Monthly Archives: August 2012

Weekly links

In case you need a name for your soon to be founded hedge fund, try the HedgefundNameGenerator

Second part of the Ibersol analysis from Stephan at Simple Value

Well structured analysis of Bank Of Ireland’s H1 results from Philip O’Sullivan. Could be used as a template for other banks as well.

Good overview of the current “craze” for dividend stocks

Deep thoughts from David Merkel about complexity in financial companies. This guy knows his stuff.

Manchester United IPO (MANU) – Prime short target ?

After unseccusfully trying Hongkong and Singapore, ManU Ipoed today on the US stock exchange. The IPO price was significantly below the initial range:

The IPO priced at $14, below the $16-20 range the club’s bankers had been seeking. It valued the 19-times English champions at only $2.3 billion and shaved as much as $100 million off the proceeds expected for the team and its owners.

Of course, the public shares have almost no voring rights and dividends should not be expected.

For anyone interested in stocks and football, the F-1 listing prospectus is really fun reading and should not be missed.

Valuation is relatively difficult to determine, but somewhere in the 20-25 EV/EBITDA range based on 2011 figures. Naturally, Manu has been pumped full with high yielding debt from its P/E owners and has additional “goodies” such as 140 mn USD “purchase obligations” etc.

Interestingly they file under the “Emerging Growth” company rule, which allows corporate governance similar to my beloved Italian highway operators….

A quick look at other listed Football clubs:

By the way, Porto could be bought for only 5 mn EUR…..

Yes, ManU is a great Football club, but they cannot and will not defy gravity. So prime short candidate if borrowing is available. It is not yet oin the Interactive Broker US short list, but as soon as it is there, I wil establish a position.

Bad research example: FT’s John Dizard and the Greek GDP linker

I was quite surprised that my old Greek GDP warrant post got hit a lot in the last few days.

By coincidence I just saw that on Monday, a guy called John Dizard recommended the GDP linker as a “great bet on Greek long-term growth”.

You have to register in order to read the article online, but although its almost a half page in the print FFm supplement, the essence is the following:

– the Argentinian linkers were a great deal
– the Greek linkers are cheap (30 cents)

In my opinion, he makes some plain wrong statements like:

“The Greek GDP warrants could begin to pay out in 2015, based on the country having experienced a minimal recovery by then”


As I have mentioned in the post, Greece needs to hit the 2011 nominal GDP (in EUR) by 2014, to get any payout in 2015. In 2012, I think Greece is running at around -7%. So Greek needs nominal increases in GDP by at least north of 3.5% both in 2013 and 2014 to hit this trigger. I am not sure if this could be called a “minimal” recovery.

I am not sure what happens if Greece leaves the EUR, but I would assume that the Linkers would only pay if EUR GDP is triggered, not “new Drachma” GDP.

He then goes on and says the following:

“Right now they trade at about 32 or 33 cents, which means that is what you pay for the possibility of receiving one euro in 2015”.

Again, no points. The 33 cents represent the chance that you get any cash flow over the next 30 years. I am pretty sure that Mr. Dizard never really to bothered reading the prospectus, he will be busy writing his next “analysis”.

Finally he quotes a trader who says “the discount rate on future payments is just to high”. This is of course bullshit as well. Normal “non optional” Greek Government bonds trade at 20% yield p.a. If one discounts the cashlofs without taking the options into account, one ends up with a “bond equivalent” value of 3.28%. So you are paying at 33 cent an option premium” of 10% for the bond equivalent market value which is not cheap in my opinion.

Summary: So maybe it turns out that the Greek linker is a good investment. But if it does, it is certainly not for the reasons this genius has identified. My advice would be for people who want to speculate on Greece’s future to buy the GGBs instead. At 15% of nominal, they have enough “optionality” and upside in the good case. Or you buy shares like OPAP if you want to mitigate the Sovereign default risk. Optionality wherever you look.

Edit: At least the article moved the price up by 10-15% for the linker. This is the advantage of writing for the FT.

Draeger Genußscheine (ISIN DE0005550719) Update

No real news but a very interesting developement at my largest portfolio position, Draeger Genußscheine.

As a refresher: The “Genußscheine” include the right to receive 10 times the dividend of the pref shares (DRW3, ISIN DE0005550636). I started the position as a long Genußschein / Short pref shares “carry trade”. I decided to cover the short when Drager issued a EUR 210 offer and keep the Genußscheine as this put a floor under the price.

Now, in the last view days one can see something interesting happening: The Pref shares trade lower while the Genußscheine jumped.

If we look at the 10 year history of price of the Genußscheine divided by price of the prefs , we can see that the relation has increased significantly to a 10 year high at currently around 3.7 times.

I didn’t find any real news, however in some internet boards there is a speculation that either Draeger might increase the dividend or even come out with a higher offer. I am not sure about that if they will really do something.

Back then I wrote the following:

For the patient investor, I think the Genußscheine will be still an intersting medium term investment. For the portfolio I will hold them unless I find something better, there is no need to sell.

I think this is the same lesson as from the AIRE KGaA example as well as with the Bertelsmann Genußschein: If someone really wants to have a company or a certain share class / security , it usually pays off to wait and not jump on the first offer.

In the past, I often used to sell at the first offer, being happy to make a nice gain quickly. But as those two example show (so far), the risk /return relationship of just doing nothing and wait further seems to be quite good.

The only “problem” now is that the position is currently 10.2% of the portfolio. a ~10% is kind of the maximum I can stand for a single position, I will have to decide to sell if the Genußschein moves further.

Piquadro update – SELL

While I am looking at luxury companies which I could short, one should not forget that Piquadro, which I would call also a “Tier 2” brand, has issued its quarterly report just yesterday.

Unfortunately, Piquadro matches my “short thesis” quite well, with sales down significantly in its indirect channels and only relatively limited grwoth in the direct channel. Working capital increased which is a result of the increasing direct operated stores. In general, invested capital increased significantly, financed by additional debt.

So the change in the distribution model seems to be not a swift one as the Italian indirect sales really seem to melt away.

Time to go back to my initial investment thesis and valuation exercise.

My conservative case implied a 16% EBITDA margin. In the current quarter, we are at 1.77/11.3 = 15,67%, so optimistically we are within the conservative case regarding EBITDA Margin.

However if we look at the valuation grid that I used, we can clearly see that 2% growth was my worst case scenario for the conservative case:

Growth 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
  7% 2.06 2.57 3.43 5.14 10.28
  8% 1.71 2.06 2.57 3.43 5.14
  9% 1.47 1.71 2.06 2.57 3.43
  10% 1.29 1.47 1.71 2.06 2.57
  11% 1.14 1.29 1.47 1.71 2.06
  12% 1.03 1.14 1.29 1.47 1.71

In reality, EBITDA decreased by -29% vs. Q1 2011 and operating CF became negative. I have to admit, that looking back I kind of ignored that running own stores worldwide is a very different business model than selling wholesale in Italy.

As a consequence, I will sell down Piquadro from tomorrow on, as my initial thesis (international sales compensate domestic sales) clearly doesn’t play out.

There might be some takeover / going private speculation (the Samsonite CEO mentioned that they might be interested in Italian luggage makers after TUMI has become too expensive), but I am not willing to speculate on this.

Shorting Luxury stocks – Follow up

So shorting luxury stocks is not easy. I mentioned Bronte’s Richemont short in the previous post. Howver, Richemont issued very strong numbers with no slow down detectable. The same seems to be true for Prada:

Italian fashion house Prada SpA (1913.HK), which competes with Louis Vuitton (LVMH.PA) and PPR’s (PRTP.PA) Gucci, posted a 36.5 percent jump in first-half revenue, buoyed by strong growth in Asia, with sales driven mainly by its Prada and Miu Miu brands.

Revenue for the six months ended in July rose to 1.55 billion euros ($1.9 billion), the Milan-based maker of luxury bags and clothing said on Monday.

John Hempton reacted pretty quickly but seems to be confused.

One alternative explanation of Richemonts numbers comes from the WSJ:

“China’s outbound tourism industry has boomed in recent years, helped in part by the allure of luxury goods overseas.”

So with a relatively cheap Euro, Chines Mainlanders might not fly to Hongkong but straight to Europe to shop for their Richemont Watches and Hermes bags. Just on the week end I was astonished by the long queue of Asians on the Munich Airport waiting for their sales tax refund.

My current thesis for shorting luxury stocks is the following:

– the ultimate top level luxury brands like Hermes etc. will suffer less from a slow down as the very rich will keep on spending, no matter what
– tier 2 brands, those who get bought by the upper middle class will suffer more as those guys will have to cut back quicker and harder in a crisis
– companies who expanded their own sales network rapidly in the last few a lot will get hit harder than companies which don’t run own outlets.

So the focus should be on “tier 2” luxury brands with a lot of retail exposure (operating leases) and weak balance sheets. Preferrably, store growth should have slowed done already, or maby some store closings should have already happened.

So lets look at a list of luxury/high end retailers. For fun I included Nike, Adidas and Piquadro as well to look how they compare:

Tier 1
Tier 2

The Tier 1 /Tier 2 classification is a totally subjective classification from my side.

So to add some “meat” to this, lets look at some “raw” valuation metrics:

Tier 1        
PRADA S.P.A. 15.5 34.7 8.3 65.9
CHRISTIAN DIOR 6.1 15.1 2.2 9.8
HERMES INTERNATIONAL 19.7 39.0 10.0 40.5
PPR 9.8 15.2 1.4 24.8
BURBERRY GROUP PLC 10.4 21.9 6.7  
TIFFANY & CO 8.4 15.7 3.0  
SALVATORE FERRAGAMO SPA 12.8 34.3 13.2 34.7
Tier 2        
PIQUADRO SPA 5.5 9.0 2.7 10.9
BRUNELLO CUCINELLI SPA 17.3 34.3 19.1 67.4
ADIDAS AG 8.9 16.6 2.3 17.3
NIKE INC -CL B 11.3 20.0 4.2 33.6
TUMI HOLDINGS INC 21.2 42.7 43.9  
TOD’S SPA 9.1 17.4 3.4 26.4
RALPH LAUREN CORP 9.9 20.8 3.8 22.7
COACH INC 8.4 15.5 7.9 16.0
HUGO BOSS AG -ORD 10.9 17.4 11.9 29.8

One can see clearly that in the “Tier 1” category, Prada and Hermes stand out in terms of valuation, but also they are outstanding premium brands.

In “Tier 2”, especially the new IPOs, TUMI, Michael Kors and Brunello look expensive, especially I highly doubt that those brands are even close to the long term value of a Hermes or Prada brand.

Some additional infos in the next table:

table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}

Name Future Minimum Operating Lease Obligations LF Revenue T12M Lease/revenue Debt/EBITDA LF
Tier 1        
PRADA S.P.A. 1,318,771,727.17 2,212,724,598.94 59.6% 0.5
CHRISTIAN DIOR 4,499,997,166.86 23,185,601,928.23 19.4% 1.4
HERMES INTERNATIONAL   2,465,950,626.43   0.0
LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUI   22,261,439,383.88   1.3
PPR   9,599,553,313.27   2.8
BURBERRY GROUP PLC 640,300,032.00 1,857,200,000.00 34.5%  
TIFFANY & CO   2,327,788,295.92   1.0
SALVATORE FERRAGAMO SPA   856,156,635.81   0.6
CIE FINANCIERE RICHEMON-BR A 1,194,736,463.41 7,644,616,343.90 15.6% 0.4
Tier 2        
PIQUADRO SPA   55,621,116.76   0.9
BRUNELLO CUCINELLI SPA   210,603,043.70   1.4
ADIDAS AG   12,125,170,682.01   1.2
NIKE INC -CL B 1,386,834,706.54 15,181,364,342.46 9.1% 0.1
SAMSONITE INTERNATIONAL SA 129,442,413.07 976,677,821.80 13.3% 0.0
TUMI HOLDINGS INC 0.00 228,242,106.47   4.5
TOD’S SPA 250,946,920.20 775,643,994.46 32.4% 0.3
RALPH LAUREN CORP 1,227,233,677.46 4,301,242,776.32 28.5% 0.2
COACH INC   3,010,310,037.06   0.0
MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LTD 335,036,357.76 770,199,265.10 43.5% 0.0
HUGO BOSS AG -ORD   1,867,480,409.77   0.8

I tried to gather some data regarding debt and leases. Although I have not filled all the blanks, it looks like TUMI has quite a lot of debt, whereas Michael Kors has some serious lease obligations.

So those two might be interesting short candidates. Although for Tumi, Short interest is already ~37% of float…

To be continued….

Additional thoughts about Mapfre SA (ISIN

Thursday’s post about Mapfre outlined the general idea behind the investment.

With this post I want to add some more details to the case

Time horizon & type of investment

Just to make it clear: I do not expect a quick solution to the EUR problems. So the time horizon for this investment should be at least 2-3 years (or even 3-5 years). The type of investment is what I would call a “sum of part” value investment with a contrarian aspect for the Spanish business

Insurance valuation

Some investors use “tangible book” as most appropriate vluation basis, for instance Bruce Berkowitz in his AIG case.

In my opinion “tangible book value” is only a very very crude meassure. The big problem with Insurance companies is the fact that not only the value of the assets are hard to value but also liabilities, esp. insurance reserves are by no means “fixed”.

Currently, this is most obvious for life insurance contracts with guarantees, where under normal GAAP, liabilities remain “at cost” whereas assets are marked to market. This had the perverse effect that after the big decline in interest rates, life insurers showed nice profits on their bond holdings, but the liabilities are severly under water. As the “gearing” of reserves to quity in life insurance is usually around 20 times, one can easily calculate how quickly any “tangible book” disappears if reserves would be marked to market.

With insurance, it is a little bit like cable television (and my unsuccessful Kabel Deutschland short): If no one cares (and especially the regulator), you can run the business without “real capital”.

Coming back to “tangible book”: Real mtm tangible book would be a helpful measure, but even industry or company insiders are not able to calculate this. So one should better take accounting tangible book value for insurers with extreme care…..

Spain is not Greece ?

A few quick thoughts: In my opinion, Spain is not Greece because of 3 major structural issues:

A) Spain didn’t have a spending problem before the crisis hit. So their problems are clearly a result of the crisis, not a structural (and maybe cultural) deficiency like in Greece.

B) Again, I would like to link to Ibex Salad which gives a more balanced outside view on what is happening in Spain. In my opinion, especially the developments in regard to exports show that a lot of positive things are happening in SPain below the “surface”. This will take time but it is not so hopeless like in Greece.

c) And one should not forget that Spain is the country with the highest population growth rate in Western Europe (apart from Luxembourg).

Capital increase

As one commentator rightly pointed out, MAPFRE did several right issues in the last few years:

2011: 77.2 mn shares at 2.466
2010. 94.4 mn shares at 2.008
11/2009: 63.63 mn shares at 2.58
03/2009: 124.8 mn shares at 1.41
11/2008 68.6 m shares at 2.21

One could indeed ask why they pay relatively high dividends and in parallel issue new stock. This is surely one of the reasons which negatively impacted the shares in the past. The only “excuse” is that they really managed to grow in this period while many others had to increase capital just to maintain their business.

Overall investment case:

Just in order to illustrate the “drivers” of Mapfre’s valuation a little bit better, I created a quick and dirty valuation metrics to show what impacts I expect both, for the Spanish and the International business:

LatAm/Int   bad status quo Good
  bad 1.56 2.08 2.59
  Status quo 2.51 3.03 3.55
  Good 3.44 3.96 4.47

What this should show is that the developement in Spain is less relevant than the international developement. If LatAm continuous to perform well, the MArgin of Safety is quite high, no matter what happens in Spain.

EDIT: For some reason, the price of Mapfre now jumped at over 1,67. So I only got 1/5 of my planned allocation so far. Based on my learning experience with April SA, i will not increase my 1.50 EUR limit.

Weekly links

Collection of Charly Munger’s shareholder letters 1983-2009 (via My investing notebook)

Dark pools and broken markets, the next book on my reading list. Thereafter, I will read that one.

Comprehensive list of great accounting books from the “Grumpies”

Very good commentary on the current status in high yield bond markets

Part 3 of a very comprehensive analysis of the Chinese real estate markets from Chovanec.

Idea generation: Shorting Luxury stocks

This is an idea which I am contemplating for some time.

Coneventional stock market wisdom says: Chinese / Asians love luxury goods, therefore this is the safest bet to buy Luxury stocks who sell to the Chinese consumer.

As a result, many luxury companies had great runs intheir stock price, for instance:



or Ralph Lauren

However up until now, I did not really no where a “catalyst” would come from. So switch to the brilliant John Hampton at Bronte who really nails it down with Richemont, the Swiss luxury group:

Swiss Watch exports have been increasing, as the Chinese really dig expensive watches:

It is the Rococo stuff that is winning. The Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry publish export data from Switzerland (not sales to end consumers). June data shows a 4.1 percent reduction in volume, a 21.7 increase in value. The average price of a watch is going up sharply. This has been the case for years. The Federation published this graph which shows that (relatively accurate) electronic watches have been flat in value for years – but that mechanical movements (inaccurate but reassuringly expensive) have gone skyward:

Although exports to Hong kong are still increasing strongly, sales seem to have stalled:

There are several data sources I watch to keep tabs on spending by Chinese elite. The Swiss Watch data is obvious.

Exports to Hong Kong in June were up 21.2 percent. It was about the same in May (but the monthly data has disappeared from the web). It was about the same every other month this year. They keep upping the exports to Hong Kong.

But Hong Kong also has sales tax data which comes from the sales tax receipts. There is in the data a series for “Jewellery, watches, clocks and valuable gifts” by both value and volume. The value series – relatively flattering, has monthly sales (versus previous corresponding period) for the last six months as:

Sales growth stopped. However exports to Hong Kong kept up (note that 21.2 percent figure above).

John Hempton is not a guy who would short such a share because of date, he needs a real reason and this is the following:

have a theory given to me by a China watcher. The theory – it turned bad sharply with the ouster of Bo Xilai and now the murder charge on his wife Gu Kailai. Gu Kailai is going to have a hard time avoiding a mobile execution unit. This changes the stakes and it is structural. A half million dollar watch no longer says “look at me”. It says “look at me, I am a kleptocrat”. Thoughts of that beautiful Van Cleef and Arpels hair clip become the last thing that runs through your brain before the bullet.

And he can prove his theory with the example Brazil in the 80ties and 90ties:

We know what a completely collapsed luxury good market looks like. Brazilians like a bit of bling. But in the late 1980s and into the 1990s the kidnapping rate in Brazil went skyward. (There is an horrific documentary about that called Manda Bala which translates “send a bullet”.) After kidnapping became a major industry (particularly in São Paulo) carrying a $3000 handbag no longer said “look at me”, it said “kidnap me”.

Two other data points in the recent weeks show that maybe the Chinese consumer might be (for any reason) a little biut more cautious:

– Sales at Sand’s Chinese casinos disappointed strongly

– and even McDonalds announced that same store sales in China fell

For me, such company news are much more reliable than any Chinese Government statistics.

Let’s quickly look at Richemont:

The stock price ist still below its 2008 highs:

The stock doesn’t look so expensive either:

Trailing P/E 16,6
P/B 2.8
P/S 2.9

is not that expensive for a stock with a 17% profit margin and 20% ROIC, a very conservative balance sheet with no goodwill and net cash. Even mean reversion would support current levels. 10 year average net margin is 20%, only 10 year average ROIC is “only” around 10%.

A much more interesting short candidate might be Boss.

Boss is more expensive

Trailing P/E 17.3
P/B 11.9
P/S 2.4

and 10 year avg. profit margin is 8.6% against current 13%.

Still, I would prefer to short luxury shares with aggressive accounting, but I have to dig a little bit deeper for this.

And do not forget: Luxury sales in Europe are bad anyway and as Coach shows, even the US is not “an island” with regard to luxury sales.


I guess shorting Luxury stocks might be an interesting idea at some point in time. I wouldn’t short Richemont, as this is really one of the rock solid companies, but other candidates might be more interesting. Preferably with aggressive accounting and US / Europe exposure.

Mapfre SA (ISIN ES0124244E34) – LatAm “pearl” hidden under PIIGS cover?

Mapfre SA is THE Spanish Insurance company.

The stock used to be a “star performer” in the past, but suffered from the PIIGS crisis and is now back at 2009 lows:

As many financial companies based in the PIIGS countries, the stock looks relatively cheap:

Market Cap: 4.6 bn EUR
P/E trailing 5.4
P/B 0.65 (Tangible 2x)
P/S 0.2
Dividend Yield 10.4%

Well known problems include:
– ~50% of the premium income is from Spain (market leader with 20% market share)
– of course large PIIGS exposure (~8 bn EUR in Spanish Govies alone)
– Tangible book still lower then stock price (Tangible book is the main criteria used by many insurance investors like Berkowitz)
– Spain is “toast” anyway (current genreally accepted wisdom)
– Troubled bank Bankia is 15% shareholder of Mapfre (and cooperation partner)
– Mapfre has a majority shareholder, take over is highly unlikely

However if one looks more closely at Mapfre, some very interesting points can be identified:

+ Mapfre is mostly a Property and Casualty insurer, which means that the underlying insurance business is not directly affected from the financial crisis

An interesting fact about motor insurance and crisis: When times are bad, people tend to drive less miles with their car and use public transport more often or stay at home. This means that fewer accidents happen and insurers have to pay less claims. A pretty countercyclical business.”

+ Mapfre has something, most other insures don’t: Strong growth !!! Even in the first 6 months 2012, premiums increased more than 10% yoy, despite decreases in the Spanish home market

+ this leads us to the second point: Mapfre’s Business is increasingly international. In the first 6 months in 2011, the split of Spain/Non-spain was 50/50, it is now 30% Spain and 70% international.

+ Mapfre is market leader or in the top 3 in most Latin american countries, most notable they have 20% market share in Brazil and 10% in Mexico.

+ using market multiples, the Brazilian and Mexican subsidiary could be worth more than Mapfre’s market cap

Margin of Safety ?

The big question for anyone who wants to be a “Value Investor” is the question: Is there a margin of safety, or more precise, if there is a haircut in Spain, will I lose money ?

In my opinion, the possibility to lose money PERMANENTLY is relatively small even in a haircut scenario medium and long term due to the following facts:

1. Mapfre is the Spanish market leader an Insurance regulation is complex. So if Spain would really haircut its bonds, I would assume that the regulation would be adjusted so that Mapfre will not need to use a lot of new capital. So dilution risk is relatively low comapred to banks.

2. In contrast to the banks, an insurer is normally not forced to sell “underwater” assets, as the policy holders cannot easily demand their money back.

3. Even in the case of a capital requirement, Mapfre could sell minority shares in its LatAm subsidiaries to rich locals (Carlos Slim anyone ?) and easily raise money, one needs only to look at EDP from Portugal.

4. Especially in its home market and in its major LatAm operation, Mapfre has a strong “Moat” due to established sales channels and economics of scale

So yes, this will definitely be a very volatile future for Mapfre, but I am pretty sure that they will survive even a Spanish Haircut despite the relatively high “gearing” towards Spanish Sovereign bonds.

One of the short term risks will be that they might cut their very generous dividend at some point in time like Telefonica, but as in the case of Telefonica, this might be already included in the current stock price.

Sum of part Valuation:

I will do this very “quick and dirty”, just to show the potential:

Spanish business:

There is one “pure play” Spanish competitor with a similar business mix, Grupo Catalana Occidente (ISIN ES0116920333). Their comps look as follows:

P/S 0.4
P/B 1.0
P/E trailing 6.4

If we use P/S as the simplest multiple, Mapfre’s domestic business based on 2011 premiums of 7.8 bn EUR would be worth 3.1 bn EUR
International business:

For Brazil, Mexico Chile and Colombia (the most attractive LatAm countries) , I would use a P/S multiple of 1.0, for all the other Lat Ams a multiple of 0.5 which results in 5.9 bn EUR market value of the LatAm ops.

For 2 bn “international” premiums (US, Turkey, Portugal) I would use a 0.4 premium multiple, adding a further 0.8 bn EUR

From the 4.2 bn other international businesses, I would value the attractive Assistance business with a multiple of 1, the rest with a 0.4 multiple. This adds another 2 bn .

This results in a total sum of part value (before liabilities) of 11.8 bn EUR. I have identified around 2.5 bn EUR financial liabilities at a quick glance, so this would result in a business value of 9.3 bn EUR or ~3.20 EUR per share based on current multiples for the Spanish business, without taking into account market leadership etc.

LT2 Bond

As an alternative to the stock, Mapfre has also an interesting LT2 bond outstanding (ISIN ES0224244063). The bond has a 30 NC 10 structure, which means that for the first 10 years since issuance (until 2017) it pays a fixed coupon and then changes into a floating rate.

LT2 means that coupons could be deferred but are cumulative.

The bond has a 5.921% fixed coupon and trades around 60%, which would translate into a 19% yield p.a. if Mapfre calls in 2017. YTM would be 9.4%.


MApfre SA is an interesting way to speculate on a Spanish recovery. The long term Margin of Safety comes from the value of the LatAm business which is profitable and still growing strongly. Although it is not likely at the moment, a sale or spin off of the LatAm subsidiaries could unlock the “real” value of the stock.

As the stock will be very volatile going forward, I will “scale in” for the portfolio over the next 10 days up to an 2.5% position (0.25% per day) with a limit of 1.50 EUR per share.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »