Jump to content

BX - The Blackstone Group


DCG

Recommended Posts

Written up recently on VIC (Jul 18, 2014).

and?

 

The author likes it. (Anyone can read it after registering for a guest account.)

:)

  Current valuation:

 

Trading at 9.4x 2014 ENI, Blackstone is relatively cheap vs. other traditional asset managers trading at 18x 2014 EPS

At 10.4x 2014 EV/EBITDA, again BX is cheap vs. traditional asset managers at ~11-13x EV/2014 EBITDA

 

SOTP

Management-fee-related earnings in 2015 of $0.77 at 18x multiple = $13.88

Net investments / cash on the balance sheet = $5.43

Performance Fee related  earnings of $2.37 at 6x = $14.22

Total = $33.54, around where it is now

Dividend yield 6.8%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analysis seems kind of weak on which BX is cheap.  You have the current stock price right in line with a reasonable SOTP.  If they can continue to perform well, people are assuming the market will pay a high multiple on performance fees.  I'm not sure I agree with that since the market is not cheap in general and those performance fees are spotty. 

 

I prefer APO or OAK since they trade at a discount to their current SOTP, not some future SOTP.  You get to around 60-65 on a conservative SOTP for OAK and around 28-30 on APO.  OAK is in the middle of a $10 billion dollar raise which is a 10% bump to their AUM.  Plus you get star money manager Jeff Gundlach and the 22% stake in Doubleline. 

 

Just my 2 cents on BX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i sort of like OAK more too, i believe there's going to have to be some structural changes in the "alternative" asset management business. the returns just don't seem to be there. it's not sustainable to collect higher fees for lower returns.

 

and then for the stupid question of the post: why are all of these (newly listed) asset managers LLC's or LP's? they are not taxed on the corporate level right? so i shouldn't be so worried about higher dividend taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to determine whether their dividend is stable/consistent. Currently yielding over 5%.

 

I wouldn't value these stocks on the dividend.  One, they are not consistent.  Two, the dividend is just a piece of the SOTP being returned back to you in the form of a partnership distribution.  The dividend is sort of meaningless in my view since NAV will be reduced by the amount of distributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Valuemaven,

 

I took a look at it - together with BLK - some time ago, before the BX conversion to C-corp. from LP entity, just get a bit of feeling of what's going on in the Asset Management industry. [i own BAM, & to me, those three are all very different beasts compared to each other.] My look at BX was only a bit more than cursory, but I gathered, that it's not possible for me to value BX, because :

  • How do you handicap for the excessive [/prohibitive <-?] executive compensation? [Please see the the BX 2018 10-K, p. 239 ... - It really sucks & stinks to me.>
  • How do we know the size of the pie we may be buying into, when it's to us presented as basically "a half pie" [Please take a look at the diluted unit numbers in the BX 2018 10-K, p. 204], and we actually don't have a clue about the real interaction between the "pictured" two halfs of the pie, the one half we can study via BX, while the "aleged other half" is actually totally in the dark, because of the ownership interests of Blackstone Holdings Limited Partners in the five Blackstone Holding LP's. [Please see group chart in the BX 2018 10-K, p. 85.>
  • It's beyond my comprehension  how you can convert a GP/LP structure to a C-corp. while maintaining the control & power structure. [i haven't tried to find the articles of association/bylaws for the continuing C-corp. though.>

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

I plan to take a look at BX again, when we have access to the BX 2019 10-K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ValueMaven,

 

It would not be prudent by me based on my limited understanding of BX to try to express an opinion of a comparison of BX with BAM. [ : - ) ] Maybe at some point in time later.

 

Companies in this space are in a Golden Age, and have had incredibly good runs lately. The key question for them as investments by now is actually phrased very well above by jouni now more than 5 years ago, and I think it still applies:

 

i sort of like OAK more too, i believe there's going to have to be some structural changes in the "alternative" asset management business. the returns just don't seem to be there. it's not sustainable to collect higher fees for lower returns.

 

and then for the stupid question of the post: why are all of these (newly listed) asset managers LLC's or LP's? they are not taxed on the corporate level right? so i shouldn't be so worried about higher dividend taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Its inevitable. People are massively under invested/exposed to RE. Just look at the what percentage of net worth is RE thread....In the how to allocate for dummies materials they give every jerk off in school and as intro to finance, you're suggested to have 1/3 in stocks, 1/3 in bonds, and 1/3 in RE. Granted that shit was largely written when you could get something out of a bond, so if anything thats shifted. But everyone should probably have at least 40-50% in RE in the current environment. Folks seem to have forgotten about cycles but they are real. There is and will continue to be a mass exodus from bonds. Stocks arent exactly cheap either and we've had a decade long run of folks justifying obscenity when it comes to justifying a stupid low hurdle for owning anything tech related. Last year was the final washout catalyst IMO. I am expecting and positioned for the upcoming super cycle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 22 bps 

3 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Its inevitable. People are massively under invested/exposed to RE. Just look at the what percentage of net worth is RE thread....In the how to allocate for dummies materials they give every jerk off in school and as intro to finance, you're suggested to have 1/3 in stocks, 1/3 in bonds, and 1/3 in RE. Granted that shit was largely written when you could get something out of a bond, so if anything thats shifted. But everyone should probably have at least 40-50% in RE in the current environment. Folks seem to have forgotten about cycles but they are real. There is and will continue to be a mass exodus from bonds. Stocks arent exactly cheap either and we've had a decade long run of folks justifying obscenity when it comes to justifying a stupid low hurdle for owning anything tech related. Last year was the final washout catalyst IMO. I am expecting and positioned for the upcoming super cycle. 

 

my 22 bps in APTS calls which give me 17% notional exposure @ $12.50 which give me like 136% exposure to the appreciation of sunbelt RE on an asset basis approves of this message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's true and I believe it is, hell 10 years ago I would never bother with real estate but now I'm scouting commercial/multifamily deals in Detroit, especially considering the Canadian Dollar bound to revert to a mean, and US bouncing back, I can profit from the currency and upcoming super cycle. 

 

But I digress, if it is true, real estate haven't fully priced the trend. 

 

On the other hand, I don't think equities are suddenly going to crash because of this - I think it's a natural reaction with bonds and treasuries where they and globalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...