You were also asked a question about PSI in comparison to NOA and TVK on Apr. 1, to which you replied you like NOA and TVK.
"PSI is a much more cyclical business than the other two (TVK is less cyclical, and NOA is currently in an up cycle), which we would not be comfortable owning for the long term. In terms of total return, we think TVK and NOA could do well from these levels over the next three to five years given their cheap valuation."
Can you please clarify - what are you seeing in PSI that you like? Is it something you are comfortable owning for long term? Why did your comments seem unfavorable to PSI while you were acquiring shares in your income portfolio?
Thanks,
We have been covering PSI in our company coverage list for some time now, and in our most recent report, we highlighted how it has a unique opportunity from a Canadian small-cap perspective. We also felt that it had good value at the time that we added it to the Income Model Portfolio.
It is a cyclical name, and while its share price has remained flat since 2006, its price volatility has been high. Although, we like the company's free cash flow generation, more than enough to support its dividend, and its forward EV/EBITDA is quite cheap at 6.6X.
From a growth perspective, we like TVK and NOA slightly more than PSI, but given PSI's decent dividend yield of 3.3% and its cheap valuation which we feel can help provide price support, we like its prospects within the income model portfolio. It is also important to note that these are simply model portfolios, rather than actual portfolios.