ruthchirie

New member
DISCLAIMER: I HOLD THIS IN MY PORTFOLIO. THIS IS ALSO NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE

If you want a version with charts and pictures, please check out my substack. Link is here: https://riverhorsedigest.substack.com/p/deep-dive-pryce-corp?sd=pf

After quite a while, I am back. Delays were due to me figuring out how to Data Viz, and my inability to research into ANS and create output I would be happy with (I will get to it, eventually). Instead, we look at the only listed LPG distributor, Pryce Corp.

Shout-out to @palmtreelife for the recommendation.

What is Pryce Corp?

Pryce Corp (formerly Pryce Properties Corporation) is a holding company for with three different business units. Pryce Corp is primarily involved in the development of memorial parks and sale of memorial lots in Mindanao. There is Pryce Gases, a fully owned subsidiary which sells and distributes LPG and other gases. Last, there is Pryce Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholesaler and distributor of private branded multi-vitamins and some over-the-counter generic drugs.

Who owns Pryce Corp?

This was a surprisingly painful exercise. On paper, Pryce Corp trades at 74.54% Public Float. The remainder is owned by the company’s various associates (24.2745%), and it’s directors (3.1876%). That should mean large volumes and a lot of liquidity, right? Nope. It only trades around PHP 80k worth of shares daily.

Another 50% of PPC is held by Guild Securities Inc., and I have no leads as to who owns it. Would value help here.

PPC’s largest individual shareholder is Salvador P. Escano, who is also president of the company. A former banker, he’s overseen the Pryce Group since 1981. He’s a very low key owner, and his name hasn’t been in any relevant news items.

How does it make its money?

While I mentioned above that the company was originally a real estate company, in essence it’s an LPG company. LPG sales generate 93.67% of revenues. It sells LPG to both customers and businesses. Bulk of its business is in the Vis-Min, with plans of expanding into Luzon. Margins are generally narrow, due to the nature of the goods being sold.

Valuation

DCF:
  • Discount Rate: 10%. CAGR of the PSEI.
  • Scenario 1: Expected Case: 8.0% growth in earnings. This matches their historical growth rate. Terminal Multiple of 5.5 or current P/E.
  • Scenario 2: Ultra-Bull Case: 10.0% growth in earnings. Terminal Multiple of 12 or highest historical P/E.
  • Scenario 3: Ultra-Bear Case: 4% growth in earnings. It underperforms the LPG market as whole, or it’s costs spiral, depressing margins. Terminal Multiple of 3 to reflect lack of hope in company.
We get an intrinsic value of PHP 9.22. Compared to its current share price of PHP 5.05, trading at a good discount.

Can’t compare PPC to others because there no analogous companies locally. However, what we can do is compare PPC to itself. In terms of P/E and P/B, it’s at its cheapest in five years. However, that tells us nothing about the price or how much the company is worth.

I’m fairly confident in my DCF inputs, and I don’t particularly mind if there are no comparable to be made. Even at a generous 33% margin of safety from the DCF, it would still trade at around a 20% upside, even with conservative assumptions.

Other Factors:

As I’ve stated before, there’s a lot of other factors aside from valuation that make a stock a good pick or not.

Market Cap:

PHP 9.8B; it’s either a small or medium sized company. Some people use PHP 5B, but I’d be more inclined to use a cut-off of PHP 10B. Regardless, in terms of size in the market it’s the smallest exposure to companies who sell LPG. The rest are unlisted (Isla) or part of larger groups (PNX/Petrcon). Smaller Cap is generally better than larger cap.

Momentum:

Down 20% over 5 years; and down 8% YTD. While it would be easy to attribute this to global conditions, I’d argue this still shows a lack of confidence in the company to a degree by the market. If we used total returns, then we get a slight better. It’s 12% down over 5 years and down 9%. Better than the index, but not spectacular. Not too bullish on the any near term price movements, as the macroeconomic conditions are lacking.

Business Model:

LPG sales are less volatile than gasoline sales; even if people are stuck at home under lock-down, they still needed to cook food. For example, this company was dented by the lockdown in terms of sales or net income, with both rising despite the challenges. If we compare its earnings to other companies which sell LPG, it’s much more stable. It’s because of their lack of exposure to the gasoline and other fuels market.

Bull Case

As I stated, above, it’s a company I’ve got some confidence in. I’ve put my money where my mouth is on this one. Why?

First, it’s got a decent growth story. It’s managed to grow revenues by around 8% y-o-y. This year, for H1 it beat it’s 2021’s H1 by 39%. I have a decent belief that the company can grow its business, given that it’s only gotten into expanding into Luzon.

While earnings are down vs last years (down 9% H1 2022 vs H1 2021), it’s more due a decrease in the amount of proceeds from the sale of financial instruments, they made PHP 1B less than last year. It’s also facing headwinds due to inflationary pressures on fuel. However, the companies operating income grew by 30% in H1 2022 vs H1 2021, and I expect the trend to continue. What we could see is reduced net income, and an increase operating income. Speaking of increases, PPC is also quite good at increasing its free cash flow, increasing it 8.7% Y-o-y over 5.

Second, it’s trading at attractive multiples. It’s currently trading at P/B of 0.69 and is trading at a P/E of 5.65. It’s also got a dividend yield of 5.15%. Low multiples are not always a good thing, but unlike other bigger companies with nos. at those levels, PPC’s management believes they’re undervalued. They’ve allocated PHP 1B to buy shares at undervalued prices, and they’ve already spent PHP 0.636B of it. While I would like to see insiders buy in as well,

Third, it returns capital back to shareholders. PPC’s got a fairly stable dividend policy (0.24 per share, per year). I’m not the biggest fan of dividends (due to the tax and the fees you reinvest) but they are a source of returns.

What I do like, is that it also buys back shares. From 2017 to 2022, it’s managed to reduce the total outstanding shares by 10%. That’s quite aggressive in the Philippines. Of the companies locally listed companies, no one’s been more aggressive at cannibalizing their own shares.

Both returns of capital are funded internally, and the company hasn’t needed to take on debt to fund either.

Last, there was an inquiry into the SEC if they could spin of their real estate operations into a REIT. (https://www.sec.gov.ph/issuance/opinion-no-22-10re-real-estate-investment-trustreit/). I like this. I like it when companies spin of business which aren’t core to their main revenue drivers. The spin-off can generate cash the company can use to reinvest in the shareholders, and it gets assets off the balance sheet, without affecting core operations.

Bear Case

As I’ve presented a bull case, let’s present a bear case for PPC. LPG is unsexy and is unlikely to attract any large buyers or even retail buyers. It will never be hyped like PHA or DITO. Due to a lack of liquidity, the price can still be manipulated by a single large buyer. Additionally, due to its lack of size, there is less room for institutional shareholders to come in.

The above can mean one thing, stagnant stock prices. PPC share price will be kept afloat only buy stock buybacks. Last a stagnant dividend policy means that the dividend in real terms gets smaller Y-o-Y.

That also says nothing about the LPG market. Maybe inductions will take of as the country’s grid improves and we urbanize more. Maybe new competitors enter and wipe the floor with them. There is no “moat” for LPG companies. It’s only 4th in the market after all.
**
Final Note:**

Buy if:
  • You like non-index names
  • You don’t mind lower-margin businesses
  • You prefer buybacks over dividends
  • You want a “value” stock
  • You’re okay with waiting out for a while for the price to correct
Don’t buy if:
  • You want larger names
  • You want high margin business
  • You want high dividend growth
  • You want high growth stocks
  • You expect return in the next year or two
Would value feedback on this, and would like to hear what other weird PSE companies I'd take a look at.
 
@kuregee Yeahp. Like it took me a week to accumulate. That’s the story with a lot of the small caps.

Thing is I doing think it’s as pumpable as the other local meme stocks because it’s so boring. You can’t sell the exciting growth story that is LPG retail. It’s a good business, but this one of those buy and holds you keep for awhile.
 
@ruthchirie
Thing is I doing think it’s as pumpable as the other local meme stocks because it’s so boring. You can’t sell the exciting growth story that is LPG retail.

Garbage is more boring than LPG yet Waste Management is a pretty good volume global stock. The problem is that this company isnt even trying with any IR efforts, its website is dated 2015 and links dont work. Curiously, 2015 is also the year when their stock has traded w the most volume and have since gone down since then.

A google search on their owner/other businesses indicates they also likely stiffed clients holding their educational plans:

https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/03/22/1303726/revisiting-pryce-plans-unjust-unfair-settlement
https://www.bulatlat.com/2013/04/22/my-pension-plan-issue-with-pryce-plans-inc/

Could these be telling signs about how much they care or dont care abt small shareholders? I cant really answer but with the liquidity issue alone I'd never put any money here
 
@kuregee On Waste Management, different market? Like the local equivalent of that ,IPM, trades a similar volumes.

As to the IR on the website, eh? https://www.pryce.com.ph/investor-relations-2/
It works..? The the company doesn’t have to any analysts covering it, nor large funds so it wouldn’t be fair to expect IR similar to the larger players.

I think the point on the the Memorial Plans doesn’t matters that much (which is why I don’t include it). The Pre-Need industry is notoriously tough. Don’t attribute to malice what can be to incompetence.

Only one company makes the business work at scale, St. Peter. The business (Pre-Need Plans) failing isn’t that unique for that industry. We’ve had bigger players like Ayala and Manulife fail at running Pre-Need as well.

It also really spent have to much with the company’s main operations. While memorial parks contribute to the bottom line, they’re not that that significant vs the LPG business.

Don’t know what happened in 2015, nothing particular of note, except PPC purchasing the drilling rIghts to Sc55 (along with Ayala), but given how they don’t even know is there’s natural gas, so do we really need to factor it in?

You’re totally correct on he liquidity issue. It’s a thing with small caps. But it is what it is. You don’t expect them to have the same volumes and demand as the index names. It’s not for everyone, but its easier to find value where not a lot of people are not looking.
 
@ruthchirie
On Waste Management, different market? Like the local equivalent of that ,IPM, trades a similar volumes.

As to the IR on the website, eh? https://www.pryce.com.ph/investor-relations-2/
It works..? The the company doesn’t have to any analysts covering it, nor large funds so it wouldn’t be fair to expect IR similar to the larger players.

Diff market wont help if the company doesnt exert effort.

Also, an IR team can help with retail investors and are not just for analysts. Not having one doesnt necessarily say they dont care, but it kinda does too since there are billion dollar cap companies with 3 people in their IR team. The cost of that locally could be as low as P1M-5M annually. In any case, we dont know if they dont really have one or if they just dont care to update the website. I clicked a bunch of links--didnt work a few times and didnt have the patience to wait til they did.

I think the point on the the Memorial Plans doesn’t matters that much (which is why I don’t include it). The Pre-Need industry is notoriously tough. Don’t attribute to malice what can be to incompetence.

Only one company makes the business work at scale, St. Peter. The business (Pre-Need Plans) failing isn’t that unique for that industry. We’ve had bigger players like Ayala and Manulife fail at running Pre-Need as well.

It also really spent have to much with the company’s main operations. While memorial parks contribute to the bottom line, they’re not that that significant vs the LPG business.

To me those do matter specially if the company or owner barely have any info about them online. Low key owner with no current relevant news about them plus old reports about potential shady business practices--not exactly the same situation as buying into Ayala companies or Manulife.

Don’t know what happened in 2015, nothing particular of note, except PPC purchasing the drilling rIghts to Sc55 (along with Ayala), but given how they don’t even know is there’s natural gas, so do we really need to factor it in?

2015 seems to be when they needed to sell equity, hence the effort to update their website then and the high trading volume. That's what Im deriving from that
https://askaviso.com/philippines-pryce-corp-sells-2-4m-shares-investor/

You’re totally correct on he liquidity issue. It’s a thing with small caps. But it is what it is. You don’t expect them to have the same volumes and demand as the index names. It’s not for everyone, but its easier to find value where not a lot of people are not looking.

Volume is pretty up there for lots of people when considering what to buy. Good financials become immaterial if there is no way to get money out without risking capital loss
 
@kuregee
Diff market wont help if the company doesnt exert effort.

This was referring the American Stock market; there's so much more participants that give it volumes and liquidity.

Also, an IR team can help with retail investors and are not just for analysts. Not having one doesnt necessarily say they dont care, but it kinda does too since there are billion dollar cap companies with 3 people in their IR team. The cost of that locally could be as low as P1M-5M annually. In any case, we dont know if they dont really have one or if they just dont care to update the website. I clicked a bunch of links--didnt work a few times and didnt have the patience to wait til they did.

It worked for me, so maybe it's your browser? I mean here's a video taken on my phone. https://we.tl/t-1h29Dnotgt

Regardless, a lot of their functions, especially for smaller ones, can be taken on by other departments (in most local companies, it's a combination of legal and accounting). I'd like one that made reports et al. easier to parse, it's not really that big a deal breaker.

To me those do matter specially if the company or owner barely have any info about them online. Low key owner with no current relevant news about them plus old reports about potential shady business practices--not exactly the same situation as buying into Ayala companies or Manulife.

I get that, but failing at running a business in one (unprofitable) industry, isn't automatically a deal breaker (for me). Like if you bothered to read the complaints, it's not necessarily a shady thing. Like when pre-need companies fail, that happens. Philplans underwent something similar recently. Tragic, sure, but once again, it's less likely to be malice.

Why should it matter is ownership is high visible? Like take SMC, who's biggest shareholder (thru TPHI) is Inigo Zobel. Not in the news often. Manny Zamora (him, not his companies) is similar, along with a decent amount of other rich people. If there was a something sketchy, news finds a way to leak. Dennis Uy being the prime example. As a shareholder, I would prefer someone low-key (all things being equal) to someone highly visible. While a business failing in the past isn't the best of signs, fact is ownership/management appears to deliver. If their only issue is they couldn't run a pre-need company, that's not that big a problem in my book.

2015 seems to be when they needed to sell equity, hence the effort to update their website then and the high trading volume. That's what Im deriving from that https://askaviso.com/philippines-pryce-corp-sells-2-4m-shares-investor/

The investor here is Josefina Multi-ventures Corp. It's an associate company, w/ Mr. Escano as the chairperson. It's mentioned in their most recent Public Ownership report. If you're selling to yourself, why update the website? It's another way of injecting capital into Pryce.

Volume is pretty up there for lots of people when considering what to buy. Good financials become immaterial if there is no way to get money out without risking capital loss

It's important, but it's not the be all and end all. Especially if you're treating this as a buy and hold for the long-term. You only buy small portions, and you only sell small portions. It's a bit of a pain, but it comes with the territory of small caps. Ideally, as our market gets mature and has more participants, this might not be a problem in 5-10 years, but is still something that should be watched out for.
 
@ruthchirie
I get that, but failing at running a business in one (unprofitable) industry, isn't automatically a deal breaker (for me). Like if you bothered to read the complaints, it's not necessarily a shady thing. Like when pre-need companies fail, that happens. Philplans underwent something similar recently. Tragic, sure, but once again, it's less likely to be malice.

I did bother reading them and we obviously interpret them differently. Youre talking about it as if any pre-need business was bound to fail and that them stiffing customers while "tragic" was inevitable and not malicious. I however dont exactly get excited to invest in a company that does that.

Why should it matter is ownership is high visible? Like take SMC, who's biggest shareholder (thru TPHI) is Inigo Zobel. Not in the news often. Manny Zamora (him, not his companies) is similar, along with a decent amount of other rich people. If there was a something sketchy, news finds a way to leak. Dennis Uy being the prime example. As a shareholder, I would prefer someone low-key (all things being equal) to someone highly visible. While a business failing in the past isn't the best of signs, fact is ownership/management appears to deliver. If their only issue is they couldn't run a pre-need company, that's not that big a problem in my book.

The point isnt high profile ownership--it's having sufficient public credibility and not being shady enough for investors to look further into the business.

2015 seems to be when they needed to sell equity, hence the effort to update their website then and the high trading volume. That's what Im deriving from that https://askaviso.com/philippines-pryce-corp-sells-2-4m-shares-investor/

The investor here is Josefina Multi-ventures Corp. It's an associate company, w/ Mr. Escano as the chairperson. It's mentioned in their most recent Public Ownership report. If you're selling to yourself, why update the website? It's another way of injecting capital into Pryce.

Volume is pretty up there for lots of people when considering what to buy. Good financials become immaterial if there is no way to get money out without risking capital loss

It's important, but it's not the be all and end all. Especially if you're treating this as a buy and hold for the long-term. You only buy small portions, and you only sell small portions. It's a bit of a pain, but it comes with the territory of small caps. Ideally, as our market gets mature and has more participants, this might not be a problem in 5-10 years, but is still something that should be watched out for.

Very important specially if youre in it for the long term. Even if pinoy investors arent putting in money by the millions, if someone accumulates years of investment into a stock, then they'd have to have a mechanism to take them all out safely. Selling piece by piece isnt the way to do it and can negate the years of supposed capital growth
 
@kuregee
I did bother reading them and we obviously interpret them differently. Youre talking about it as if any pre-need business was bound to fail and that them stiffing customers while "tragic" was inevitable and not malicious. I however dont exactly get excited to invest in a company that does that.

I mean historically, yeah. I mean: https://business.inquirer.net/143337/list-of-distressed-preneed-firms. That's 2013. In 2022 the of companies who currently exist are 12. Only 4 have sold policies in 2022. https://www.insurance.gov.ph/pre-need-industry-performance-as-of-the-quarter-ending-june-30-2022/ No one seems to make it work (apart from St. Peter). It's not a good business model. You'll always been hearing complaints like that from Pre-Need companies who fold. They folded because they couldn't maintain the trust funds; what assets do you expect them to have to offer you your full amount? Is everyone who tired to make pre-need work, but failed sketchy?

Second, it's a different company? Like you don't think STI is poorly run because Philplans collapsed, right? You would say that it's poorly run for other reasons. Same here, you could be poor at running one business and okay with running another. In this case, the owners aren't too good w/ pre-need and decided to get good at retail.

The point isnt high profile ownership--it's having sufficient public credibility and not being shady enough for investors to look further into the business.

How do you mean it lacks credibility? How does it feel shady? Because nothing gets said about it? No allegations of poor quality products, being a bad place to work for, bribes etc.? What is credibility for you? We might have different views on the matter, and I'd love to hear your take.

Very important specially if youre in it for the long term. Even if pinoy investors arent putting in money by the millions, if someone accumulates years of investment into a stock, then they'd have to have a mechanism to take them all out safely. Selling piece by piece isnt the way to do it and can negate the years of supposed capital growth

You also don't sell it in big chunks; in retirement planning, you only sell percentages of your portfolio at a time. You normally don't liquidate in one big go. However, once again, I'm fairly confident as the economy matures, liquidity shouldn't be that big an issue in the long-run.

I get your criticisms. If we could summarize this quickly: you don't trust their ownership and the volumes are low.

If you don't trust them, that's okay, but the numbers speak for themselves, general uptrend in Net Income, Free Cash Flow and Sales. While you'd like to paint ownership as malicious and sketchy, I think the general lack of coverage speaks for itself. For volume, it's a small cap, and there's risks inherent to this as well. That's why it's important to diversify into other positions.
 
@ruthchirie
I did bother reading them and we obviously interpret them differently. Youre talking about it as if any pre-need business was bound to fail and that them stiffing customers while "tragic" was inevitable and not malicious. I however dont exactly get excited to invest in a company that does that.

I mean historically, yeah. I mean: https://business.inquirer.net/143337/list-of-distressed-preneed-firms. That's 2013. In 2022 the of companies who currently exist are 12. Only 4 have sold policies in 2022. https://www.insurance.gov.ph/pre-need-industry-performance-as-of-the-quarter-ending-june-30-2022/ No one seems to make it work (apart from St. Peter). It's not a good business model. You'll always been hearing complaints like that from Pre-Need companies who fold. They folded because they couldn't maintain the trust funds; what assets do you expect them to have to offer you your full amount? Is everyone who tired to make pre-need work, but failed sketchy?

First of all not all companies in the preneed business fail, not all preneed businesses are the same, and definitely not all of them fail in the same way. Sunlife used to carry education plans too which they stopped.. you could argue that as failure of the business, yet they never stiffed or avoided communication from customers wishing to talk to them for 5 years. Never did they tell a customer to speak to the company president directly about an individual plan as well.

Second, it's a different company? Like you don't think STI is poorly run because Philplans collapsed, right? You would say that it's poorly run for other reasons. Same here, you could be poor at running one business and okay with running another. In this case, the owners aren't too good w/ pre-need and decided to get good at retail.

I never mentioned anything about STI.

The point isnt high profile ownership--it's having sufficient public credibility and not being shady enough for investors to look further into the business.

How do you mean it lacks credibility? How does it feel shady? Because nothing gets said about it? No allegations of poor quality products, being a bad place to work for, bribes etc.? What is credibility for you? We might have different views on the matter, and I'd love to hear your take.

Didnt I already mention that there isnt much info about the owners other than them avoiding customers about the failed business? Do i need to repeat my points 3x everytime?

We definitely have different views.

Very important specially if youre in it for the long term. Even if pinoy investors arent putting in money by the millions, if someone accumulates years of investment into a stock, then they'd have to have a mechanism to take them all out safely. Selling piece by piece isnt the way to do it and can negate the years of supposed capital growth

You also don't sell it in big chunks; in retirement planning, you only sell percentages of your portfolio at a time. You normally don't liquidate in one big go. However, once again, I'm fairly confident as the economy matures, liquidity shouldn't be that big an issue in the long-run.

That's not true at all. While every person may have different retirement plans, it's important that we all have reasonable access to our portfolio when we need them. You need to be able to take out large sums in one go when you need to, otherwise if there's a need, then you will take a big hit on your capital.

I get your criticisms. If we could summarize this quickly: you don't trust their ownership and the volumes are low.

If you don't trust them, that's okay, but the numbers speak for themselves, general uptrend in Net Income, Free Cash Flow and Sales. While you'd like to paint ownership as malicious and sketchy, I think the general lack of coverage speaks for itself. For volume, it's a small cap, and there's risks inherent to this as well. That's why it's important to diversify into other positions.

Again, those are all immaterial if an investor cannot exit their money out at price they want in one go. I dont want to paint the company as sketchy, just highlighting that youre over downstating really big risk factors
 
@kuregee
First of all not all companies in the preneed business fail, not all preneed businesses are the same, and definitely not all of them fail in the same way. Sunlife used to carry education plans too which they stopped.. you could argue that as failure of the business, yet they never stiffed or avoided communication from customers wishing to talk to them for 5 years. Never did they tell a customer to speak to the company president directly about an individual plan as well.

But a vast majority did collapse and fall under receivership or conservator ship. Once again, only 4 companies with active sales remain. It's a industry that's been on a steady decline since the early 2000's (except St. Peter).

Like if a company doesn't have enough assets to pay of it's policy holders, where do you expect them to pay them from? It's not normal for plan-holders to recover the full amounts (which is the crux of the issue) if the company's fail. If they could pay of the liabilities, they wouldn't have been placed under receivership. The company invested poorly, and it didn't pay off.

I never mentioned anything about STI.

That's the analogy you're making. X company is not risky, because Y (that they also owned) has failed / done poorly. Like, should you not be evaluating a business on it's own merits? Other than the liquidity issue, there's really nothing much you can say no?

Didnt I already mention that there isnt much info about the owners other than them avoiding customers about the failed business? Do i need to repeat my points 3x everytime?

We definitely have different views.

Yes, but your points aren't very sound. There's nothing being done so far that seems to indicate current ownership / management runs a the current business poorly? Why should prior behavior be a factor? Are people not capable of learning?

Code:
That's not true at all. While every person may have different retirement plans, it's important that we all have reasonable access to our portfolio when we need them. You need to be able to take out large sums in one go when you need to, otherwise if there's a need, then you will take a big hit on your capital Again, those are all immaterial if an investor cannot exit their money out at price they want in one go. I dont want to paint the company as sketchy, just highlighting that youre over downstating really big risk factors

Liquidity does matter, but once again, I don't it's that big a risk factor. Unless you're taking positions worth millions of pesos AND need to liquidate in one go, it's not that material. For example, the largest amount of trading PPC did this year was PHP 19M worth on March 11, 2022 (several magnitudes higher than usual volume). Share price, went do by approx. 8%. That is not "Years of gains" lost. Recovered to the same price a week later. It's a pain on some days, but the market could sustain a large liquidation (not that you should be).
 
@nimmyarts95 Yeahp. Philippine Small Caps are tricky. You don’t see the big boys buy into them, so i feel it’s the best opportunity for people who want to actively invest and beat the market(vs index names) but there’s a lot of trash to filer through and other issues (like liquidity and the difficulty in exiting).
 
@ruthchirie Thanks for this! And i subscribed to your substack. You should join our community on facebook, value investing philippines.

To add,

Even during the pandemic, PPC's income statement shows that both its top and bottom lines are going up from 2015 to 2021, backed by robust and stable margins.


PPC has a strong balance sheet. They managed to grow their assets from year to year, most especially PP&E and inventory, which reflects their focus on growth by expanding continuously their infrastructure and capacity. Note that the funding for this growth is from internally generated funds and not from debt.


LPG is in the retail business, which is a very competitive field. Despite the competition, it has sustained its margins and ROIC/ROE which signal that the company has a moat. They attribute it to their extensive and efficient distribution network. Also, the storage capacities of its terminals provide some cost advantage over its competitors.
 
@palmtreelife Thanks for the subscribe!

Thanks for this! And i subscribed to your substack. You should join our community on facebook, value investing philippines.

My personal is already part. hehe.

To add,

Even during the pandemic, PPC's income statement shows that both its top and bottom lines are going up from 2015 to 2021, backed by robust and stable margins.

PPC has a strong balance sheet. They managed to grow their assets from year to year, most especially PP&E and inventory, which reflects their focus on growth by expanding continuously their infrastructure and capacity. Note that the funding for this growth is from internally generated funds and not from debt.

This is what I like, it's extremely stable and doesn't needlessly borrow. Like it's growth that's organic and stable.

LPG is in the retail business, which is a very competitive field. Despite the competition, it has sustained its margins and ROIC/ROE which signal that the company has a moat. They attribute it to their extensive and efficient distribution network. Also, the storage capacities of its terminals provide some cost advantage over its competitors.

I agree it's got good ROIC and ROE, but I wasn't comfy saying it had a moat. There's larger companies, plus there's nothing listed we can compare it to. That's why I didn't use a comparable table. It be hard to just list them in a vacuum.
 
@ruthchirie I like this one but with fairly low confidence. Risks are declining future margins since theyre distributing a non differentiated commodity. Now mostly in relatively undeveloped vismin market they can charge higher markups. Also physical infrastructer heavy so thats going to suck up cash flow.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top