Increased program trading and passive indexing is creating
greater volatility in the stock markets – and in many cases, increasing
discrepancies between a stock’s trading price and its true value. For example, a stock that is in a ‘hot’ industry, or
fits neatly into an index, may trade at greater than intrinsic value because of
these non-company related influences. On the opposite end of the spectrum,
smaller companies or those that do not neatly fit into indices may trade at a
significant discount to fair market value.
This has been compounded by the reduction of investment
research caused by changes to global securities regulation, which in turn has
impacted brokerage firms’ ability to provide research in exchange for
commissions. As a result, substantial
coverage for smaller companies has been reduced or dropped altogether.
Despite this, the underlying businesses are often doing
well; this has led in some cases to excellent value purchases in the stock market,
compared with what might be considered fair market value. The problem for
regular stock market investors is that conditions may not change in the future,
and therefore it may be a very long time, if ever, before true value is
recognized in the stock market. For
businesses that distribute cash flows to shareholders, this may not be as
relevant as a large portion of returns can be in the form of cash returned to
investors. But for many companies that require cash for reinvestment, the
trading value can often be at a large discrepancy to fair value, with no
visible event to change the trading valuation (commonly referred to as a Value
Trap).
Historically, we have largely used one of three strategies
to acquire assets: (i) we carve out
assets from sellers who wish to realize cash from a non-core business; (ii) we
buy assets in stressed situations, including by acquiring debt in the market
and converting it to equity, and (iii) we take companies private in friendly
transactions. The first two of these strategies continue to contribute to
our sourcing of transactions. Increasingly, however, for investors such as
ourselves that are capable of buying entire businesses out of the stock market,
the third strategy is becoming the largest source of transactions as market
volatility creates greater opportunity.
To put this into context, in the past two years we have
taken seven public companies private. We attribute some of this to the above
conditions as it enables us to begin discussions with a company at a reasonable
starting point for value. In addition, in many cases, investors are frustrated
and fatigued, and therefore choose to move on at a reasonable premium to the
share price. In real estate, we took Forest
City private in the U.S. In
renewables, we took TerraForm Global private and acquired Saeta Yield in Spain . In
private equity, we have an offer outstanding for Healthscope in Australia . In
infrastructure, we privatized Enercare in Canada . All told, these
take-private transactions led to the acquisition of over $55 billion of assets.
More importantly, we believe we acquired great businesses at reasonable value.
One never knows what
the future holds, but for now we see this trend of share price volatility
increasing and consequently, there may be more opportunities to buy great
businesses for value in friendly transactions with management teams that wish
to join us, while at the same time providing existing investors with liquidity
and an opportunity to exit at a favorable price.
Bruce Flatt,
Excerpt from Brookfield Asset
Management’s Quarterly Letter,
May 9, 2019