Fundoo Professor Profile picture
Nov 7, 2020 26 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Total Capex = Growth Capex + Maintenance Capex

We know the total capex. We can get it from the fixed asset schedule in the balance sheet. We can also get it from the cash flow statement as net investment in fixed assets.
We should do this over a BLOCK of years and not just one year because one-year data has noise. Also, why should the time taken by a planet to circle the sun synchronize precisely for time taken for business actions to pay off? (Buffett)
Ok, so now, we have a TOTAL capex figure. How to split it between GROWTH and MAINTENANCE capex? Well, one thing we know is that we have to do this on our own. The accounting statements may give us clues, but no one will split the growth and maintenance capex for us...
... even though that distinction is very important for answering two questions: (1) How good or bad is this business? (2) What are the true economic earnings to be used for valuing this business?
So how do we do this on our own? We have to use our JUDGMENT. It makes sense to think of FACTORS which influences the split between growth and maintenance. What are those factors? There are at least three that I can think of.
The FIRST factor is The NATURE of the business. Some businesses which, by their very nature, require huge outlays of cash for MAINTENANCE capex. Take, for example, consumer electronics or microprocessors.
The pace of technological change in these industries is so rapid that the need to upgrade your technology just to keep up with the competition is huge.
In such situations which can also be understood by using the phrase “HIGH DEGREE OF OBSOLESCENCE - the accounting depreciation is much less than ECONOMIC DEPRECIATION(which is another useful term to use for MAINTENANCE capex).
And some businesses, by their very NATURE, require very LITTLE outlays of cash over a block of years as compared to accounting depreciation to maintain their current level of operations and competitive position.
For example, hydroelectric power stations, toll bridges and roads, and commercial buildings. The ACCOUNTING depreciation in these situations is way MORE than ECONOMIC depreciation.
So whenever the PACE OF CHANGE in the industry is LESS and the OBSOLESCENCE risk is LOW, the MAINTENANCE capex should be less than ACCOUNTING depreciation.
This is why Charlie Munger once said, "We make bricks (BRK owns a bricks manufacturing company) using the same technology used in Mesopotamia."
The SECOND factor is INFLATION. To understand this, we should answer this question: Why do businesses charge depreciation to arrive at “profit” in the first place? The reason is that by reducing profits, from which dividends are paid, the businesses CONSERVE cash.
This cash can be invested in fixed income securities and by the time the asset has to be replaced, it is expected that sufficient funds will be in place to replace the asset which has come to the end of its useful life. So far so good.
But INFLATION can play spoilsport with these plans. If by the time one has to replace the dying asset, the REPLACEMENT cost of the asset has increased in nominal dollars to such a level that. . .
. . . there won’t be sufficient funds in the business to replace the asset after taking into account the treasury income on funds conserved by not paying them out as dividends, we will have a situation where MAINTENANCE capex is MORE than ACCOUNTING depreciation.
That's because to replace the asset, now we will have to spend more in nominal dollars than the money available on the balance sheet for its replacement.
The THIRD factor is PRODUCTIVITY GAINS. We live in a world where even if there is inflation, we also have huge productivity gains. That is, in many industries, a NEW asset, which replaces an OLD one is often a far BETTER asset. It can do MORE with LESS.
For example, it can produce MORE widgets with LESS wastage or can operate with LESS electricity consumption. These PRODUCTIVITY GAIN have an effect that works in the OPPOSITE direction of the effect of INFLATION.
So we have these THREE key factors — THE NATURE of the business, INFLATION, and PRODUCTIVITY GAINS — which can help think about the PROBABLE quantum of MAINTENANCE capex in a business as opposed to the ACCOUNTING depreciation charged in its books.
Let’s go back to the equation: Total Capex = Growth Capex + Maintenance Capex.

Sometimes to estimate MAINTENANCE capex, all we have to is to deduct GROWTH capex from MAINTENANCE capex. But how do we know how much is GROWTH capex?
Well, management announcements (interviews, commentary in the annual report, conference calls) relating to EXPANSION plans give clues. In fact, as @rohitchauhan has pointed out, sometimes we get clues about MAINTENANCE capex from management commentary. He cites BKT's example.
So, there are TWO methods for thinking about maintenance CAPEX. #1: Use it as a balancing figure in the equation Total Capex = Growth Capex + Maintenance Capex. AND #2: Use your JUDGMENT.

I think it’s probably a good idea to use BOTH methods.
One final thought. I wrote about INFLATION. But in many parts of the world, we are now experiencing DEFLATION. So we have to adjust our thinking about MAINTENANCE capex based on this…
Sorry. This one should read Sometimes to estimate MAINTENANCE capex, all we have to is to deduct GROWTH capex from TOTAL capex. But how do we know how much is GROWTH capex?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Fundoo Professor

Fundoo Professor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Sanjay__Bakshi

Jul 4
A few years ago, I was at Buddh Circuit—India’s only F1 track—and I saw a beautiful GT2RS. Out of curiosity, I used an app to find out who the owner was. It turned out the car was owned by a listed Indian company. Subsequently, I found that the company owns several such cars.

So, when we discuss bad assets, we must decide from whose point of view we are looking at the situation. Those cars have been capitalized in the books of the listed company as fixed assets. Their purchase appears as capex to the stockholders in the cash flow statement, but those “assets” will do nothing for the minority shareholders. They are “good assets” for the users but bad for the minority stockholders.

So, I will focus on the idea of “bad assets, good liabilities” from the point of view of minority shareholders of listed or unlisted companies.

Traditional accounting tells us that our net worth is the surplus of assets over liabilities. The focus of the accountants here is the quantum of the assets and liabilities instead of their quality. Once we start applying our minds to the quality dimensions of assets and liabilities instead of just their quantity, some useful insights are found. I share some here.
One example of bad assets would be loan losses in a bank but think about this: Loan losses are a cost of doing business in the banking industry. Zero NPAs mean you are not taking enough risk, leaving money on the table. The idea here is not to have zero loan losses but to have a small amount to help you find the right place on the risk spectrum, ranging from being reckless to being too conservative. This is a controversial idea, and not everyone will agree with it.
Bad assets also appear in books but should not be there at all. In other words, fictitious assets. And there are so many of those out there. For example, accounting goodwill arises from paying a large premium over the book value of a bad acquisition. The goodwill will eventually be impaired by the accountants, but that will take a long time. In the meantime, the asset is sitting there, inflating the book value of the common stock.
Read 20 tweets
Nov 15, 2022
Investing is a probabilistic game. Some bets are going to go bad no matter how good the process, due diligence, etc. But when they go bad it's important to distinguish between bets gone bad because of bad luck or a bad process that needs fixing.
Investor perfectionists tend to feel upset when things don't work out the way they thought. They attribute all bad outcomes to bad processes which they then try to "fix".
Interestingly, successful traders don't think like this at all. They accept that some bets will not work and will produce losses and they internalize this by telling themselves "you win some, you lose some."
Read 13 tweets
Sep 6, 2022
Not all AT1 bonds are dangerous if we agree with Ben Graham who wrote about the "theory of buying the highest yielding obligation of a sound company." He wrote:
"If any obligation of an enterprise deserves to qualify as a fixed-value investment, then all its obligations must do so. Stated conversely, if a company's junior bonds are not safe, its first-mortgage bonds are not a desirable fixed-value investment."
"For if the second mortgage is unsafe the company itself is weak, and generally speaking there can be no high-grade obligations of a weak enterprise."
Read 17 tweets
Aug 29, 2022
A fantastic application of the law of unintended consequences. @promila_agarwal
Also an example of one of the iron laws of economics: you can either control the price of something or its supply. But you cannot control both.
Important to make a distinction between price and supply controls by private parties and those by governments. After all cartels exist. And business models like Ferrari and LVMH control supply so they can charge high prices.
Read 8 tweets
Aug 3, 2022
This, according to Graham, is the right answer. Congratulations Falak, you would have got a pat on the back from Graham.
Weighted average misleads because of outliers. You can eliminate outliers by using MEDIAN. That's 14%. See below.
But Graham said, to use MODAL value. Mode is the most common outcome, which, in this case, is 18%.
Read 8 tweets
Jul 15, 2022
The EBIT margin fell. First conclusion: This is bad news. Let’s park it. And look for alternate explanations.
Alternate explanation (AE) #1 It did not fall on a per unit basis. There was input price inflation which was easily passed on to customers. So per unit margin is unchanged but revenue rose more than EBIT in INR terms for margin as percent of revenue fell. Not bad news.
AE#2: There was a change in product mix. A lower margin product became a big hit with customers. So consolidated margins fell. Not bad news at all.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(