Investment process: Bottom-up fundamental approach
The investment team aims to achieve strong investment returns by identifying high quality companies able to distribute a sizeable proportion of their earnings as income and deliver long-term earnings growth, which they expect will translate into capital growth. Stocks need to meet all three investment criteria to be considered for selection in the portfolio. Meetings with senior management and industry experts form an important aspect of the assessment of a company’s prospects.
Business fundamentals are assessed against the following criteria:
■
the level and sustainability of prospective returns compared to peers and its cost of capital;
■
net debt should be stable and gearing not excessive;
■
margins need to be stable and predictable;
■
free cash flow should be aligned with earnings and sufficient to support growth prospects;
■
future growth should come from gains in market share, new products or markets and expansion should not be detrimental to returns; and
■
management and shareholder interests should be aligned and there should be a stated and clear progressive dividend policy.
A sustainability matrix is used to rate companies on product sustainability and management quality. Product sustainability is assessed on a scale of A to E reflecting the extent to which a company’s core business helps or harms society and/or the environment. An A rating indicates a company whose products or services contribute to sustainable development (eg renewable energy). An E rating indicates a company whose core business is in conflict with sustainable development (eg tobacco). Management quality is graded on a scale of 1 to 5 in relation to the appropriateness of a company’s structures, policies and practices for managing its ESG risks and impacts.
The valuation analysis of each stock is performed on a basis that is relevant to its sector. Based on independent research, company meetings, site visits and sell-side analysis, a standard template is used to flex consensus forecasts to reflect the team’s own research and assumptions. Key metrics include forecasts for sales growth, EBIT margins and free cash flows over one, two and three years. Appropriate valuation ratios are calculated and compared to historical ratios for both the company and its sector and to earnings or free cash flow expectations over three years. Using this analysis, the team derives one year to three year price targets.
There is no explicit target number of portfolio holdings, but the team expects to maintain between 60 and 70 equity positions. There is a minimum investment horizon of three years for any new position. Although the portfolio is unconstrained with respect to sector and geographic allocations, regard is given to the risk associated with divergence from the benchmark index. Stock selection and position sizes are based on the underlying volatility of the stock (stocks with higher volatility will tend to have smaller active weights), strength of conviction relative to the other stocks in the portfolio and the degree of diversification associated with the stock’s position in the portfolio.
The portfolio is constructed with a view to managing the risk inherent in the investments, with the assessment of management quality a key factor. In addition, a performance and investment risk team regularly meets with the portfolio manager to ensure all portfolio-specific risks are analysed, measured, reported, and considered and formal risk-review meetings are held quarterly.
The investment team has a disciplined and systematic approach to the sale of holdings, based on one and three year price targets and will initiate a sale when the price of a stock has attained its estimate of fair value or when it loses its conviction in a particular stock due to a change in the company’s product sustainability or business fundamentals.
Current portfolio positioning
In October 2015, ATST announced plans to dispose of its fixed income, legacy mineral rights and property assets as soon as practicable and exit private equity as these investments mature over the next few years. As shown in Exhibit 4, fixed income exposure which comprises holdings in the Monthly Income and Dynamic bond funds managed by ATI had been reduced over the year to end-September 2015, thus immediate changes affect c 5% of the overall asset portfolio. The further decrease evident in the November asset allocation analysis reflects a phased withdrawal process. Since end-September, the sole remaining commercial property has been sold and the sale of the mineral rights portfolio initiated. While seen as strategically important with the potential to generate significant value, subsidiaries ATI and ATS represent only 2% of the portfolio value.
Exhibit 4: Asset allocation as at 30 November 2015
% of net assets |
End Nov 2015 |
End Sept 2015 |
End Sept 2014 |
Change (Sept 14 - Sept 15) |
Net equity exposure |
102.1 |
99.6 |
98.1 |
1.5 |
Fixed income |
2.4 |
4.9 |
6.2 |
(1.3) |
Private equity |
4.2 |
4.6 |
4.7 |
(0.1) |
Operating subsidiaries |
2.0 |
2.1 |
1.4 |
0.7 |
Property |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Cash & other net assets |
3.4 |
3.5 |
2.8 |
0.7 |
Gross assets |
114.1 |
114.9 |
113.3 |
1.6 |
Gearing |
(14.1) |
(14.9) |
(13.3) |
(1.6) |
Net assets incl. income |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Source: Alliance Trust, Edison Investment Research
Following the change in the equity investment team in September 2014, a full review of the portfolio was undertaken. Resulting changes affected around 15% of the portfolio with 19 holdings sold and eight new positions initiated in October 2014. A number of companies heavily exposed to the oil price were sold, including oil services companies Technip, Seadrill and Oceaneering, and holdings in ENI and Total were reduced. Holdings in VW and Glencore were among those sold; new positions included Australian blood plasma manufacturer CSL and Japanese air conditioning manufacturer Daikin Industries, while holdings were increased in German tyre manufacturer Continental and UK-based specialty chemical group Johnson Matthey.
The number of holdings in the equity portfolio had been reduced to 65 positions at end-September 2015 compared with 90 a year earlier, which reflects the orientation of the portfolio towards higher conviction holdings. This is seen as being close to the optimal number of holdings and it is not envisaged that the number of stocks in the portfolio will move below 60.
Exhibit 5 shows that the overall sector exposure of ATST’s equity portfolio has not substantially altered over the year to end-November 2015, with the most notable changes being increases in consumer discretionary and information technology exposure and reductions in financials and healthcare. Relative to the benchmark MSCI AC World index, the portfolio has overweight exposures in healthcare, information technology and financials sectors, while the consumer discretionary, consumer staples and energy sectors represent the largest underweight exposures.
Exhibit 5: Equity portfolio sector exposure vs benchmark at 30 November 2015 (%)
|
Portfolio end Nov 2015 |
Portfolio end Nov 2014 |
Change |
MSCI AC World weight |
Active weight vs index |
Trust weight/ index weight |
Financials |
23.7 |
26.3 |
(2.6) |
21.5 |
2.2 |
1.1 |
Information technology |
18.4 |
16.3 |
2.1 |
14.7 |
3.7 |
1.2 |
Healthcare |
16.3 |
17.9 |
(1.6) |
12.1 |
4.2 |
1.3 |
Consumer discretionary |
9.4 |
6.4 |
3.0 |
13.0 |
(3.6) |
0.7 |
Industrials |
8.9 |
8.4 |
0.5 |
10.4 |
(1.5) |
0.9 |
Consumer staples |
7.3 |
8.2 |
(0.9) |
10.1 |
(2.8) |
0.7 |
Energy |
4.7 |
5.6 |
(0.9) |
6.7 |
(2.0) |
0.7 |
Materials |
4.4 |
4.3 |
0.1 |
4.6 |
(0.2) |
0.9 |
Utilities |
3.5 |
4.5 |
(1.0) |
3.1 |
0.5 |
1.1 |
Telecom services |
3.4 |
2.1 |
1.3 |
3.7 |
(0.3) |
0.9 |
|
100.0 |
100.0 |
(0.0) |
100.0 |
(0.0) |
N/A |
Source: Alliance Trust, MSCI, Edison Investment Research
The portfolio’s geographic exposure by market listing shown in Exhibit 6 highlights ATST’s predominant exposure to developed markets, with the US and UK accounting for close to two thirds of the portfolio and 18.0% UK exposure representing a significant overweight position. Although a full analysis is not possible due to the level of disclosure, segmental revenue reporting by portfolio companies indicates that the portfolio has a lesser economic exposure to North America, the UK and Europe and greater exposure to Asia and emerging markets than reflected in this analysis.
Exhibit 6: Equity portfolio geographic exposure vs benchmark by country at 30 November 2015 (%)
|
Portfolio end Nov 2015 |
Portfolio end Nov 2014 |
Change |
MSCI AC World weight |
Active weight vs index |
Trust weight/ index weight |
US |
48.1 |
47.7 |
0.4 |
53.5 |
(5.4) |
0.9 |
UK |
18.0 |
22.1 |
(4.1) |
6.8 |
11.2 |
2.6 |
Germany |
7.1 |
6.0 |
1.2 |
3.2 |
4.0 |
2.3 |
Japan |
5.8 |
2.0 |
3.8 |
8.0 |
(2.2) |
0.7 |
France |
3.3 |
3.8 |
(0.5) |
3.4 |
(0.1) |
1.0 |
China |
3.0 |
1.1 |
2.0 |
2.2 |
0.8 |
1.4 |
Australia |
2.2 |
1.9 |
0.3 |
2.2 |
(0.0) |
1.0 |
Norway |
2.1 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
0.2 |
1.9 |
10.8 |
Italy |
1.9 |
2.6 |
(0.7) |
0.8 |
1.1 |
2.3 |
Sweden |
1.7 |
1.9 |
(0.3) |
1.0 |
0.7 |
1.7 |
Switzerland |
1.4 |
2.4 |
(0.9) |
3.2 |
(1.7) |
0.5 |
Denmark |
1.4 |
1.1 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
2.2 |
Canada |
1.1 |
1.3 |
(0.3) |
2.9 |
(1.8) |
0.4 |
Brazil |
1.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
1.8 |
Hong Kong |
0.9 |
0.9 |
(0.0) |
1.0 |
(0.2) |
0.8 |
Other |
1.1 |
5.3 |
(4.2) |
10.4 |
(9.4) |
0.1 |
|
100.0 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
N/A |
Source: Alliance Trust, MSCI, Edison Investment Research. Note: Other countries include Thailand, Mexico and the Netherlands which together represented 3.4% of the portfolio at end-November 2014.
ATST’s equity portfolio is not constrained by geographical allocations, so the divergence in the portfolio’s regional and country exposure relative to the benchmark index reflects the outcome of the bottom-up investment process rather than top-down investment views. As a result, portfolio exposure to individual countries and divergences from the index would be expected to vary over time, which is reflected in Exhibit 6. At a regional level, the portfolio is underweight North America, overweight UK and Europe, and underweight Asia and emerging markets. Notable changes in exposure over the 12 months to end-November 2015 include a 4.1pp reduction in the UK and a 3.8pp increase in Japan, although this remains one of the more significant active underweight positions. The largest (each with more than 1% exposure) constituents of the benchmark not represented in ATST’s equity portfolio are South Korea, Taiwan and Spain which comprised 3.8% of the index at end-November 2015.
Exhibit 7: ATST’s equity portfolio risk characteristics at 30 June 2015
Portfolio volatility |
11.7% |
Benchmark volatility |
11.6% |
Tracking error |
2.44% |
Beta |
0.98 |
Active share |
89% |
Portfolio yield |
2.7% |
Source: Alliance Trust, Edison Investment Research
In terms of equity portfolio risk characteristics (see Exhibit 7), ATST reports a relatively low tracking error of 2.44% at 30 June 2015, even though active share is high at 89%, which is contributed to by the overweight UK exposure, while portfolio volatility similar is to the benchmark index. Key active exposures are underweight value and overweight growth, while the portfolio also has underweight exposure to financial leverage. Portfolio style influences on risk indicate that stock selection contributes the highest risk element followed by country and currency risk.