ABM - My investing blunder
Pawbrokers ABM (Albermarle & Bond) slid 12% to 24.75p amid ongoing uncertainties about the future of the business. The company’s bank has agreed to defer a covenant test until the end of the month, clearly indicating that it has a major debt problem. The company’s largest shareholder, EZCORP, has currently declined underwriting an equity raise or helping with a revised banking package.
Very bad.
I had written about ABM in the past, very favourably, selecting it for an income share. Clearly, a huge blunder on my part. I had sold my shares in November 2012 at 251p. My notes say it was the purchase of PFD (Premier Food) shares. Clearly, I had no insight into the working of ABM, and my selling out before its calamitous fall to sub-25p was pure luck. I had completely failed to spot the inherent risks in this company. I have no defence.
In my Stockopedia portfolio, I see that I sold the shares at 131p on 29 April. This was a reaction to the trading update that ABM pushed out on Fri 19 April after hours. As I noted on my blog on the 22 April, “You just know that it’s going to be bad when a trading statement is released after hours on a Friday”. The share price dropped rapidly. I obviously got cold feet.
I think that there are (at least) 3 take-aways from this:
- It is important to understand the business, and its debt. The company had a high z-score and interest cover, but that didn’t mean that the company wasn’t over-leveraged
- It’s never too late to buy, and it’s never too late to sell. I sold shares in ABM *after* the steep sudden decline in April. The shares rebounded a little after my sell point – showing considerable inexpert timing on my part – yet, in retrospect, it was a great price to get out at
- So-called “safe income shares” are often riskier than you think. We’ve seen this in companies like TSCO (Tesco) at he beginning of 2012, where the company’s shares fell 20% on the back of a disappointing trading update. The company still hasn’t recovered to its pre-fall price of around 400p. They often have limited upside. The “safer” they are, the greater their rating, making them particularly vulnerable to any negative impacts. In the case of something like Tesco, their perceived safety is generally well-earned. The risk of disappointment is ever-present, though. In fact, even if you had bought after Tesco’s crash – say on the 24 Feb, you would have returned 12.7% to date, compared with the Footsie of 9.3%. You would have beaten the index, but not by a huge margin.
Happy investing to you all.
Disclaimer
This is not financial advice. Our content is intended to be used and must be used for information and education purposes only. Please read our disclaimer and terms and conditions to understand our obligations.
1 comment
Hi Mark,
Good post - and respect, as everyone likes bragging about their successes, but few people write much about the lessons they've learned from the things that go wrong - yet that is actually the more valuable type of thing to think/write about.
It would be interesting to find out from the Banks at what level of asset cover they become totally relaxed about other covenants? i.e. would there have been a lower level of debt that Albemarle & Bond Holdings (LON:ABM) could have had, where the Banks would be so comfortable with the asset cover from ABM's stock & pledge books, that they would not have required a covenant on e.g. interest cover, or earnings or EBITDA???
Just shows though, Bank debt can prove really toxic if covenants are breached, and everyone runs for cover when a breach looks likely, thus making it more difficult for the company to raise equity financing.
Cheers, Paul.