Month: October 2012

Retail sales volumes in August 2012 were up nearly 2% in August when measured on a seasonally adjusted basis, or 6.5% ahead of their December 2011 volumes. (See below)

Apparently the buoyancy of sales took economists somewhat by surprise. However observers of the note issue and unit vehicle sales (updated to September 2012 month end) that make up our Hard Number Indicator of the state of the SA economy, should have been less surprised. The retail volumes follow the pattern established by both vehicle sales and the real note issue. That is, growth in volumes, seasonally adjusted, when calculated on a three month rolling basis, picked up strongly towards year end 2011, then fell back sharply in early 2012, whereafter growth accelerated again. (See below)

As we have suggested, and has been confirmed by the strength in retail sales volumes, the SA economy has had more life in it than has generally been appreciated.

The stock market was perhaps less surprised by the strength in retail sales, given the recent strength of the General Retail and Food and Drug Indexes on the JSE. The value of the JSE General Retail Index, in real CPI adjusted terms, has increased by 35% between January 2011 and 17 October 2012 with much of this strength coming in 2012. Real sales volumes grew by 10% between January 2011 and August 2012.

The valuations of retail companies have clearly improved significantly faster than those of real sales. They have also outpaced real retail earnings per share, leading to elevated ratios of share prices to earnings of the retail counters, as has been well documented. However what has not been as well recognised is the extraordinary growth in real dividends distributed by the retail companies. Dividends per retail index share have grown much more rapidly than earnings per share. Dividends in fact have not only grown faster than earnings – 2.64 times as rapidly since 2002 – they have also outpaced the increase in the retail Index as we show below.

Thus, while the price to earnings multiple attached to the general retailers in SA has increased significantly since 2002 (from 9.32 in early 2002 to the current 19.6 times) the price to dividend ratio has in fact fallen since 2002, from R40 paid for a rand of dividends in January 2002 to a mere 31.3 times today.

Retail companies listed on the JSE have benefitted from strong growth in sales and stronger growth in bottom line earnings as operating margins have improved. But they have also been able to generate strong growth in free cash flow – that is cash generated after increases in investments in working and fixed capital. The strength of their balance sheets, or perhaps an inability to find sufficient opportunities to deploy cash inside their businesses, has encouraged the retailers to pay out cash to their shareholders in the form of share buybacks and a reduction in earnings cover. The ratio of earnings to dividends per share has declined dramatically over the years, a decline that appears to be accelerating.

These dividends per retail share (in US dollars) have grown at an average compound rate of about 27.1% p.a since 2003 and have clearly had great appeal for foreign investors who have come to hold an increasing proportion of the shares in issue while SA fund managers have (regrettably) reduced their stakes. The Index in US dollars (excluding dividends) has increased at an average compound rate of 24.9% p.a over the same period.

Dividend yield and growth in dividends that SA retailers have been able to generate have had particular appeal in a world of very low interest rates. The exceptional returns provided by SA retailers in recent years are therefore not at all surprising in the circumstances. Their valuations – seen as a dividend rather than an earnings plays – make every sense. Brian Kantor

SOUTH African Airways (SAA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republic of South Africa, as is Airports Company South Africa (Acsa).

SAA has run out of cash and has been given authority to raise R6bn in debt guaranteed by taxpayers to keep flying.

Acsa, by contrast, is awash with cash. For the financial year to the end of March, it generated R2.9bn in cash flows on customer revenues of R5.8bn — compared with R1.7bn on revenues of R4.6bn the year before. Last year, SAA generated just R278m of cash flow on income of R22.8bn.

This very different state of affairs is not coincidental. Acsa’s gains have been the losses or sacrifice of revenues that SAA and other airlines have had to make in favour of Acsa’s tariffs. SAA is almost certainly Acsa’s largest customer — the collector of the bulk of the fees paid by airlines and their passengers for the use of Acsa’s airports. These fees have risen significantly in recent years and account for a large proportion of what we pay to fly. The revenues the airlines can collect from their passengers is constrained by competition between them. There is no such constraint on the charges Acsa can levy given its near monopoly over all the airports in South Africa.

Acsa has not been shy to exploit its pricing power and neither the regulator nor the Competition Commission has acted as much of a constraint on the exercise of this monopoly power. An increasing proportion of the gross price per passenger flight that the market for air travel will bear, is being collected by Acsa at the expense of the airlines.

This is an issue recognised in economics as the pipeline problem. If you own an oil well or a coal or iron-ore mine and somebody else owns the only pipeline to the port, you are at their mercy. The owner of the transport monopoly can extract all the surplus you might otherwise earn from your mining operations — which is why the mine owners would do well to either own the lines to the market or sign very long-term leases for their use on terms that make economic sense.

Failing that, they may have to rely on the mercy of the regulators, who may control tariffs. The regulators, however, may be inclined to exaggerate the returns required by the owners of very low-risk rail, pipelines and ports, and so allow them to charge more heavily than would be the case were the ports and the lines to compete actively with each other for business. There is every reason to suspect the regulators in South Africa of this bias.

The government has invested on the ground and in the air. The airline business is notorious for the poor returns provided for shareholders while passenger numbers have soared over the years. The major airlines would have done much better to have invested in airports as well as fleets of airliners — as indeed the government, which owns SAA and Acsa, has done. It therefore makes economic sense for the government to keep SAA going — if only to collect the fees Acsa is able to charge. It would also make sense for SAA to be competently managed so that it, as well as Acsa, could contribute dividends and taxes to government revenues and help relieve the burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Another wholly owned subsidiary of the government (and also awash with cash) is Eskom. With much higher prices for the electricity it generates and delivers, cash is pouring into the utility. Some ball-park numbers taken from Eskom’s financial statements will help to make the point. In 2009, Eskom’s cash flow from operations was R5.16bn on revenues from electricity sales of R53.09bn. In the year to March, cash flow from operations was R38.7bn on sales of R114.7bn. Since 2009, cash flows from operations have increased 7.5 times on sales revenues that have grown 2.16 times. This shows how freely the cash flows from all the established capacity when prices are allowed to increase as they have done.

Eskom continues to invest in new capacity. In 2009, it spent R44.7bn on new plants and securing fuel supplies. This year it has spent nearly R59bn for the same purpose. But given the abundant supplies of cash delivered from operations (R38.7bn this year), Eskom needed to raise only R16.5bn of additional debt in the past financial year compared with R30.5bn of debt raised in 2009. Eskom’s debt-to-equity ratio is falling significantly. No doubt this is to the satisfaction of Eskom’s management and the Treasury. But whether such extreme trends are good for the economy is moot.

What is the required return on capital invested in monopoly airports or electricity generators? The justification for higher prices is that they are needed to provide an economic return on the additional capital Eskom is investing in more plant and equipment. The principle of charging enough to cover the full costs of additional capital investment in additional capacity desperately needed by a growing economy is entirely valid. Prices have to be only high enough to cover operating costs as well as to provide an appropriate return on the additional capital invested.

A critical consideration is what return on capital is appropriate for this. The National Energy Regulator of South Africa regards a real return of 8% a year as appropriate for Eskom. Such a return is far too high given the nature of a monopoly utility business that is essentially a very low-risk activity. To aim at a return of about half of this would be about right for the owners of airports or power plants with monopoly rights. A real return of 4% is equivalent to a nominal return of about 10% or about 2% a year above the return on an South Africa long-dated bond. A risk premium of 2%, or about half the average equity risk premium, is consistent with a very low-risk enterprise. The global average real return for utilities of all kinds is about 4% a year.

My own spreadsheet on Eskom indicates that if it gets its preferred way for 90c/kWh, compared with the current 60c, the internal rate of return it would realise on its investment in new power stations, Medupi and Kusile, would be an extraordinary and outrageous 20% a year or more. The potential providers of alternative energy or of contributions to the grid will be cheering Eskom all the way to the bank.

Providing for a real return of 8% or more represents very expensive electricity or airports, even assuming best practice in the management of projects and supplies that may not be justified given such a comfortable financial environment. Inappropriately higher charges by state-owned enterprises, designed to realise much higher real returns on capital, while convenient for the boards and managers of Acsa and Eskom, are very bad news for the economy and its competitiveness. The much better alternative would be an agreed and much lower charge for capital — leading to lower prices for essential services and an insistence on best-practice cost management. It would mean less abundant cash flows for the utilities supplying the service and more debt on their balance sheets (guaranteed by the taxpayer), and so a more competitive economy.

It would also represent a pricing policy that is much fairer to current generations. Under the present practice of forcing savings from consumers through excessive charges for utilities, charges that should better be described as taxes, future generations will inherit the capital stock without the debt that they might appropriately be expected to be still be paying off over time.

Perhaps it might also lead to a fairer labour market in which strike action by relatively well-paid workers is apparently being encouraged by inroads being made on their real wages by ever-higher utility charges.

We regard the note issue as a very reliable indicator of spending intentions in SA. It has a particular advantage in that it is updated every month with the release of the Reserve Bank balance sheet, usually within the first week of the next month. The Reserve Bank has now published its balance sheet for September and as we show below, the note issue, on a seasonally adjusted basis, grew strongly towards year end 2011, then moved largely sideways until May 2012 and since then has grown quite strongly. The note issue, seasonally adjusted in September 2012, maintained this strong upward momentum in September and is now well ahead of its level in December 2011.

The strong recovery in the note issue is well demonstrated by the growth measured on a three month rolling basis. This three month growth in the seasonally adjusted note issue, when annualised, turned negative in May 2012, picked up to 17% in June, grew by 24% in August and 18% in September 2012.

When adjusted for consumer prices, the recovery in the real note issue is equally impressive, with the three month growth rate recording about 20% in 2012. These trends in the real cash supply are matched very closely by trends in unit vehicle sales. They too were up strongly in late 2012, moved sideways until May and then also recovered strongly (see below).

These two series (both up to date hard numbers), rather than based on sample surveys make up our own economic activity indicator that we call our Hard Number Index (HNI). As we show below, supported by the uptick in vehicle volumes and the real note issue, the HNI has continued to move ahead – indicating continued growth in SA economic activity at a more or less stable rate. Numbers above 100 for the HNI indicate the economy is growing and its rate of change, also shown, indicates whether the economy is picking up or losing forward momentum. It would appear that the speed of the economy has slowed down from its peak but has in September almost maintained the speed reached in August 2012. Given the fears of a marked slowdown in activity this outcome should be regarded as highly satisfactory.

It would appear that the SA economy, on the demand side, has shown more strength than is perhaps widely appreciated. Spending appears to have picked up, rather than slowed down, between May and September 2012. These trends have also been confirmed by retail sales and broader money supply trends that we have reported upon. Given the disruptions on the supply side of the economy, this strength in demand is likely to also show up in a wider trade deficit. This might enhance the case for rand weakness – but the underlying strength of demand should also encourage investment and inward capital flows. Brian Kantor

Recently released data on the broadly defined money supply (M3) to August 2012 and new unit vehicle sales updated to September 2012 are consistent with a pattern observed for other indicators of the state of the economy. These include retail sales volumes and the note issue (cash held by the banks and public). The message is that a strong pick-up in activity was recorded in the final quarter of 2011 and was followed by, at best, a sideways trend until May. In June 2012 activity picked up and the higher levels of activity have been sustained since then.

We show this pattern of monthly activity, seasonally adjusted, below. Vehicle sales volumes now exceed the strong sales realised in December 2011 when seasonally adjusted. This recovery in sales volumes should be regarded as highly satisfactory by the industry. The money supply trends, also seasonally adjusted, show a similar pattern, while bank credit extended to the private sector has advanced more steadily as may also be seen in the chart.

Year on year growth rates do not tell the story of what can happen within a 12 month period. That vehicle sales have slowed down (off a higher base) to 1.34% p.a. appears to be something of a disappointment to the Industry but should not be. The growth in vehicle sales on a three month rolling basis – when seasonally adjusted and annualised – tells a much happier story about the state of the vehicle market. It also tells a happier story about the state of the domestic economy more generally when the note issue and the broadly defined money supply, calculated on a three month rolling basis, are taken into account.

The SA economy clearly picked up momentum in mid year while activity appears to be well sustained at higher levels. This strength has perhaps not been widely recognised, given a focus on year on year growth rates. These will come under further pressure from the higher base realised in late 2011. The strength of demand has however shown up in higher imports and (given pressure on export revenues volumes) in a wider trade deficit.

Lower interest rates have been helpful for sustaining domestic demand. Interest rates will need to stay low, and perhaps decline further, to encourage demand in the absence of any likely stimulus for the economy from exports – particularly exports from the disrupted mining sector.