2 Key Sources of Moat
In this second excerpt from their new book, Morningstar's Heather Brilliant and Elizabeth Collins detail how companies leverage cost advantage and switching costs to their benefit.
In this second excerpt from their new book, Morningstar's Heather Brilliant and Elizabeth Collins detail how companies leverage cost advantage and switching costs to their benefit.
This week Morningstar.com is presenting excerpts from Morningstar's new book, Why Moats Matter: The Morningstar Approach to Stock Investing, which details what makes a moat and how to identify the five sources of moat. Below is Part 2 of the excerpts. You can find Part 1 here.
Cost Advantage
Companies can dig economic moats around their businesses by having sustainably lower costs than their competitors. A favorable cost position can stem from process advantages, a superior location, scale, or access to a unique asset. Process advantages are interesting, but we award economic moat ratings to companies with this edge only if the process can't or won't be easily replicated by competitors. An advantageous location can also give a company a cost edge, and this leg up can be sustainable given the difficulty of duplication. Meanwhile, companies that enjoy economies of scale have lower average costs than their competitors with smaller capacities.
Managed care organizations, or MCOs, provide a good illustration of the economies-of-scale version of the cost advantage source. These firms provide health insurance services to their members (individuals, groups, or the government). One of the most valuable effects of having a large membership base is that the MCO can significantly scale its selling, general, and administrative, or SG&A, costs. Expenses such as corporate costs, IT infrastructure investments, depreciation of fixed assets, certain selling expenses, payment processing, and customer service expenses are largely fixed, and therefore having more members lowers the average cost per member. The major MCOs that we believe possess economic moats-- UnitedHealth (UNH), WellPoint (WLP), and Aetna --are able to operate at a lower level of SG&A per member than smaller MCOs that don't have moats.
Furthermore, an MCO with a large membership base also has a better ability to control overall medical costs by negotiating advantageous pricing with its providers (hospitals and doctors). To obtain profitable pricing, companies need to either have a large geographic reach to provide demand at multiple nationwide sites or have the local density to control a large portion of demand in a specific geography. Basically, a provider will give better pricing to payers that control more demand. This dynamic is a product of a few factors. First, a procedure usually becomes cheaper to execute for a provider each additional time it is done. Therefore, a provider can cut pricing for a payer with a large membership base and still preserve its gross margins. Second, since a payer that controls a large portion of demand also potentially controls a large portion of a provider's gross profits, the provider will be more apt to provide discounted pricing.
North American Class I Railroads-- CSX (CSX), Norfolk Southern (NSC), BNSF, Union Pacific (UNP), Canadian National (CNI), Canadian Pacific (CP), and Kansas City Southern --earn wide economic moats in part from sustainable low-cost advantages. Barges, ships, aircraft, and trucks also haul freight, but railroads are the low-cost option by far where no waterway connects the origin and destination, especially for freight with a low value/weight ratio. Moreover, railroads claim quadruple the fuel efficiency of trucking per ton-mile of freight and make more effective use of manpower despite the need for train-yard personnel, in part because of greater railcar capacity and longer trains. Even for goods that can be shipped by truck, we estimate that railroads charge 10%–30% less than trucking containers on the same lane. And we have confidence in the sustainability of these railroads' economic profits because they've been investing heavily in their cost advantages. They're making increasingly effective use of two of their most expensive inputs: labor and fuel.
Regarding the former, railroads are producing more tonmiles per employee than in the past. This is due in part to larger cars, combined with increased speed, reduced downtime at terminals, and more effective work rules and practices. Concerning the latter, the Association of American Railroads reports that in 2012 U.S. railroads moved a ton of freight on average 476 miles per gallon of fuel, up from 414 ton-miles per gallon in 2005 and double the 235 level of 1980. This was accomplished via larger cars, more-fuel-efficient locomotives, idle-reduction technology, throttle position selection guidance software that learns a route to optimize fuel and safety, distributed power to reduce required horsepower, rail lubrication, and locomotive engineer training and incentives.
Key Questions: Cost Advantage
Switching Costs
Switching costs are the expenses--whether in time, hassle, money, or risk--a customer would incur to change from one producer or provider to another. Customers facing high switching costs won't necessarily make a switch even if a competitor is offering a lower price or a better-performing product or service. The improvement in performance or price must be large enough to offset the cost of switching. High switching costs are especially prevalent and powerful when there is a high cost of failure, or the cost of the specific product or service in question is fairly insignificant relative to the customer's total operating costs.
Apple (AAPL) is a good example of a company whose customers would suffer switching costs if they changed products. There are a variety of switching costs around the iOS platform that should allow the company to retain a good portion of its current user base without having to compete on price alone. Apple iOS users who purchase movies, TV shows, and applications from the iTunes store are unable to transmit these media to Android or other portable devices (while music is transferrable). iCloud adds another layer of switching costs by synchronizing media, photos, notes, and other items across all Apple devices. We believe an owner of an iOS device--say, an iPad--is less likely to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone if it means that the individual will be unable to sync or access a portion of his or her content. Additional Apple devices, such as the Mac and potentially an iWatch, could raise these switching costs even further.
Asset managers such as BlackRock (BLK) also benefit from switching costs. While the costs for investors might not be explicitly large, the perceived benefits of switching from one money manager to another are at times so uncertain that many investors take the path of least resistance and stay where they are. As a result, money that flows into asset-management firms tends to stay there--borne out by an average net annual redemption rate of only 30% for long-term mutual funds, which excludes the impact of money market funds, during the past 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year time frames. "Asset stickiness," or the degree to which money stays with an asset manager over time, plays a vital role in determining which companies in the asset management industry have the widest economic moats.
Looking more closely at BlackRock, which we feel has the widest moat in the asset management industry, we find that the company benefits from a diverse product portfolio, which is equally split among active and passive investment strategies. This effectively makes the firm agnostic to shifts among asset classes and investment strategies, limiting the impact that market swings can have on its overall level of managed assets. With much of BlackRock's assets under management sourced from institutional clients, which tend to be more long-term-oriented than retail investors, the company has also been able to tap into a far stickier set of assets than many of its peers. While BlackRock may not be a household name, it is well known and well respected in the institutional channel, especially in fixed income, where it effectively forms an oligopoly with PIMCO and Legg Mason . BlackRock's ownership of iShares, the leading provider of exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, on a global basis, has endeared it to institutional investors, and should provide the firm with strong brand recognition in the retail advisor channel--in our view, the stickiest part of the retail channel. These attributes have all combined to build a wide economic moat around BlackRock's operations.
Rockwell Automation (ROK) has a wide economic moat thanks to a high degree of customer switching costs for its Logix automation control platform. Changing automation vendors is a decision not made lightly by a manufacturer; the organizational disruption caused by the change creates a number of potential costs for the customer, making sticking with the status quo the lowerfriction choice. Think of the controller as the brains of the manufacturing floor. Any surgery involving it is delicate and approached with extreme care by the manufacturer. As a result, an automation firm such as Rockwell has a heavy incumbency advantage, building meaningful barriers to successful entry.
Key Questions: Switching Costs
Excerpted with permission of the publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from Why Moats Matter: The Morningstar Approach to Stock Investing. Copyright (c) 2014 by Morningstar. This book and ebook is available at all bookstores, online booksellers, and from the Wiley website at www.wiley.com, or call 800-225-5945.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.