fairholme Fund which touches on his thoughts regarding Sears Holdings (NASDAQ:SHLD), Leucadia (NYSE:LUK), and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A). These are three investor favorites all which ran into pessimism by the investor community over the last two years or so.

I thought I would excerpt some of the interview (full interview PDF)

Is deflation – particularly with respect to asset prices – eroding the margin of safety at Sears Holdings?

Deflation eroded the margin of safety, in that real estate values came down as the housing market was destroyed. There is a significant correlation between the housing market and Sears. The answer is yes.

On the other hand, Eddie Lampert was quite astute in the way he handled capital allocation in the last couple of years. In hindsight, you can say it was a mistake for him to buy stock at $150 to $170 – it was a different environment. But by creating a company such that there is significant free cash flow being generated, the company has a huge number of degrees of freedom. If deflation was causing a decline in value and Sears’ shareholders overreacted or very smart people start shorting the stock, then the company has more than enough cash to buy all the shares that Lampert and I don’t own – and together we own over 60% of the company.

It was a real win-win situation, in that I believe it was a temporary condition, but he configured the company for adversity. If you count how much cash he generated in the last few years you will see it. Sometimes it is a little hidden, for example because he had to fill a gap in a pension fund liability because the market turned south and the rules required him to put more money in. He’s also paid off a nice chunk of debt. The company does not have a lot of debt. He has bought back a ton of shares.
If you add up all the money used to do that, it’s a significant amount of free cash.

Berkowitz goes on to talk about Leucadia, which is in some circles described as a mini-Berkshire.

Is the value in Leucadia National affected by the tightness in the credit market? Do they have access to capital at attractive rates, and if so why have they not been more active?

Yes, they have been affected by tightness in the credit markets, but they have access to lots of money. With the right idea they have no issues with access to capital. We would loan money to Leucadia. In this environment, it may not be a lack of ideas; it may be an unwillingness to share. Clearly this environment killed cheap money. Could they still get money on reasonable terms? Absolutely.

You have to have a little blind faith with Leucadia, like with Berkshire Hathaway. You can’t predict what they will do. You measure what they have versus what you have to pay for it, and make a determination as to whether you will get the future for free. Of course, you have to assume the future is going to be good.

Leucadia is difficult for me to peg right now. I think with the way the company is structured now, the investment attractiveness depend on your view of the macro and the timing of it all. I do think though that the company will at least be able to preserve its wealth because of its capable managers, whereas other companies may stumble.

Finally, there is a great bit about the Burlington Northern acquisition and whether it was a good deal for Berkshire Hathaway:

We interviewed Bruce Greenwald, the Director of the Heilbrunn Center for Graham & Dodd Investing at Columbia University in November. He was less than impressed with Berkshire Hathaway’s decision to buy the balance of Burlington Northern they do not already own. You own a good deal of Berkshire Hathaway, what is the value investor’s case for using Berkshire Hathaway stock to buy this company?

Last year I sold all my Berkshire and then I bought back what we now own. Last year I said that you have to take Warren Buffett at his word that he will do a couple of points better than the S&P going forward. And he did. That’s not bad at all. But I believe that we are still of the size where we could do a bit better. But that is absent some type of cataclysmic event – and then we faced this cataclysmic event, which allowed Berkshire to put tens of billions of money that was earning less than 1% to work, to earn 10%.

I can’t see how Burlington Northern was a great deal. The greatness of Berkshire is its deployment of float and profit. They are deploying other people’s money in terms of float – premiums on insurance policies that don’t have to be paid out for years and years. If you are going to use part of that float to pay for an investment, you have to make sure the investment is going to make good money. With Burlington Northern, if you adjust for a buyer with cash and don’t think much more about it, then it was not a great deal. But if you bought it using cheap debt and good chunk of other people’s money and you were highly confident that the company would give you a cost-plus return over a decade, then it’s a good investment.

Borrowing money is a sure way to die. But if you are buying toll booths and roads and regulated industries – pipelines or railroads or electric utilities, where you know you are going to end up with some type of cost-plus pricing – you are going to do very well, given that the actual equity you have in it is low.

It’s like buying a house with a low down payment. If you judge the return after expenses, after taxes, and on the profits on shareholder equity, the return can be two to three times what it looks like to an all-cash buyer.

Be sure to read the entire interview (click here to read more) it is well worth your time and delves into the car rental business and Fairholme’s view on healthcare stocks.

Bruce Berkowitz:

These are big scale businesses that will let Berkshire put more money to work over time. Berkshire has a tremendous amount of float from premiums received from long term insurance policies. That float must be invested in very secure, sound, financial instruments such as electric utility where you are cost plus or a railroad which has stability unlike many businesses. So here he’s taking float with a zero cost and investing it, not at an egregious yield, but at a reasonable investment yield. But when the cost is zero the returns are phenomenal. So he’s brilliant, Warren Buffett is being Warren Buffett in that he’s married another great big business to Berkshire Hathaway that’s going to make a sizeable difference over time.

Full video:

via: Letter to the Editor – Buffett and Burlington Northern (Advisor Perspectives)

To the Editor:

I read with some amusement professor Greenwald’s discussion of Berkshire Hathaway’s purchase of Burlington Northern (BNI), I could not disagree with his analysis more. One of my Native American friends says that one must be careful not to view things with “old eyes” and I fear that is what is happening to the professor’s view of Burlington Northern.

When I first began to look at railroads in the 1980’s, they were the very epitome of capital-intensive, labor-intensive companies consistently earning less than their cost of capital and that was during a period when they all had millions of acres low cost land holdings with attached mineral rights. At that time, the one true measure of a railroad’s operating success, its operating ratio, was rarely below 90%. Union work rules were killing them.

Since that time, a reduction in government regulation, mergers and disposals of surplus lines, changing crew consist rules, technology and improved motive power efficiency have combined to make railroads productive and highly profitable companies. They have created huge cash flows which have funded debt reduction and capital spending, making them much more profitable. Today, any railroad with a operating ratio in excess of 75% is considered to be poorly managed. They have not accomplished this by diversifying their business; their resource land grants are long gone they are almost pure rails now. They have not done it with increased leverage as they carry less debt and preferred than they did 10 years ago. They have done it by sticking to their knitting, serving the customer, driving down costs, capital discipline, technology investments and just hardnosed business practice.

An example of increased efficiency: changes in engine design have reduced the number of motive units needed per train, reducing costs in terms of both fuel and crew. Recently, GE introduced a new line of motive units with 16 cylinder higher horsepower diesel engines that, at sustained speeds, turn off four cylinders and maintain their speed on the remaining 12. The fuel savings are in the area of 30% for comparable runs.

The other issue unique to BNI is that the nature of its traffic has allowed it to replace many of its previously fixed costs with variable costs, giving it greater financial flexibility and the ability to change in an instant to accommodate business conditions. This in turn allows greater capital discipline and better returns.

While Buffett’s purchase of BNI does not seem to satisfy Berkshire’s traditional pattern of purchasing irreplaceable franchises, it does meet a more basic precept of being a toll-taker by offering a product an economy cannot do without. Most of the traffic on today’s railroads cannot be moved by any other modality. If we are going to continue to import goods from lower cost developing world countries, then the BNI route structure from the west coast ports to the mid west will be one of the few (two actually) to move that traffic.

Did he overpay? Maybe. Does it revalue all the rails? No. Will it work out for Buffett and his shareholders? Probably and better than most viewing it with “old eyes” can see at this point.

Dennis Gibb
President
Sweetwater Investments
Redmond, WA

Unfortunately, the Bank Analyst must remain anonymous. I will say that he works at a large buy-side fund and comes from a value investing background. I think that this interview went really well and you’ll enjoy it. The interview just has a ton of concentrated information about how to look at banks and then perspectives on the sector. I transcribed this from a recording of our conversation, so I everything below is pretty close to word-for-word what was said. I tried to get all questions that were submitted to me answered. Questions and my comments are in bold.

How do you gain a circle of competence with banks? Where do you start?

Keep it very simple. Banks or financial institutions are based around borrowing money and then lending it. So that’s going to be masked by all different types of weird funding mechanisms and odd assets (securities and lending structures). The accounting treatment and regulation will be tricky.

The learning curve especially with the crisis means it’s hard and always evolving. With that giant pot of knowledge you want to keep it very simple. Start out be looking at small micro banks, there are banks trading that might only have 10 branches that operate out of one geography. You can learn that one particular geography and all the macro idiosyncrasies of it. Plus, you can probably talk to management. Keep it simple, find banks that focus on just mortgage lending or commercial and industrial (C&I) lending and master that. Then if you master it you can branch out. If you master mortgages you can branch out to commercial real estate (CRE), then C&I.

Then you could do something like read a Bank of America 10K. They own every type of business within financials. So it might look confusing as a whole but if you think about it individually they are like separate monolines that are operating as a whole.

But yeah definitely start with the simpler banks at first.

What ratios are you looking at the most when examining banks? Do you use the Texas ratio at all given how it has helped signal banks that will need to raise cash in the past?

We don’t really use the Texas ratio specifically. The general ratios that the banks provide you are ok but obviously you can’t just go off of that. There’s much more investigative work. It all starts with a detailed look of the loan/securities portfolios, so type of loans and where they were originated in terms of geography. We look at the different delinquency buckets, non-performing assets, charge-off numbers and make assumptions. It’s a very macro-economic driven process.

Non-Performing Asset (NPA) ratios and charge-off ratios and the rates of their change are important but ultimately it’s the capital relative to the banks assets that’s most important. If a bank has a 4% capital ratio (TCE / TA) and the bank has 5% losses the equity is wiped out assuming they don’t earn their way out. Texas Ratio basically says if all non-performers lead to charge-offs then what percentage of tangible equity would be wiped out, so sort of the same thing.

Do you use any different metrics for regional banks?

No. I wouldn’t say we use any different metrics. Regional banks may not have as many loan categories as the bigger guys. There can be less to look at and obviously its specific to the region. If there is a large discrepancy between the general macro and the regions macro it can make a major difference (meaning a Florida bank may relatively underperform a bank in NJ)

Thomas Brown of Bankstocks argued that the charge-offs to loan reserve ratio had no meaning due to variations in accounting treatment. Can the analyst describe a better criteria for measuring loan reserve adequacy?

There’s some merit to his argument. I’ll give you a simple example: When a bank makes a credit card loan, the reserve to the loan should be higher in theory because it’s an unsecured loan. If it’s a mortgage you can afford to charge off less because there’s collateral backing it up and you’ll have some of the loan recovered in a sale. Obviously the severity is dependent on the economy (if home prices go down). Generally simple reserve ratios may not tell the whole story but when they are headed in one direction quarter after quarter it’s telling you something. If I recall correctly from the specific article where Brown discusses the topic he talks about FHN and how based on reserve ratio, reserves look inadequate but if you look at how those reserves are allocated it seems sufficient. Now you can try to be a hero and pick names that way and claim its thorough analysis but it doesn’t work so well in a banking crisis environment similar to the one we went through.

So should capital adequacy ratios factor in black swan events then?

See – no one knows what that correct capital adequacy ratio (CAR) number is. You don’t know what the severity of the next crisis will be. I’m in favor of keeping the reserve requirements higher than they have historically been. One of the reasons we got in trouble is because the system got way too levered.

How important do you view the funding of deposits? How do you incorporate sources of funding into your investing decisions?

Some people value banks based on deposits — I don’t. I don’t think anyone uses it as the end all valuation. Deposits can make or break a bank. They generally tend to be the stickiest and lowest cost source of funding. With wholesale funding, you’re waking up in the morning praying that some institution is going to keep lending to you. With deposits, you don’t have to worry about that as much.

You want growth in savings loans versus high yield CDs right?

Yeah — the type of deposits is important. If a bank sets them up with hot money CDs, it’s really no different than wholesale funding. GMAC did this. You don’t want a banking institution that does that. You want a depository that people trust and are willing to give you money interest free.

How do you value a bank? Most traditional investors look at things like DCF valuations or try to come up with a Ben Graham style assets-based valuation, but banks are different right?

It’s rare to see a bank analyst use a DCF. We mostly use an earnings model. We then attach a multiple, so what a lot of analysts are doing is attaching the historical 10-12x multiple to normalized earnings.

A simple way of getting an earnings number is by taking a ROA (Return on Assets) percentage and assuming some type of asset growth (negative or positive) and then multiplying the ROA times assets times the growth number. Then, take that number and divide it up by the shares outstanding to get some kind of an EPS figure.

A more detailed model assumes some earnings asset level and net interest margin (NIM) to get net interest income. To get non-interest income you just assume some growth rate off of the fee line items. Then, assuming something on provisions and expenses to get a net income figure. Thats the basic idea and it incorporates a lot of assumptions on the macro and regulatory environment.

During this crisis I think people looked at banks in this manner:

There is a credit/capital concern > people start looking at banks based on tangible book > the concern becomes whether capital is enough. You make your own stress test. If banks pass that you might want to invest in them. Obviously you have to net that against how ouch they will earn too. But trying to earn your way out didn’t really work for Japan.

Ulimately, normalized earnings will depend on GDP and unemployment. If it ends up being robust (so GDP growth rates are high and the unemployment rate goes down) then banks will win but the biggest risk to bank earnings going forward is the level of earning assets. If earning assets decline, normalized earnings will not be as high. The decline in loan balances is something I’m paying particularly close attention to this quarter.

So if a bank has 14% capital and they currently have losses of 3% you are probably in good shape assuming they are not lying or pushing losses into the future. But a bank of that sort might not be cheap either, which can make it a waste to invest in.

What kinds of things do you usually ask management on calls and visits?

Ask whatever you can’t get out of the 10Q and 10K. Understand the intricacies of the business. Find out about specific accounting treatments and things like granular details on their loan portfolios.

Also, trying to gauge how they see the macro-economic environment. The best thing to ask management is to ask what they see in their locale. Look at Case Schiller and see what a specific housing market is doing and then ask a bank there about it. They might say that even if house prices are going up, the unemployment situation still sucks so there’s no improvement.

In Margin of Safety, Seth Klarman says that value investors don’t invest in banks often because their asset books are too opaque. How, when you’re analyzing a bank, do you make sure the assets have a credible margin of safety?

It depends on a lot of factors. 1. The types of loans and geography 2. How loans are performing. 3. Management’s track record in originating loans and honesty. 4. How the macro is performing and 5. How aggressive/conservative management is in working through problem loans.

So dealing with the transparency, that’s a good question. Investing in financials is more of a gamble than any other category. You will simply not have the transparency you have at other simpler businesses. In other sectors management on conference calls can give you line item guidance that you can just plug in your models to come out with next quarter EPS within a small range of error. How many financial management teams got it wrong or thought they wouldn’t be the last one’s holding the bag during the crisis? I remember hearing Ken Lewis (CEO of Bank of America) talking about how the recession will end in 2Q08. And this guy basically gets a real time update on the economy on a daily basis.

So you want a wider margin of safety. If you would buy a company at 6x P/E, you might want to aim for 4x P/E.

Financials are truly a different animal in my opinion. There is no advantage in investing in financials (meaning you are not getting superior moats or higher ROE businesses compared to other sectors) If you thought the market was dead cheap in march for example, there were plenty of businesses in plain vanilla sectors (retail) that had rises greater than or similar to financials and were much easier to understand. Assuming these stocks were undervalued and haven’t gone up for speculative purposes, you can see that car rental company Avis Budget Group (NYSE:CAR) is up 11 fold since its low compared to Bank of America which is up 6x. I would say Avis is a lot easier to understand than BoA.

So why did value investors get it wrong?

As a value investor, investing in a financial requires really getting comfortable with the macro-economic situation. So unless you’re doing some kind of arbitrage (market-neutral) play, you will have to look at the macro. If you want to ignore the macro because Warren Buffett says it is useless then you want to stay away, especially if you’re not benchmarked or don’t have a mandate to invest in financials.

I think that some value investors refused to believe that this time it is different. Also, they just didn’t understand the risks involved with some of the intricacies in financials. Bruce Berkowtiz talks about how he didn’t understand AIG when he read about their derivatives and said pass.

I think that other value investors, especially the ones who decided that AIG was cheap let those risks pass by them. Or they looked at history and said “Okay, this bank trades at 1/2 book and based on history its never been cheaper.” They were wrong.

What would happen to banks in a hyper-inflationary scenario in which the 30-year Treasury yield goes to 15-20% or higher, as Julian Robertson has suggested?

In a hyper or super high rate environment, it will not be good for financials and equities.

The first step would be that asset sensitive banks where loans/securities re-price faster than their liabilities would win temporarily. If you read what SCHW has said, for every 100 bps rise in rates they generate 600 million in net revenues, which pretty much fall straight to the bottom line.

Eventually the dynamic that would kick in would be that depositors would demand higher rates. If rates are 15% depositors wont want 3% CDs. So right there, funding costs would go up.

For a bank to make money, it’s usually an 80/20 split. So, 80% comes from interest income and 20% from fees. Since banks typically generate income from net interest income, they’re going to have to make loans that are higher than their funding costs. The argument is, what homeowner wants to pay a 15% mortgage in a 10% unemployment environment? Credit card rates have already gone up — you’ve seen Wells Fargo and others already do this to try to protect against potential regulatory changes, so that they can keep ROEs closer to a historical level.

I’d argue though that loan demand would collapse. Unless it’s a necessity but I don’t think anybody can raise prices high enough to match that kind of rate environment. Would you pay $20 for a Starbucks coffee? I don’t think so.

So the basic idea here is that nobody will be able to afford those loans and the demand for credit will fall?

So yeah, when funding costs become elevated it’s tough for them to make loans higher than the funding cost. A coffee shop isn’t going to take a loan to buy an espresso maker when the rate is 15%. To make money above their 15% cost you would have to raise prices to the point where no one would purchase a latte. Will that espresso machine make a 15% return to make that a viable expense? I doubt it. Initially, when rates start to rise, asset sensitive banks will win.

So let’s say a bank out there has locked in 5% funding base for the next 10 years. If rates go to 20%, they’re safe with their 5% and they’ll be able to price loans above that easily. Or a bank can become the lender to the government, but if all you’re doing is funding the government that wont work in the long term, as the economy would collapse.

The trade in financials has largely been long large money center and short regional banks. Do you see that trend continuing going forward?

If you start from the beginning, that trade has worked relatively. The best trade was to just long the whole sector. Now I would say that trade is worth holding onto. Ultimately, what I see on the long side is truly diminishing. On the short side there is some stuff but its primarily valuation related.

I want to make clear though that the idea to go long money center banks has had the margin of safety diminish by a lot. I’ll give an example:

Smart and dumb analysts think that Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) is going to earn around $2.50 to $3.00 in 2011 or 2012. What happens if they’re dead wrong? What happens if they earn $0.90 cents? Then you are clearly overpaying for the price it is at today, $17. But when the stock was available at about $3 it was either trading at 3x or 1x. It was very cheap at both of those multiples.

It’s scary because everyone is betting on Bank of America and I don’t like to bet on a horse that everyone else is betting on. If there is a chain reaction of sells on that name it can contract quite a bit.

How worried are you about regionals with large commercial real estate (CRE) exposure as we progress through what seems to be the next set of fundamental problems? And on that note, which regionals would you be most afraid of here?

In the beginning of the year people thought about banks specifically on the basis of what are the banks with early credit stage issues – housing, consumer type loans (credit cards) versus banks with later stage issues like CRE.

So for example: If you see people moving onto land, they’ll build houses. And if companies see houses, they’ll build commercial real estate and expand their businesses there. So in theory, it’s consumer loans that go bad and then goes CRE and C&I. So for regionals, later stage issues are a larger portion of their loan portfolios. We haven’t seen that hit as much as the early stage credit stuff.

CRE is an interesting animal. 1. There’s a lot of weird accounting 2. The structure of the loan itself. So there are these mini-perm loans for example where on the third or fifth year, the principle balance of the loan is due. A lot of these loans were made between 2005-2007. You still have 2009-2011 where things will come due. But a lot of these mini perm loans get extended out a year. So instead of going to non-performing they just get extended out and to all of us we continue to think they are performing.

Fifth Third (NASDAQ:FITB) is one regional that I’m kind of worried about. In general, right, if you’re going to look for CRE issues there’s a few categories: retail, lodging, industrial, and multi-family. Multi-family probably won’t do as bad as other ones because it’s harder to get loans to buy a mortgage. So more people are going to move into apartments in theory but it will still be hit. That might not do as bad as the other types of loans. Retail will obviously take a hit with consumer spending dropping and unemployment levels elevated. Here are some numbers: a basket of regionals – CMA 22.4%, MTB 25%, Regions 21%, Synovus 28%, Zion 35%. If you look at Wells Fargo 10%. Citigroup it is 2% and for BoA it’s 5.75% of loan portfolio. So those guys are pretty diversified versus the regionals that have a ton of CRE exposure. So you have to drill down and figure out the type of CRE they have the geography of it.

So basically it’s a way for management to hide delinquencies using weird accounting treatments?

Exactly. I’d point to the FDIC bank failures. A lot of the failed banks had 2-4% delinquencies in CRE and then a quarter later delinquencies shot up to 30%!. So you don’t really see that in other categories as the increase is gradual Q/Q.

Will majors participate in open market M&A or wait for the FDIC gain deposit share?

A lot of consolidation you saw with PNC (NYSE:PNC) taking over Nat City, Wells taking over Wachovia, I would argue that that type of M&A is less likely in the near term. More of the FDIC bank seizure type will be common

What about straight up mergers/takeovers?

Banks are still worrying about filling holes in their capital base. Even though equity markets have opened up, these guys would likely have to raise money to take over a large-scale bank. Look at Wells Fargo. Once they put on all their off-balance sheet exposure they’ll have a TCE ratio closer to 3%. They’re already in the 4%-ish range. Some of these guys are already too big — a single bank cannot own 10% of the depositor base of the US. You can only do that if you grow the deposit base organically. Not through takeovers, though I think that rule wasn’t considered last year

Can you talk about how you think regulatory / compliance changes that are on the horizon will affect banks? Any key things to watch out for?

One thing that’s known by the industry that everyone is expecting is rules on new capital adequacy ratios. Capital ratios will go up, the system cannot lever as much as it did before. That’s one thing. Fees are going to get hit (think deposit fees, credit card fees). Who knows what will happen if the Consumer Protection Agency goes forward.

I think normalized earnings will go down because of this. I think provisioning rules will change too. When times are good, banks can’t build reserves too high. FASB will argue that that they’re trying to dodge taxes. Do you know how that works?

No I don’t — let’s go into that a bit.

Okay so, when you have to build your allowances for loan losses, it comes through the provision expense. So banks have a reserve set aside, Bank A has $1000 in reserves with $100 in charge-offs. $100 comes out and the reserve is $900 now. If you want to replenish you need to add $100 but if you want to over provide for that you need to add $101 or more, which all comes out of net income.

In good times, some banks might want to provide for more if they think a crisis is coming. The less they provide the higher their earnings will be. The more they earn, the more they pay in taxes. FASB doesn’t want them to build reserves to an amount they think is unnecessary.

It goes back to what Japan was worried about. Their loans stayed in trouble for a long time. I think 25% of Japan’s tax receipts came from financial reserves. So the government didn’t want them to provide for bad loans.

So yeah — it would severely dent tax revenues. So that’s the dynamic here, there’s this quirk in the accounting and regulatory situation.

Exactly. If a bank had foreseen the crisis, they would have had pressure to actually lower reserves. So I think that will change for the better now and that banks will be able build reserves at a higher rate than before.

How do you deal with the government interference and its skewing of natural competition among banks? (i.e.: having the entire mortgage market in 3-4 banks)

Yeah, so there’s always a stigma with government. I think that’s why banks got so depressed in January and March lows. There were a lot of nationalization fears and the stress test looming. Nat City always boggles me because they had 8.7% TCE ratio, they were one of the highest among peers/large banks. For some reason that bank had to basically be sold to PNC. It could have been a depositor’s run.

So you think the government overreacted in cases?

I don’t think government is good at running businesses. So if they start telling banks whom to originate to I wouldn’t want to be a shareholder of that bank. I do think it will have some implications on the lending business going forward.

One thing to add to that, some people are definitely giving the banks that have excessive intervention less of a multiple. Bank X might be worth 8x but Bank Y that paid back TARP might be worth 10x.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah I do. If government flexing their muscles influences operations, if it becomes very big, then yeah. I don’t think government will be as efficient although I don’t think management of banks themselves aren’t so competent or efficient.

Yeah I thought it was interesting that Citigroup had to sell Phibro, even though it’s a profitable and well-run business unit.

Yeah that’s one decent example. Another thing — if you have more programs or initiatives that relax loan standards. If you can’t pay 20% down you shouldn’t buy a house, no matter what the American dream entails. America’s sort of becoming one big bank. They’re doing subprime lending with the FHAs.

What’s your best long and short for the sector? Themes?

I currently ask two questions:
1. What financial institutions are pushing problems to the future?
2. What banks are trying to work through their issues right now and be prepared for an uncertain world?

So how do you tell that?

Find banks that are aggressive in marking down their books and aggressive in raising capital. Or banks that didn’t partake in this excess during the credit bubble. You’ll find these banks; they might not be very popular. Look for well-capitalized institutions that are ready to pick off credits from weaker institutions. It’s sad to say but look for well-connected management. Look at Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), a lot of people complain about Goldman, like with that Rolling Stones article. But if you think about it, all those negatives are reasons I’d want to own them at the right price.

So for management, look for guys that are liked by politicians and the public?

So if Warren Buffett were to fall tomorrow, a bunch of guys would be saying all these great things about the life he lived. Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide? Probably not so much. In banking, honesty is super important. It’s important everywhere but I mean — look at IndyMac’s CEO. He was so positive up till the bank collapsed. It’s very unfair and really tough. Some investors really relied on his word and it’s very sad. The good thing about having this period in history is that you can see what management teams handled it well. So if the problems get worse, you can use this period to see if they passed.

I would argue that future crises that come about are likely to be worse. With the way the US is acting these days, with the amount of debt they’re taking on, we’ll probably see more problems in the future.

Commerce Bancorp (formerly CBH) used to be a unique bank that had a different business model. If it were a standalone company now, would it have been affected the same way as most of the big banks? Also, would it have taken more market share from the likes of BoA and Citi.

The thing is, when you go through a system-wide crisis, even small banks are bound to be affected. People always praise Wells but I highly doubt that they picked off the best credits in California while Countrywide and IndyMac were left holding the crap. When you have that big of a loan portfolio, I doubt that whole number is good credits. Obviously it hasn’t been.

So Commerce, their model, Vernon Hill was definitely an innovator. Bank Atlantic tried to mimic it exactly, UMPQ is doing something similar. Ultimately though, it’s the type of loans you make that can bring you down. You can be the most innovative banker in the world but if you make bad loans you’ll go down. Commerce also benefited from having a geographic concentration in the Tri-state area.

Are there any banks in particular that stand out in doing new, innovative things? The future of banking will be different than it is today, which banks are going to be ready for that new future?

I’m sure people can disagree but I’d argue how innovative can you really get in a borrowing/lending model. The medium is changing. We’re seeing more Internet banking and maybe something happens in mobile. When is the last time you actually stepped into a bank branch? My parents do, but not so much the younger generations. There’s banks that offer iPhone apps, so that’s the type of innovation I see but nothing too big. You wont get credit for innovation when you’re in a banking crisis.

Mostly, innovations are used to get cheap deposits. If there is a bank that can innovate and do it correctly, then it can work well. Commerce is a great example of one that did achieve it. Their efficiency ratio was higher than most peers but that’s because they kept their bank open 7 days a week and they made it so you really wanted to visit their branches. They used nice colors, had super friendly tellers (they weren’t stuck behind bullet proof windows or a mini gate), and they didn’t make branches look like a post office or a jail cell.

Their whole idea was putting more money towards non-interest expense but they were able to charge less for deposits since they were more convenient. It definitely worked. If you could invest in safe assets you could earn a wider NIM than peers.

The thing about Vernon Hill was that he wasn’t in the banking business forever, he owned Burger King franchises so he brought over that customer-driven model to banking. But if you run into the storm like we did now, innovation is not a high priority on bank executives’ minds.

If you look at innovation from other areas, like tech, you’ll see guys in college who are really bright that are making websites trying to innovative banks.

Yeah I wanted to talk about that — I always see guys, especially from valley tech startups saying how we need to take the start up model to banking ad really innovate things on that end. Every time, I think this is a recipe for failure with all the regulatory hurdles and work involved.

That’s another good point. It’s a heavily regulated industry. So for someone in college or high school that has a bright idea for starting something in the financial sector, they’re going to go through more capital and regulatory barriers than someone trying to build something like Facebook or Twitter. The roadblocks are just a lot higher.

A lot of times when there’s innovation in financials, it usually comes from within the banking system itself. So it is some guy who has been there for 10 years who sees something and acts on it. But it’s almost never from guys on the outside that think of something one day while sitting in their college classroom.

I would argue that there’s simply a smaller number of brains devoted to thinking about new ideas in banking and it’s mostly limited to people who are already in the financial world because it is within their competence.

What about innovative companies within banking?

There’s definitely people like Dick Kovacevich of Wells Fargo who talks about cross selling at Wells Fargo. There are people who argue that it doesn’t work but to him it’s like the Holy Grail. I’d argue to some degree it has worked because Wells Fargo probably has the best funding out there. I don’t have much experience with their branches since I’m on the east coast but we’ll see how things go with this Wachovia integration.

One thing that a lot of value guys got wrong is that they focus too much on qualitative factors like culture and things on the surface of the business model too much. They focus so much on the positives that they aren’t looking at the risks looming. When you’re sitting there analyzing tech companies, a lot of tech companies have good balance sheets. You’re not trained to look at balance sheet risk. David Einhorn did better on financials than other guys, because they set themselves up to look more at downside. Tom Brown focused too much on culture / qualitative factors and didn’t consider the macro/quantitative reasons that could destroy a bank.

What are you reading right now?

I’m reading Just What I Said by Carrol Baum, a Bloomberg Economics columnist. It’s pretty basic. One thing I learned about banks is that macro matters so much more than you think with banks. You’re almost a macro investor, so on that note I’m also reading Alchemy of Finance by George Soros.

One more basic/beginners book that I really like is Peter Lynch’s One Up Wall Street, that was a book that had a big impact on how I looked at investing when I was younger.

Thank you very much for giving your time for this interview. I know that my readers are going to enjoy it.

Bruce Berkowitz of the Fairholme Fund (FAIRX) is featured in a great interview with Advisor Perspectives. Here’s a few quotes, but be sure to read the whole thing:

Leucadia National has minimal disclosure, no Wall Street coverage, and no conference calls. Further, their free cash flow is irregular. How can you meet Ben Graham’s requirement of thorough analysis or determine the margin of safety?

We can’t do that analysis in this case, because we are dealing with more of a Berkshire Hathaway issue. We place a significant amount of weight on the past record of management, along with analyzing holdings on a quarterly and annual basis. Mostly, this represents the style of investing where we respect the people running the company. We have studied Leucadia and their management over a 20 year period. There are no surprises.

Their management is honest, decent, and does not have an oversized ego. They have a better track record than Berkshire Hathaway and they take their fiduciary roles very seriously. Moreover, whereas Berkshire Hathaway is built to last for a very long time horizon, Leucadia has value even over shorter time periods. When the CEO, Ian Cumming, and the president, Joseph Steinberg, retire, they’ll probably give all the money to their shareholders and call it a day.

Leucadia (NYSE:LUK) has always been a favorite of value investors, but they’ve hit a bit of a rough patch lately, stemming from their acquisition of Fortescue. I particularly like this bit about investing in the underlying debt of some of Fairholme’s companies-

You have paired some of your stock positions with senior subordinated debt. Can you explain the investment thesis behind this?

The bond market is more dysfunctional than the equities market. When we see that we can get excess return on the higher end of the credit structure, we know we are on to something good.

We look for certain covenants on the bonds we buy. For example, we want “cross default” provisions, so that if any of the company’s bonds default, then principal payment is accelerated on all the bonds. Similarly, we want change-of-control or “poison pill” provisions, which accelerate principal payments in the event of a takeover. This way, even in an unfriendly or hostile situation, we still get our “box of chocolates” from the bond markets.

And the Fairholme investing process:

Are your positions in health care predicated on the Congress and the new administration enacting some form of national health care plan? What happens if the funds to move forward with such a plan are not available?

To answer this question I must explain our investment process. First, we look at a company’s free cash flow relative to its price. Ideally, we look for a free cash flow yield of 10% or better. [In a recent conference call with investors, Berkowitz said that he is now seeing opportunities with companies trading at two or three times cash flow.] Then we ask what management will do with that cash. If management has a record of investing wisely, that’s great. But we also worry about what can go wrong – what I referred to earlier as “killing the company.” If there are signs that value will be destroyed by actions such as over-leveraging the balance sheet or other stupid management decisions, or if there are certain questions we cannot answer, then we move on to the next investment candidate.

We did not invest in these sectors because we saw nationalized health care coming. We invested because of the value of these companies, in terms of free cash flow, relative to their prices in the market.

The Baby Boomer generation is entering retirement, and they are interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I know, because I am 50-and-a-half and at the edge of this generation. This is a gigantic demographic segment starting to retire and they want to be in good shape and to stay young – and it will take a lot to achieve that.

We have a great health care system, but the unintended consequences include rising costs. For example, nobody says you are too old for a hip replacement. Health care is expensive and HMOs insure the greatest number of people. The two HMOs we own handle 25% of the insured population in the US.

Obama wants everyone insured with the same degree of coverage as the members of Congress. If HMOs like UnitedHealth, WellPoint, WellCare, and others cannot provide these services, then who will? The only thing government can do is to cut a check. Those that are providing these services now will be the ones providing it in the future.

These businesses are very much like our insurance businesses. They can make a mistake in pricing a policy, but in six months they will have the opportunity to adjust those policies. They may lose some members but overall retention rates will be quite high.

Be sure to read the rest, Berkowitz discusses Sears Holdings (NASDAQ:SHLD) and what his thoughts are on 2009. Here’s the full interview in PDF format.

Eleanor Laise, at the Wall Street Journal, has a good article about the recent troubles at the Fairholme Fund a couple of days ago. I’m not invested in the Fairholme Fund, but I really like the work that they do. For much of the year, they managed to dodge the credit crisis by refusing to invest in complex financials and sold their energy holdings around the top. Both of these moves would be a recipe for market beating returns, but eventually as Mr. Market’s depression spread to the entire market, funds that were concentrated in equities like Fairholme were hurt as well.

After outperforming a badly listing market by losing just a few percentage points in each of the first three quarters of 2008, the $6.7 billion mutual fund dropped 24% in the last three months of the year, lagging behind the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index by two percentage points.

Mr. Berkowitz used his cash hoard to snatch up beaten-down shares, but new holdings like defense companies Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co. have fallen. Longer-term stakes like investment company Leucadia National Corp. and retailer Sears Holdings Corp. also were hit.

Some Fairholme investors are losing faith. In November, Fairholme experienced its first monthly outflow in more than three years, with investors pulling about $7 million from the fund, according to fund tracker Lipper Inc.

Mutual Fund Fought Off Bears but Now Is Clawed (WSJ)

Laise’s article is actually pretty balanced. Sometimes I think that journalists and the public are quick to cast a stone at managers who hit small bumps like this, but she devotes a good amount of the article to Bruce Berkowitz’ views on the fund.

One thing I’ve noticed is that value investors can have a hard time when managing the money of others. Inherently, value investors are going after areas of the market that no one else is touching. The problem with this is that such decisions can make their investors question their ability. When the markets are panicked, investors can panic too. This is particularly bad for a fund like Fairholme, where the level of concentration increases volatility.

If investors get really panicked, they’ll force withdrawals from funds and sometimes force selling. There are a few ways to get around this (borrowing, cash cushion) but often, it always looks bad when investors are pulling out of an investment vehicle. It’s times like those when fund managers should be vigilant and keep their investors calm.

Laise’s article only touches on it, but Berkowitz responded to the withdrawals by holding a great conference call. For much of the year, during the credit crisis, we’ve seen companies get on and hold these emergency conference calls to calm the fears of their investors. And almost every time, these conference calls are utter wastes of time. They end up trying to place the blame for their current woes on parties besides themselves — be it the government and their market intervention, or demonic short sellers.

Berkowitz didn’t do that. Instead, he spent most of his time on the call going back and forth with people who’ve invested in the Fairholme Fund. What investors received was great – frank discussions about the companies that were invested in and his perspectives on what went wrong this quarter. Rather than play the blame game, he said that Fairholme’s performance was due to a couple mistakes.

1. Misreading the management of a couple companies.
2. Buying too early.

Even Warren Buffett sometimes finds himself in situations like that (staying in Coca-Cola too long, buying to early during this most recent financial crisis). I don’t think that the occasional misread of a company’s management will end up killing a portfolio. Most investors are sufficiently diversified to protect against that. I don’t believe that the fund’s short term performance will be any indication of how it will perform in the longer term. Value investors aren’t trading daily and as a result, should probably be judged with a longer time period.

Throughout the call, Berkowitz was incredibly reassuring to investors. He spent a lot of time talking about specific holdings with the fund’s investors.

I liked the questions about Sears Holdings (NYSE:SHLD). Sears has taken a lot of hits in the press lately about the poor performance of its stock and the continuously turning turnaround. But now, if you look at what Eddie Lampert has done, maybe his decisions weren’t too bad. While most retailers were spending cash on upgrading their stores, Lampert was more focused on allocating cash to generate high returns. With cash and spending tight, a company like Sears might be better positioned than others. The fund’s investment thesis in Sears was really based around the company’s liquidation valuation, not because other value investors flocked to it, or Eddie Lampert’s successful hedge fund career.

He also discussed Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) a company that the fund selected because of its free cash flow yield, new CEO, cost-cutting, and distribution network. Berkowitz envisions Pfizer as a pharmaceutical merchant bank. With Pfizer generating what looks like $14 billion in FCF TTM, that kind of capital could be deployed quite well to acquire other companies with more developed drugs. That would be incredibly useful to offset the loss of Lipitor.

If you read through the Fairholme Fund’s letters, you’ll see that they mainly look for factors like high FCF yields, a good moat, and a good balance sheet. These companies might be hurting right now because of Mr. Market’s depression, but it seems hard to argue that their long term prospects are bad. The wont need government intervention and should be able to thrive by engaging in cheap acquisitions right now.

Besides specific investments, Berkowitz mentioned on the call that he would be pushing 100% of his net worth into the Fairholme Fund. I don’t know of a more reassuring move that a fund manager could make, especially in a time when investors are particularly frenzied and the economic situation remains a bit bleak.