Q: As a follow up to my previous question on OTEX, I would also ask that you comment on analysts downgrades related to OTEX moving towards organic growth and away from growth by acquisition. Isn’t this simply a function of its low stock price relative to earnings and cash flow? If a growth-by acquisition company like CSU bought OTEX then it would be immediately accretive to earnings because CSU trading at a high PE multiple. The same analysts would applaud CSU for its ability to grow by acquisition and call the stock a buy. I am not saying that CSU is a bad company, far from it, but I am wondering if analysts would better serve investors by focusing more on the organic growth of a company and not on what it might acquire in the future.
5i Research Answer:
A high-valued company like CSU acquiring a cheaper company would technically likely be immediately accretive and thus well-liked by analysts, but we believe the context behind why each company is valued high or low is what matters most. CSU has a premium valuation because its past execution, steady acquisitive growth strategy, and cash flows have not only been consistent and predictable, but executed at a high degree. Whereas, OTEX has had changes in strategy, gaps in earnings beats and misses, and overall less consistency in its cash flows.
We feel that analysts would give OTEX a more favourable rating if its focus on organic growth proves to provide longer-term stability and value, while being executed consistently over time.