Join our investing community

Harrop Financial

Discussion in 'Managed Funds & Index Funds' started by redrover, 19th Feb, 2007.

  1. redrover

    redrover Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    131
    Anyone know anything about this organisation. Saw ad this weekend re returns of 45%+ audited for last ten years. Presentation in Brissie this week, ad had a small Tricom name at the bottom! Any info good, bad or ugly.
     
  2. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    It would be interesting to know what it's about, but as always, I think market efficiency means it's just not possible without a catch. Those audited 45% returns may be true with: very small amounts of money, a non-duplicable skill, excess expended effort or inside information.

    And of course there's always the argument that if it was sustainable with lots of money, why would you advertise it? Turn it into a company, get VC, give them a small percentage and access billions of dollars in capital.
     
  3. Glebe

    Glebe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    932
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
  4. handyandy

    handyandy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Jun, 2006
    Posts:
    312
    Location:
    Sydney Nsw
  5. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    Of course, ROE, not ROIC. Too obvious to make sense at the time.

    And he's a technical trader... typical :p
     
  6. redrover

    redrover Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    131
    Handyandy, thanks for the info.

    iiinvestor - you do not seem to be a fan of technical analysis. However if you take a look at most of the shares in the Navra fund at present you would see that by trading on the technicals you would have done far better over the last six months that just "cropping" the spikes and dips. Let the profits run is all too often forgotten when "trading" to produce short term returns. However there is room for both in the market. Most technical traders last year made in excess of 40% - grab Colin Nicholson's latest book Hot Stocks for 2007 and read up on some very valuable lessons on technicals and undervalued companies.

    Geared is just fine to calculate returns, some of our best performers, CFS etc. are doing that.

    Only 4 years trading name does not mean much. Only relates to a particular entity, not the man's trading ability or length of time. I will pop along Wednesday night to see what he has to say.:)
     
  7. Glebe

    Glebe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    932
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
    redrover,

    Would appreciate it if you give us the rundown after the session :)
     
  8. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    redrover:

    It was just friendly banter; I didn't mean to offend anyone here who considers themself a TA. :)

    I still think reporting on ROE is completely misleading though. The returns on CFS Geared are returns on your invested capital, not just their equity. BHP also gears their assets but your invested capital is in question. If you buy a $1m house geared at 99% and it rises 15%, that's a 150% return on equity. Do you think it's fair to advertise that return? That's a rhetoric question; I'm sure you see what I mean. It's comparing apples and oranges.
     
  9. Nigel Ward

    Nigel Ward Team InvestEd

    Joined:
    10th Jun, 2005
    Posts:
    1,172
    I have to agree with iiinvestor on this one. To tout figures on geared portfolio is to confuse and mix the investment decision and returns with the financing decision.

    Of course gearing is important, but it is, as iiinvestor has said an unfair comparison as gearing is typically at the investor level and its appropriateness will depend on free cash flow of investor, their tax position and risk tolerance.

    I don't think pointing to internally geared funds like the colonial etc is appropriate to the argument.

    My 2.2 cents worth.

    Cheers
    N.
     
  10. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    Again redrover, apologies for the sarcasm. When I re-read what I wrote, I can see why it didn't come across as sarcastic as I had hoped. :(

    On a different topic (but a similar level), Fosters reported an increase in net profit of 90%! A family friend walked in today and said:

    "WTF, 90% increase in net profit and the share price went down. What more do they want? Here [as he threw me a raft of reports & media releases], you tell me why!" Just for the record, the tone was understandable because he has a significant investment in Fosters.

    On the front of the half year report, there it was, net profit 90% up to $500-odd million. So I opened up the presentation and there was the catch: net profit AFTER ABNORMALITIES up only 11%. Hmmmm... I wondered what was going on. The additional "profit" ended up being divestments in India and Vietnam, to the tune of $190m. Also, it seems they're going to use the sale proceeds to buy back shares. Am I right in saying that they're essentially shrinking the company by doing that?

    Anyway, I just thought that was interesting in light of the discussion in this thread. Not the end of the world, but a bit of a nasty taste if it was the company who promoted the 90% increase... I think.
     
  11. bundy1964

    bundy1964 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Dec, 2006
    Posts:
    351
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    FGL did bite me today :mad:
     
  12. Glebe

    Glebe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    932
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW


    Shrinking by divesting in India and Vietnam? Yeah..

    Shrinking by buying back shares? Nope. This doesn't change the size of the company, but by removing shares from circulation (via buyback) it increases the value of each outstanding share.
     
  13. Mark Laszczuk

    Mark Laszczuk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    793
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Robert Hagstrom discusses share buybacks in The Warren Buffett Way - and does an excellent job too. I suggest getting the book and reading it to those who haven't already done so, it's a fantastic read.

    Mark
     
  14. redrover

    redrover Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    131
    Went to Harrop Fin. info session last night. This is not a managed fund, it is your individual investing in between 10-12 ASX100 companies for a 12 month period and not touching. Allows for dividends to be taken or reinvested, you can use covered calls if you want monthly income provided you do not allow for exercise. Amounts of money invested depend on you, but basing it on an LVR of 65% in a margin loan, and allowing for dividends to be reinvested you can certainly get a better return than managed funds. Interesting when you go into it how inefficient managed funds really are, although they take the work out of it for you. Maybe they overinvest or overtrade.

    Those that queried the figures, all audited by Grant Thornton, Accountants (in 112 countries world wide) to ASIC industry standards and Grant Thornton set the timeframe for reviewing any 12 months period. Claims to have not had a loss in any year and no "clients" have lost money over the last 10 years. It is a very simple, very robust system that has proved it can be replicated and has stood the test of time.

    It is very much a value model investing you can do one hour, once a year with the Fin Review, a pencil and a ruler. There are criteria to pick which stocks to invest in, mainly underperforming blue chips, and other variables like P/E etc. which would be revealed if you sign up. Tricom wanted to take the scenario and form a managed fund of their own, but for the time being stays as is. Fund may be on the way in the future.

    Says he has outperformed every other managed fund in Australia over last 10 years, even those that return 45% one year and then drop down to 2% the next. Very much like Roger Montgomery at Clime Asset Management was using several years ago when I attended one of his presentations, but obviously each has their own set of criteria.

    If you followed the selection criteria but did not gear your return would probably be about 28%. Far too much detail to go into beyond this - do your own research and form your own opinions.
     
  15. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Co-founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    9th Jun, 2005
    Posts:
    4,619
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    So what are they selling ?
     
  16. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    By the sound of it, a set of stock picking rules. e.g. PE < 14, ROE > 10%, Yield > 3%, D/E < 50%, etc.
     
  17. iiinvestor

    iiinvestor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Feb, 2007
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Sydney
    On the topic of misquoted returns... does anyone here know how returns are calculated by fund managers?

    I was just thinking that this Harrop guy (on top of using ROE) is probably using an arithmetic mean and I'm almost certain he'd be using annual compounding. Most accountants probably wouldn't even understand the difference, so the fact they've audited the returns doesn't mean much, especially since they let the ROE thing through the cracks.

    So what happens in the industry; Morningstar, AFR, etc?

    Surely they'd use geometric means like they should, but I reckon they'd use annual compounding instead of continuous compounding. I guess it's not a big deal, but it would be interesting to know if the whole industry misquoted returns. At least if they were all misquoted in the same way it wouldn't matter too much. Actually, maybe it would if the variance was high.

    Anyway, it would be interesting to hear from someone who has the low-down on this stuff.
     
  18. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Co-founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    9th Jun, 2005
    Posts:
    4,619
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I don't think there is any standard way of doing it ... so I would be reluctant to compare returns from a variety of sources ... use a single source to compare - that way you are only ever seeing returns calculated the same way.

    From CFS:

    "Returns are calculated on a cumulative year-on-year basis which are then annualised. For funds that have been in existence for less than one year, the since inception performance is actual performance since inception and not annualised. Calculations are based on exit price to exit price with distributions reinvested, after ongoing fees and expenses but excluding individual tax and entry fees (if applicable)."

    ... which doesn't actucally tell you how they do it !!!

    I've seen some sites (particularly those dealing in share trading for more technically savvy investors) which use compound figures, but most of the fund management sites I've seen seem to use straight averages.
     
  19. handyandy

    handyandy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Jun, 2006
    Posts:
    312
    Location:
    Sydney Nsw
    The MER is another area of contention.

    Normally its calculated on the funds you have invested but there are some MF's, namely internally geared MF's, the MER is based not only on your investment but also the additional funding sought.

    So where it is a MF which does a $1 for $1 ratio the MER is actually double the quouted MER as expressed against your funds invested.

    I will need to dig around again to find the MF's operating this way.

    Cheers
     
  20. Tropo

    Tropo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    3,394
    Location:
    NSW
    I've seen some sites (particularly those dealing in share trading for more technically savvy investors) which use compound figures, but most of the fund management sites I've seen seem to use straight averages.
    __________________
    Sim'

    Attached article may not be relevant, but it contains some useful information.
    :cool:
     

    Attached Files: