Korea Morning Focus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
December 20, 2019 Korea Morning Focus Sector News & Analysis Major Indices Close Chg Chg (%) Securities (Overweight) KOSPI 2,196.56 1.80 0.08 A framework for the valuation of financial platforms KOSPI 200 294.31 0.09 0.03 KOSDAQ 647.85 -1.10 -0.17 Turnover ('000 shares, Wbn) Volume Value KOSPI 630,988 5,262 KOSPI 200 68,970 3,253 KOSDAQ 794,480 3,734 Market Cap (Wbn) Value KOSPI 1,476,810 KOSDAQ 233,526 KOSPI Turnover (Wbn) Buy Sell Net Foreign 1,643 1,393 249 Institutional 1,101 1,209 -108 Retail 2,459 2,623 -164 KOSDAQ Turnover (Wbn) Buy Sell Net Foreign 421 443 -22 Institutional 196 193 3 Retail 3,097 3,049 48 Program Buy / Sell (Wbn) Buy Sell Net KOSPI 1,320 1,165 154 KOSDAQ 381 399 -18 Advances & Declines Advances Declines Unchanged KOSPI 423 373 111 KOSDAQ 516 727 98 KOSPI Top 5 Most Active Stocks by Value (Wbn) Price (W) Chg (W) Value Samsung Electronics 56,000 -300 786 Hynix 93,600 600 441 KODEX Leverage 14,080 30 197 KODEX Kosdaq150 7,920 60 185 Leverage Seowon 2,750 235 182 KOSDAQ Top 5 Most Active Stocks by Value (Wbn) Price (W) Chg (W) Value MedPacto 35,900 -4,100 227 Estech Pharma 17,000 700 125 S-MAC 1,185 269 110 HLB 98,900 -100 72 Hanryu A.I Center 1,355 45 71 Note: As of December 19, 2019 This document is a summary of a report prepared by Mirae Asset Daewoo Co., Ltd. (“Mirae Asset Daewoo”) and published on our website. Please review the compliance notices contained in the original report. Information and opinions contained herein have been compiled in good faith from sources deemed to be reliable. However, the information has not been independently verified. Mirae Asset Daewoo makes no guarantee, representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the fairness, accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this document. Mirae Asset Daewoo accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any loss arising from the use of this document or its contents or otherwise arising in connection therewith. Information and opinions contained herein are subject to change without notice. This document is for informational purposes only. It is not and should not be construed as an offer or solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell any securities or other financial instruments. This document may not be reproduced, further distributed or published in whole or in part for any purpose. Securities A framework for the valuation of financial platforms Competition among financial platforms getting underway Overweight (Maintain) Financial platform businesses to gather steam in 2020 Industry Report Moves to launch and bulk up financial platforms are gathering steam. Such December 20, 2019 moves include the recent licensing of a third internet-only bank, the resumption of Kakao’s major shareholder eligibility screening in relation to its acquisition of a brokerage firm, the establishment and equity issue of NAVER Financial, and Kakao Bank’s additional capital raising. Mirae Asset Daewoo Co., Ltd. We believe the full-fledged launch of these powerful platforms will bring a [Securities/Insurance] sea change in the financial industry by replacing or building on traditional financial channels. Gil-won Jeong +822-3774-1675 [email protected] A framework for valuing financial platforms is needed Minjeong Kyeong In 2H20, we expect the debate over the fair valuation of financial platforms to +822-3774-1437 heat up as Kakao Bank’s IPO comes into focus. [email protected] How to reflect the dual nature of the financial business and the platform business in valuations is an important topic. Financial platform valuation The characteristics of both platforms and finance need to be reflected The starting point of valuation for all assets is the discount rate on government bonds (risk-free rate of return), which rely on an extensive and stable source of income (i.e., taxing power). An asset with exclusivity and limited risks deserves a discount rate comparable to that of government bonds. We believe platforms represent such an asset, as they are used by all economically active people, tend to be exclusive, and have the ability to generate stable income from various sources (ads, commissions, etc.). Unlike general platforms, however, financial platforms are associated with risks inherent to the financial business (credit risks, price fluctuations, etc.) and thus warrant a higher discount. For this reason, we believe the “low discount rate = high valuation” approach can be justified in cases where the financial platform is closer to an intermediary model, limiting exposure to inherent financial business risks while maximizing the benefits of platforms. Figure 1. Platforms share certain characteristics with public assets Governments Platforms Monopoly Profits, Public efficiency interest Broad (ads, commissions) (taxes) participation Source: Mirae Asset Daewoo Research Analysts who prepared this report are registered as research analysts in Korea but not in any other jurisdiction, including the U.S. PLEASE SEE ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS AND IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & DISCLAIMERS IN APPENDIX 1 AT THE END OF REPORT. December 20, 2019 Securities Three case studies WeBank, owned by Tencent, is China’s largest digital bank. It acts as an intermediary between Tencent users and banks. WeBank has an optimal income structure, with direct lending accounting for 20% and the rest coming from loan brokerage, commissions, and interest (with similar proportions). WeBank has been valued at a P/B of 12x (based on the digital bank’s minority stake sale in late 2018). MarketAxess Holdings is a fixed-income trading platform that is based on a risk- free intermediary model. The company trades at a P/B of more than 20x, which is justified by its over 30% ROE and implies a discount rate of just 1.5%. PayPal earns 90% of its income from commissions. With an ROE of 16%, the company trades at a P/B of 7.5x, implying a discount rate of 2%. PayPal is an ideal financial platform characterized by an extensive customer base, low risk reliance, and high ROE. Valuation framework A central issue in 2020 will be the need to better incorporate the value of financial platforms in the valuations of entities investing in them (big platforms and financial companies with investment stakes). It is important to establish a basic framework when evaluating a new asset. For financial platforms, we present the following three criteria: 1) Exclusive and extensive user base 2) Intermediary model with limited exposure to inherent financial business risks 3) High ROE Figure 2. Framework for valuing financial platforms Big tech Financial institutions Sales Capital channels Partnerships (JVs) Risk MyData management Innovation Expertise Valuation Secure exclusivity and extensive user base Adopt an intermediary model to reduce financial risks Obtain high ROE Source: Mirae Asset Daewoo Research Mirae Asset Daewoo Research Mirae Asset Daewoo Research Key Universe Valuations December 20, 2019 ※All data as of close December 18, 2019, unless otherwise noted. 19F Earnings growth Mkt Cap Price P/E (x) P/B (x) ROE (%) Ticker Company Div Yield OP EPS (Wbn) (W) (%) 19F 20F 19F 20F 19F 20F 19F 20F 19F 20F 005930 Samsung Electronics 334,308 56,000 2.5 -54.3 40.3 -47.7 35.9 17.8 13.1 1.5 1.4 8.6 10.8 000660 SK Hynix 68,141 93,600 1.6 -85.8 150.5 -85.5 140.0 30.2 12.6 1.3 1.2 4.7 10.7 035420 NAVER 29,502 179,000 0.2 -17.8 77.0 -47.3 132.4 86.3 37.2 4.3 3.9 6.3 13.4 005380 Hyundai Motor 26,388 123,500 3.2 49.6 41.9 118.5 48.0 10.6 7.1 0.5 0.4 4.7 6.6 012330 Hyundai Mobis 24,875 261,000 1.9 17.9 16.4 24.3 17.1 10.8 9.2 0.8 0.7 7.3 7.9 068270 Celltrion 23,165 180,500 - - - - 0.0 0.0 051910 LG Chem 21,813 309,000 1.3 -55.7 70.9 -72.5 164.0 59.7 22.6 1.4 1.3 2.4 6.1 055550 Shinhan Financial Group 21,552 45,450 12.3 3.9 10.0 -0.2 6.2 6.2 0.5 0.5 9.1 8.4 005490 POSCO 21,492 246,500 4.5 -23.9 -9.2 37.8 -0.3 9.2 9.3 0.5 0.4 5.3 5.1 105560 KB Financial Group 20,655 49,400 9.3 2.3 12.6 0.9 6.0 5.9 0.5 0.5 9.2 8.5 028260 Samsung C&T 20,392 107,500 1.9 -27.7 39.8 -42.8 17.9 21.0 17.8 0.7 0.6 4.0 3.9 051900 LG H&H 19,773 1,266,000 0.9 12.8 9.7 16.5 10.7 24.9 22.4 5.4 4.6 20.3 19.1 017670 SK Telecom 19,621 243,000 4.1 7.3 -3.5 -60.6 68.2 15.9 9.5 0.8 0.7 5.4 8.8 015760 KEPCO 18,232 28,400 - - - - - 148.7 0.3 0.3 - 0.2 000270 Kia Motors 18,120 44,700 2.0 70.4 29.1 79.8 24.5 8.7 7.0 0.6 0.6 7.4 8.5 034730 SK Holdings 18,083 257,000 1.9 -2.8 21.5 -36.6 11.0 12.8 11.5 0.9 0.9 8.2 8.3 006400 Samsung SDI 15,713 228,500 0.4 -33.0 108.9 -38.3 99.8 37.2 18.6 1.2 1.2 3.5 6.7 032830 Samsung Life 15,280 76,400 - - - - 0.0 0.0 018260 Samsung SDS 15,050 194,500 1.3 10.4 12.3 10.3 11.8 21.7 19.4 2.3 2.1 11.1 11.3 096770 SK Innovation 14,055 152,000 4.2 -42.8 18.2 -68.7 92.4 27.6 14.3 0.7 0.7 2.8 5.4 033780 KT&G 13,359 97,300 4.3 12.8 5.6 17.5 5.1 12.6 12.0 1.5 1.4 12.7 12.6 035720 Kakao 12,932 150,000 0.1 184.6 138.3 226.0 114.7 75.1 35.0 2.4 2.3 3.2 6.7 003550 LG Corp.