On the Mueller Mispricing: "A" Shares vs. "B" Shares
Some smart investors see value in Mueller Water Products (MWA). They're probably right; but, Mueller isn't the kind of situation that jumps out at me as a clear bargain I can understand. However, there is something peculiar about this situation that makes it worth writing about.
A or B?
There are two shares of Mueller Water Products common stock – Series A common stock and Series B common stock. There are roughly three times as many B shares as A shares. The A shares and B shares have identical economic rights. So, ownership of all of the B shares would provide a roughly 75% economic interest while ownership of all of the A shares would provide a roughly 25% economic interest.
Here's where things get interesting. "Shares of Series A common stock and Series B common stock generally have identical rights in all material respects except Series B shares have eight votes and each Series A share has one vote per share."
So, what's the premium on the B shares? There is none. The last trade on Mueller A shares (MWA) was at $13.98; the last trade on Mueller B shares (MWA.B) was at $13.64. Buyers of the A shares are currently paying $0.34 a share more to reduce their voting power by 87.5%.
You can't convert A shares into B shares or B shares into A shares. If you could, there would be a profit in simply buying, converting, and selling. Unfortunately, you can't do that. So, there's no "manual" arbitrage opportunity here. Obviously, you can bet that the discount on the B shares will be eliminated – but, the market has to close the gap for you.
Regardless, there is a nonsensical discrepancy in price between the A shares and the B shares.
Anyone looking to make a new investment in Mueller should buy the B shares. There's no reason to even think about touching the A shares until they are trading at a discount to the B shares.
Owners of Mueller A shares who currently hold those shares in a manner that would cost them less than $0.34 a share to sell should immediately begin selling their A shares and putting the proceeds into the B shares. Doing so would slightly increase their economic interest in Mueller's business (because they would end up with more shares), greatly increase their voting power – and, over the long-term, possibly provide additional appreciation in the share price, if and when the B shares consistently trade at a premium to the A shares.
Do the B shares have to trade at a premium to the A shares? Technically – no. But, in the future, it's possible that circumstances may make the B shares far more attractive to certain investors. The A shares are extremely unattractive to any large shareholder who isn't committed to complete passivity as nearly 96% of the votes are tied to the B shares – the A shares are essentially non-voting shares.
Furthermore, there are fewer A shares, so it would be more difficult for a large investor to acquire a meaningful economic interest via the A shares without moving the price of those shares.
While some investors might have very good reasons for buying the B shares when they trade at a higher price than the A shares – no one has a good reason for buying the A shares when they trade at a higher price than the B shares.
Right now, the choice seems simple – dump the A shares; buy the B shares.
Comments
This is not uncommon. CMG has a class B share with equal economic rights but ten times the voting rights of class A. MXE (a closed-end fund) has a preferred share with equal economic rights but with other attributes (it's a bit complicated) that make it superior. In both cases the alternate (and lesser known) share class trades at a substantial discount.
Posted by: nga
|
April 6, 2007 08:36 AM
You're right that this price relationship isn't uncommon when such shares exist. However, I don't want to leave people with the impression that two (large) series of identical common stocks in all but voting rights are common. That part is a little unusual, because you don't normally have two widely available share classes to choose from. Where there are two classes of stock, it's often much easier to acquire one than the other.
Your Chipotle example is perfect. The way McDonald's completed the spin-off would be expected to depress the share price of the "B" shares to such an extent that they might trade below the "A" shares for a time. However, they've continued to do so – despite the wide availability of both classes of stock. Again, there's no reason to buy Chipotle "A" shares – buy the "B" shares (if you have to buy anything), because the "B" shares trade at a substantial discount to the "A" shares and have ten times the number of votes. Here, like with Mueller, both the "A" shares and the "B" shares are widely traded and easily available.
I'm not sure how many people own both Chipotle "A" shares and Chipotle "B". But, the same basic rule would apply to them as to Mueller shareholders – to the extent you can sell the "A" shares without costing you more than the difference in price between the two types of stock, you should. I can't make a blanket statement, because it depends on taxes and other factors. In many cases, I imagine it would be a good idea to migrate from Chipotle "A" shares to Chipotle "B" shares.
Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: ghg777
|
April 6, 2007 11:43 AM
By the way, Fairholme holds 9,524,000 Mueller "B" shares. That's about 11% of the share class. It gives Fairholme more than 10% of the total voting rights for Mueller Water Products.
This is an example of a large investor that would probably greatly prefer the "B" shares to the "A" shares even if they were trading at exactly the same price – as the "B" shares have the votes and are more numerous, making the acquisition of 9.5 million shares considerably easier to do without removing too much of the supply during the buying process.
Posted by: ghg777
|
April 6, 2007 11:50 AM
John Bethel of Controlled Greed frequently posts on Mueller Water Products:
http://www.controlledgreed.com/2007/04/more_on_mueller.html
Posted by: ghg777
|
April 6, 2007 11:56 AM
Before writing this post, I found a comment on Value Investing News that lead me to consider discussing the difference between Mueller's "A" shares and "B" shares rather than discussing the company itself.
The comment brings up a good point about market efficiency. Here are the two links you want to follow for related discussions on Value Investing News:
http://www.valueinvestingnews.com/controlled-greed-portfolio-picks-average-4-6-in-q1-of-2007
http://www.valueinvestingnews.com/on-the-mueller-mispricing-a-shares-vs-b-shares
If you haven't used Value Investing News before, start here:
http://www.valueinvestingnews.com/
Posted by: ghg777
|
April 6, 2007 12:19 PM