I trust you enjoyed the festive break and are now ready to battle the market for another twelve months!
This 5,562-word post provides a ‘year in review’ of my current portfolio holdings. I recap how each of the underlying businesses performed during 2019, as well as provide a few remarks about valuation.
As I mentioned this time last year, I find writing such reviews extremely useful — not least because I double-check my investment logic to ensure I am still invested for the right reasons! The upsets I will suffer during 2020 will most likely be caused by the shares I already own rather than by new shares I purchase.
I trust you enjoyed the festive break and are now raring to do battle with the market for another twelve months!
This first Blog post of 2019 provides a ‘year in review’ of my current portfolio holdings. I recap how each of the underlying businesses performed during 2018, as well as provide a few remarks about valuation.
Summary: The commercial property group once again delivered record first-half revenue and net asset value (NAV) figures — despite the chairman’s persistent economic and political worries. The 203-word statement gave little else away, which has allowed the share price to continue to drift and the discount to NAV widen to 50%. Such a valuation has typically rewarded patient investors of this low-profile share, and I have recently bought more.
Summary: CGS’s results were acceptable but contained several irritating drawbacks. In particular, a recovery at the engineer’s troubled machining division has been seemingly postponed for two years. Furthermore, management has now downgraded customer demand from “strong” to “steady”. Oh, and a depreciation review inflated group profit by 10%. CGS does have strengths — not least its cash pile and dividend history — but I suspect the firm’s stalled earnings will keep the shares marooned for now. I continue to hold.
Summary: Publishing results at 4:28pm on a Friday is never a good sign. And sure enough, the recruitment software outfit warned of yet another profit slump. Still, at least revenue inched to a new record as the firm enjoyed greater subscription income. Meanwhile, an anonymous tip-off has set me straight about OLEE’s contract with HMRC — the deal appears not to have been lost after all. All I can do now with this illiquid share is hope for an earnings rebound. I continue to hold.
Summary: These figures were not as good as I had hoped. The lowest first-half sales for seven years created a not-insignificant operating loss and left cash flow dependent on tax refunds. Still, the geoscience software specialist talked of a stronger second half and I remain hopeful the accounts will eventually showcase the high margins and expanding revenue the directors continue to predict. For the time being, I just have to trust a stronger oil price can one day tempt GTC’s customers to increase their spending. I continue to hold.
Summary: The commercial property group once again left its numbers to do most of the talking, as new all-time highs for revenue, net asset value and the dividend were accompanied by only two paragraphs of management commentary. A bonus this year was US tax changes adding £40m to the balance sheet, which now stands at £111 per share and continues to dwarf the £64 share price. Conservative borrowing levels, veteran family management and an illustrious track record remain the foundations of this investment, and, in theory at least, a 14% earnings yield is available, too. I continue to hold.
Summary: These results came in below the engineer’s earlier expectations — but the performance did not appear too bad in the circumstances. Although CGS’s smaller machining division continues to lose money, its problems now look to be contained. Meanwhile, the larger foundry operation seems to be progressing well following a decent second half. A hefty cash position and the illustrious dividend remain key attractions, but the P/E of 13 does not suggest an immediate bargain. I continue to hold.
Summary: Yet again the recruitment software developer delivered results that warned of greater costs and lower client fees. However, this statement was also accompanied by details of a company rebranding — which seems a complete joke project to me. Instead, management really should be addressing why the firm looks to have lost its largest customer. I have sat on a 35% loss here for three years now, and have been taught a tough lesson about illiquidity. Sadly I continue to hold.