DAN NILES
  • Home
  • About
  • Satori Fund
  • Social Media
  • Interviews
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • Invest

Covering Shorts & Putting Cash to work

1/23/2022

9 Comments

 
We are writing this article to more fully flesh out our comments on CNBC on Friday (1/21/22) and subsequent questions that we received.

Human beings are wired terribly for investing. The tendency is to buy at highs given greed and to sell at lows given fear. Last week had the largest weekly drop in the S&P in nearly 2 years. We covered essentially all of our shorts by the end of the week. This is despite having more shorts than longs earlier in the month given our belief in a 20% correction in the S&P. We also invested 15% of the assets in the fund on Friday and used available cash in the fund to do it. However, we still have a large cash position remaining. Remember that cash was one of our Top 5 Picks coming into the year.

So why did we cover our shorts and put cash to work? We use technical tools to essentially protect ourselves from our normal human emotions and to statistically up the odds of achieving better risk adjust returns.

From their all-time record highs, the Russell 2000 is down 19% from 11/8/21 while Nasdaq is down 15% from 11/22/21 and the S&P is down 9% from 1/4/21. We used available cash sitting in the fund on Friday (1/21/22) to put 10% of the portfolio into a small cap basket & 5% into regional banks (-9% in 4 days). 31% of our 17 technical indicators were near-term oversold. We prefer this closer to 50% but some of our favorite indicators are at oversold levels. For example, the VIX (fear gauge) curve is now negative indicating investors are willing to pay more for near-term protection than longer-term protection. The selloff was also on volume that was ~60% above the 20-day average. There were more puts being bought than calls while typically ~40% more calls are bought than puts. The TRIN ratio which is the number of advancing/declining stocks (Advance Decline Ratio) divided by advancing/declining volume (Advance Decline volume) was ~1.5 versus an average of 1.1 over the past five years. This indicates a lot more urgency in the selling of stocks going down than the buying of stock going up. 51% of the S&P hit a new four week low. Despite our belief that the next 3-5% move in the S&P is higher, we believe the S&P is still ultimately down at least 20% from peak to trough due to persistently high inflation, an aggressive Fed & slower growth. (See our post on 12/28/21 for detailed reasoning.) We plan to put our shorts back on at higher levels.

Two of our larger remaining technical concerns are: 1) close to half of the worst one day crashes in history have happened on a Monday typically following a bad week ending on a bad Friday which is what just happened, and 2) the VIX closed at 29 which is below the 40 threshold we prefer to see.

Rallies within brutal bear markets are common and we hope our technical indicators help our shorts avoid the worst of these and enable us to buy longs at statistically favorable times. We have analyzed eight different bear markets but would note the statistics for the following periods which we think have similarities to the current period of time. During the Global Financial Crisis, the S&P had 11 rallies in the S&P that averaged 10% while there were 12 declines averaging 15% over nearly a year and a half. The total price decline was 57%. During the Tech bubble bursting, the S&P rallied 7 times averaging 14% while falling 8 times averaging 17% over 2 ½ years. The total price decline was 49%. And finally, over nearly two years in the early 1980s when Fed chairman Paul Volcker was fighting inflation, the S&P rallied 7 times for 8% while dropping 8 times for an average of 10%. The total price decline was 27%. This in our view is the most comparable bear market. Even during the one month 34% sell-off during covid in early 2020, there were 4 notable rallies that averaged 7%, but given 3 of them were one day moves, we do not believe they are as relevant.

In summary, we think we are close to a near-term low and wanted to reposition to take advantage of that in both our short and long positions. For those that want to stay focused on the long-term and do not have the time to manage your investments daily, we think the lows for the market still lie ahead.
9 Comments

Update on VIACOm ($VIAC)

1/2/2022

1 Comment

 
At the end of every year, I try to look back at some of the biggest mistakes to learn from them. Viacom ($VIAC) is certainly one of those. I have also received many requests on social media for an update on my thoughts and at times 280 characters can be a bit too restricting.

RECAP of $VIAC

​Back in 2020, I talked about VIAC being a more value centric way to participate in the excitement around streaming. VIAC’s stock surged and reached $100 on 3/22/2021 from $37 to start the year. In hindsight, much of the move in this name was driven by relentless buying by Archegos Capital Management, a ~$20B hedge fund. VIAC’s stock quickly retraced those moves as an extremely well-timed capital raise by VIAC and the high-profile liquidation of Archegos drove VIAC’s stock down to an intraday low of $40 on 3/26.

To us, this move lower created a very interesting buying opportunity which we talked about subsequently on air. But as of year end the stock is even lower at $30. So, what happened?

Fundamentally, VIAC rev expectations have been drifting up through 2021 driven by streaming revs that have also been going higher.  Given the losses in Viacom’s streaming business, this has driven EBITDA and EPS expectations lower which is natural as they gain scale in streaming.   As discussed later, streaming leader Netflix (NFLX) lost money for eight years before 2020 and should be cash flow breakeven in 2021. Obviously NFLX’s stock has done well over this time driven by subscriber growth, the most watched metric.  But obviously subscriber growth did not help VIAC’s stock price this year.  So what happened?

In our minds, there were two main driving forces after the Archegos meltdown that drove VIAC’s stock price even lower: 1) the leaders in the streaming space started missing their subscriber expectations and 2) treasury yields started to rise this year creating a greater focus on profits versus just growth.

Driving Force 1:
​Subscriber Misses by Streaming Leaders

In 2021, NFLX missed both Q1 and Q2, Disney (DIS) missed Q3, and Roku (ROKU) missed Q3.  Traditional media company Discovery (DISCA), which is also pushing hard into streaming by merging with AT&T’s Time Warner division, missed their Q3 as well. When the leaders in a particular space miss, investors typically assume that the smaller players will suffer even more. If you believe that growth is slowing at the leaders like NFLX, DIS, or ROKU why wouldn’t growth at a smaller player like VIAC eventually slow as well especially when even their peer DISCA missed? Furthermore, there is less career risk as a portfolio manager for owning an industry leader like DIS or NFLX than VIAC if all of their stock prices decline. As a result, sentiment for VIAC soured as well as for the other players in the streaming space.

Driving Force 2:
Rising Treasury Yields & focus on profits

As interest rates started to rise from 0.9% on the 10-year treasury to roughly 1.5% at year end, investors started to focus more on the profitability of companies in addition to their growth in all spaces. While streaming is a fast-growing business, it burns a lot of cash. For example, the free cash flow (FCF) of streaming leader NFLX was negative $3.3B in 2019. In fact, FCF was positive for the first time in nine years at $1.9B in 2020. But even that profit was due to an unsustainable decline in content production and a surge in subscribers both driven by Covid. In 2021, despite 214M subscribers as of Q3 and expected revs of $29.7B for the year, NFLX’s FCF is expected to be neutral as production expenses ramp back up and subscriber additions slow down. On a positive note, FCF is expected to be positive every year thereafter.

For VIAC, they have had upside to their subscriber expectations for the past nine months, but they have not disclosed their: 1) FCF losses from streaming; or 2) the timeline for these losses to peak or turn positive. Given streaming leader NFLX is just at FCF breakeven with 214M subs, investors are understandably nervous about VIAC which has 47M streaming subscribers with an additional 54M advertising supported streaming subscribers from Pluto TV. Additionally, EBITDA expectations have drifted lower in 2021 as VIAC has made the prudent business decision to invest more in streaming given the growth they are seeing in subscribers.

Predictions looking forward

Q4 results for VIAC should breakout 1) their three separate divisions (Direct to Consumer, Studios, and Networks) and 2) their operating profits/losses for the first time. We believe the company will increase their subscriber forecasts for the long-term given the positive momentum in this business. We see VIAC both adding more streaming subscribers in Q4 than Q3 and in 2022 than in 2021. But we forecast that the losses in their streaming business will increase through 2022 as they invest to launch in Europe in the second half of 2022 with losses peaking at some point in 2023/24. We expect EBITDA/EPS expectations to be reduced as a result. Given the strength in their streaming business in contrast to others which disappointed such as NFLX, DIS, ROKU or DISCA, we believe this is a good investment for the long-term. Unfortunately, if the current sentiment persists, there is risk the stock may go lower in the short-term much like it did on Q3 results despite strong streaming rev growth of 62% y/y.

Conclusion

I am an investor that likes stocks with growth at a reasonable price. VIAC trades at 8x CY22 PE despite their streaming revenues up 62% y/y. This is incredibly cheap compared to streaming leaders NFLX (46x PE; revs up 16% y/y in CQ3), DIS (~34x PE; streaming revs up 38% y/y in CQ3), and ROKU (~121x PE; revs up 51% y/y in CQ3.) These streaming leaders are all growing their streaming revenues slower than VIAC yet fetch much higher multiples. In addition to VIAC's asymmetric growth vs. valuation profile, VIAC’s $1.1B in streaming revs in their September quarter grew to 16% of overall company revenues. NFLX is trading at 10x trailing sales. VIAC should do close to $5B in streaming revs this year, so it does not seem unreasonable to assume $50B is a reasonable valuation for this business alone. However, all of VIAC has a market cap of only $21B with ~$10B of net debt assuming current announced deals close.

From a subscriber perspective, NFLX had 214M subscribers at the end of Q3:2021 with a market cap of $267B.  A valuation of ~$1,250 per subscriber. VIAC now has 47M streaming subscribers with 54M ad supported streaming subscribers from Pluto TV with a market cap of $21B. Just the value of the pure streaming subscribers for VIAC is $59B on this metric.

While we have admitted our mistake and cut our position in VIAC  to take a tax loss for 2021, upcoming Q4 results and the outlook for streaming losses hopefully sets a bottom for the stock and sets the name up for a good rest of 2022. Investors may want to go to the sidelines until guidance is given on Q4 results or sentiment reverses for the company.

Today VIAC is viewed as a melting media ice cube and streaming loser. We believe VIAC will slowly become recognized as a contender along with NFLX and DIS in the streaming wars. VIAC has one of the broadest offerings of all the streaming services with sports, movies, news, unscripted, adult, and kid content. This should lead to a higher multiple much like we saw with DIS when their streaming business really took off. We believe the stock is still significantly undervalued long-term based on their streaming momentum. Time will tell.

Best wishes for your investments in the New Year.
1 Comment

    Author

    Dan Niles is founder and portfolio manager for the Satori Fund, a tech-focused hedge fund. ​

    Learn More

    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    May 2018
    May 2017
    October 2015
    June 2012

    Categories

    All
    Top 5 Picks

    RSS Feed

The opinions expressed on this page are those of Daniel Niles and not necessarily those of AlphaOne Satori Management, LLC (the General Partner to the Satori Fund) or STP Investment Partners (CRD # 306086) www.stpipus.com, the Registered Investment Advisor to the Satori Fund.

Investing involves risk which may include the loss of principal.

The Satori Funds are private investment products which file an exemption under 3-c-7 and 3-c-1 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, thereby, reserved solely for qualified purchasers and accredited investors through an official subscription process.
​

The following material and information presented on this site is not a solicitation or an offer of securities. For more information you may request fund documents by completing the following attestation. For more information you may also visit https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/reports/ADV/306086/PDF/306086.pdf.
Contact Information
clientsupport@stpipus.com
267-597-3849
​© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Home
  • About
  • Satori Fund
  • Social Media
  • Interviews
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • Invest