Thursday, 15 August 2019

Investing in low conviction stocks; jumping the gun on EVs; and Tenneco

It is fashionable amongst the value investing community these days to hold a concentrated portfolio of high conviction ideas. Indeed, any other approach is usually greeted with suspicion, if not outright disdain. And yet, in my experience, often some of the very best investment opportunities exist in areas of the market where one is intrinsically capable of only low levels of conviction, extending to situations where a zero is a reasonable possibility. Obviously, smaller position sizes and a more diversified approach is warranted with such situations, but on a portfolio basis, they can yield a portfolio with very agreeable risk/reward characteristics - indeed uniquely so I would argue, given how few value investors are adopting such an approach in today's world.

An example at the moment is automotive component supplier Tenneco (TEN US), whose stock has been decimated and fallen to just 2x earnings (closer to 1.5x recently). Why is it so cheap? Three reasons: (1) they have a lot of debt, partly due to the ill-timed acquisition of Federal-Mogul last year, which despite being partly equity funded, has significantly increased the company's leverage; (2) global auto sales have declined this year, pressuring earnings and leverage ratios, and investors are also fearful about an impending recession in the US/globally exacerbating the company's plight; and most importantly (3) a significant portion of the company's business is making engine components for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, including powertrain components.

It is now a widely-subscribed belief that electric vehicles (EV) are set to imminently displace ICEs, which means that Tenneco will likely be disrupted before it is able to successfully deleverage and return capital to shareholders - particularly if a recession happens in the interim. Should an EV transition occur, ICE suppliers such as Tenneco will also be the first affected, and the impact will be exacerbated by the company's high operating leverage. Once EV production ramps up, it will still take 10-20 years to gradually replace the existing installed base of vehicles, which will defer the impact on after-market players for an extended duration (including gasoline refueling stations, and also the impact on oil demand), but TEN's powertrain business is leveraged to the pace of new ICE construction (not the parc). While surviving for now, in the eyes of many, TEN appears to be on death row.

One of the keys to identifying investment opportunities is to always be prepared to challenge widely accepted notions by considering the other side of the argument, and being willing to ask, what happens if people are wrong? People forget that the really big moves in markets are driven by changes in opinion. What is currently widely known and assumed to be true about the future is invariably already embedded in current valuations. (This is one reason why broker recommendations are so frequently wrong and are best used as contrary indicators - they succeed in writing lengthy and eloquent reports that are best viewed as explanations for why a stock is already cheap/expensive, rather than guides to how one should position themselves today).

I was previously also of the view that EVs were inevitably set to dominate the future, but I actively sought out contrary arguments, and having done so, I am now convinced that many investors may have jumped the gun, and are too confident that a transition from ICEs to EVs is inevitable. I emphasise the word may here, because I don't hold this view with conviction - I just believe there is a larger probability than is generally accepted. And when stocks get cheap enough to be priced like options, a reasonable probability - even if significantly less than 50% - can still be sufficient to justify an investment case.

Elon Musk has been absolutely central to popularising the notion that a full conversion to EVs lies in our near future. Tesla's early premium models - the Roadster, Model S, and Model X - showed the world that EVs could not only be environmentally friendly, but also high performance and downright cool as well. His PR offensive has been extremely successful (too successful for Tesla's own good - it is now facing a wave of EV competition). It has lead to the hasty preparation of regulations in many markets mandating steadily increasing EV penetration; a surge of investment by traditional automakers into the electrification of many of their models; and has convinced the majority of the investment community that a full transition to EVs is only a matter of time.

The problem is that despite all the hype, it is still yet to be proven that EVs can be produced profitably, at scale, for the mass market. Tesla has proven, I believe, that they can be viably produced for the luxury market, because the premium prices of these vehicles provides much more margin to work with (and because Tesla has shown that EVs are capable of extraordinary performance). But the mass market is an altogether different question.

Tesla's ambition was always for its Model 3 to be the model that ushered in mass market adoption, but on an unsubsidised basis, along with practically necessary add-ons, on-the-road prices are still in the vicinity of US$50k - about double the cost of a new ICE vehicle of comparable size/specs. And despite this rich price tag (and the contribution from Tesla's more profitable luxury models; recent cost-cutting measures bordering on desperation (closing dealerships); and in the opinion of some - aggressive accounting), Tesla is still unprofitable, and in the opinion of many credible observers, destined for eventual bankruptcy. The inconsistency of widespread EV adoption now being considered inevitable by the investment community, and the leading player in the segment fighting for its survival, has apparently been lost on many (and it is also interesting to consider whether any eventual demise of Tesla will cause widespread assumptions around mass-market EV adoption to be revisited).

Furthermore, this lack of cost competitiveness also exists before considering the reality that if EVs were to go mainstream (nearly 100m vehicles are produced globally each year, compared to about 300k by Tesla at present), the world is going to need a lot of automotive-grade batteries, and a lot of batteries will require a lot of lithium, cobalt, and nickel. The sort of scale required could well result in the cost of these raw materials increasing many multiples from current levels. A significant fraction of the world's known cobalt reserves are located in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) - a destination not renowned for its political stability or predictable mining industry regulations. The battery is already by far the most expensive component of EVs - costing at least US$10-15k, and cost reductions here are not subject to Moore's Law type declines (microprocessor performance and cost improved because transistors were made exponentially smaller, allowing more of them to be packed onto a given surface area, but there are physical limit to how much energy can be stored in the chemical atoms of batteries; you can't make electrons smaller). Produced at scale, there is a good chance the cost of batteries would rise rather than fall, as raw materials costs spiraled.

Musk makes the (fair) point that one ought to not just consider the price tag of EVs, but the 'total cost of ownership', and it is true that electric vehicles cost less to power than ICEs. The cost of electricity is higher than gasoline on a cost-per-raw-unit-of-energy basis (as electricity has already absorbed conversion losses at the point of generation), but EVs are much more efficient at converting electric energy to kinetic energy than ICEs are at converting the chemical energy in gasoline into kinetic energy (heat losses are significant), more than offsetting this disadvantage.

However, balanced against this point is the important issue of battery longevity. As anyone who has used a laptop or smartphone for an extended period of time can attest, battery performance degrades over time. The Nissan Leaf's battery performance reportedly degraded by as much as 60-70% five years after purchase. While efforts are underway to improve battery longevity, it is not yet clear if they will be able to extend the practical life of the vehicles beyond 10 years, without a battery overhaul being necessary. This is an important issue, because most mass-market second-hand ICE cars are worth less than US$10k after 10 years, whereas that is the likely minimum cost of a new battery pack. In practice, this would mean that it would not be economically viable to undertake such an overhaul, and EVs would have a practical useful life of perhaps half that of an ICE. This would represent a meaningful (if not total) offset to the 'lower cost of ownership' Musk speaks of.

What about regulations? Both EU and Chinese regulators have pushed hard to accelerate the adoption of EVs, imposing mandatory EV sales targets (as a percentage of total sales) in the case of the latter, and aggressive average fleet emissions reduction targets in the former, which will likely require rising EV penetration to meet. China's policies likely also partly reflect geopolitical motivations as well (to reduce its reliance on imported oil).* While these regulations might seem destined to hasten adoption, as we have seen with solar subsidies, it is one thing to force-feed a small minority of the system average onto a structurally more expensive platform, but it is quite another to roll it out to the entire system, which is orders of magnitude more expensive.

As we have seen with the recent Yellow Vest protests in France (as well as the general tide of rising populism), there is a political limit to how much of a decline in living standards you can force onto the electorate in the name of environmental protection - at some point the cost becomes too burdensome and people revolt at the ballot box. How will the broader population feel about being forced to spend a minimum of US$50k on a new car? And will Germany really want to bankrupt its economically important auto industry by forcing them to sell cars people don't want and can't afford?

It is also worth remembering that in the entire history of advanced civilization, there has never once been a transition to a technology platform that is less economically and energetically efficient than the prior model. In this respect, EVs are attempting a transition that is unprecedented - at least with respect to the current state of technology and relative cost structures.** Now, the world has also never been (or needed to be) more concerned about the impact of human activities on the environment either, so things could change. It is also possible that the heavy investment now going into EVs and batteries will yield significant innovations which change the current comparative cost calculus. However, it is far from guaranteed that these efforts will be successful.

In short, the investment community appears to have jumped the gun on EVs in my opinion. Widespread adoption may well happen, but we do not yet have sufficient evidence to declare it a fiat accompli, as most in the investment community now have.

What is most intriguing about this is that if markets are wrong about the coming EV transition, a company like Tenneco is likely to not only survive, but thrive. The company is a world leader in clean-emissions technology, for instance (what passes as 'high tech' these days is somewhat bewildering - writing some simple software that allows someone to manually go to a restaurant, pick up food for you, and take it to your door, is considered high tech, when coming up with the most sophisticated emissions-reduction technology in the world - a feat of advanced engineering - is considered old hat). If the EV transition fails because it is discovered to be uneconomic, by far the most likely Plan B around the world will be to force tighter ICE vehicle-emissions standards onto car producers. Tenneco will be exceptionally well positioned to meet this demand, particularly because auto companies are all preoccupied with rapidly building out their electrification capabilities at present, and are neglecting investment into ICE engine components (and are increasing outsourcing). There also aren't too many Silicon Valley start-ups racing to raise capital to invest in more efficient ICE engine technology either.

Future outcomes are also not binary, and it is also quite possible - if not likely - that hybrids emerge as the preferred platform, as a compromise solution which are cheaper than full EVs (but more expensive than pure ICEs), but are more environmentally friendly than pure ICEs, and still allow for significant reductions in average emissions. Hybrids will also ease some of the challenges of full EV adoption (range anxiety; a lack of recharging infrastructure; and the customer inconvenience associated 20-40 minute charging times compared to a few minutes to refuel). This future will also be a good one for Tenneco as well, as core ICE engine components will retain their relevance. And all of this is before mentioning the fact that Tenneco also has a DRiV division that focuses on ride-control/suspension and after-market products that are immune from EV disruption risk (although they are not large enough to support TEN's group debt burden in isolation).

All told, Tenneco looks to have a good risk/reward to me, because there is a decent chance the consensus view is wrong. But do I have conviction? No I do not. I don't hold the above views with any certainty - I merely think it is a possible scenario, whose probability is being underestimated. And it would be silly to have conviction in the outlook for company with high leverage, and where technological disruption could well lie in the company's future. Tenneco could well ultimately go to zero (or be required to issue so much new equity that it dilutes existing shareholders to something approximating that). But this lack of conviction and high risk profile does not make TEN a poor investment on a risk/reward basis - merely one that needs to be appropriately position sized on account of its large idiosyncratic risks.

Opportunities like TEN are rife at present, because they fall between the cracks of the investment approaches/styles/philosophies that are currently widely practiced. Obviously, the growth and high-quality crowd are going to be uninterested in a stock like TEN, as will the momentum and macro crowd, given the current state of markets and prevalent macro anxieties. But intriguingly, the vast bulk of value investors are also uninterested, as the majority of them insist on high-conviction and concentration, often quoting Munger in defense of such an approach (the tremendous irony here is that Munger reportedly purchased TEN around the turn of the century when it was very cheap, and made a tonne of money). Consequently, companies like TEN face an almost complete absence of willing buyers at times like these, and can therefore fall to extraordinarily low prices.

This highlights yet again the importance of adaptability in markets. Where the best opportunities happen to reside is always changing, and a flexible approach is essential. There are times when a concentrated approach focused on high quality stocks makes sense, and there are times - like the present - where it makes much less sense. This is something I wrote about in more detail in my article on fishing where the cod is. Fixed rules about the appropriate level of concentration therefore don't make a lot of sense to me - the appropriate level of concentration reflects the nature of the present opportunity set - and dogmatic adherence to certain rules like 'we don't invest in cyclicals'; 'we don't invest in companies with high leverage'; or 'we don't invest in capital intensive industries such as auto suppliers', doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. As always, flexibility and the capacity for independent and original thinking are essential to success in markets.


*Incidentally, those bullish on the LNG market, and particularly US exports of LNG, based on an expectation China will significantly increase LNG imports in coming years (as they substitute domestic coal for clearer natural gas), may be overlooking geopolitical risks to this view. If you were China, given the current state of geopolitical relations between China and the US, would you really want to rely on US LNG imports for your energy security? This is one reason I own China Shenhua Energy - China's largest and lowest-cost coal producer (the main reason is because it is very cheap).

**When energetically more efficient, transitions also often happen relatively fast - after the invention of the automobile, the horse was almost completely displaced within 20 years. Tesla has now been in business for about 16 years, and EVs still represent only about 1% of global automotive sales. 


  1. Hi Lyall, just wondering, with BMW's recent fall in prices, have you upped your stake in it, or have you cashed out already? It's definitely looking quite attractive to me and quite a lot safer than TEN.

    1. Hi there. Yes I have kept buying BMW prefers all and am still buying more. Have a 2-2.5% position in the prefs - by far my largest auto OEM exposure. Love the stock at these levels.


    2. Hello everyone..Welcome to my free masterclass strategy where i teach experience and inexperience traders the secret behind a successful trade.And how to be profitable in trading I will also teach you how to make a profit of $12,000 USD weekly and how to get back all your lost funds feel free to email me on( ) or whataspp number is +22999290178  

      Hello everyone..Welcome to my free masterclass strategy where i teach experience and inexperience traders the secret behind a successful trade.And how to be profitable in trading I will also teach you how to make a profit of $12,000 USD weekly and how to get back all your lost funds feel free to email me on( ) or whataspp number is +22999290178  

  2. Enjoyed the article and broadly agree. Curious how your views differ on forecasts like this showing battery prices continuing to decline (which presumably take raw materials into account):

    With parity vs. ICE getting closer?

    1. There have been some process innovations, but a lot of the cost improvement has come from manufacturing batteries at greater scale, and the manufacturing economies of scale that come with that.

      Gains in cost will continue, but they will slow down & eventually plateau, as the underlying physics/chemistry is not one of capacity for exponential gain. The analogy often drawn with microprocessors is a flawed one.

      The same thing happened with solar. Costs declined rapidly on innovation & scale economies in manufacturing but gains have slowed down, and when combined with 'balance of system costs', solar installations are still structurally uncompetitive with conventional generation. The cost of installing rooftop solar for instance has actually flatlined to risen over the past several years.

      At some point, incremental manufacturing gains would be easily offset by rising raw materials costs.

      That being said, in the short to medium term, because EV adoption is likely to be much more slow than generally believed, lithium markets etc are likely to be very significantly oversupplied in the medium term (a lot of investment has rushed into the space expecting booming EV demand, boosting capacity). Lithium prices have already dropped a lot of late and this will be assisting battery costs for the time being as well.

      Again, just to clarify, I'm not arguing that battery costs won't come down and that innovation in both batteries & EVs won't ultimately result in EVs supplanting ICEs. I'm just arguing that it's not yet 100% clear if that is going to happen - it might, or it might not.

  3. As I've already said on that other platform - brilliant post. Lyall, when it comes to value investing, you are a breath of fresh air (and compliments don't come easy for me).

    Just thought I'd add a couple of comments - that may, or may not, be of great interest.

    Many value investors insist that illiquidity and smallness are key to successful investing, and that looking at it's opposites is much less fruitful.

    Whilst I have no doubt that this has some sort truth, there is a flaw in thinking that it is the overarching truth (though it may be at times, as you too have suggested).

    The flaw is that it assumes that neglect and obscurity are the main sources of market inefficiency. Value investors always talk about inefficiencies due to herding and crowd psychology, yet often miss this point.

    If the greatest inefficiencies induced by herding and over-enthusiasm on the up side tend to afflict large well known enterprises (as herds must generally respond to the well known, obvious and visible), then there must be a concomitant inefficiency on the down side, also afflicting large, well known enterprises.

    If the herd is throwing large amounts of capital at A, it must be redeeming large amounts of capital from B.

    Many are also now saying that the internet has levelled the playing field in terms of information. This too lends to the notion that the best informational edge is achieved in illiquid, micro caps.

    This, seems to me, is a nonsensical argument. It assumes that the main source of inefficiency is an informational one. It neglects the fact that mass psychology has little to do with "information" (ie hard data), and much more to do with sentiment. The irony, in my mind, is that the internet is telegraphing sentiment like never before. So if anything, the internet is now delivering an informational DISadvantage, relative to what we have previously had. This lends to the notion, that some of the greatest advantages may at times lie in the obvious and that the needles in hay stacks may relatively too time consuming for the rewards on offer - at least at times.

    The other factor, is that market inefficiency tends to occur when opinions are non-divers (ie, there is a strong consensus or narrative). The internet makes these sorts of narratives highly visible, and likely reinforces and perpetuates them.

    The internet is unlikely to have changed human psychology, but it may have amplified it.

    1. Thanks Mars,

      I completely agree. While obscurity & illiquidity can create opportunities, so can liquidity. It is the big liquid caps that often tend to be the most volatile in period of liquidity stress; can be the focus of heavy shorting; and are the main focus of macro funds and algo bots. Look at Tapestry yesterday - it has sold off 35% from 12x to 8x on a minor earnings miss (earnings expected to be flat next year). You seldom see this sort of extreme volatility in illiquid stocks.

      Obscurity can cut both ways as well. It's more likely insiders have better access to information than external investors.

      Smaller companies are often lower quality as well. Not always (there are very clear exceptions to this), but the biggest companies are usually the strongest market leaders with the most resilient businesses. If you're a growth investor, obviously smaller companies can grow more off a smaller base. But if you're a value investor focused on cash in vs. cash out, it doesn't matter if a company can't grow if it can distribute a lot of cash vs. your purchase price. European banks like Unicredit, Raiffeisen, ING and Lloyds at 4-6x won't grow a lot, but they doesn't need to to yield a nice outcome, with earnings yields of 15%.

      Illiquidity is a legitimate risk premium that can be harvested, but unless you are very small or have permanent capital, you do so by assuming the very risks that account for that risk premium yourself. If you suffer redemptions, you may struggle to liquidate those positions without absolutely massacring the price.

      As always, it depends. In the past, when few people were doing small cap investing, small caps were cheap. Now, a lot of people are doing it, and in many areas of global markets, small caps are more expensive than large caps.


  4. Why not go for Linamar? lower EV/EBIT multiple, and 40% of their income comes from industrial. And you got significantly lower leverage as well, despite a higher earnings multiple.

    Another stock that look like they got hammered too much are DXC, trading at a 4x adjusted earnings yield with relatively low leverage. If you take into account that the declining part of their business will decline slower since it will be a lower % of their revenue, and that a significant part of revenue decline in Q2 was actually currency, and that the growing part of their business will be a larger % it looks pretty cheap.

    Another one that looks good is Tyman (TYMN), 7x adjusted 2019 earnings, with only 16% exposure to UK market, and a solid moat (plus a lot of exposure to after market as well). Housing starts are generally pretty low in the US and Europe, and house prices are high. So logic says that their earnings should be pretty sustainable (not counting about potential to get to 20% ebit margins). Insiders are aggressively buying.

    Another one that is interesting is EQM, a gas pipeline MLP with exposure to low cost gas fields, nearly 15% dividend yield with good coverage, and it seems this one got thrown out with the bath water? ETRN, which holds 54% of EQM, has aggressive insider buying by the CEO as well.

    Just throwing some names out there, would love to hear if you have an opinion on any of them :). Disclosure: I am long TYMN and EQM.

    1. DXC trading a 4x adjusted earnings multiple, not yield.

    2. Thanks. I already own Linamar but in much greater size than TEN. Really like the stock at these levels. It was unsuitable for the article as I consider Linamar a 'high conviction' stock rather than a low conviction stock. Due to its presence in non-auto segments, coupled with much lower leverage, I think they would do ok even in a world where a full EV transition occurs (although they will do much better if it doesn't).

      Thanks for the other stock leads - will take a look & revert.


    3. Yeah I am not sure why I am not owning Linamar yet. It was literally keeping me up last night why I did not own it. That is generally a good buy signal.

    4. Linamar looks really cheap. However with the father & daughter being Chair & CEO, both of whom are on a $12m comp package, do you think Corporate Gorvenance is going to be an issue here?

    5. I would say the family has added more value to minorities than they have extracted over time. Returns on equity and growth over time have been very impressive - well in excess of peers. It's a risk, but it's not a very substantial one imo.

  5. Hi Lyall, interesting post as usual.

    I think you slightly overstated the issue with battery longevity. If a completely new battery pack costs 10-15k$, the replacement should be 5-7k$, as I believe more than 50% of the cost is raw materials which can be fully recycled.


    "A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. The alternative? Use gasoline and extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

    Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids."

    1. Building an electric car costs significantly more in terms of CO2, but using it costs a lot less, and that is the majority of CO2 in a gasoline car.

      This is because even in a coal plant, an electric motor is more efficient, and a gasoline engine is quiet inefficient compared to a large turbine (because cylinder walls cannot be as thick in a gas car).

      So if you calculate CO2 usage, despite being significantly higher, to build the car, after 200k miles an electric car is more environmentally friendly. By about 30-40%. Assuming the battery lasts about 200 miles.

    2. Garbled the second paragraph, what I meant to say was, even if you get a significant portion of energy from a coal plant to charge the battery.

  7. Hi Lyall,

    I'd like to republish this article on Insider Monkey and Yahoo Finance. Can you send me an email ( to talk about the details?


  8. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.
    will help you more:
    Australian brokers forex

  9. I want to share a testimony on how Le_Meridian funding service helped me with loan of 2,000,000.00 USD to finance my marijuana farm project , I'm very grateful and i promised to share this legit funding company to anyone looking for way to expand his or her business project.the company is UK/USA funding company. Anyone seeking for finance support should contact them on Or Mr Benjamin is also on whatsapp 1-989-394-3740 to make things easy for any applicant. 

  10. I finally found a broker about which for the first time in 5 years I will write a positive review. sure traders Group company really showed its good side. This is both reliability in the execution of orders, and professional consultants who will always come to the rescue if force majeure suddenly happened on the market, I have no complaints about the trading platform, it works perfectly and does not freeze. With the depositing and withdrawal of funds in general there are no problems, everything comes on time. And of course, webinars which are conducted very often, for beginner traders and if you want to recorver your lost funds - I recommend, although for those with experience too. In general, for four months I have no complaints about the company. you can whatsapp them on +263787350597 Email.... [].

  11. Hello,am happy to share my experience so far in trading binary options
    have been losing and finding it difficult to make profit in trading for long until i meet [Mrs Patricia Morgan] who help me and gave me the right strategy and winning signals to trade and also i was able to get all my lost fund back from greedy brokers through Him. now i can make a profit of 12,000 USD weekly through his amazing masterclass strategy feel free to email him on, you can also reach her out on whats-app +1631 633 3388.

  12. I rarely share my story with people, not only because it put me at the lowest point ever but because it made me a person of ridicule among family and friends. I put all I had into Binary Options ($690,000) after hearing great testimonies about this new investment

     strategy. I was made to believe my investment would triple, it started good and I got returns (not up to what I had invested). Gathered more and involved a couple family members, but I didn't know I was setting myself up for the kill, in less than no time all we had put ($820,000) was gone. It almost seem I had set them up, they came at me strong and hard. After searching and looking for how to make those scums pay back, I got introduced to who helped recover about 80% of my lost funds within a month.