Land Bank Story

Its been long break for me from blogging but with new year am back in action. Its normal tendency to ensure that you fulfil your New Year resolution atleast in first month of the year and thats what this blog signifies. 2010 has certainly been the year I would like to forget except for change of job and role at fag end of the year which has been positive event in my life. I think its enough update about me and I don’t think it’s interesting enough to discuss and the waste space on my blogs.

The title can mislead the people who have not been following the markets. So let get it clear for such people that I am not sharing any story about bank nor land but its buzz word of 2010. Its story which has got my grey cells thinking for quite some time. Story that once again exhibits conflict between my theoretical understanding and empirical evidence. So I thought to write about it and get the views of others to clear my doubts.

Valuation has always been tricky subject to handle and assumptions for the same vary from analyst to analyst. So there is not point on arguing assumptions at any point in time when it comes to valuation. But very few times I have seen disagreement on the methods of valuation or on fundamental concepts. One of such concepts is that valuation is typically done on going concern basis with few exceptions. Exceptions are cases where companies is believed to liquidate or similar cases. But is this being reflected in the market is my question? One can easily check the stocks in market and you will find really high valuations for certain companies which are even loss making. The price commanded by them in the market is high as 100 times its EPS. So I undertook its analysis and found one common buzz word associated with them was “Land Bank” and I realized the difference is because I was doing simple DCF on going concern assumption whereas market price was factoring in the price of its assets. So is this right method since the market suggests so? Is it temporary factor and market will correct in future? But price pattern doesn’t suggest so.

To understand the issue let’s take case of Bombay Dyeing which is most simple one. The company has debt-equity ratio of 9.23, EPS growth of -109.46% but currently commands PE of 115, way above the industry average. The reason is huge land bank available with the company in prime areas of Mumbai. The company PE has been in this range for quite some time due to the speculation of company’s plan to develop real estate. So market valuation has factored in current market price of the land or future cash flows it would generate with the real estate. I would have been comfortable if it was second reason since it follows with going concern assumption. But then would you factor such high valuation for the company who is entering real estate for the first time in life and whose expertise is in textile. Also the risk associated with such project is way high to command this PE. Further if company commands this PE based on the market value of its land then in the downturn why was the stock not punished for low market value of its so called land bank since the news of them developing real estate goes way back to 2008. Why market valued it as textile player then? Should we analyze these companies with two business units and do DCF for both of them? Or should we do DCF for its textile business and add market value of land? If this is market practice why don’t we follow it for all similar stocks? Further this concept inherently is accepting the concepts of mark to market for all the asset class which has been issue of contention for quite some time. The land is illiquid asset and to which level can its market value be factored in our assumptions. Would the investors in this stock continue to be the investor if one time unlocking of value for its land bank is done? Who would be buyers at that point in time? Further company being textile company can still use its proceeds to decrease it debt and use remaining for the future capex in which case investors looking for one time gain would not receive any additional payout. So in this case also it is going to be company capability in textile business that one needs to analyze from long term perspective. All this doesn’t justify to me this high PE for the company given that they have not done well in textiles recently. This is just one of the examples; similar cases exist for Bayer Cropscience, Century textiles, golden tobacco etc. These are questions I am pondering for quite some time. I understand analyst once believes that asset value is realizable and then he factors the same in price so this rule cannot be generic. But then once value is realized the question still exists is where the proceeds would be utilized? Would it be utilized in development of real estate or textile business? Also till the value is realized its only notional value and this concept is used when we value investment companies who might have equities which are of high market value of its book. Otherwise small investment companies like Pioneer investment must command much higher price since it has securities worth more than its market cap at current price and further they are much more liquid. Same is true with other such investment companies.

So what was my intention of the blog? It was not to highlight case of Bombay Dyeing but rather at concept level I wanted to discuss such scenarios. Especially my view is land value at current market price cannot be factored in fully in calculation since it’s not realizable. Further the company’s plan of using the proceeds is very important factor along with the company strategic goals. If its land bank which is attractive, I would rather invest in comparable real estate company than such companies or at least compare it with peers in real estate before coming to this decision. Currently I believe analyst have been more speculative and have gone overboard when factoring the value of ‘landbank’ and have not been consistent with the concept or mark to market in all such cases. I might be proven wrong and cases like Bombay Dyeing might prove them correct but valuation like this makes me rethink my basics. Maybe Bombay Dyeing might not have been right example to discuss this given its long history and brand name but cases like it are in plenty and I would certainly like to understand the investors story in such cases that can prove my view incorrect.