This page is quite old hence its rather spartan appearance.
Why not check out our Latest Stories page for our newest articles or search our site for anything.
QUALIPORT
By
Marks & Spencer (LSE: MKS), Rentokil Initial (LSE: RTO), Unilever (LSE: ULVR), Dell Computer Corporation (Nasdaq: DELL), Misys (LSE: MSY), Independent Insurance, PizzaExpress (LSE: PIZ), Emap (LSE: EMA), Lloyds TSB (LLOY). The connection? They were all founder members of the Qualiport. Of those nine shares, three still remain in the portfolio. The other six were sold for a variety of reasons: * Poor competitive advantage (M&S); At the time, many a critic expressed their disapproval of the sales. This post from DemonSlayer is a good example: "So, Unilever has been dropped from the portfolio. You see, I find it hypocritical that companies like Rentokil Initial and Unilever get such tremendous recommendations as long-term buy and holds in TMF books like the UK Investment Guide, but are soon sold off. Boy, that book is getting outdated really fast. Anyone buying it now and reads it and then comes to the TMF website and sees that these stocks have been written off, will be disillusioned to say the least. So much for Foolish education!" As a rebuttal, this article gives the portfolio's defence to the 'Obviously Great Investment' U-turn. But what would have happened if the Qualiport had stuck to its original holdings? Would the portfolio have been better off had it remained passive? Let's see. Go passive The Qualiport sold its first share (for fundamental reasons) during May 1999 -- it was M&S. Here's the portfolio just before the sale: However, to judge correctly how this 'passive Qualiport' would have performed subsequently, Lloyds TSB must enter the equation. This is where things get tricky, as the Qualiport used part of the proceeds from the M&S disposal to buy the bank's shares in September 1999. So let's assume M&S wasn't sold. In addition, let's assume the passive Qualiport's £1,729.59 cash balance, plus the £278.15 accumulated between May and September 1999 (from various dividends), giving £2,007.74, was all invested in Lloyds TSB (as opposed to the £2,723.20 that was in reality). At the 755.5p buy price then, the passive Qualiport would have bought 265 Lloyds TSB shares in September 1999 (as opposed to the 356 acquired in reality). Fast forward to 2002 and here's how the passive Qualiport would have stood last night: And so, would the passive Qualiport have performed better than an index tracker? Er, not quite: At yesterday's close, the passive Qualiport would have been worth £11,033.44. Had we shoved it all into an index tracker instead, the portfolio would have been worth £12,610.68. So three years on, the portfolio was right in taking action on some of its original holdings. But did the Qualiport take the correct action and improve its performance? To be able judge that, we have to consider some additional cash injections. Today's comparison Now things get even trickier. Following the final 'founder member' purchase (of Lloyds TSB in September 1999), the portfolio subsequently added £6,000 to its coffers. Judging how the passive Qualiport would have invested that £6,000 throws up all sorts of possibilities. So to keep things simple, let's say it was kept as cash in the bank -- a generous assumption given the stock market's performance since 1999! That would give the passive Qualiport a value of £17,033.44 (£11,033.44 + £6,000). Now compare that to how the Qualiport stood last night: Currently worth £18,817.19, the Qualiport's real life performance has -- three years on -- outrun its passive counterpart by about £1,800.
Conclusion So what does all this prove? So far at least, the Qualiport was right to sell the six initial holdings. (Granted, some disposal decisions (e.g. Independent Insurance) were better than others (e.g. Unilever)). Had the Qualiport held on rigidly to the nine founder member shares, it would almost certainly be lagging behind an index tracker and the current real life portfolio. The simple conclusion from this study is the Qualiport has improved its share selection over time. We've learnt from past mistakes. We've learnt that successful long term investing must involve companies that, alongside many other characteristics, have a durable competitive advantage (unlike M&S), are easy to understand (unlike Independent Insurance), are not acquisition driven (unlike Misys) and are valued with a decent margin of safety (unlike Dell). More: Whatever Happened To Those Obviously Great Investments? The author owns shares in Carpetright, DFS Furniture, Johnston Press and PizzaExpress
* Racy valuation (Dell, Misys);
* Poor cash flow, opaque business (Independent Insurance), and;
* Acquisitive nature, poor returns on capital (Rentokil, Unilever, Misys again)Company Number Price Value
of shares (p) (£)
PizzaExpress 245 945 2,315.25
Emap 202 1,304 2,634.08
Independent Ins 755 287 2,166.85
Dell 37 $34.40 1,542.79
Rentokil 783 248 1,941.84
Misys 347 531 1,842.57
Unilever 298 547 1,630.06
M & S 368 387 1,424.16
15,497.60
Cash 1,729.59
Total 17,227.19
Company Number Price Value Dividends Total
of shares (p) (£) Accumulated (£)
(£)
PizzaExpress 245 291 712.95 53.17 766.12
Emap 202 710 1,434.20 115.75 1,549.95
Independent Ins 755 0 0.00 79.65 79.65
Dell 74* $27.41 1,310.31 0.00 1,310.31
Rentokil 783 212 1,659.96 119.17 1,779.13
Misys 347 197 683.59 51.98 735.57
Unilever 266** 598 1,590.68 106.69 1,697.37
M & S 289** 350 999.22 387.00 1,386.22
Lloyds TSB 265 559 1,481.35 247.78 1,729.13
Total 9,872.26 1,161.18 11,033.44
(* Adjusted for 1-for-1 split)
(** Adjusted for capital restructure)
Date Amount FTSE 100 Tracker value
(£) TRI Index (£)
26/05/99 15,497.60 2793.42 11,129.63
29/09/99 2,007.74 2719.51 1,481.05
Total: 12,610.68
(FTSE 100 TRI index 2006.10 at 23/10/02)Company Number Price Value
of shares (p) (£)
PizzaExpress 644 291 1,874.04
Emap 372 710 2,641.20
Lloyds TSB 510 559 2,850.90
Johnston Press 1,608 350 5,628.00
Carpetright 675 660 4,455.00
DFS Furniture 236 436.5 1,030.14
18,479.28
Cash 337.91
Total 18,817.19