Disclaimer: This interview is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. In Practise is an independent publisher and all opinions expressed by guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of In Practise.
If your business has a high margin, you are doing something well because your customers accept paying a high price. There is less risk of customer churn when something happens compared to a low margin business. A company with a history of good profit development also has strong numbers, which informs their future.
We only look at asset-light companies. We check if the cash flow confirms with their historical EBITA.
We have this thing with sector agnostic and not sector agnostic. At Lifco, our dental business was very focused and they only doubled their profits from 2014 until today, whereas in system solutions which could be anything, they 10Xed profits. If you are sector-focused and the sector is not huge, you run into problems if the sector suddenly gets popular because multiples become too high and you cannot acquire. You will be forced to buy bad companies because there are not enough good deals around. When we look at small companies, we try to find market leaders in a niche with moats, but that is sometimes difficult to judge and you can make errors on the quality aspect.
Yes.
Yes, those are some takeaways.
I don't have to do this for money but I can no longer win an Olympic gold. It’s hard if you are trying to do something completely new when you don't have experience. I just turned 60 so my brain is also slower; you cannot win the Nobel Prize at my age.
But if you have 30 years’ experience of doing something, it’s easier.
For me, it's the competition. Lifco continues to climb the Swedish large cap share list, catching up with old established big companies taking one after another. SKF and Electrolux; the old big Swedish corporations, they are taking company after company; they outgrow them. That is nice but I started on a smaller scale so I have to restart.
For me it is attractive because if you compete with private companies, you have to somehow relate whether you are doing a good or bad job. Competition keeps you on your toes and I like the competition aspect of the public market. It's also good for us to have liquidity because we promised our shareholders we would go to public markets, so they can choose whether they want to stay on or sell.
I had a lot of freedom under Carl Bennet at Lifco. Today, we are a team, so it is more complicated as I have to get everyone to agree. I was more a dictator at Lifco.
It's different. I had a lot of freedom at Lifco and I had great support from Carl Bennet, so it was more or less like running your own business.
I was remunerated well and still haven't sold any of my Lifco shares. That is good for a private individual but I needed to build long term wealth for my family. Tomas Billing and I now have control of the companies, which is advantageous.
There was a cap on the bonus and I always received the maximum bonus.
I bought my shares at the public offering in 2014, at full market value. I also bought more when I quit Lifco.
I was offered a big stake in 2000 but I didn't dare because I had young children and had recently bought a house. I had loans so I didn't take the opportunity.
Yes, now that I have money it's a completely different story.
I tried to get a good team, then we would see what would happen. We didn't have a clue at first if we could use that money to acquire these companies.
Doing this for 10 years before Lifco and 20 years at Lifco, it's much easier if you have the experience because you know exactly what to do.
Lifco bought the same amount of businesses as Röko did last year. I do the same thing whether I am sitting at Lifco or Röko, there is no difference.
It is the growth that is important. Half of Lifco's business will be new within four years because these businesses renew themselves.
My shareholder was happy to increase profits annually; that was my goal. I was under no stress, nor did I have anything to compare it against.
Carl was happy and profits were growing.
It was a private company but that changed in 2014 when we went public.
Public markets are good as you can benchmark, and I was happy doing three acquisitions per year.
Between 2014 to 2022, Lifco increased profits 2X. Demolition and tools was 6X, and system solutions, which was the sector agnostic division, grew 10X. We didn't have a magic formula for software businesses like Constellation did when we started. It was better to go sector agnostic and invest in good companies where management want to stay on and run the business.
Having good financial performance for several years is vital. It's much stronger when you belong to an industry if you are not Constellation Software.
Beth's Beauty is not affected in a crisis as they go for the high-end market.
Yes, the craft beer business is slightly cyclical.
Yes, but it also increases the quality because you have a greater choice and are no longer forced to buy bad businesses.
Yes.
I've been involved in many industries throughout my life so I look at the company and the competition.
I see how the competition developed compared to the company I am looking at. It is not very good if the company lost market share over a 10-year period.
And the competition, customers and suppliers to understand the whole business. This is a very niche beauty business so knowing everything about Estée Lauder doesn't help; you have to study the specific business.
Buffett applies the same principles to mature public markets and Röko in immature small companies.
It should be better and easier to find the kinds of companies he looks for.
The beauty of this business model is that you invest in many companies in different industries, so it doesn't matter if you make a mistake in one company. Lifco and Indutrade are two of the oldest in the business. I discussed this with Alvesson who is more experienced in the business than I am, and he makes mistakes once every 20, but it doesn't matter. I cannot think of a company where we had to close or inject cash. The mistake you can make is buying a company for 20% more and it goes down 10%, but it still contributes cash and you end up with a slightly lower return on investment.
We bought several small companies where we couldn't increase profits. One service company had very good development in the beginning but we had problems with personnel and quality and it took four years to get them back on track. Sometimes it's not a smooth ride and you have to work a little to get it going again.
More of them were smaller. Constellation can do this but buying a small company without recurring revenue is much higher risk.
Yes, I didn't realize Constellation were buying such small businesses; I wouldn't have touched them.
I would never touch them because I thought it was too much work and risk, then I saw they had 70% recurring revenue so now I understand why they can do it.
The best businesses we bought at Lifco were involved in dental software. Constellation found the perfect niche to buy small businesses. Aerospace spare parts is another but there very few niches like that. I didn't know how Constellation worked until a year ago, nor did I know we were so bad at Lifco.
It's annoying that another company performed better than we did. You can ask me why we didn't go into the software business.
Hundreds of companies are trying to copy Constellation; we were too late.
Constellation do many direct deals but ours are mainly through brokers, who are not interested because we don't see many software companies, and when we do, they are extremely expensive.
Constellation have the database and know how they can increase profits so they can buy them. Normally, we can't because they are too expensive.
No, because we don't pay enough so we are not in the game.
We have maybe 1,000 brokers because there are so many in Europe. We have close relationships with some of them and others we have only met once.
Yes. Although we don't usually buy companies as small as Constellation does, we do buy small companies so it's not Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley.
We always looked at companies individually. If you want to make a company public, you have to put them into baskets.
We always look company by company.
There were synergies, to some extent, as they shared the same warehouses.
We saw immediately if a company had too much cost or were running the wrong pricing strategy. Constellation don't do synergies; this is more about knowledge.
There is no value having all the knowledge if there are not enough companies to apply it to.
We look at some general things and always have a feel for that. Before starting Röko, Tomas and I did a private investment in yacht supplies which was a tremendous success and we know nothing about yacht supplies before acquiring them.
We look at whether they need all their personnel and discuss it with them. We ask the companies relevant questions such as in which segments they can increase prices, and they usually improve their margins. The return on sales in the Swedish dental industry went from 5% to 20% during my time. That wasn't because we knew the industry; it was more political such as high or low taxes.
One big risk is the recession.
In 2008, our profits dropped 30% at Lifco. That is the only major risk in a diversified company such as Röko, Lifco or Indutrade. Another risk is if management make a bad decision, are slow or destroy the culture. A new manager who doesn't understand that it is a centralized culture can ruin the company.
Management is incentivized to do a good job when we allow them to stay, and they prefer us as a buyer as opposed to those who don't offer that. A business that increases profits every year, with a good margin, is good for us.
It is vital to get a good manager because the industry knowledge is within the company; moving a good manager from another dental company causes problems.
Recruiting internally is less risky because you know the people.
My first acquisition was a Norwegian dental company where the owner had 15%, but he stayed on as a manager because he knew his industry and loved his job and customers.
Yes, they stay on if they love their job.
It is more a feeling and people are honest when they sell. They normally tell us they work too hard and feel like a change in their life. A few people tell a story, but not many.
Yes, because it means you delivered constant growth for several years and are better than your competitors. The numbers prove you are do something right.
The risk differs per industry. In the beauty business, she wants to stay on and we have a discussion about prolonging options about two thirds of the time. There is always a discussion at the end of the period about whether they want to stay or not.
In that case, when the person leaves, they were very clear from the start. We recruited a new bad manager, then I recruited another who will hopefully be good.
Yes, but big companies are less challenging because they can afford to pay. It's trickier for small businesses who can't pay a proper salary.
We only started doing that recently at Lifco.
For these circumstances where they wanted to stay on.
Indutrade is the earn out company but the problem with earn outs is that managers are solely focused on them instead of the longer term. We sometimes use earn outs but it always turns out more expensive than paying cash from the beginning.
They know the businesses will develop over the next one or two years.
We look at financials, specifically consecutive profit growth. We increased our minimum margin to 15% because our average is between 18% and 19%.
95% of our opportunities cannot meet the financial criteria.
The industry average is 8X EBITA, and that hasn't changed in 20 years.
I don't know; it has no connection whatsoever to the stock market.
It has existed for the last 20 years. We bought a company who sells artificial flowers; they had 37 offers but we won it at normal rates.
All this proves is that a bunch of them are worth more. Your return on investment is 12.5% before you have done anything. Between 2010 and 2019, Lifco had nine good years where almost all their companies increased profits, making the return on invested capital better. There is also amortization of intangibles over time and the base gets smaller. The older your company is, the higher the return on invested capital. We are very young so ours is only 12.5%. Our average holding period of our 22 companies is 1.5 years, so we are basically still at what we paid.
The return on their capital is normally more than 100%.
They have some receivables, some stocks and very few fixed assets and high profit margins.
Lifco never bought companies with under 50% return on capital employed; most were closer to 100% or 150%. An aerospace spare parts business could be low, initially, due to their stock, but as they increase prices that will be rectified. We never buy any paper manufacturing or asset heavy companies because it simply doesn't work.
At least 70% is Buffett or Fisher; I simply read the book about this.
I think he talks about continuous profit growth with only two profit drops in 10 years. Some were inspired by them and others is seeing what worked personally.
No, not what he is doing today, but I do read papers about how he thinks. I do read his annual letter after someone summarizes it for me.
My greatest hero was Jan Wallander from Handelsbanken, which used to be Europe's best bank for 40 years. He was the first to push for decentralization by letting the management of each bank decide up to a certain level on individual loans. He pushed that responsibility down, in traditional banking. He did that in the sixties which stopped budgets which take time and add no value.
It is the same.
The only thing they need to do is complete our monthly Excel spreadsheet.
They have to report every month, connect their account to ours and deposit excess cash. We decide what dividend to pay out for each company.
Profit and loss and balance sheet.
We run quarterly reports like a public company that are on our home page. We will go public when things calm down after the recession, if it happens.
They buy lower margin companies then increase their profits to 25%.
My personal experience with manufacturing businesses, is that in a 2009 situation is that you need to begin with a 15% operating profit, otherwise you will make a loss.
If you tell brokers you only buy companies with 25% margins, we won't see anything. When you are public, people don't like it when you decrease your margins.
We had problems with our businesses that increased prices not quickly enough. It's also a culture thing. Entrepreneurs love to grow their business but are not as interested in high margins as we are, because your cash flow decreases with lower margins. We still have some work to do to get them to understand that.
You have to be very clear that it is extremely important to keep the margin.
We can't say that because these companies are above that 45% threshold. We tell managers that they shouldn't lose their margins, but pricing is always an art.
It is good enough for us if organic growth is 1%.
Even Constellation Software doesn't have high organic growth. It is better to have secure cash flow than high growth, that way you can buy new businesses.
Yes, there are always available businesses when you are sector agnostic.
It's very rare to these kind of businesses. If you speak to Alvesson at Indutrade, most business grow on average. They can decline 5% to 10% in a single year but not year after year, that is really bad.
That is not a problem if you invest their cash flow into other companies.
Therefore, it's good to have shares in other companies that are sector agnostic like we are, because there is much more opportunity.
Yes.
We only buy private companies but he has to invest so much money that he is forced to buy public companies. We prefer private companies because they are much cheaper. Buffett does what I call investment nirvana; he buys a business with good management then does nothing.
That is the dream but we have to change management who don't perform.
We have plenty of room to buy more companies.
Scaling M&A is important for Constellation but we only need to buy six to 12 companies per year over the next 10 years, so we don't have to scale our M&A.
We have three investment managers who regularly meet with brokers.
Yes. We have an investment committee who make the final decision.
We are the same size Lifco was in 2014. They had €100 million EBITA then and €450 million in 2022.
We have the same investment organization as Lifco today. We can run with our current organization and increase the profits 4X before we have to think about it.
We made our biggest one so far on the 31st December, which was AJAT. We didn't write that in the press release but they have 90% market share for student caps in Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
Caps, and the way they grow is to make them more elaborate every year. We might close the next one tomorrow.
We still have €50 million from our shareholders to invest and can collect a further €100 million if we want. The current acquisition we are doing is from cash flow. The one around the New Year we could have done without any shareholder injections. We have started to use our cash.
Banks offer decent interest rates if you stay below 3X or 4X EBITDA in debt.
When we buy a company, it's usually 3X EBITDA bank debt, the rest cash.
I don't have any problem making a decision a day on an acquisition. If I get the right material. I still speak with the management of companies we acquire. I will always go through the financials with an investment manager.
I can do 10 a day, so the limit would be 3,650 acquisitions. I just want to understand what I’m buying. Constellation is different because they buy similar companies so Mark Leonard doesn't need to look at each individual investment.
I will continue to look at all of them. If you buy tiny add-ons and do not do proper due diligence, you will make a mistake. You have to be as tough with the tiny things as you are with the big things.
Yes.
Yes, I will be like Buffett who never stops.
I will do that until I die.
I will do it until I die, if I continue to perform.
Yes.
My retirement position will be a member of the investment committee.
I don't want to retire, I want to do business. It’s like Buffett, otherwise I will be bored.
Has Buffett made good decisions over the last three or four years?
That is good news, then I will continue working.
That's perfect.
Constellation is an excellent company but they have a lot of capital to deploy. If they run a sector agnostic model their returns might be slightly lower, but they can continue growing.
Everything I've been involved in has outperformed the stock market. Novo Nordisk is the only one I bought, apart from Lifco, which has performed well; I sold everything else. I kept one bad company called Attendo, who make homes for elderly people. It was heavily regulated with the government involved. I kept it just to remind me not to do any business with government.
I mainly focus on Röko. I bought Constellation because I realized they have a very different model, which could be recession proof with their recurring revenues.
Their model allows them to increase profits immediately post-acquisition.
Increasing prices and cutting costs; it's different without a standard moat.
If that were true, they would have outperformed Lifco, but they have not.
No, I look at how much they increased profits. They made 5X in 10 years whereas Lifco made 6X. They have done well but they might do something else wrong.
They say that but you have only seen that in Constellation in the numbers. I interviewed ex-employees of Constellation, so I know it works.
I was only chatting.
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities. The views of the executive expressed in the Content are those of the expert and they are not endorsed by, nor do they represent the opinion of In Practise. In Practise makes no representations and accepts no liability for the Content or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies will in no way be held liable for any potential or actual violations of laws, including without limitation any securities laws, based on Information sent to you by In Practise.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.