You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

What really matters in equity investing

Good companies don’t always make good stocks.
Netflix’s founder and CEO, Reed Hastings, understands fundamentally that companies exist to deliver value to customers and the best companies deliver more value than they capture. Picture: Lucy Nicholson, Reuters

When unpacking such a big topic it’s helpful to start from first principles. In this case, the most fundamental question is: “Why do companies exist?” Otherwise stated, “What is their purpose?” The standard answer for several decades, at least in Anglo-Saxon countries, has been “to maximise shareholder value”. More recently, ‘stakeholders’ have taken precedence over ‘shareholders’.

Understanding companies’ reason for being leads to the next question: “What makes a good company?” Finally, stepping from the conceptual to the practical, we then ask, “What makes a good stock?” Noting of course the truism that good companies don’t always make good stocks!

We compare the metrics of two real companies using data from 2008 to 2018. As you consider the charts below, ask yourself: 1) which was the better company; and 2) which was the better stock?



It turns out that Company A created substantial value – its market capitalisation increased an impressive $121.2 billion over the decade, with the share compounding at 14.5% per annum (excluding dividends). Company B delivered slightly less value in aggregate, growing its market capitalisation by $115 billion. And yet Company B’s stock was a massive outperformer, compounding at over 52% per annum.

Company A and Company B are The Walt Disney Co (Disney) and Netflix, respectively. What is particularly remarkable, is that Netflix’s market capitalisation increased from $1.8 billion to $117 billion over the period. The acorn became an oak tree.

How did this happen?

We believe that Netflix’s founder and CEO, Reed Hastings, understands a fundamental truth: companies exist to deliver value to customers and the best companies deliver more value than they capture. Netflix’s share price has grown rapidly as a bi-product of the external value the company has created.

South African subscribers to Netflix currently pay around R130 per month. We suspect that many subscribers perceive the value to be as high as R500 per month. The gap between the perceived value of the service and the price is one way of thinking about the aggregate value Netflix is ‘giving away’ to consumers.

Netflix is used to illustrate a broader point. Other major innovators and disruptors (Amazon, Alibaba, Google etc.) have operated on the same principle over the past decade. The red arrow in Figure 5 denotes the impact of the internet, which facilitated the delivery of value to consumers on an unprecedented scale.

By contrast, many legacy brand owners have rested on their laurels for too long and no longer offer consumers a compelling value proposition. This dynamic has been most prevalent in the fast-moving consumer goods space, where Kraft Heinz recently fell an astonishing 27% in a single day after writing off over $15 billion in goodwill relating to its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands. Kraft Heinz has shed roughly $60 billion in market capitalisation in the past 18 months – a stunning fall from grace for what was previously considered a high-quality, defensive business.

The Kraft Heinz episode reveals the flaws in the “shareholder value maximisation” ideology. While the ‘3G Model’ of slashing costs to boost margins and shareholder returns enjoyed initial success, it has ultimately resulted in long-term value destruction.

The term ‘moat’ has been used to describe a firm’s source of competitive advantage. Many legacy brands no longer qualify as moats, possessing neither the ability to drive purchasing decisions nor pricing power. This does not discredit the moat as a conceptual model. The core principles remain unchanged, but the manifestations and applications thereof constantly evolve.

The Disney-Netflix comparison provides an important insight into the relationship between moats and share price performance. The absolute size of the moat is less important than the direction in which it is moving. It is hard to argue against Disney being a better company over the past decade, given its prodigious cash flows and attractive returns on capital. However, while Disney has been a partial casualty of the fraying cable bundle, Netflix has rapidly built an impressive moat in video streaming.

Read: Disney unveils price, launch date for big streaming push

The direction of Disney and Netflix’s moats over the next decade is a source of intense debate and analysis within Anchor. Based on the framework we’ve established above, it stands to reason that the company that delivers the greatest aggregate consumer value will build the deepest moat and generate the highest market returns.

In the short term, none of this matters. The share prices of Disney and Netflix are hostage to the latest newsflow on trade wars, Trump, Brexit, interest rates … the list is endless. It is only in the fullness of time – often a decade or more – in which their steady efforts translate into outsized returns. Only by gaining a deep fundamental understanding of the “Why” and the “How” – why companies exist and how they deliver value – are we able to endure the vicissitudes of the market and participate in their long-term returns. This is what really matters in equity investing.

This article originally featured on Anchor Capital here

Disclosure: we hold both shares on behalf of clients in different mandates.

The views and opinions shared in this article belong to their author, cannot be construed as financial advice, and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of Moneyweb.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


I hardly think that metrics such as PE ratios and ROE on their own are particularly useful. A low PE ratio is indicative of a mature static company whereas a high PE ratio means a bad year or the world is expecting great things. High ROE is great but how leveraged is the company? It’s easy to get a high ROE when you are hocked up to the eyeballs. Is the ROE consistent, how does the company handle a downturn?

Richard: That is why Return on Invested Capital is for me a better measure – if one adjusts debt for surplus cash that is nowadays fairly common.

Apple will soon mess with ROE calculation, properly. It can already buy back and cancel sufficient shares to reach negative equity balance. Infinite ROE? Some of these unicorns and disrupters also get there : but by losing all of the money invested in them :/

It remains to be seen how dependable the moats of Netflix, Uber and disruptors are in the coming years.

High margins attracts high competition.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: