A closer look at our three remaining buckets

May 4, 2021

9:18 am

The three requisite features of every investment we make are: a premium yield; dividend sustainability; and a valuation margin of safety. These are relatively easy to find individually but, in combination they are rare and typically only occur when a company is surrounded by some form of risk or controversy.
Source: RWC, for illustrative purposes only.
Two of our recent articles took a dive into the largest of the RWC Global Equity Income team’s five buckets of controversy: Troubled compounding machines and Ex-growth cash generators. Here, we take a closer look at the remaining three buckets – Profitability transformation, Capital intensity and Special situations – with the help of a case study for each.
Profitability transformation

The stock market consensus has a preference for extrapolation – observing a trend and projecting its continuation into the future. The market struggles to forecast moments of inflection, where a company’s profits take a turn in a new direction, either up or down. The presence of controversy makes it even more likely that the market will fail to anticipate a positive change of fortune.

Companies in this bucket, therefore, tend to be exposed to some form of cycle but it can include any business that has the potential for a positive profit inflection. Cyclical businesses can often be misleading – if they are delivering healthy profits and dividends, we are inclined to be cautious because we know that, at some stage, the cycle will turn. Conversely, a more sensible starting point for us is to look for companies that are delivering depressed profitability within a historic cycle of peaks and troughs.

Calling the turning point of a cycle is notoriously difficult, but our focus on the sustainability of the dividend guides us towards companies that have robust cashflows even at the trough of the cycle. A cost advantage over competitors helps in this regard, as does a clean balance sheet with limited debt. Where we find these characteristics, the emphasis of our research moves towards what is priced into the stock. If the market is discounting an improbably extended down-cycle, the asymmetry of future returns is likely to work in our favour. The length of the down-cycle and the path of the subsequent recovery are typical sources of controversy in this bucket. Sometimes this has specific ramifications for a particular business; other times, an entire industry may be implicated.

Case study: Samsung – memory improvement

Samsung has a dominant market share in memory. It is an industry leader, being a consistent early adopter of new technologies. Management is long-term in focus and its long-serving former chairman is viewed as responsible for transforming the company away from its reputation for cheap electrical goods to the global technology powerhouse that we see today.

Nevertheless, Samsung remains a business that has historically seen high cyclical swings in profitability, albeit its diversified business model (handsets, displays, consumer electronics as well as memory) has meant that returns are less volatile than peers.

Refuting the controversy

After a period of strong profitable growth, Samsung saw a sharp fall in profits in 2019, which weighed on its share price and valuation. In the middle of 2019, few analysts were predicting a rapid recovery, with consensus forecasts for 2021 profits still 20% below the 2018 peak.

Our analysis revealed a business that had always enjoyed decent returns even at the trough of the cycle. Meanwhile, the capital cycle looked like it was shortening, with rising capital intensity slowing the pace of industry capacity growth, which meant the next up cycle was likely to arrive sooner rather than later. That lack of additional capacity, coupled with robust underlying demand for memory, led us to anticipate a period of super-normal profits during the next cycle.

Repeating patterns

We have seen many companies who are able to suffer the cyclical downturn in their industry, only to come out stronger afterwards, such as CRH in building materials and Adecco in staffing. Further, the book Capital Returns by Marathon Asset Management and Edward Chancellor teaches many lessons on investing through the cycle. The analogue semiconductor industry, TSMC and the scotch whisky industry all demonstrate how rising capital intensity can underpin returns.

Capital intensity

Companies with high returns (for us, best measured by Return on Invested Capital, or ROIC for short) attract most of our attention, but lower ROIC companies can also provide opportunity. More capital-intensive industries, such as property, insurance and utilities, rarely make high enough returns to put them in buckets one or two, but they can still be of interest if returns still comfortably exceed the cost of capital and there is a reason to believe that these returns are highly durable. Of particular interest are such franchises that also have the prospect for steadily compounding growth. A utility business with a revenue stream underpinned by regulation, for example, maybe a candidate for inclusion in this bucket, but we may also include unregulated companies that have demonstrated historic resilience through a strong franchise and culture.

These are less glamorous than high ROIC businesses, but this means they are often overlooked by other investors. This is an obvious starting point for potential valuation opportunities. When combined with a controversy that we can effectively neutralise with evidence, lower ROIC business can start to look very appealing.

This bucket of controversy has some overlap with buckets one and two, despite the different ROIC characteristics. However, it requires a separate category because capital intensive businesses require a different set of questions to be answered during the research process. Debt levels are often higher, so these opportunities require particular work to test the durability of revenues and cashflows, to mitigate the financial risk that comes with leverage. Similarly, operational leverage is high and small changes to a company’s fortunes can meaningfully undermine its cashflows.

Case study: Eversource
Eversource is a US utility business that has been investing to upgrade New England’s aging energy infrastructure as well as developing a portfolio of clean energy assets. In mid-2018, its three largest projects, Northern Pass, Access Northeast and an offshore wind project, all suffered setbacks. In addition, the company was pursuing a hostile takeover of Connecticut Water. These disappointments pushed Eversource to a meaningful discount to its peers and indeed the wider market.
Refuting the controversy

Looking beyond the setbacks, our analysis focused on underlying need for all three projects which had not diminished. New England requires significant additional energy infrastructure to secure its current needs, with even more required to fulfil its climate change aspirations. While there remained significant uncertainties over two of the projects, management had shown themselves capable of finding additional growth opportunities to keep asset growth compounding at a steady 5-6% per annum.

The proposed takeover of Connecticut Water looked sensible to us as a good fit for the recently acquired Aquarion Water. But hostile bids rarely win in the utility sector, so we ascribed a low probability that Eversource would succeed. Meanwhile, its base utility business was ticking over nicely, with good regulatory deals from its two largest subsidiaries being secured to underpin future growth and returns and reinforcing its management team’s reputation for managing positive political and regulatory outcomes.

The combination of a strong historic track record, regulated returns comfortably ahead of its cost of equity and solid long-term growth prospects, led us to a positive view of Eversource, which remains a position in the strategy’s portfolio.

Repeating patterns
The US regulated utility sector continually reminds us of the advantages of a stable and well-funded backdrop, which can protect returns and allow for compounding to take place. Further, the European telecoms industry represents a painful lesson that without regulatory support, returns from capital intense businesses can suffer greatly.
Special situations

Lastly, the special situations bucket typically contains companies with complicated conglomerate structures and complex issues surrounded by uncertainty.

Often the valuation aspect of the investment thesis here will rely on a sum of the parts methodology. The controversy will typically relate to one segment of a business, but it will influence the market’s perception of the entirety. This may lead to other assets becoming underappreciated and the opportunity for hidden value to ultimately be realised.

The complexity associated with special situations can bring additional risk, so our research work needs to be tested against robust downside scenarios, and a slightly different set of questions needs to be addressed. For example, we must assess management’s ability to address the under-valuation of certain assets and build confidence in the remaining value of the business, should the worst-case scenario for the troubled division prevail.

Case study: Bayer

With a healthcare heritage, Bayer’s management has pursued a diversifying strategy in recent years, buying Merck’s consumer health business in 2015 and the crop science business, Monsanto in 2016. As a result of these acquisitions, its balance sheet held considerable debt and, more recently, the ESG threat of genetically modified crops and glyphosate, along with the associated litigation (through its ownership of the weedkiller brand, Roundup) has hung over the business.

Refuting the controversy

After a period of material share price weakness, we became interested in Bayer as a special situation opportunity in 2018. The stock market had rushed to price in a worst-case litigation scenario, even though glyphosate retained the full support of government regulators. Considerable uncertainty existed over the likely duration of the litigation process, with the risk of negative trial verdicts along the way.

Nevertheless, our analysis indicated that further share price downside would likely be limited even in the event of the worst-case litigation scenario prevailing. Meanwhile, considerable upside potential would exist should we see an up-cycle in agriculture, success within the pharmaceutical pipeline or a turnaround in the underperforming consumer health division.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that we have been early in forming this view. However, the flags by which we have monitored Bayer’s operational progress have permitted us to retain a positive view. Indeed, much of the original investment thesis remains in place and there are strong signs of an agricultural upcycle which could last for many years should the recent trends in China’s self-sufficiency in grains prove structural.

Repeating patterns

We have seen various repeating patterns where the market has rushed to price in a worst-case scenario for litigation outcomes, most recently at Qualcomm and, further back, across the tobacco and healthcare industries and within banking.


The RWC Global Equity Income strategy normally has approximately one-third of its portfolio assigned to the three buckets explained above. Currently, 30% of the portfolio is allocated to it. All three of the case studies detailed above are currently held by the strategy, alongside other compelling new ideas such Tapestry (Profitability transformation), Brixmor Properties (Capital intensity) and Exelon (Special situations). Across all five buckets of controversy, our investment disciplines repeatedly deliver quality at a reasonable yield.

Collectively, we are confident that our track record of identifying and investing in businesses that are currently experiencing some form of temporary controversy that the market has incorrectly perceived as permanent, can generate good long-term returns for our investors.

Portfolio holdings are subject to change at any time without notice. This information should not be construed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risks in any market environment. The information shown above is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations or advice.
In case you missed it…

The term “RWC” may include any one or more RWC branded entities including RWC Partners Limited and RWC Asset Management LLP, each of which is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority and, in the case of RWC Asset Management LLP, the US Securities and Exchange Commission; RWC Asset Advisors (US) LLC, which is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and RWC Singapore (Pte) Limited, which is licensed as a Licensed Fund Management Company by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

RWC may act as investment manager or adviser, or otherwise provide services, to more than one product pursuing a similar investment strategy or focus to the product detailed in this document. RWC seeks to minimise any conflicts of interest, and endeavours to act at all times in accordance with its legal and regulatory obligations as well as its own policies and codes of conduct.

This document is directed only at professional, institutional, wholesale or qualified investors. The services provided by RWC are available only to such persons. It is not intended for distribution to and should not be relied on by any person who would qualify as a retail or individual investor in any jurisdiction or for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.

This document has been prepared for general information purposes only and has not been delivered for registration in any jurisdiction nor has its content been reviewed or approved by any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute: (i) a binding legal agreement; (ii) legal, regulatory, tax, accounting or other advice; (iii) an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell shares in any fund, security, commodity, financial instrument or derivative linked to, or otherwise included in a portfolio managed or advised by RWC; or (iv) an offer to enter into any other transaction whatsoever (each a “Transaction”). No representations and/or warranties are made that the information contained herein is either up to date and/or accurate and is not intended to be used or relied upon by any counterparty, investor or any other third party.

RWC uses information from third party vendors, such as statistical and other data, that it believes to be reliable. However, the accuracy of this data, which may be used to calculate results or otherwise compile data that finds its way over time into RWC research data stored on its systems, is not guaranteed. If such information is not accurate, some of the conclusions reached or statements made may be adversely affected. RWC bears no responsibility for your investment research and/or investment decisions and you should consult your own lawyer, accountant, tax adviser or other professional adviser before entering into any Transaction. Any opinion expressed herein, which may be subjective in nature, may not be shared by all directors, officers, employees, or representatives of RWC and may be subject to change without notice. RWC is not liable for any decisions made or actions or inactions taken by you or others based on the contents of this document and neither RWC nor any of its directors, officers, employees, or representatives (including affiliates) accepts any liability whatsoever for any errors and/or omissions or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential loss, damages, or expenses of any kind howsoever arising from the use of, or reliance on, any information contained herein.

Information contained in this document should not be viewed as indicative of future results. Past performance of any Transaction is not indicative of future results. The value of investments can go down as well as up. Certain assumptions and forward looking statements may have been made either for modelling purposes, to simplify the presentation and/or calculation of any projections or estimates contained herein and RWC does not represent that that any such assumptions or statements will reflect actual future events or that all assumptions have been considered or stated. Forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and changing factors such as those affecting the markets generally, or those affecting particular industries or issuers, may cause results to differ from those discussed. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that estimated returns or projections will be realised or that actual returns or performance results will not materially differ from those estimated herein. Some of the information contained in this document may be aggregated data of Transactions executed by RWC that has been compiled so as not to identify the underlying Transactions of any particular customer.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it has been given and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. In accepting receipt of the information transmitted you agree that you and/or your affiliates, partners, directors, officers and employees, as applicable, will keep all information strictly confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited. The information contained herein is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) to which this document has been provided. Any distribution or reproduction of this document is not authorised and is prohibited without the express written consent of RWC or any of its affiliates.

Changes in rates of exchange may cause the value of such investments to fluctuate. An investor may not be able to get back the amount invested and the loss on realisation may be very high and could result in a substantial or complete loss of the investment. In addition, an investor who realises their investment in a RWC-managed fund after a short period may not realise the amount originally invested as a result of charges made on the issue and/or redemption of such investment. The value of such interests for the purposes of purchases may differ from their value for the purpose of redemptions. No representations or warranties of any kind are intended or should be inferred with respect to the economic return from, or the tax consequences of, an investment in a RWC-managed fund. Current tax levels and reliefs may change. Depending on individual circumstances, this may affect investment returns. Nothing in this document constitutes advice on the merits of buying or selling a particular investment. This document expresses no views as to the suitability or appropriateness of the fund or any other investments described herein to the individual circumstances of any recipient.

AIFMD and Distribution in the European Economic Area (“EEA”)

The Alternative Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”) is a regulatory regime which came into full effect in the EEA on 22 July 2014. RWC Asset Management LLP is an Alternative Investment Fund Manager (an “AIFM”) to certain funds managed by it (each an “AIF”). The AIFM is required to make available to investors certain prescribed information prior to their investment in an AIF. The majority of the prescribed information is contained in the latest Offering Document of the AIF. The remainder of the prescribed information is contained in the relevant AIF’s annual report and accounts. All of the information is provided in accordance with the AIFMD.

In relation to each member state of the EEA (each a “Member State”), this document may only be distributed and shares in a RWC fund (“Shares”) may only be offered and placed to the extent that (a) the relevant RWC fund is permitted to be marketed to professional investors in accordance with the AIFMD (as implemented into the local law/regulation of the relevant Member State); or (b) this document may otherwise be lawfully distributed and the Shares may lawfully offered or placed in that Member State (including at the initiative of the investor).

Information Required for Distribution of Foreign Collective Investment Schemes to Qualified Investors in Switzerland

The representative and paying agent of the RWC-managed funds in Switzerland (the “Representative in Switzerland”) is Société Générale, Paris, Zurich Branch, Talacker 50,

P.O. Box 5070, CH-8021 Zurich. In respect of the units of the RWC-managed funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is at the registered office of the Representative in Switzerland.

Ready to start talking?