InvestorsFriend Inc. Newsletter
June 12, 2011
Sino-Forest
Sino-Forest Corporation has been very much in the news in recent days.
Its stock price plummeted about 75% from about $18 down to about $4.50 after
a report was released that accuses it of being a fraudulent operation with a
true value of under $1.00 per share.
Sino-Forest has been listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for since the
early or mid 90's. But all of its operations are in China.
The report by "Muddy Waters Research" is available here:
http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MW_TRE_060211.pdf
The company is defending itself and denying the allegations. It remains
to be seen whether there is any truth to the allegations.
I am particularly intrigued and interested in the whole situation because
I once had over 4% of my portfolio invested in this stock. I was a big fan.
I held it for about 5 years and I read it's annual reports and studied its
financials for over five years. However, by late 2005 I was growing wary because
it seemed to have changed its business model. Trees that I understood it had
planted throughout the 1990's and which it said would mature in 5 to 7 years
did not seem to have been sold by 2005. When I called the company to inquire
I recall I was told they had only started planting trees around I believe
they said 1999. That did not accord with what I thought I had read in their
annual reports.
In fact the 1996 annual report states
At December 31, 1996, Sino-Forest
has
phased in a total of approximately 37,600
hectares of plantation lands, or 6%
of the plantation lands currently under
contract.
Now maybe 37,600 hectares of planted trees is not much but that
did not explain why approximately none of these trees, some of which were
said to mature in just five years, were apparently not sold by late 2005.
And it contradicted the information I received when I called the company and
was told that the reason the trees were not sold yet is that planting had
only started in, I believe they told me 1999 or it may have been even later.
The point is based on that conversation and the other risks I perceived I
decided I could not trust the company.
I have now re-posted my old 2005 report on Sino-Forest and highlighted
the concerns I had at the time.
http://www.investorsfriend.com/2005%20Sino-Forest%20InvestorsFriend%20report.htm
Now, it is not clear even today whether my lack of trust was justified. I
just want to point out at this time that I in fact lost trust in the company
in 2005 and let my customers know that.
UNDERSTANDING STOCK MARKET RISK
One of the hardest concepts to understand when it comes to stock
investing is; What exactly is risk? How should risk be measured? How much
risk should we take? How risk can we afford to take financially? How much
risk are we prepared to take emotionally?
The investment industry is leery to be responsible for deciding how much
risk any of us should take. It's too tough a question fro them to ask and
they face risks if they get it wrong. So, quite naturally, they leave the
decision on how much risk to take to the client. The industry pretends that
clients can decide this by checking off a box on a know-your-client form.
The reality is that most of us have little basis to decide how much risk we
should take. It's really a question that is impossible to answer "accurately".
The academics of the investment industry like to pretend that risk can be
measured rather precisely using statistical measures like standard deviation
and "betas" and various formulas. They are wrong, risk by its very
definition can never be measured precisely. And anyhow once disaster
strikes, the fact that statistically it was a very low risk is cold comfort.
What comfort is it to the people in Japan that the risk of an earthquake and
Tsumani causing a Nuclear disaster was (or was thought to be) so small as to
be insignificant. It's cold comfort indeed.
In 1985 when I was taking a Finance course at St. Mary's University I was
taught that risk in the stock market was unmeasured by the standard
deviation in the movements of as tock price. In other words to him, as an
academic, stock risk was measured by these usually small squiggles up and
down in a stock's price. I recall I challenged the professor at the time
since to me, the real risk was not that my stock would move down by 3% or
something. The real risk to me was that for some reason it would plunge suddenly
and unexpectedly towards zero and stay there and essentially never recover.
That to me was the real risk, and I failed to see how that risk could be
measured by squiggles in the stock price.
Sino-Forest is a perfect example. Nothing in its stock price pattern was
ever going to predict that one day a report would come out and suddenly send
the stock price down 75%.
In fact the academics seem to contradict themselves. They will tell you
that technical analysis if absolutely useless. That it is bunkum. They will
tell you that under the efficient market hypothesis, every stock is priced
correctly based on the available information. They say the past price
pattern is of zero predictive value. But then they turn around and use the
past volatility of the price to measure risk. And they use the past
correlation of the stock price to the overall market to measure risk. In
fact what they are attempting to do is to measure what is ultimately to some
degree random and not measurable.
By nature the academic measures of risk tend to be useful for measuring
smaller risks but tend to fail completely when it comes to rare catastrophic
risks. The "Black Swan" events.
I have written before on the nature of risk in the stock market and the
many fallacies about risk that are believed.
See:
Risk and Return Fallacies
http://www.investorsfriend.com/risk_and_reward.htm
and
Practical Lessons From Modern Portfolio Theory
http://www.investorsfriend.com/portfolio_theory.htm
The full Phalanx of my articles on risk are available here
http://www.investorsfriend.com/Risk%20and%20Return.htm
Is Now a Good Time to Invest in Stocks?
This is always the question. We can never be sure it is a good time to
invest in stocks, especially for shorter time periods.
Here are some reasons why it might not be a good time to invest in
stocks:
Economic growth in North America and Europe is fairly slow and seems to
have little prospect of a sharp turn-around.
Oil prices remain high at near $100 which is a drag on the economy.
Housing prices in the U.S. have continued to fall which hurts thr
economy.
Greece and some other countries in Europe are at some risk of
defaulting on bonds in some fashion or other. Such a default would cause
interest rates to rise and stock prices to fall. In the United States itself
there is some talk of a refusal to increase the ceiling on the national
debt and apparently that could cause a shut-down of all non-essential
government services and could even cause some kind of technical default on
government debt even if only for a few days. These things could cause
another credit crisis. Credit is truly the grease of the economy. Not much
trade can happen without credit. A credit crisis would definitely send
stock prices down.
Some would argue that the valuation of the market in terms of its
dividend yield or its P/E ratio is higher than historic averages, or high
in terms of the growth outlook and that this is a negative indicator for
stock prices.
There are ALWAYS reasons that can be listed out that indicate that
investing in stocks is risky. They could fall in price.
However, here are some factors that argue in support of investing in
stocks:
To invest in stocks is to own a share of "corporate America"
or of the corporations of the world. Few would argue that large
corporations are going to stop making money. As an owner stock investors
tend to make a good return over the years.
The P/E ratio of the market (for example the Dow Jones Industrial
Average) was 14.0 at the end of May based on earnings reported in the
previous 12 months. The long-term average P/E on the Dow is 17.8 and when
some high outlier years are excluded (years when the Dow P/E was very high
due to abnormally low earnings) the historical average is 15.5. So today
the price you pay for each dollar of earnings is a little lower than the
historic average. And consider that interest rates are at historic lows.
When interest rates are very low it justifies paying more for each dollar
of corporate earnings (a higher P/E). Basically if you can't get much
interest on your money then stocks which an earnings yield of a 1/14 or
7.1% look like a good investment. When you could get 10% on your money in
the bank a 7% earnings yield on stocks would not look attractive. But 7%
compared to close to nothing at the bank seems okay. Of course you are not
guaranteed this 7% if you invest in stocks.
Stocks in the past have always done well over longer periods of time
like 25 years.
Predictions of gloom about the economy are probably ill-founded. North
America and the world continue to benefit from technological innovation.
Trade is growing. Populations are growing. There is little reason to think
that major corporations will not continue to grow over the years. The
question is will you own your share(s) of this?
Canadian Exchange Traded Funds
Exchange Traded funds are often recommended as an alternative to mutual
funds. However, in order to invest in exchange traded funds one needs to
know the trading symbols of some funds. It would also be nice to know of the
P/E ratios n and other fundamentals of the funds.
To my knowledge, our reference article is the only source that has
compiled this for a group of Canadian Exchange Traded funds. We have the
data for quite a few funds but not all of them.
Click
to see this reference article which was recently completely updated.
Subscribe
If you are looking for specific stocks to invest in then
why not subscribe now? Thee cost is just
CAN $13 per month or $120 per year. When you think about the potential
returns from just one well-researched Stock Pick, you can see why our
subscription service has been a great investment for our subscribers.
END
Shawn Allen, President
InvestorsFriend Inc.
To see older editions of this newsletter, or to
get off of this email list , click here.