lecture 8_darden capital management--the monticello fund

UV0517

This case was prepared by Professor Michael J. Schill. It has some fictionalized content and was written as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2004 by the University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved. To order copies, send an e-mail to [email protected]. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of the Darden School Foundation.

DARDEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT THE MONTICELLO FUND

In early April 2004, the Monticello Fund Management Team was in the midst of its first meeting of the new fiscal year. The team was part of the Darden Capital Management program at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, where MBA students were entrusted with managing endowment capital for the school foundation. The program sought to prepare its participants for careers in investment analysis and portfolio management, with the recognition that hands-on investment-management experience was an important aspect of professional training. The total assets under management for the Darden Capital Management program were over $3 million and were held in three funds: the Darden Fund, Monticello Fund, and Jefferson Fund. Each fund was managed independently by a small team of MBA students, with some guidance from a faculty advisor and a board of trustees.

The investment strategy of the Monticello Fund was to use fundamental analysis to identify and invest in companies that were well-positioned for growth but inexpensively valued. The fund team looked for stocks that would generate above-normal returns over a one- to four-year horizon. The new team replaced a team that had generated returns of 42.9% on their equity positions over the 12 months ending March 31, 2004. Such return performance was impressive both in absolute terms and with respect to the strong 35.1% returns over the same period on the S&P 500 market index. Exhibit 1 shows the current composition of the fund portfolio. The new team was unified in its resolve to once again beat the market index in the coming year; however, there was some debate on the most appropriate strategy to accomplish this goal. The Portfolio Allocation Decision

Prior to the meeting, Senior Manager Steve Majocha solicited from the team a list of securities for consideration as investment candidates. This request generated a list of six stocks for which there was mixed enthusiasm: Boise Cascade, Boston Beer, Micron Technologies, New York Times, and Placer Dome. Exhibit 2 shows the monthly return performance of each of the six stocks over the past five years. Exhibit 3 provides various return statistics and other risk measures. For each stock, the team had developed a financial forecast and an estimate of the fair-value of the stock in 2007. Based on these figures, the team had calculated the anticipated rate of return implied

-2- UV0517 by the current stock price. Exhibit 4 contains the anticipated return estimates. Majocha’s suggestion that the team narrow the list to two or three stocks had generated a heated discussion.

Nandini Bose and Brian Maguire were strong proponents of buying Micron Technologies stock. The stock had declined dramatically from its 2000 peak, and they now felt it was well positioned to rebound. The team agreed that Micron offered the greatest expected return potential.

David Khtikian, however, insisted that Micron’s strong potential required accepting substantially greater risk. He backed up his claim by comparing the standard deviations of past returns. For each stock, he calculated the ratio of anticipated return to the standard deviation of returns, and found that Boise Cascade and New York Times maintained the best returns for the commensurate level of risk.

Charles Hill agreed with Khtikian that the anticipated returns should be normalized by the associated risk of the stock. He claimed, however, that a better measure of the risk faced by the investor was the correlation of the returns of the firm’s stock with those of a diversified portfolio. This correlation could be measured as the slope of a linear-regression line, commonly called the “beta.” Hill suggested that Mylan Labs and Placer Dome maintained the highest beta-adjusted returns (the anticipated return less than expected by the return model that incorporated beta, the Capital Asset Pricing Model).

Khtikian disagreed strongly, claiming that it made no sense to invest in a high-risk Canadian gold stock that was expected to generate a return of less than 9%. Hill countered that the attractiveness of Placer Dome stock was primarily in its diversification effect. He claimed that a 50–50 weighted portfolio with Mylan Labs and Placer Dome would prove to be better than simply holding Mylan Labs stock alone.

Majocha was due at a fund managers meeting in the morning and needed to be able to communicate a coherent portfolio strategy for the Monticello Fund. Majocha considered the recommendations of his team members and contrasted their views with what he knew of capital markets. (Exhibits 5 and 6 provide some data on current and historical capital market conditions.)

UV0517

-3-

Exhibit 1


Composition of the Monticello Fund (March 2004)

% of portfolio Net 12-month gain % Stocks Patina Oil & Gas 5.6% 101.5% General Dynamics 4.5 64.4 Berkshire Hathaway B 4.5 45.6 Sanderson Farms 4.3 11.5 NBTY 4.3 105.3 Mentor 4.3 34.8 Chicago Bridge & Iron 4.2 23.8 Kellogg 4.1 10.6 Chevron Texaco 3.9 2.9 Pier 1 3.9 30.1 Target 3.9 54.9 Pepsico 3.9 36.2 Pfizer 3.6 14.5 Johnson & Johnson 3.6 -5.4 Media General 3.6 38.2 Radian 3.5 3.1 Washington Mutual 3.3 23.3 Microsoft 2.3 3.6 Skywest 2.1 4.0 Bonds 17.8% 3.9%

UV0517

-4-

Exhibit 2


Monthly returns for proposed stocks (1999–2003)

Boise

CascadeBoston

BeerMicron

TechMylan

LabsNew York

TimesPlacer Dome

Jan-99 -3% 13% 54% -3% -1% -3%Feb-99 3% -21% -26% -10% -9% -2%Mar-99 5% 2% -16% 1% -8% 3%Apr-99 25% 10% -23% -17% 21% 26%

May-99 -2% -2% 2% 12% 0% -21%Jun-99 9% -3% 7% 5% 8% 6%Jul-99 -10% 15% 52% -14% 7% -13%

Aug-99 -6% -16% 21% -13% 0% 3%Sep-99 1% 2% -11% -7% -4% 43%Oct-99 -2% -2% 7% -2% 7% -17%

Nov-99 -3% -7% -6% 31% -4% -8%Dec-99 18% 0% 16% 7% 28% -6%Jan-00 -13% 3% -20% 6% -7% -17%Feb-00 -16% -2% 54% -14% -7% -1%Mar-00 17% 3% 31% 20% 2% -6%Apr-00 -6% 5% 11% 3% -4% 1%

May-00 -11% 8% 0% -5% -6% 0%Jun-00 -11% 1% 26% -32% 2% 17%Jul-00 7% 2% -7% 17% 4% -11%

Aug-00 8% 6% 0% 25% -5% 5%Sep-00 -11% -3% -44% 2% 0% 6%Oct-00 8% -14% -24% 4% -7% -14%

Nov-00 1% 4% -9% -15% -4% 11%Dec-00 17% 9% 13% 6% 13% 6%Jan-01 -2% 2% 29% -7% 9% -8%Feb-01 -3% 9% -25% 0% 2% 7%Mar-01 -2% -3% 21% 11% -7% -8%Apr-01 11% -4% 9% 4% 0% 17%

May-01 1% 8% -17% 19% 3% 5%Jun-01 0% -13% 10% -11% 0% -8%Jul-01 3% 23% 2% 20% 10% 3%

Aug-01 1% 9% -10% -2% -7% 10%Sep-01 -19% 2% -50% -1% -9% 16%Oct-01 -3% -1% 21% 13% 6% -11%

Nov-01 12% 18% 19% -7% 10% -4%Dec-01 7% 24% 14% 9% -5% 0%

UV0517

-5-

Exhibit 2 (continued)

Monthly returns for proposed stocks (1999–2003)

Boise Cascade

BostonBeer

Micron Tech

MylanLabs

New York Times

Placer Dome

Jan-02 5% -10% 9% -10% -3% 13%Feb-02 1% -15% -5% -10% 4% -5%Mar-02 1% 15% 2% -3% 9% 5%Apr-02 -7% -4% -28% -10% -3% -4%

May-02 5% 14% -1% 17% 8% 16%Jun-02 -3% -4% -14% 2% 2% -18%Jul-02 -16% -12% -4% 4% -12% -25%

Aug-02 -7% 2% -11% 1% 5% 20%Sep-02 -15% -3% -28% 1% -4% -8%Oct-02 4% 13% 29% -4% 7% -5%

Nov-02 14% 0% -1% 7% 0% 11%Dec-02 -6% -9% -38% 4% -5% 20%Jan-03 -5% 3% -16% 15% 7% -2%Feb-03 1% -11% -3% 7% -5% -13%Mar-03 -9% -4% 2% 1% -7% 0%Apr-03 5% 3% 4% -2% 7% 1%

May-03 7% 9% 33% 2% 4% 11%Jun-03 -2% 2% 4% 21% -5% 12%Jul-03 4% 5% 25% -3% -2% 0%

Aug-03 10% 4% -2% 8% 0% 11%Sep-03 2% 1% -7% 6% -2% 1%Oct-03 2% 7% 7% -6% 9% 12%

Nov-03 5% 8% -9% 5% -3% 18%Dec-03 12% -1% 4% 0% 4% -1%

Annualized Mean 8.2% 20.2% 16.6% 20.7% 11.0% 19.0%

Annualized Std. Deviation 31.2% 31.7% 76.2% 39.4% 25.8% 43.2%

UV

0517

-6

-

Exhi

bit 3

DA

RD

EN

CA

PIT

AL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

T

HE

MO

NT

ICE

LL

O F

UN

D

Cha

ract

eris

tics a

nd re

turn

stat

istic

s for

pro

pose

d st

ocks

Mon

thly

retu

rns 1

999–

2003

C

ompa

ny n

ame

In

dust

ry

Ave

rage

an

nual

A

nnua

lized

st

d. d

evia

tion

Bet

a es

timat

e1 R

aw

Val

ue L

ine

Div

iden

d Y

ield

Sa

fety

ra

ting2

PE

Rat

io3

Bon

d ra

ting

Boi

se C

asca

de

Pa

per p

rodu

cts

8.2%

31

.2%

1.

14

1.20

1.

80%

3

27.0

B

a2

Bos

ton

Bee

r

Alc

ohol

ic b

ever

ages

20

.2%

31

.7%

0.

46

0.55

0.

00%

3

22.9

N

A

Mic

ron

Tech

nolo

gies

Sem

icon

duct

ors

16.6

%

76.2

%

2.19

1.

70

0.00

%

5 N

MF

B2

Myl

an L

abs

Ph

arm

aceu

tical

20

.7%

39

.4%

0.

26

0.70

0.

51%

3

18.9

N

A

New

Yor

k Ti

mes

New

spap

ers

11.0

%

25.8

%

0.72

0.

90

1.30

%

2 23

.1

A1

Plac

er D

ome

G

old

and

silv

er

19.0

%

43.2

%

0.25

0.

40

0.61

%

3 28

.3

Baa

2

Sour

ce: V

alue

Lin

e (V

L), C

ente

r for

Res

earc

h in

Sec

urity

Pric

es (C

RSP

), M

erge

nt’s

Bon

d R

ecor

d.

1 T

he ra

w-r

etur

ns b

eta

is e

stim

ated

as t

he sl

ope

coef

ficie

nt o

f sto

ck re

turn

regr

esse

d on

S&

P 50

0 re

turn

(60

mon

ths)

. An

exam

ple

of th

e

regr

essi

on e

stim

atio

n is

pro

vide

d in

Exh

ibit

7. T

he V

alue

Lin

e be

ta is

an

alte

rnat

ive

estim

ate

prov

ided

by

the

Val

ue L

ine

Inve

stm

ent S

urve

y.

2 Th

e V

alue

Lin

e sa

fety

ratin

g m

easu

res t

he p

rice

stab

ility

and

fina

ncia

l stre

ngth

of a

firm

. Saf

ety

rank

s ran

ge fr

om 1

(hig

hest

) to

5 (lo

wes

t).

3 Th

e PE

ratio

is d

efin

ed h

ere

as th

e cu

rren

t pric

e di

vide

d by

ear

ning

s for

the

past

12

mon

ths.

UV

0517

-7

-

Exhi

bit 4

DA

RD

EN

CA

PIT

AL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

T

HE

MO

NT

ICE

LL

O F

UN

D

Mod

el fo

r est

imat

ing

antic

ipat

ed re

turn

for p

ropo

sed

stoc

ks

C

ompa

ny n

ame

Cur

rent

pric

e

Div

iden

ds p

er sh

are

2004

D

ivid

end

grow

th ra

teA

ntic

ipat

ed 2

007

Earn

ings

per

shar

e A

ntic

ipat

ed 2

007

PE

Ant

icip

ated

ann

ual

retu

rn (2

004–

2007

)

B

oise

Cas

cade

$3

3.40

$0

.60

0%

$2.0

2 23

.5

10.8

%

Bos

ton

Bee

r 17

.54

0.00

0%

1.

00

24.0

8.

2%

Mic

ron

T

echn

olog

ies

15.2

5 0.

00

0%

0.30

83

.0

13.0

%

Myl

an L

abs

23.5

5 0.

12

5%

1.46

24

.0

10.9

%

New

Yor

k Ti

mes

46

.01

0.60

4%

3.

76

16.5

9.

0%

Pla

cer D

ome

16

.43

0.10

15

%

0.75

30

.0

8.8%

So

urce

: Cas

e w

riter

ana

lysi

s.

UV0517

-8-

Exhibit 5


Summary statistics of annual returns for various classes of securities (Annual returns over period 1926 to 2003)

Series

Geometric mean1

Arithmetic mean2

Std. deviation

Inflation (Consumer price index)

3.0%

3.1%

4.3%

U.S. Treasury Bills (30-day)

3.7 3.8 3.1

Intermediate-term Government (5-year)

5.4 5.5 5.7

Long-term Government (20-year)

5.4 5.8 9.4

Long-term Corporate Bonds (High grade, 20-year)

5.9 6.2 8.6

Large Company Stocks (S&P 500 index)

10.4 12.4 20.4

Source: Ibbotson Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation, 2004 Yearbook.

1 The geometric mean is the compound rate of return over the 78 year sample period defined as

RGeometric= ( )1

782003 1926 1V V − , where tV is the value of the series in the respective year. 2 The arithmetic mean is the simple average of the 78 annual returns defined as

RArithmetic = 2003

178

1926t

t

R=∑ .

UV0517

-9-

Exhibit 6


Selected interest rates (April 1, 2004)

Security

Yield (%)

Treasury constant maturities

1-month 0.95 3-month 0.93 6-month 1.02 1-year 1.23 5-year 2.87 10-year 3.91 20-year 4.77 Treasury inflation-indexed 5-year 0.53 10-year 1.48 Corporate industrial bonds (Moody’s seasoned) Aaa 5.40 Baa

6.18

Source: Federal Reserve Statistical Release (www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update).

UV0517

-10-

Exhibit 7


Regression estimates for Boise Cascade (Monthly returns over period 1999 to 2003)

Total return for Boise Cascade stock S&P 500

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

S&P 500

Boi

se C

asca

de

Ordinary least squares regression results Regression equation: (Return on Boise Cascade) = a + b* (Return on S&P500) + e Results: Coefficient Estimate t-statistic a 0.7% 0.78 b 1.14 6.13

lecture 8_darden capital management--the monticello fund

Documents