A Bargain I've Been Waiting For

Published in Company Comment on 20 June 2012

One Fool is set to buy an unloved company in an unloved sector.

Some of my most successful investments over the years have come from backing companies in sectors that are out of favour with the market. Short-term doom and gloom about an industry can often provide great value opportunities for investors with longer-term horizons.

Investing legend Warren Buffett -- the world's third-richest man -- believes he's found such an opportunity in the unloved UK retail sector. The Motley Fool special report "The One UK Share Warren Buffett Loves" gives you the full story on this one – and you can download your copy right now for free.

Buffett has also been buying up newspapers (on his home US turf), which is encouraging for me because, in the past month or so, I've become rather excited about the valuation of a particular UK company in this out-of-favour sector.

Doom and gloom

A number of factors have weighed heavily on the share prices of UK newspaper groups in recent years:

  • The industry is undergoing structural change as companies face the challenge of more and more people reading news online.
  • UK groups went into the credit crunch and recession with too much debt on their balance sheets, and borrowings remain relatively high as cost cutting has only offset the cyclical drop in advertising revenues.
  • The News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which came to a head last year, raised fears about how widespread illegal journalistic practices might be and the financial impact on newspaper publishers.

More doom and gloom

Against an overall negative industry backdrop, two further company-specific factors have recently weighed on the shares of Daily Mail & General Trust (LSE: DMGT).

The owner of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, free newspaper Metro and various regional titles, has two classes of share: non-voting (LSE: DMGT), of which there are 363 million, and voting (LSE: DMGO), of which there are 20 million.

The non-voting shares are trading at 385p and the voting shares at 485p, giving the group a market capitalisation of around £1.5 billion. A top FTSE 250 index company? Yes … until recently.

In April, the FTSE announced that, under new index rules, Daily Mail & General Trust's non-voting shares would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the FTSE UK index series, and that the shares would leave the FTSE 250 and FTSE All-Share indices on 18 June.

As such, index tracker funds – and any actively managed funds with a remit to invest only within either of the indices – have been obliged to sell all their DMGT shares.

At the same time, there has been additional downward pressure on the shares in the shape of a hefty sell from Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who also sits on the main board of directors. The sale of 100,205 shares netted Dacre just over £400,000 and leaves him with just 37,861 shares in the company.

The price is right … now

You might think that the fall in DMGT's shares from over £13 at their peak in 2000 to under £4 today is indicative of a company in terminal decline. But the business has actually grown over the period and the annual dividend has risen from 8p to 17p per share.

What has happened is that DMGT's shares have gone from a super-high earnings rating at the exuberant turn of the millennium to a very modest one today. The current DMGT share price of 385p represents a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 8, based on forecasts for the year ending September 2012. And the forward dividend yield is a healthy 4.7%.

Beyond the short term

Ironically, Daily Mail & General Trust looks an infinitely healthier animal for the modern digital age than it was 10 years ago.

At the end of last year, MailOnline overtook the website of the New York Times to become the most popular newspaper-owned website in the world. The first quarter of this year saw 94 million average monthly unique visitors, 63% higher than for the corresponding period to March 2011, and total revenues 75% higher than the prior half year.

Moreover, at a recent investor day, the company suggested MailOnline should generate around £45m of online advertising revenues in 2012-13 with a target of £100m for 2018. Increasingly, most of the revenue from this source should drop straight to the bottom line as pure profit. Current annualised net profit for the entire Daily Mail & General Trust group is running at around £140m.

Other promising online developments include the merger of DMGT's popular FindaProperty.com and Primelocation.com websites with those of Zoopla. DMGT owns 55% of the merged entity, which will challenge the dominant player in the sector, Rightmove (LSE: RMV). Rightmove turned a £47m profit in 2011.

At the same time, I expect DMGT's strong stable of business-to-business operations -- in areas as diverse as risk management, information and events -- to continue to grow strongly. These assets include a 68% stake in Euromoney Institutional Investor (LSE: ERM), a FTSE 250 firm that alone is valued at over £900m by the market.

Foolish bottom line

Daily Mail & General Trust looks like a classic undervalued share in an out-of-favour sector to me, with the technical selling as a result of the FTSE's index rule changes only adding to the undervaluation.

When I wrote about the company a year ago, the DMGT shares were trading at 450p. I thought they looked cheap for the longer term, with a reasonable dividend providing some recompense in the short term, but said I wouldn't be surprised to see the price drift lower and that I might be inclined to hold out for a better price.

That time has now come!

"10 Steps To Making A Million In The Market" is the very latest Motley Fool guide to help Britain invest. Better. We urge you to read the free report today – it may transform your wealth.

Further investment opportunities:

> G A Chester does not own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

mousecatcher007 20 Jun 2012 , 7:08pm

Food for thought, but why no mention of the Leverson Inquiry? Any future requirement for the press to publish only in 'the public interest' will gut The Mail, with a severe knock-on effect for its website and associated advertising revenue. Given that its website in particular currently makes 'Heat' magazine look like 'The Economist', I for one can well see the post-Leverson 'hit' figures for its website falling off a cliff.

valuemargin 20 Jun 2012 , 10:13pm

Good call Moby Dick. Undoubtedly priced below the intrinsic value of DMGT's diverse publishing operations.

As you indicate,the dividend has grown at twice the rate of inflation over the past decade and is still more than twice covered on normalised and partly cyclically depressed earnings. This is the measure of real progress, rather than the sentiment driven share price trajectory.

ERM is atypical of DMGT's business publishing interest whose earnings have become increasingly resilient as it has adopted a more subscription based model and lessened dramatically its dependence on advertising. ERM's share price has gone in the opposite direction to its majority shareholder, rising from 227p when I first invested in 2001 to 746p today, despite its dividend growing more slowly than DMGT's! How does efficient market theory explain that?.

Newspapers are in decline and the local paper division is particularly challenged, but only accounts now for a small fraction of total group profits. The Mail and Metro are much sturdier properties and will be mature profitable businesses for many years to come with an added kicker of harnessing the monetary opportunities of Mail Online. Additionally, while newspapers are facing gradual circulation erosion, there is a material recession element to the depressed advertising sales which may eventually abate.

Interestingly I read recently that Mail sales in the over 55 age range is still increasingl, suggesting that newspapers may still have an attraction for people with leisure time on their hands, even in a digital age..

At this price and yield, I certainly see the scope for increasing my holding in DMGT by 50%. The family control of this 4th generation business I regard as an added stabilising factor, which assists long term strategic planning and custodianship without the distraction of having to please the city.or worrying about predatory action of giant media conglomerates. Certainly, the Rothermere's have been doing the business for private shareholders since 1932.

valuemargin 20 Jun 2012 , 10:38pm

PS I wouldn't be concerned about Dacre's large share sale.He has been editor of the Daily Mail for 20 years and is approaching normal retirement age. I suspect his disposal is a part of normal, prudent retirement planning.

jezza1956 21 Jun 2012 , 1:42pm

Amusingly, ram59, what we know as Panama hats are actually made in Ecuador. Hope this helps :-)

sonrisa1 21 Jun 2012 , 2:13pm

I find the Mail 1 of the more atrocious papers, being so Fascist & it has many competators for awfullness IE the "scum" I do no think I could bear to own such Biased trash & hope they get their comuppance soon!

Basia02 21 Jun 2012 , 3:27pm

I would till avoid this share. The newspaper market will continue to decline as smartphones steal even more of its market.
I presume the merger of the property sites is motivated by the failure of the indivdual ones to make much money?
As an over 55, who has not bought a newspaper for 6 years now - dont rely on us. The Mail along with the Sun and Mirror were the 3 papers I would never ever buy anyway under any circumstances.
My parents gave the Mail up a decade ago, and my better half stopped buying the Times and now subscribes to the online Crossword. ( Buying the Saturday times for the crossword - what a waste of paper as the rest of it just went in the bin!)

Clitheroekid 21 Jun 2012 , 7:21pm

I find the Mail 1 of the more atrocious papers, being so Fascist ...

Assuming you're referring to the paper and not yourself I'm surprised that you should consider it to express Fascist views, as I can't say that I've ever been aware of this.

Could you provide some examples of such views? You are obviously knowledgeable about political issues, and I anticpate that your comments would be helpful in my forming an investment decision.

ANuvver 22 Jun 2012 , 12:50am

mousecatcher007:

The press are already supposed to only publish in the public interest. The problem is that PCC regs have always been more honoured in the breach than the observance.

The issue was never, in my experience, "are we right to publish?", it was "can we publish and get away with it?"

IMO a decision to publish on "public interest" grounds requires fine judgement and experience - and in the increasingly deskilled area of production journalism these qualities are in short supply.

I see a certain Wikileaker, who is no journalist in my book, now fancies a future in a Panama hat...

(I apologise for any offence caused by the rather demotic turn of phrase used in my previously posted opinion of the man.)

Navislim 22 Jun 2012 , 8:42am

Sonrisa1, Judging by your angry words and poor grammar and spelling I asume you are quite young.

You will doubtless learn as you age that the word fascist ought really to be reserved only for describing very aggressively authoritarian and prejudicial organisations or states. It is not a fitting descriptor for a (by global standards) moderately right wing newspaper published in a free democracy.

The fact that the paper has a point of view that you find distasteful may well be one of the reasons it is able to maintain a good readership in difficult times for the industry as a whole.

'Bland' does not sell well. Opinionated clearly does.

I will do further research but it does seem a good point at which to invest in DMGT. I have no holdings in 'publishing' at all at present so it may benefit to diversify my portfolio too.

couldnotmakeitup 22 Jun 2012 , 11:12am

Hello Navislim,

Fully agree with you! I don't by The Mail but my neighbour does. It seems OK to me. Most papers contain some thrash, one doesn't have to read it!

Regards

Ben

maldonian 22 Jun 2012 , 12:18pm

I worked for this group for 15 years (not in the newspapers division) until my early retirement in 2005.The Co. was and still is extremely well managed both in day to day and long term strategy.The B to B division is the growth story while the newspaper division is stable.
I had not realised the shares had been excluded from the FTSE indices until I read this article,presumably on the bogus "ethical" grounds of the non-voting shares and the family control of the voting shares.IF..all the institutions you mentioned have all sold their shares I am somewhat surprised the shares are even at this level.Were all the shares bought by private shareholders?? A
detailed search of the share register would be useful.
IMO a very undervalued share but will the value be realised if no institutional investor can hold the stock.?Also will broker research decline?





Gadge 23 Jun 2012 , 10:28am

I find your case for buying NOW somewhat undermined by the fact that you haven't bought any yet.

Why haven't you put your money on the table?

M0byDick 24 Jun 2012 , 10:12am

@Gadge
As a Fool writer I'm subject to trading restrictions http://www.fool.co.uk/help/disclaimer.aspx
I must hold any stock I own and that I write for the Fool about for at least 10 full market business days; and I cannot write about a stock in the period of 2 full market business days before, to 2 full market business days after, purchasing or selling the stock.
I could have bought Daily Mail & General Trust and written about it later, but I was excited about the opportunity and wanted to the share the idea, so I wrote the article first, which means I have to wait a few days before I can buy.
Foolish best
MobyDick (G A Chester - article author)

krustallos 26 Jun 2012 , 8:29pm

@Clitheroekid
21 Jun 2012 , 7:21pm
Assuming you're referring to the paper and not yourself I'm surprised that you should consider it to express Fascist views, as I can't say that I've ever been aware of this.


In fact the Daily Mail did support Mussolini back in the 1920's and 30's so it has expressed Fascist views in the literal sense of that word. Admittedly in recent years it's confined itself to bashing immigrants, gay people and anything remotely progressive within a more democratic framework, but the instincts the paper represents are the same.

Sonrisa1's spelling and grammar may be lamentable but his or her political instincts are sound, I'd say. Not that that's necessarily a good basis for making an investment decision...


Daytona2 08 Mar 2013 , 6:02pm

Clitheroekid, a few seconds on Wikipedia explains -

[i]Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the 1930s.[31][32] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[33] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany".[/i]

Personally I think that the Rothermeres with their mob incitement tactics are just as malignant a force in UK politics as Murdoch. DMGT is out on ethical gounds afaic.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.