Companies are essentially dynamic systems comprising of numerous moving components subject to a myriad of internal (e.g. management) and external (e.g. competition) forces. Financial statements in turn provide periodic snapshots of the state of the system. From these snapshots, various financial ratios can be deduced to convey useful qualitative information about a company.
Whilst almost all investors have the ability to undertake first order analysis by determining that “high earnings margin” or “high return on capital” are favourable, the fact that these financial ratios can also be inputs into the system, essentially forming a feedback loop, is under-appreciated.
One obvious example is how Amazon “weaponised” its low earnings margins to form a formidable moat against its competitors. In its early years, many simply looked superficially at Amazon’s earnings margin and decided it was a company growing unprofitably and hence unsustainable. Fortunately for Amazon, astute investors realised what those margins were doing to the competition and continued to support the company.
Therefore, one pathway to potentially generating non-consensus insights is to work through how financial ratios (particularly if they’re outliers) affect the various participants in the system – and in turn their likely responses. Let me demonstrate through an example.
BWX Limited is a market darling with an enviable number one position in the Australian pharmacy natural skincare category. BWX possesses fat profit margins, a 30%+ earnings growth trajectory, secular tailwinds and huge blue sky potential offshore. There are few ASX companies that tick so many boxes and offer such a compelling growth story.
One financial ratio that is an outlier relative to its peers is BWX’s 37% EBITDA margin – phenomenally high and often cited as a key investment merit of the company:
Note that BWX is essentially a vertical roll-up and the company did not exist in its current incarnation until FY16 (i.e. it has limited financial history). Its EBITDA margins have thus only become public information recently (on this point, if you’ve ever hustled in an old school marketplace, no old timer will ever tell you that they’re “doing well” or that “business is good”. Invariably “business is bad” and “you’re killing me ”).
It is then a worthwhile exercise to work through how this phenomenally high EBITDA margin, simply as a piece of information, may affect the actions of the participants:
Example 1 – Like most FMCG companies, BWX does not sell directly to consumers but rather it is dependent on retail chains and distributors as sales channels. With a juicy 37% EBITDA margin dangled in front, how are retail sales channels (many wielding tremendous amount of market power) likely to respond in future price negotiations?
Example 2 – How will adjacent and potential competitors respond once they perceive that a sustainable 37% EBITDA margin was on offer in a highly attractive market segment with no real structural barriers to entry? And in turn will BWX need to increase its sales and marketing expenditure to defend market share?
We can see here that whilst the fact that BWX currently possesses attractively high EBITDA margins is consensus knowledge, taking that extra step and working through how this EBITDA margin affects the behaviour of other participants within the system can often yield an extra dimension in your analysis.
And ultimately, it’s only the non-consensus insights that will deliver true alpha.
Note: The above article constitutes the author’s personal views and is for entertainment purposes only. It is not to be construed as financial advice in any shape or form. Please do your own research and seek your own advice from a qualified financial advisor. Being obviously passionate about the art of investing, the author may from time to time hold positions in the aforementioned stocks consistent with the views and opinions expressed in this article. Disclosure – I hold no position in BWX at the time of publishing this article (This is a disclosure and NOT A RECOMMENDATION. Any position held by the author may, for example, be part of a pair trade or a hedging position so it is not informative in isolation).
I like the thought process behind this piece and the idea of thinking about in terms of an ‘input’/’system’ model.
In the example of BWX, having a look at a similar company with more historic reporting data like Trilogy (ASX:TIL) might give some insight into how EBITDA may evolve over time. TIL report segmented product information which helps.
Disc: No interest in either company
Agreed, I think TIL is the closest comp.
Hi Mr Moat,
People often look at the GUD auto EBIT margin of 28-32%.
Do you think they have a sustainable reason for that to stay there?
thanks
Sorry, I have not looked at GUD.
Hi there.
How much of your comments about Amazon do you think might be heavily influenced by various behavioural (consensus, level 1) thinking errors, such as hindsight bias and narrative bias? After all, how many retail discounters, with commensurately low margins, have there been throughout history? Probably in every case the impact has been to damage the competition, ie to bring down margins for all, including oneself.
But in the end, whether or not that was going to end as a suicide mission could only be answered after sufficient market share had already been won. By then, the question had probably already been answered.
Well spotted! You’re right that my comment about Amazon is the consensus view out there today and I suppose this is the conundrum when using a well-known example. However, my point here is not to suggest that one “buy Amazon” or “buy retailers with low margins”, but rather just as an illustrative example of how margins may impact the system itself. Obviously you wouldn’t make an investment decision on the basis of this alone.
So can we infer that you think BWX’s margins are unsustainable?
I don’t know that much about BWX but I know a lot of fund managers that think it is the best thing since sliced bread. The share price since IPO is testament to that.
My wife has used Sukin products and said they are not that great, but clearly a lot of people do!
This will be an interesting stock to watch.
I had a similar discussion about outlier ROE ratios recently, same concept, 1st level thinking, “high ROE must mean better business”, second level thinking, “what is different about this business that makes its ROE so high and what does that mean for competitors/suppliers/customers.”
Obviously businesses that have very low capex demands and low COGS will fall in this category, also look for low retained earnings (keeping ‘E’ lower).
Also as pointed out to me, look for earning generating assets that are off the balance sheet.