This is not investment advice. Do your research before taking a position in securities mentioned in the post below.
Whether you think "working from home" is temporary or structural - it has had a clear impact on certain companies' earnings & valuation.
Although I prefer to write about smaller caps, today's articles are about two blue chips hurt by WFH (Aussie Office - $DXS & US Printer/PC makers - $HPQ). Whilst I consider the latter company more appealing, the more interesting story is how they are coping in
Dexus – a punt on prime Sydney office cap rates & a take-private play
It cracks me up when anyone describes Sydney (CBD) as busy, frenetic or fast-paced. Sure, the recent trains strikes don’t help, but overall CBD office attendance & footfall post-COVID is still very low
Source- JLL Q1’22
This is particularly relevant to $DXS because
They collect c.70% of its income from Office, of which 50-55% is Sydney CBD/fringe
Even though CBD saw positive net absorption in 2021 for the first time in >3yrs (between 2018-2021) – 2020-22 vacancy levels are much higher than pre-COVID
What's the upside of the stock?
There's a lot to love about Australia's biggest office REIT
Valuation: At a c.30% discount to NTA and a 6.7% implied yield $DXS seem appealing even if earnings will fall in future years
Debt: Arguably in the REITs, DXS has been the best at unlocking capital markets debt (USPP, MTN etc) to achieve strong debt terms. This is beneficial not just for the traditional metrics (WACD, Debt tenor) – but also in their flexibility (e.g. they have $1.9b of dry powder to in part use on AMP funds)
Note - $DXS' distribution policy is 100% of AFFO no FFO which means it does not borrow to pay capex/tenant incentives. This is more conservative than its peers
Prime stock: Their flagship fund (DWPF) has consistently performed well (c.10% for 10yrs), their office occupancy is c.96% (above CBD norm) and generally rental arrears is minimal
Like all funds, $DXS did pay material rental waivers during COVID (c.$13m in 2020) and their collections dropped from 98% to 92%
Opportunistic with FUM & trading profits: Even though certain COVID-19 sales (e.g. Grosvenor) have not panned out as planned, they have been impressive with opportunistic trades
$70m of balance sheet trading profits in the last two years
Winning AMP (still yet to settle) & APN (including the Industrea portfolio)
LP appetite for their office buildings: Partially addressed by the 'prime stock' point, I would say the quality of their office portfolio means Super investors do not have an unlimited pool of funds with the same stock (e.g. Charter Hall, COF, AOF & a few boutiques). Additionally - it would take time for them to inhouse all of that expertise
Limited drift: As far as A-REITs go, DXS has been most clear about its strategy (compared to GPT or Lend Lease). Even with their move into HealthCare and Convenience (via APN) they have not changed their strategy
Ok – so is it a buy then?
Sadly, the answer is no. My reason is very simple, it is structurally difficult for a private investor:
Not capital light: I know this is a stupid thing to say for a REIT generating a 6% ROE. However, I prefer riskier but higher ROCE real estate plays:
Directly in the manager (e.g. CHC’s ROE is >15%) notably when sentiment is poor
REITs with a component of operating business/housebuilder (e.g. SGP ROE is c.9%)
WACR will be wider eventually: The wide discount rate to NAV is because no one believes the 4.6% WACR longer term. I won't profess to know what long-term cap rates will be for every DXS property but the mkt doesn't think it is a mere 80bps wider than 5yr BBSW (3.8%)
Net issuer of stock: As set out below, whilst DXS has managed to maintain low gearing, the huge capital requirement of property means the stock issuances continue to grow and general ROE is low
Conclusion: Sadly whilst I would not be remotely shocked if $DXS got taken over if the discount to NAV widens - a capital-heavy dilutive REIT doesn't suit my investment style. That being said, I do not entirely agree with the current wider AFFO yield it trades on.
$HPQ - A falling knife, with inflation pressures but great capital management
Before I start, it is worth reminding you that $HPQ & $HPE split 5yrs ago. So when I talk about $HPQ; it is this company below (based on FY21 revenue) which is basically just personal computing and printing
Generally, the Street is not optimistic about $HPQ. Despite Berkshire taking a 10% stake in the company - not everyone agrees (as shown by the c.5% of free float which is shorted by hedge funds)
Downside here - In a downturn, personal PC is unlikely to be the place to be..
Shrinking oligopoly on PC: Within PC there is really only a handful of players with the main ones including Lenovo (biggest), HP (2nd) & Dell (others). Whilst they really dominate – the average selling price growth is minimal and the TAM (e.g. number of units) is likely to shrink (c.300m units)
Recent EPS/CF miss: HP missed its quarterly forecast & lowered its FY outlook
EPS in the range of $4.02 – $4.12 vs. $4.24 – $4.38
FCF of $3.2 - $3.7 billion vs. $4.5B
Not a perfect Inflation hedge: In the most recent quarterly, Evercore analyst Amit Daryanani explained that input-inflation could not be passed onto users because PC volumes were pulled forward during ‘lockdown’ and the competition meant OEMs were unlikely to increase prices significantly
Canon agreement limits Xerox-type tie-ups: In 2020 – there was rumours that Xerox would lob a bid for HP and Canon suggested that they may drop HP/Xerox if this was the case.
Positive factors - They have great capital management
Huge buybacks: Since 2015,WANOS has reduced from 1.8bn to <1.1bn
Leader in printers: Similar to the PC, printing is an oligopoly, however, there are a few differences:
Margins for printers is better (e.g. EBIT margin of 18% vs. 7-8% for PC)
Although not a big market, HP market share is growing, now at 24.5% and it is the market leader, whereas in PC it ranks 2nd
Generally, more plausible that HP could make acquisitions in this space given there is a number of midsize Asian plays (c.20% of the market is scattered)
HPQ has made some decent acquisitions: Generally, I do find that M&A is not a beneficial decision by companies. However, in HPQ’s case there is some sense given the huge amounts of excess cash they generate & slowly falling earnings
HyperX - gaming division of Kingston Tech. This business has a range of gaming peripherals, including headsets, keyboards & wider gaming accessories.
Poly - The recent investment in Poly really focuses on the build out of peoples WFH set-up
Market prices Consumer PC weakly: Most Equity Research is suggesting PCs businesses with a bigger tilt towards Enterprise will perform better than Consumer. Therefore, Dell’s Infrastructure/Servers business generally performed better than HPQ (consumer + education). I don't know who is right - but I would say this low multiple is a plus.
Conclusion: It makes sense that there is a mixed outlook for $HPQ given they are a) leader in personal hardware and b) the printing market is contracting whilst WFH. Nonetheless, it is priced at a 20% discount forward earnings to Dell, it has one of the best track records for share buybacks and printing is still high margin. As such, on this one, it is highly plausible that I would consider buying this "falling knife" at the right price.
Comments