Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 165

Innovation offers opportunities for investors

Australia’s National Innovation and Science Agenda appears to have sharpened the focus on companies perceived as ‘innovative’ in nature. From an investment perspective, innovation represents opportunity. It also present risks, however, primarily for incumbents whose margins or market shares are threatened by new entrants or more innovative competitors.

By understanding the breadth of opportunities for new entrants in an industry, as well as the threats to incumbents, professional long-short investors are able to profit from opportunities on both sides of the ledger. In this article, we consider what innovation means in the Small Companies sector and how innovation and disruption can drive investment decisions in this often under-researched space.

What does disruption mean for small company investors?

The information technology age in which we live means many people associate innovation with something digital or online. Consider how innovative products like Uber and iTunes have revolutionised the taxi and music businesses. In fact innovation, and therefore disruption, is occurring in all kinds of businesses in Australia, across a wide range of sectors.

From an investment perspective, you need to consider much more than the innovation itself. Many other factors will determine whether an innovative company is a good investment such as the size of the market for the product or service. Then there are questions like:

  • are there barriers to entry or lack thereof?
  • how many years a product has been in development?
  • is it meaningfully different from competitors?
  • is it patented?
  • how much money has been invested in research and marketing?
  • how broad is the distribution footprint?

All of these considerations determine whether a company has competitive advantages and, importantly, the sustainability of those advantages over time.

There are also investment considerations for incumbent operators. Some of these established, listed companies may have been operating successfully in an industry for many years, with earnings streams that were previously deemed defensive and sustainable. For long-short investors, the potential negative effects of disruption can be as appealing as the potential benefits of innovation.

Innovation in established industries

In any industry, there is almost always some level of product development or innovation occurring. The car industry is one of the most established and competitive in the world and there is an astonishing level of innovation underway, including the development of electric motors and the release of prototype driverless vehicles.

For Australian small cap investors, there are exciting earnings opportunities from companies with innovative products and services in rather less futuristic areas.

In the 1970s, owners of 4x4 vehicles relied on homemade or ill-fitting equipment for use in rural or outback regions. At that time, ARB Corporation was established and the company started designing and producing a range of 4x4-related accessories. Following more than 40 years of product development and innovation, the company is a global market leader in the manufacture and supply of bull bars and other accessories. The 4x4 market is growing at a double-digit pace due to the ever-increasing popularity of SUVs and utility vehicles.

ARB currently exports to more than 100 countries, has a vast distribution footprint and owns its own outlets to service the aftermarket for additional, non-standard accessories. The global reach of this business model is not easily replicated. The company is on a strong financial footing, too. ARB is in a net cash position and earnings margins in the 20% range are the envy of companies in many other industry sectors.

Whilst many of ARB’s products are perceived to be innovative, the key appeal for us as investors is the sustainability of the competitive advantages developed over more than four decades.

Innovators completing Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)

Many of the most innovative companies are relatively immature, unlisted companies. Some of these go on to complete IPOs, crystallising gains for founders and seed investors and raising capital to fund future growth. An example in the Australian small cap sector is Reliance Worldwide Corporation, a recent IPO of a company operating in plumbing, an established and ‘old fashioned’ industry.

Among the company’s main products is a ‘push-to-connect’ pipe fitting. The product offers plumbers and DIY users an efficient, less labour-intensive solution to repairs following pipe leaks. While Reliance Worldwide has about 80% share in the push-to-connect market in the US, Canada and Australia, the real attraction is that push-to-connect currently only accounts for about 10% of the plumbing supply market in the US. The growth opportunity is significant and the company is experiencing sales growth of more than 10% per annum.

Reliance Worldwide has been distributing plumbing products into the US for more than 16 years and has market-leading positions in primary locations. Trademark protection of the product provides another important competitive advantage. Market share is protected from imitation products and, importantly, means Reliance Worldwide can maintain decent pricing power with stockists.

Will we continue to see innovative companies in Australia?

Given the National Innovation and Science Agenda of the Federal Government, we expect to see a steady stream of start-up companies threatening incumbent operators in many industries. Some of these companies will have aspirations to list and will go on to complete IPOs.

As pioneers such as REA Group (in real estate digital advertising) and TPG Telecom (in both internet and telephony services) have proved, disruptive companies with innovative products and services – combined with the right focus from a capable management team – can generate handsome returns for investors.

On the other hand, there have been countless examples of companies whose products and services have not lasted the test of time, resulting in a permanent loss of capital for investors. The challenge is to identify the key differences between the two and position your investment portfolio accordingly.

 

Dawn Kanelleas is Senior Portfolio Manager at Colonial First State Global Asset Management. This article is general information and does not consider the investment needs of any individual.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Bounce back delivers super second-half for IPOs

Unconstrained growth found in fresh places

Corporate activity helps build a small cap portfolio

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?

Interviews

Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.

Superannuation

Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.