Friday, April 14, 2017

TPG Telecom’s big gamble



TPG’s announcement on 12 April that it plans to build a mobile network to compete with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone should be more than a little worrying for TPG shareholders.

The salient points were:

  •  TPG paid an extremely high price ($1.26 billion) for 2x10 MHz (for just under 11 years) in the government’s 700 MHz spectrum auction (twice what Telstra had paid in a 2013 auction);

  •  TPG’s forecast maintenance spend of $600 million over three years (for a mobile network with a supposed 80% reach of the Australian population) was widely viewed as ridiculously low by many commentators; and

  • To part fund the spectrum purchase, TPG is conducting a non-renounceable pro-rata entitlement offer to existing shareholders at $5.25(!) per share, a 20% discount to the closing price on 11 April and a price the shares have not traded at since July 2014.

It should also be noted that TPG (TPM.AX) is attempting to become the 4th mobile player in the Singapore market at the same time as its adventure into the Australian mobile market. 

When TPG announced its foray into the Singaporean market, I asked a friend who knows a great deal about the telecommunications market in Singapore (and happens to be a Singaporean national) what he thought of TPG’s ambitions in Singapore. He recounted all the past failures of those who tried to compete against the incumbent players in that market and concluded by stating that there was no reason to believe that TPG would have any different experience.

What TPG is essentially doing is taking on very high levels of debt, vastly increasing its interest and amortisation expenses and therefore, significantly reducing its return on equity for what is at best a marginally profitable exercise. It also assumes that the established players will simply allow TPG to just walk away with their mobile customers! It’s a classic case of growth for growth’s sake.

It is completely illogical for anyone to think that a company that has paid twice as much for its spectrum licence than its competitors and does not have an existing (complete) network in place can price its products to achieve sound profits against incumbent players.

After initially being very successful, TPG has struggled in recent times. The share price peaked at $12.93 in July 2016 and will have declined by 59% once it comes out of its current trading halt.

At the $5.25 capital raising price, major TPG shareholder Washington H. Soul Pattinson (SOL.AX) will have seen it’s shareholding in TPG decline by approximately $1.6 billion since that peak in July 2016. And yes, Soul Pattinson did purchase that shareholding at a mere pittance of what it’s now worth, but to sit on your hands while $1.6 billion evaporates isn’t the best management in my book.

The market price of TPG’s shares indicates that there is little confidence in the company’s strategies. I have to say that on this occasion, I agree with the market.

8 comments:

  1. Telsta's share price has taken a battering this past month, particularly since TPG announced its mobiles plan; do you now consider TLS a buy at about $4.20 ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I'm prepared to buy it at around $4 a share.

    It's not a very well managed company and is obviously facing increasing competition and government interference, but at these prices, I'm happy to buy a bit.

    Let's also not forget that Telstra is being paid billions in compensation by the government for the NBN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Buffett & Munger gave me great insight and clarity about how to invest successful. That is, buy companies with a strong moat at reasonable/cheap price and good management.

    IMO, Telstra is a bit like AT&T. There's little to no moat (sustainable competitive advantage). At best, it's a deep value play or cigar butt.

    I would consider Telstra if it trades for under P/E 10x (after tax) and excluding NBN royalties with corporate debts under 20%.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, it's a value play. At a certain price, almost everything can be a buy (or a sell).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just thinking out loud - I always get myself into trouble when I buy a company without a strong moat. Without a strong moat, companies will suffer over time due to competition and industry changes. This will result in declining margins & net earnings which will result in a lower share price.

    This is such a simple method of successful long term investing - Buffett & Munger style. TEN is a classic example of a company with little or no moat in a competitive and rapidly changing industry. I wonder why this was so hard for J Packer, L Murdoch, G Rinehart and B Gordon to understand? You'd think with their billions, they'd have access to smart advisers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are correct. I thought those people were insane to put money into TEN.

    According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the people you mentioned have lost about $400 million.

    I have a low opinion of Lachlan Murdoch’s abilities. Remember One.Tel? The Packers and Murdochs collectively lost about $1 billion in that directly because of the poor judgement of Lachlan and James. Now Lachlan has lost another pile of money in TEN, he’s so lucky that there is a virtually unlimited supply of funds from Dad.

    I owned TEN at one stage, but sold out around 2000 at about $2.00 a share (equivalent to $20 per share now, as TEN did a 10 for 1 consolidation in 2016). They still had some good shows back then and they were also a very high dividend payer, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time now and all of those people should have known better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope TPG do well on this initiative. The very rich family associated with TPG were rumoured to have lost a lot when Phil Mathews hit the wall. Hope they get it all back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally am very interested in the whole Phil Mathews saga as a study case for self-development.

    Any pointers will be great. Coffee anyone?

    ReplyDelete