infratil update 2012-09
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
1/121
InratIl
UPDatE
Ove he s decde he Ii goup
ivesed $3,060 miio d is cosoided
u EBItDa* (eigs beoe iees,
, depeciio d vue djusmes)
ose om $35 miio o $520 miio. Ove
he sme peiod Iis compoud e-
eu o shehodes ws 13.7% pe
um (sice isig eus hve bee
16.7% pe um).
Over 23,000 people own Inratil shares,
presumably in expectation o earnings and
value growth taking into account the risks
associated with both Inratil and the nancial
market in general. Its likely that shareholders
goals are medium-long term as by ar the
majority hold their shares or over ve years.
This Update addresses one key element o how
Inratil goes about delivering to those earnings
and value expectations; by investing.
Investment is both a core part o how Inratil
creates value and a distinctive eature o its
activities (or rom the other perspective, Inratil
would look very dierent today had it ceased
investing a ew years ago). In the ve years to
31 March 2012 consolidated investment was
$1,592 million, over the last 10 years it was
$3,060 million. The spend was in several
sectors with approximately one third involving
Inratil buying new holdings such as the 50%
shareholding in Z Energy and two thirds applied
by companies Inratil has invested in growing
their own businesses.
The upshot o this investment is earnings
growth and good returns or Inrati l s
shareholders.
Iis busiesses coiue o gow d
Ii coiues o ives.
Investment, earnings growth,shareholder returns
GrOWtH InraStrUCtUrE rEQUIrES
CaPItal anD rEWarDS CaPItal
PaGE 2
BUYInG GOOD BUSInESSES at
aIr ValUE
PaGE 4
InratIlS tarGEt rEtUrn
tO SHarEHOlDErS
PaGE 8
SEPtEMBEr2012
*EBITDAF is a useul non-GAAP nancial measure as it shows the contribution to earnings prior to non-cash items such as depreciation
and amortisation, air value adjustments and the cost o nancing and taxation. A reconciliation o Inratils EBITDAF to Net Surplus can
be ound on page 45 o the Inratils 2012 Annual Report.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
2/122
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
Growth infrastructure requires capitalGrowth infrastructure requires capitaland rewards capitaland rewards capital
Ii hs chieved compoud e
eu ove eighee d h yes o
16.7% pe um.
Actual returns o individual shareholders will
depend on when shares were purchased,
whether dividends were taken as cash or
shares, and whether the warrants and rights
Inratil has issued were taken up or sold. For
instance, someone who invested on 1 April
2007 immediately prior to the Global Financial
Crisis would have had a subsequent return o
almost exactly 0% per annum. Someone who
purchased Inratil shares 2 years later would
have earned 16.4% per annum.Historic returns are mainly interesting or
what they say about uture prospects. What
were the ingredients o Inratils past success
and will they bake the same cake over the next
ew years?
...The right method in investment is to put
airly large sums into enterprises which one
knows something about and in management o
which one thoroughly believes; John Maynard
Keynes explanation o his investment approach,
and it (with some additional eatures) also
describes Inratils model. Keynes is worth
quoting as he was an enormously successul
and innovative investment manager o the Kings
College Cambridge endowment und. A detailed
report on Keynes as an investment manager
was released earlier this year and is summarised
later in this Update.
Inratils main businesses; Wellington Airport,
TrustPower, Inratil Energy Australia, Z Energy,
NZ Bus; are distinct and largely unconnected,
but a common eature is capital intensive
growth; that is growth which requires money;
to nance terminal expansion, power stations,
working capital and customer management
systems, service stations, port acilities, feet,
and so on.
The relationship between demand growth,
investment and earnings growth is illustrated
by Wellington Airport. Inratils 66% stake cost
$96 million in 1998 at a time when the Airport
catered to 3.5 million passengers and annualEBITDAF was $15 million.
Over the subsequent 14 years the business
has been expanded to accommodate 5.2 million
passengers with over $300 million absorbed to
nance runway extension, new terminals, land
transport acilities, etc. Last year EBITDAF was
$76 million.
An attraction o this type o growth and
investment is that it provides compound returns
(as opposed to one-o gains) and it has
optionality. More money will be put to work i
the investments returns appear attractive, or
allocated elsewhere i not. Additional capital
will be available to Wellington Airport (and
Inratils other businesses) so long as the
prospective returns are suitable. I the Airport
cant identiy such opportunities then the unds
can be allocated elsewhere. Eectively each
o Inratils businesses is obliged to compete
or capital which should mean only the better
plans are progressed.
Discipline is imposed on the management o
Inratils subsidiaries and associates, and a range
o investment options will be available to enable
comparison o risk and return characteristics
While the majority o Inratils allocation o
growth capital has been (and is likely to continue
to be) to internal projects, some is to the
acquisition o new shareholdings. The most
material recent example was the 2010 purchase
o 50% o Z Energy.
Inratil s management are continually
reviewing external opportunities, but despite
several potential transactions since the Z Energy
acquisition none has progressed. Good deals arehard to do but are worth looking and waiting or.
Someone who invested $1,000 when Infratil listed in March 1994 and who thenpurchased more shares with all dividends and the proceeds of all rights issued(ie. who following the initial investment neither put more money in nor tookmoney out) would now have a shareholding with a market value of $17,460.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
3/123
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
$ Million
Internal Capital SpendingBusiness Acquisition
InratIl InVEStMEnt (BUSInESS aCQUISItIOn & IntErnal CaPItal SPEnDInG)
100
200
300
400
500
600
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and values changes Net Operating Cashflow
0
$ Million
InratIlS EBItDa & nEt OPEratInG CaSH lOW (atEr IntErESt anD tax)
Note: A reconciliation o Inratils EBITDAF to Net Surplus can be ound on page 45 o the Inratils 2012 Annual Report.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
4/124
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
$ Million
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
TrustPower
Other Wellington Airport
Infratil Energy Australia
NZ Bus
Z Energy
Buying good businesses at fair value, thenBuying good businesses at fair value, thensupporting disciplined internal growthsupporting disciplined internal growth
Over the last decade Infratil has allocated $3,060 million either to businessacquisitions or internal capital spending. The increase in earnings andshareholder value over that period indicates that average returns on thiscapital has been good, however the average includes positives and negatives.Four brief case studies are outlined below.
a idusy udegoig pooud chge
ceed he oppouiy o puchse he Z
Eegy shehodig ecepio pice
d o he dive eigs gowh by
chgig mgemes ocus
In March 2010 Inratil acquired a 50%
shareholding in Z Energy at a cost o $210
million. Since then the holding has provided
cash returns (interest and dividends) to Inratil
o $61 million and now has an average broker
analyst valuation o $405 million.
In addit ion, Z Energy has init iated a
programme o internal investment to create
urther growth in throughput and returns.
The recipe or a low purchase price and a
great deal o subsequent value-add? Among the
dozens o ingredients the salient one was a
decade o uncertainty and change surrounding
the New Zealand liquid uel industry. That, along
with poor nancial returns, would have inuenced
Shells decision to exit, discouraged other
buyers, and created opportunities or a local as
opposed to multinational management ocus.
The uel processing and distribution industry
is changing rom the historic model o an oil
major, such as Shell, nding and extracting oil
(upstream activities) and also processing,
distributing and marketing the oil and uels
(downstream). For some years it has been
dicult, or just not possible, to be consistently
successul at all the stages. Shell and other
integrated oil companies are now selling out o
reining and distribution to ree up capital or
upstream and exploration activities.
In New Zealand the industry had poor returns
and shareholders have maximised cash
extraction through under-investment or in the
case o Shell, sale o its downstream operations.
The success o Inratils Z Energy investment
reects a low entry price and a new management
team taking advantage o the opportunities
created by a restructuring industry.
InratIl InVEStMEnt (BY COMPanY)Ii aipos Euope; igh igedies
wog oucome
In the 1990s Australia and New Zealand were
amongst the rst countries to sell state-owned
airports and to allow their commercial
operation. The resulting value uplit encouraged
Australasian investors to look at markets where
similar developments were occurring, which
led to Europe.
Inratil invested in Prestwick, Kent and
Lbeck airports and purchased an option over
an airport near Berlin. These airports were
acquired at well below replacement cost as
rapid growth in European air travel made it likely
that their capacity would soon become needed
and valuable.
Kent or instance cost less than 20 million
and the next London runway will cost over
2 billion (Mayor Boris Johnsons preerred site
in the Thames Estuary is likely to cost over
20 billion).
Notwithstanding this enormous potential,
Inratil has now called it quits. European air
trac growth has slowed so that the need oradditional airield capacity is postponed, and
Inratils assessment o the relative benets o
waiting (and continuing to meet operating cost)
versus reocussing elsewhere have avoured exit.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
5/125
tusPowes ece ivesme ocus hs
shied om buidig geeio i
new Zed o wid ms i ausi d
iigio i Cebuy. this is esu o
cpi discipie d biiy o use
epeise ouside o coe ucios
TrustPower owns 21 power schemes around
New Zealand and retails energy to approx-
imately 210,000 customers. Since 2000
TrustPower has increased its New Zealand
generation capacity by approximately 40%,
however the recent investment ocus has been
on irrigation in Canterbury and wind arms in
Australia, especially the latter.
TrustPower is expanding its Snowtown wind
arm at a cost o $550 million and has over
$1 billion o other projects in Australia.
This shit in investment ocus relects
discipline and a willingness to look outside o
the usual while still taking advantage o in-
house expertise. At present New Zealand does
not need more electricity generation capacity,
the economy has not grown or ve years and
nor has electricity consumption. Companies
which have recently invested in New Zealand
generation are likely to have inadequate returnsor several years on that capital. TrustPower
however is able to undertake attractive large-
scale investment by applying its capital and
expertise to construct wind arms in Australia
which benet rom that countys policy target o
20% renewable generation by 2020.
The table below compares the disclosed
economics o TrustPowers Snowtown project
and a recent ly in i t iated wind arm in
New Zealand. It gives some indication o why
TrustPower is building in South Australia and
why it is able to create value with its investment.
Recognising that dierent sites will have
diferent output prices and operating costs so
cost per unit o expected generation will explain
only part o a projects economics.
Compy to Cpi CosPojecedau Oupu Cos/Oupu Ui
TrustPower $550 million 985GWh $560,000
Meridian $169 million 235GWh $720,000
$ Million
EBITDAF
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Capital Spend
trUStPOWEr CaPEx anD EBItDa Ii Eegy ausi goup,ow cos ey
New Zealands electricity industry was
deregulated in the 1990s and over the next
decade it became vigorously competitive and
mergers and acquisitions were common.
A decade or so later the Victorian electricity
market was the irst in Australia to ollow
New Zealand and it created an opportunity or
New Zealand experience to be applied building a
business across the Tasman.
The Inratil Energy Australia group (retailing
and peaker-generation in the south and eastern
states, and generation and energy sales to
wholesale customers in the west) was started
rom nothing by applying New Zealand
electricity market expertise to the deregulated
and restructuring Australian electricity and gas
markets. It was a window o opportunity which
is now less open as re-regulation makes start-
ups more diicult and raises the costs oacquiring customers. The industry is also
changing as it consolidates into a small number
o large and medium sized companies.
Segy
Inratils investment strategy is to look or low-
cost entry into businesses which are well
understood by management and to then build
capacity and value as demand expands.
The approach has mainly delivered, but not
always. European airports were not successul
or Inratil. They itted the strategy, but the
European economic crisis stiled air traic
growth raising the holding cost and extending
the period beore underutilised airelds would
be needed.
At t imes even extremely successul
businesses will ace a lack o demand in their
core markets and a pause in growth unless
investment in adjacent elds can be developed,
which or TrustPower has meant wind arms
in Australia.
However, sometimes good investments willnot be ound and Inratil is prepared to deer
capital spending or cancel projects i that is the
best option.
Note: A reconciliation o TrustPowers EBITDAF to Prot beore Income Tax can be ound on page 50 o TrustPowers 2012
Annual Report.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
6/126
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
A recent study of a highly successful funds manager operating from 1924 to 1946illustrates the consistency of what works. Most of that managers rules would fitInfratil today
Joh Myd Keyes me is bsed o his
oes i ecoomics d hisoy, bu s he
bus o Kigs Coege Cmbidge he ws
so ecepioy successu ud
mge o he Coeges edowme ud.
Over the 22 years between 1924 and 1946 the
discretionary und managed by Keynes returned
a compound 13.7% per annum. The period
included the 29 Crash, the Great Depression
and World War II.
Earlier this year Proessors David Chambers
o Cambridge and Elroy Dimson o the London
Business School produced an extensive review
o Keynes und management perormance in
which they note His portolios were idiosyncratic
and his approach unconventional. He was aleader among institutional investors Keynes
experiences in managing the endowment
remain o great relevance to investors today.
Although Keynes succinctly summarised his
approach as ...the right method in investment is
to put airly large sums into enterprises which
one knows something about and in management
o which one thoroughly bel ieves the
academics study identitied several actors
which contributed to the outperormance o
Keynes as a und manager.
Kowedge
Keynes knew a lot o people and was well
abreast o the news. His stock-picking was the
product o undamental security analysis... and
on a judicious reading o the nancial press,
on the one hand, and the use o his personal
network o City and industry contacts, on
the other.
Mge/ud muu iees
His interests and those o the College were
closely aligned. 75% o his personal share-
holdings were in the same companies as the
College unds.
Good imig (supisig give he peiod)
Keynes was highly committed to investing in
equities, and on average 74% o the managed
unds were in shares. His timing in this regard
was good. From 1900 to 1923 the UK equity risk
premium over UK government bonds was
1.3%. Over the period o Keynes management,
1924 to 1946, the premium rose to 4.5% (rom
1946, when Keynes died, to 2000 it rose urther
to 6.8%).
Although Keynes was investing at a time
when shares did re lat ively better than
government bonds, competition or good shares
was muted as UK insurance companies had only
3% o their unds in equities in 1920 and had not
reached 10% by 1937.
Sme compies d ocus
Funds were mainly invested in smaller and
mid-sized irms and the portolio was not
diversied, or instance Keynes avoided shares
in banks and nancial companies.
Vue ivesme
Initially Keynes was a top down investor who
used a credit cycle theory o investment to
structure his investments in accordance with
his view o the economy and nancial markets
as a whole. But by the early 1930s, having not
oreseen the 29 Crash, he had concluded that
this approach was unsatisactory and moved
to concentrating on a ew core holdings,
considered cheap relative to their intrinsic
value and held or several years.
He also shited rom buying shares which had
recently risen in value, to largely buying shares
out o avour with the market, ie he had adopted
a contrarian approach.
The Crash, The Depression, WWIIThe Crash, The Depression, WWII1924 to 19461924 to 1946
thee is ie i Keyes ppoch
wih which Iis mgeme
woud disgee, hough uy
hee e sigic difeeces
bewee how Kigs Coege d
Ii impeme hei segies.
the ome ws cive de o
ised shes whie Iis ppoch
is buy d hod d he mjoiy o
is hodigs e uised.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
7/127
index
1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946
Kings Col Cumulative UK Shares Cumulative UK Bonds Cumulative
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000Kings Col
Annual Return 13.7
UK SharesAnnual Return 6.8
Index
Infratil Cumulative NZX Cumulative NZ Bonds Cumulative
16.7Infratil
Annual Return
6.4NZ Shares
Annual Return
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
19961994 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
rEtUrnS nZ
Index
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Buett Cumulative S&P 500 Cumulative US Bonds Cumulative
15.4Buett
Annual Return
US Shares
Annual Return 8.1
The graphs show the relative perormance o
the unds managed by Keynes over 22 years
and by Inratil or the eighteen and a hal years
since listing. To provide a third reerence
Warren Bufetts last 22 years o perormance
is also shown.
In each case the und perormance is
compared against the relevant share and
government bond market returns. The
comparisons are not entirely level playing
ield as the individual circumstances o tax
paying investors would mean that net returns
are likely to difer rom those shown. Both the
Inratil and Keynes returns are ater tax in the
hands o Inratils shareholders and Kings
College. All the bond returns do not deduct tax
and Bufetts returns are gross o shareholder
tax on capital gains.
What stands out is that investment in the
equity o good companies can provide attractive
returns, even over periods amous or theireconomic and nancial upheaval. 1924 to 1946
included several worst o market crashes,
depressions and wars, but well inormed
investment in good companies by Keynes
was still able to post a compound return o
13.7% per annum. Perhaps more surprisingly the
average UK market return or the period was
6.8% per annum.
It is galling to note that the UK sharemarkets
compound rate o return between 1924 and
1946 was better than the New Zealand markets
since March 1994.
Also, since March 1994 the NZ sharemarket
index have provided a lower return than the
government bond index. Leaving aside tax,
$100 invested in shares in March 1994 would
have compounded to now be worth $313, while
$100 invested in government bonds would have
compounded to $378 over the same period.
rEtUrnS US
rEtUrnS UK
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
8/128
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
Infratils target return to shareholders.Infratils target return to shareholders.What should they be?
a umbe o yes go Ii beg
pubishig spiio ge o is
shehode eus o 20% pe um
e- ove he og-em.
In reality, no company can be precise about
equity returns, especially a company with a
relatively diverse portolio o businesses which
will usually be at dierent stages o their
business cycles. Even when operating and
nancial targets are met, no one can second-
guess how the share market will respond.
The aspirational target is not however
meaningless and it is used within Inratil to
judge inve stment pro jects and a lso to
benchmark whether businesses and assets
should be retained or sold. 20% is a high return
target and it precludes Inratil investing in or
retaining very low risk/return businesses.
However, it is also not a must meet goal
and targets change as market circumstances
shit. The graphs on the acing page show the
long-term trend or a number o interest rates
in our markets and illustrate the current
uniquely low cost o money. There is no direct
relationship between Inratils own return
objectives and international interest rates, but
major changes in the nancial markets are likely
to have wider connotations.
Even i return targets havent changed,
means to their delivery can. Since the 2007
Global Financial Crisis Inratil has placed greater
priority on the cash generation o its businesses
which has owed through to a higher dividend
to shareholders. Five years o nancial market
and economic uncertainty, even with interest
rates seemingly lower or longer, continue to
encourage investors to place a premium on cash
earnings and dividends.
The table copied above shows the average
returns investors have gained rom bonds and
shares in a number o markets, both in real and
nominal terms. The returns are also calculated
or a US$ investor to remove the impact ocurrency changes. All but the New Zealand
gures came rom a Deutsche Bank report.
In all these markets bonds have outperormed
shares over the last ve years. An anomalous
outcome which hints at the diiculty in
orecasting uture returns and help explain
why investors will be conservative now.
DEBt anD EQUItY rEtUrn COMParISOnS (all IGUrES arE COMPOUnD annUal rEtUrnS)
Peiod US
Equiy
US
Bods
Ii nZ
Equiy
nZ
Bods
aus
Equiy
aus
Bods
Jp
Equiy
Jp
Bods
UK
Equiy
UK
Bods
Nominal
5 years 0.8 7.4 1.6 (0.6) 8.2 (3.8) 10.3 (11.3) 2.4 1.1 6.0
10 years 6.6 5.7 13.7 5.0 7.8 7.9 7.1 0.2 1.4 8.0 5.3
25 years 9.5 8.0 16.7* 6.4 7.1* 9.2 10.3 (2.3) 4.1 8.8 7.7
Real
5 years (0.8) 5.7 (1.1) (3.3) 5.5 (6.0) 7.7 (11.1) 2.7 (1.8) 3.0
10 years 4.2 3.3 11.3 2.6 5.2 5.2 4.3 0.2 1.5 5.4 2.8
25 years 6.6 5.0 14.3* 4.0 4.7* 6.0 7.1 (2.7) 3.6 5.7 4.6
In US$
5 years 0.8 7.4 3.1 0.9 9.7 (0.2) 14.4 (4.8) 10.0 (3.6) 1.1
10 years 6.6 5.7 19.4 10.7 13.5 14.9 14.0 4.4 5.7 7.7 5.0
25 years 9.5 8.0 18.6* 8.3 9.0* 10.9 12.0 (0.6) 5.9 8.0 6.9
* 18.5 years or NZ, rom the time Inratil was listed in March 1994.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
9/129
1900 1908 1916 1924 1932 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 1980 1988 1996 2004 2012
% pa
0
5
10
15
20
25
nEW ZEalanD MOrtGaGE ratES SInCE 1900
% pa
0
4
8
12
16
20
1694 1714 1734 1754 1774 1794 1814 1834 1854 1874 1894 1914 1934 1954 1974 1994
UK BaSE ratE SInCE 1694
% pa
0
5
10
15
20
25
1517 1547 1577 1607 1637 1667 1697 1727 1757 1787 1817 1847 1877 1907 1937 1967 1997
nEtHErlanDS 10 YEar GOVErnMEnt BOnD YIElD SInCE 1517
% pa
0
4
8
12
16
20
1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
US 10 YEar trEaSUrY YIElD SInCE 1790
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
10/1210
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
the Ii goup hs ppoimey
$800 miio o cpi pojecs ow udewy
d o sped his ci ye is ikey o
be i he ode o $500 miio. the sped o
he ivesme is se ou i he be.
This does not include NZ Reinings $365
million continuous catalytic converter project
which Z Energy supported.
The largest investment project now under
construction by the Inratil group is TrustPowers
$550 million.
This is not expected to be ully commissioned
until mid-2014 and is projected to provide annual
earnings beore interest, tax and depreciation o
$99 million and ree cash fows ater operating
costs, interest and tax o $53 million.
Infratils investment projectsnow underway
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
Compy Cpi Budge rge
TrustPower $40-50 million
TrustPower: Snowtown $550 million
Inratil Australia $40-45 million
Wellington Airport $20-30 million
NZ Bus $50-55 million
Z Energy $85-90 million
Other $5-10 million
Total $790-830 million
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
11/1211
udig d peships
$300 mil l ion a year is the average
investment outlay o the the Inratil group over
the last decade. The money has come rom
operating cash lows, borrowings, equity
issues and asset sales. What it doesnt include
is the use o co-investors in new ventures. The
most salient example o this was the $210
million contributed by the NZ Superannuation
Fund to acquire 50% o Z Energy.
Inratil has a long track record o investment
partnerships; Wellington City in Wellington
Airport, All iant Energy in TrustPower,
management in Inratil Energy Australia, and
Utilities Trust in Glasgow Prestwick Airport.
The partnerships have allowed Inratil to
participate in larger acquisitions than it could
otherwise accommodate, to share risk, and to
gain expertise and support. They are likely to
to be a eature o Inratils uture acquisitions,
especially i the scale o transactions increases
or they are made in sectors or locations where
Inratil would benet rom local knowledge.
-
7/31/2019 Infratil Update 2012-09
12/12
InratIl
SEPTEMBER UPDATE
2012
Deis o he d souced om ii, used i
cosucig he gphs d bes i his Upde
e vibe om Ii ([email protected]).
uhe d d iomio ws souced om
he oowig:
*US returns data rom the Federal Reserve o St Louis
*Long term interest rates and return data ex-NZ rom
Deutsche Banks LT Asset Return Study by Jim Reid,
Nick Burns and Stephen Stakhiv, September 2012
*NZ share, bond and mortgage rates and returns rom
Bloomberg, ANZ and the Department o Statistics and
the National Library archive
*Warren Buett investment record rom Buetts
Alpha by Andrea Frazzini, David Kabiller, Lasse
Pedersen August 2012
*John Maynard Keynes investment record rom
Keynes the Stock Market Investor by David Chambers