Posts filed under ‘Stocks’
Microsoft Enters Garbage Recycling Business
Microsoft Inc. (MSFT) is going green in more ways than one. Not only is Microsoft shelling out a lot of green ($8.5 billion) to acquire internet communication company Skype, but Microsoft is also going green by recycling Skype – an asset previously tossed away as garbage by eBay Inc. (EBAY). While I’m certain Microsoft executives did their due diligence and a large cadre of savvy bankers provided their stamp of approval on the deal, recycling a previously disposed item successfully poses some unique challenges.
The Problems
What could possibly go wrong in a sexy, strategic deal that plans to leverage Skype’s power of internet communication across Microsoft’s various businesses including mobile, business software, gaming, and advertising platforms?
- Sticker Shock: The Microsoft-Skype deal is still in its early phases, but the multi-billion price tag has already elicited heartburn from some investors (heart attacks among others). In Microsoft’s defense, what’s a mere $8.5 billion among friends, especially if your wallet is stuffed with over $60 billion in cash like Microsoft? With the 3-month Treasury bill currently yielding 0.02%, the massive wads of cash that Microsoft (and other tech giants) is sitting on appear to be burning a hole in buyers’ pockets. In a kooky internet world where IPO valuations of $70 billion for Facebook, $25 billion for Groupon, and $3 billion for LinkedIn are freely tossed around, an $8.5 billion Skype offer may seem like par for the course (or even a bargain). Sadly, however, I am having difficulty reconciling how Microsoft will take 663 million money-losing customers at Skype and balance the laws of economics by adding further volumes of money-losing customers. Apple Inc. (AAPL) spends about $2 billion per year in research & development, and is expected to produce more than $100 billion in revenues in fiscal 2011, while the $8.5 billion that Microsoft spent on Skype produced less than $1 billion in revenues last year. I presume Microsoft has some aggressive assumptions built into their Skype forecasts to rationalize the price paid for Skype.
- Failure Déjà Vu: Does the desire to integrate wiz-bang technology into existing product platforms sound familiar? It should – eBay Inc. (EBAY) already attempted and failed at integrating Skype before it threw in the white towel at the end of 2009 and sold a majority $1.9 billion stake of Skype shares back to a group of investors, including the Skype founders. Back in 2005, when eBay paid a then bargain of $3.1 billion for Skype (including earnouts), former CEO Meg Whitman evangelized the “Power of 3” (Skype + eBay’s Marketplace + PayPal) – I suppose new CEO John Donahoe must now promote the “Power of 2.” In Skype merger sequel of 2011, Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer is espousing the benefits of Skype across Microsoft properties such as Outlook, Windows Live Messenger, Xbox, Kinect, and its newly created Nokia Corp. (NOK) relationship. Gaudy priced mergers in the internet/social media space have a way of eventually ending up in the deal graveyard. Consider AOL Inc.’s (AOL) 2008 deal with social network Bebo for $850 million – two years later AOL sold it for $10 million. News Corp’s (NWS) high profile purchase of MySpace for $580 million is reportedly looking for a new home at a fraction of the original price ($50 million). Hewlett-Packard Co.’s (HPQ) ostentatious $2.4 billion value (~125 x’s forward earnings) paid for 3Par Inc. during a bidding war with Dell Inc. (DELL) in 2010 is another recent example of a risky high-priced deal.
- Telco Carrier Skepticism: Although Microsoft has ambitions of taking over the world with Skype, the telecom service carrier companies that facilitate Skype traffic may feel differently. As the telcos spend billions to expand the global internet superhighway, if Skype is clogging traffic on their networks then the carriers will likely require additional compensation – no freeloaders allowed.
- Rocky Past Marriages: When it comes to acquisitions, Microsoft historically hasn’t fooled around as much as some other large Fortune 100 companies, nonetheless some important past relationships have gone sour. Take for instance Microsoft’s previous largest $6 billion cash acquisition of aQuantive Inc. in 2007. As Microsoft continues to chase Google Inc. (GOOG) at their heels, Microsoft has little to show for the aQuantive deal, except for a lot of employee turnover. The sizable but smaller $1.1 billion acquisition of Great Plains in 2001 has its critics too. Like Skype, the Great Plains business software deal made strategic sense, but six years after the units were fully integrated founder and owner Doug Burgum packed his bags and left Microsoft.
Consequences
What happens next for Microsoft? I know it’s difficult to imagine that Microsoft’s colossal underperformance since the beginning of 2010 could worsen – Microsoft has underperformed the market by a whopping -38% over that period – but by massively overpaying for Skype’s losses, Microsoft is not making their own job any easier. Although Microsoft has missed many key technology trends over the last few years (e.g., search, mobile, tablets, social media, etc.) and its stock has been in the dumps, the PC behemoth is looking to salvage a previously failed merger into a successful one. Time will tell if Microsoft can recycle a trashed, money losing operation into hefty green profits. If not, investors will be out for blood wondering why $8.5 billion was thrown away like garbage.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, AAPL, and GOOG, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in MSFT, Skype, EBAY, AOL, HPQ, DELL, NOK, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Groupon, Bebo, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Bin Laden Killing Overshadows Royal Rally
Excerpt from No-Cost May Sidoxia Monthly Newsletter (Subscribe on right-side of page)
Before the announcement of the killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world, Osama bin Laden, the royal wedding of Prince William Arthur Philip Louis and Catherine Middleton (Duke and Duchess of Cambridge) grabbed the hearts, headlines, and minds of people around the world. As we exited the month, a less conspicuous royal rally in the U.S. stock market has continued into May, with the S&P 500 index climbing +2.8% last month as the economic recovery gained firmer footing from the recession of 2008 and early 2009. As always, there is no shortage of issues to worry about as traders and speculators (investors not included) have an itchy sell-trigger finger, anxiously fretting over the possibility of losing gains accumulated over the last two years.
Here are some of the attention-grabbing issues that occurred last month:
Powerful Profits: According to Thomson Reuters, first quarter profit growth as measured by S&P 500 companies is estimated at a very handsome +18% thus far. At this point, approximately 84% of companies are exceeding or meeting expectations by a margin of 7%, which is above the long-term average of a 2% surprise factor.
Debt Anchor Front & Center: Budget battles remain over record deficits and debt levels anchoring our economy, but clashes over the extension of our debt ceiling will occur first in the coming weeks. Skepticism and concern were so high on this issue of our fiscal situation that the Standard & Poor’s rating agency reduced its outlook on the sovereign debt rating of U.S. Treasury securities to “negative,” meaning there is a one-in-three chance our country’s debt rating could be reduced in the next two years. Democrats and Republicans have put forth various plans on the negotiating table that would cut the national debt by $4 – $6 trillion over the next 10-12 years, but a chasm still remains between both sides with regard to how these cuts will be best achieved.
Inflation Heating Up: The global economic recovery, fueled by loose global central bank monetary policies, has resulted in fanning of the inflation flames. Crude oil prices have jumped to $113 per barrel and gasoline has spiked to over $4 per gallon. Commodity prices have jumped up across the board, as measured by the CRB (Commodity Research Bureau) BLS Index, which measures the price movements of a basket of 22 different commodities. The CRB Index has risen over +28% from a year ago. Although the topic of inflation is dominating the airwaves, this problem is not only a domestic phenomenon. Inflation in emerging markets, like China and Brazil, has also expanded into a dangerous range of 6-7%, and many of these governments are doing their best to slow-down or reverse loose monetary policies from a few years ago.
Expansion Continues but Slows: Economic expansion continued in the first quarter, but slowed to a snail’s pace. The initial GDP (Gross Domestic Product) reading for Q1 slowed down to +1.8% growth. Brakes on government stimulus and spending subtracted from growth, and high fuel costs are pinching consumer spending.
Ben Holds the Course: One person who is not overly eager to reverse loose monetary policies is Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke. The Chairman vowed to keep interest rates low for an “extended period,” and he committed the Federal Reserve to complete his $600 billion QE2 (Quantitative Easing) bond buying program through the end of June. If that wasn’t enough news, Bernanke held a historic, first-ever news conference. He fielded a broad range of questions and felt the first quarter GDP slowdown and inflation uptick would be transitory.
Skyrocketing Silver Prices: Silver surged ahead +28% in April, the largest monthly gain since April 1987, and reached a 30-year high in price before closing at around $49 per ounce at the end of the month. Speculators and investors have been piling into silver as evidenced by activity in the SLV (iShares Silver Trust) exchange traded fund, which on occasion has seen its daily April volume exceed that of the SPY (iShares SPDR S&P 500) exchange traded fund.
Obama-Trump Birth Certificate Faceoff: Real estate magnate and TV personality Donald Trump broached the birther issue again, questioning whether President Barack Obama was indeed born in the United States. President Obama produced his full Hawaiian birth certificate in hopes of putting the question behind him. If somehow Trump can be selected as the Republican presidential candidate for 2012, he will certainly try to get President Obama “fired!”
Charlie Sheen…Losing! The Charlie Sheen soap opera continues. Ever since Sheen has gotten kicked off the show Two and a Half Men, speculation has percolated as to whether someone would replace Sheen to act next to co-star John Cryer. Names traveling through the gossip circles include everyone from Woody Harrelson to Jeremy Piven to Rob Lowe. Time will tell whether the audience will laugh or cry, but regardless, Sheen will be laughing to the bank if he wins his $100 million lawsuit against Warner Brothers (TWX).
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain commodity and S&P 500 exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in SLV, SPY, TWX, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
The Illusion of the Reverse Split
Source: Photobucket
“Citi is a fundamentally different company than it was three years ago. The reverse stock split and intention to reinstate a dividend are important steps as we anticipate returning capital to shareholders starting next year.”
Okay, so Citigroup is paying out a whopping 1/10 of one penny per your current share price (compared to $.49 per share before the financial crisis) and Vikram is telling me I should be excited. Maybe additional ecstasy should be kicking in once shareholders learn they will receive 1 pie with no slices, rather than 1 pie with 10 slices? These same share-slicing and re-piecing gimmicks were implemented in the pre and post dot-com era with no beneficial value. If this truly was such a novel idea, I wonder why smart people like Warren Buffett have chosen not put such amazing, whiz-bang ideas to use. The lauded 1-10 reverse split planned by Citigroup could also be used to raise Berkshire Hathaway’s share price from $127,766 per share to $1,277,660 per share. One share of post reverse-split BRKA could buy you 288,410 shares of Citigroup today.
Proponents of the reverse split cite the institutional benefits provided by the move. Not only will institutions previously prohibited from buying single digit equity securities now be able to buy Citigroup shares, but institutions will also be able to pay lower commissions because the current 29 billion shares outstanding will be reduced to a measly 2,900,000,000 shares. In reality, reducing share count through a reverse split may fool a few unknowledgeable speculators, but prudent investors understand a reverse split does not impact the value of the company one iota.
The fact of the matter is that earnings and cash flow growth will be the main drivers behind institutional shareholder buying of Citigroup’s stock.
Famous investor John Templeton simply stated, “In the long run, the stock market indexes fluctuate around the long-term upward trend of earnings per share.”
Peter Lynch appreciated the importance of earnings too: “People may bet on hourly wiggles of the market but it’s the earnings that waggle the wiggle long term.”
So while Citigroup may not be a horrible stock, the announcing of a 1 for 10 reverse stock split will not be a share price savior. So rather than let the illusion of capital structure gimmicks inform your decisions, investors would be better served by focusing on the sustainability and growth of earnings and cash flows.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in BRKA/B, C, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Shoring Up Your Investment Stool from Collapse
With March Madness just kicking into full gear, there’s a chance that your gluteal assets may be parked on a stool in the next two weeks. When leaning on a bar countertop, while seated on a stool, we often take for granted the vital support this device provides, so we can shovel our favorite beverage and pile of nachos into our pie holes. OK, maybe I speak for myself when it comes to my personal, gluttonous habits. But the fact remains, whether you are talking about your rump, or your investment portfolio, you require a firm foundation.
The main problem, when it comes to investments, is the lack of a tangible, visible stool to analyze. Sure, you are able to see the results of a portfolio collapse when there is no foundation to support it, or you may even be able to ignore the results when they remain above water. But many investors do not evenperform the basic due diligence to determine the quality of their investment stool. Before you place your life savings in the hands of some brokerage salesman, or in your personal investment account, you may want to make sure your stool has more than one or two legs.
In the money management world, investors typically choose to buy the stool, rather than build it, which makes perfect common sense. Many people do not have the time or emotional make-up to manage their finances. If left to do it themselves, more often than not, investors usually do a less than stellar job. Unfortunately, when many investors do outsource the management of their investments, they neglect to adequately research the investment stool they buy. Usually the wobbly industry stool operates on the two legs of performance chasing and commission generation (see Fees, Exploitation, and Confusion). For most average investors, it doesn’t take long before that investment strategy teeters and collapses.
If the average investor does not have time to critically evaluate managers that take a long-term, low-cost, tax-efficient strategy to investing, those individuals would be best served by following Warren Buffet’s advice about passive investments, “A very low-cost index is going to beat a majority of the amateur-managed money or professionally-managed money.”
The Four Legs of the Investment Stool
For DIY-ers (Do-It-Yourself-ers), you do not need to buy a stool – you can build it. There are many ways to build a stool, but these are the four crucial legs of investing that have saved my hide over my career, and can be added as support for your investment stool:
1.) Valuation: I love sustainable growth as much as anything, just as much as I would like a shiny new Ferrari. But there needs to be a reasonable price paid for growth, and paying an attractive or fair price for a marquis asset will improve your odds for long-term success.
“Valuations do matter in the stock market, just as good pitching matters in baseball.”
-Fred Hickey (High Tech Strategist)
2.) Cash Flows: Cash flows, and more importantly free cash flows (cash left over after money is spent on capital expenditures), should be investors’ metric of choice. Companies do not pay for dividends, share buybacks, and capital expenditures with pro forma earnings, or non-GAAP earnings. Companies pay for these important outlays with cash.
“In looking for stocks to buy, why do you put so much emphasis on free cash flow? Because it makes the most sense to me. My first job was at a little corner grocery store, and it seemed pretty simple. Cash goes into the register; cash comes out.”
-Bruce Berkowitz (The Fairholme Fund)
3.) Interest Rates: Money goes where it is treated best, so capital will look at the competing yields paid on bonds. Intuitively, interest factors also come into play when calculating the net present value of a stock. Just look at the low Price-Earnings ratios of stocks in the early 1980s when the Fed Funds reached about 20% (versus effectively 0% today). In the long run, higher interest rates (and higher inflation) are bad for stocks, but worse for bonds.
“I don’t know any company that has rewarded any bondholder by raising interest rates [payments] – unlike companies raising dividends.”
-Peter Lynch (Former manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund)
4.) Quality: This is a subjective factor, but this artistic assessment is as important, if not more important than any of the previous listed factors. In searching for quality, it is best to focus on companies with market share leading positions, strong management teams, and durable competitive advantages.
“If you sleep with dogs, you’re bound to get fleas.”
-Old Proverb
These four legs of the investment stool are essential factors in building a strong investment portfolio, so during the next March Madness party you attend at the local sports bar, make sure to check the sturdiness of your bar stool – you want to make sure your assets are supported with a sturdy foundation.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in Fairholme, Ferrari, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Killing Patients to Investment Prosperity
All investors are optimistic, every time they open up a position, but just like surgeons, sometimes the outcome doesn’t turn out as well as initially anticipated. When it comes to investing, I think this old Hindu proverb puts things into perspective:
“No physician is really good before he has killed one or two patients.”
So too, an investor does not become really good until he kills off some investment positions. But like surgeons, investors also have to understand the most important aspect of tragic events is learning from them. In many cases, unexpected outcomes are out of our control and cannot be prevented. This conclusion, in and of itself, can provide valuable insights. But on many occasions, there are procedures, processes, and facts that were missed or botched, and learning from those mistakes can prove invaluable when it comes to refining the process in the future – in order to further minimize the probability of a tragic outcome.
My Personal Killers
Professionally, I have killed some stocks in my career too, or they have killed me, depending on how you look at the situation. How did these heartrending incidents occur? There are several categories that my slaughtered stocks fell under:
- Roll-Up, Throw-Up: Several of my investment mistakes have been tied to roll-up or acquisition-reliant growth stories, where the allure of rapid growth shielded the underlying weak fundamentals of the core businesses. Buying growth is easier to create versus organically producing growth. Those companies addicted to growth by acquisition eventually experience the consequences firsthand when the game ends (i.e., the quality of deals usually deteriorates and/or the prices paid for the acquisitions become excessive).
- Technology Kool-Aid: Another example is the Kool-Aid I drank, during the technology bubble days, related to a “story” stock – Webvan, a grocery delivery concept. How could mixing Domino’s pizza delivery (DZP) with Wal-Mart’s (WMT) low-priced goods not work? I’m just lazy enough to demand a service like that. Well, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars and never reaching the scale necessary to cover the razor thin profit margins, Webvan folded up shop and went bankrupt. But don’t give up hope yet, Amazon (AMZN) is refocusing its attention on the grocery space (mostly non-perishables now) and could become the dominant food delivery retailer.
- Penny Stocks = Dollars Lost: Almost every seasoned investor carries at least one “penny stock” horror story. Unfortunately for me, my biotech miracle stock, Saliva Diagnostics (SALV), did not take off to the moon and provide an early retirement opportunity as planned. On the surface it sounded brilliant. Spit in a cup and Saliva Diagnostic’s proprietary test would determine whether patients were infected with the HIV virus. With millions of HIV/AIDS patients spread around the world, the profit potential behind ‘Saliva’ seemed virtually limitless. The technology unfortunately did not quite pan out, and spit turned into tears.
The Misfortune Silver Lining
These stock tragedies are no fun, but I am not alone. Fortunately for me, and other professionals, there is a nine-lives feline element to investing. One does not need to be right all the time to outperform the indices. “If you’re terrific in this business you’re right 6 times out of 10 – I’ve had stocks go from $11 to 7 cents (American Intl Airways),” admitted investment guru Peter Lynch. Growth stock investing expert, Phil Fisher, added: “Fortunately the long-range profits earned from really good common stocks should more than balance the losses from a normal percentage of such mistakes.”
Warren Buffett takes a more light-hearted approach when he describes investment mistakes: “If you were a golfer and you had a hole in one on every hole, the game wouldn’t be any fun. At least that’s my explanation of why I keep hitting them in the rough.”
Some investors purposely forget traumatic investment experiences, but explicitly sweeping the event under the rug will do more harm than good. So the next time you suffer a horrendous stock price decline, do your best to log the event and learn from the situation. That way, when the patient (stock) has been killed (destroyed), you will become a better, more prosperous doctor (investor).
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, WMT, and AMZN but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in DZP, Webvan, Saliva Diagnostics, American intl Airways, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Short Interest Coiled Springs
If short interest measures the amount of bearish bets against a particular stock, then what are you supposed to do with that data? The answer really depends on your view regarding the research quality of the bears. If you believe the bears have done excellent homework, then it will pay to pile onto the bearish bandwagon and short the stock. There’s just one problem…it’s virtually impossible to know whether the brains of Warren Buffett are leading the shorting brigade, or the boobs of Snookie from Jersey Shore are driving the negative bets.
The situations that I find especially appealing are the cases in which your research conclusions are extremely bullish, yet a large herd of traders have piled up their pessimistic short positions up to the sky in the belief share prices are going lower. These “crowded shorts” provide a large tailwind of pending buy orders – effectively pouring gasoline on the fire – if you are arrogant enough, like me, to believe your bullish thesis will play out. These “short squeezes” occur often when fundamental momentum lasts longer than the bears expect, or when downbeat expectations do not come to fruition. A classic short squeeze occurred when well-known investor Whitney Tilson recently covered his Netflix Inc. (NFLX) short position (see Whitney the Waffler), pushing a high priced stock even higher. Short interest reached almost 13 million shares in September 2010, and declined to a little more than 11 million shares a few weeks ago (compared to about 53 million shares outstanding). Given the stock’s price action, and Tilson’s response, the short interest has likely declined – at least temporarily.
The Challenge of Timing
Shorting is difficult enough with the theoretical unlimited losses hanging over your head, but timing is of the essence too. Often, a short-seller may be correct on their unconstructive view on a particular stock, but the heat in the kitchen gets too hot for them to stick around for the main course. Shorting stocks in a down market can be just as easy as buying in an up market – making money in your shorts in a rising market is that much more difficult.
Rather than follow the herd of short sellers as a trading strategy, I choose to stick with the credo of legendary investor Benjamin Graham, who stated:
“You’re neither right nor wrong because others agree with you. You’re right because your facts and reasoning are right.”
It’s my strong belief the long-term share price of a stock is driven by the sustainable earnings and cash flows of a company. The direction of price and earnings (cash flow) may diverge in the short-run, but in the long-run the relationship between price and profits converges.
Shorting Criteria
The criteria for shorting a stock are just as varied as the factors used to buy a stock, but these are some of the factors I consider when shorting a stock:
- Weak and/or deteriorating market share positioning.
- Excessive leverage – substandard financial positioning.
- Weak cash flow based quality of earnings.
- Management mis-execution and deteriorating fundamentals.
- Expensive valuations on an absolute and relative basis.
A stock is not required to exhibit all these characteristics simultaneously in order to generate a profitable short position, but the framework works for me.
If long investing is your main focus, then I urge you seek out those heavily shorted stocks that maintain attractive growth opportunities at attractive prices. If you are going to seek out rising stocks, you may as well use the assistance of a coiled spring to get you there.
Click Here to Check Out High Short Interest Stocks
Click Here for NYSE Shorts at WSJ
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and NFLX, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Whitney the Netflix Waffler
Source: Photobucket
No, I am not talking about Meredith Whitney (see Cloudy Crystal Ball), but rather Whitney Tilson, a well-known value and hedge fund manager at T2 Partners LLC. Less than eight weeks ago, Tilson boldly and brashly exclaimed why Netflix Inc. (NFLX) was an “exceptional short” and provided reasons to the world on why Netflix was his largest short position (read Tilson’s previous post). Fifty-five days later, Mr. Tilson evidently was overtaken by a waffle craving and decided to throw in the towel by covering his Netflix short position.
What Changed in Seven and Half Weeks?
Margin Thesis Compromised: Tilson explains, “The company reported a very strong quarter that weakened key pillars of our investment thesis, especially as it relates to margins.” Really? Netflix has grown revenues for nine straight years since its IPO (Initial Public Offering) in 2002, and growth has even accelerated for two whole years (as Netflix has shifted to streaming content over snail-mail), and just in Q4 he became surprised by this multi-year trend? The Q4 growth caught Tilson off-guard, but I guess Tilson wasn’t surprised by the 7.5 million subscribers Netflix added in 2009 and first three quarters of 2010. Never mind the five consecutive years of operating margin expansion either (source: ADVFN), nor the stealthy share price move from $30 to around $225. Apparently Tilson needed the recently reported Q4 financial results to hit him over the head.
Survey Provides Earth-Shattering Results: Tilson conducted an exhaustive study of “more than 500 Netflix subscribers, that showed significantly higher satisfaction with and usage of Netflix’s streaming service than we anticipated.” Come on…Netflix has more than 20 million subscribers, and you are telling me that a questionnaire of 500 subscribers (0.0025%) is representative. Even if these results are a cornerstone of Tilson’s modified thesis, I wonder also why the survey wasn’t taken before Netflix became Tilson’s largest negative short position. In addition, I can’t say it’s much of a revelation that Tilson found “significantly higher satisfaction” among paying subscribers. That’s like me going to a Justin Bieber concert and polling J-Beeb fans whether they like his music – I’ll go out on a limb and say paying customers will generally have a positive bias in their responses.
Feedback Tilts the Scales: Tilson received a “great deal of feedback, including an open letter from Netflix’s CEO, Reed Hastings.” If I received a penny for every time I heard a CEO speak positively about their company, I would be retired on a private island drinking umbrella drinks all day. Honestly, what does Tilson expect Hastings to say, “You know Whitney, you really hit the nail on the head with your analysis…I think you’re right and you should short our stock.”
Some other inconsistencies I’m still trying to figure out in Tilson’s new waffle thesis:
Valuation Head Scratcher: Also frustrating in Tilson’s 180 degree switch is his apparent incongruous treatment of valuation. In his initial bearish piece, Tilson explains how outrageously priced Netflix share are at 63.1x the high 2010 consensus estimate, but somehow a current 75.0x multiple (~20% richer) is reason enough for Tilson to blow out his short.
Competition: Although Tilson went from 100% short Netflix to 0% short Netflix, there does not appear to be any new information regarding Netflix’s competitive dynamics from the Q4 financial release to change his view. Here is what he said in his article eight weeks ago:
“Netflix’s brand and number of customers pale in comparison to its new, direct competitors like Apple (iTunes), Google (GOOG) (YouTube), Amazon.com (AMZN) (Amazon Video on Demand), Disney (DIS) and News Corp. (NWS) (part ownership of Hulu), Time Warner (TWX, TWC) (cable, HBO, etc.), Comcast (CMCSA) (cable, NBC Universal, part ownership of Hulu), and Coinstar’s Redbox (CSTR) (30,000 kiosks renting DVDs for $1/night and email addresses for 21 million customers).”
Little is said in his short covering note, other than these negative dynamics still exist and help explain why he is not long the stock.
Gently Under the Bus
Whitney Tilson was “against Netflix before he was for it,” a stance that could generate a tear of pride from fellow waffler John Kerry. However, I want to gently place Mr. Tilson under the bus with all my comments because his sudden strange reversal shouldn’t be blown out of proportion with respect to his full body of work. As a matter of fact, I have favorably profiled Tilson in several of my previous articles (read Tilson on BP and Tilson on Fat Lady Housing).
One would think given my profitable long position in Netflix that I would be congratulating Tilson for covering his short, but I must admit that I feel a little naked with fewer contrarians rooting against me. The herd is occasionally right, but the largest returns are made by not following the herd. Short interest was about 33% of the float (shares outstanding available for trading) mid-last month, and with the recent melt-up, my guess is that short percentage has shrunk with other short covering doubters. I haven’t decided how much, if any, profits I plan to lock-in with my Netflix positions, but as Tilson points out, they are not giving Netflix away for free.
Credit should also be given to Tilson for having the thickness of skin to openly flog himself and admit failure in such an open forum. I have been known to enjoy a waffle or two in my day as well (more often in the privacy of my own kitchen), and waffling on stocks can be preferable to loving stocks to the grave. Tilson has proven firsthand that eating waffles can be very expensive and detrimental to your profit waistline. By doing more homework on your stock consumption, your waffle eating should be spread further apart, making this habit not only cheaper, but also better for your long-term investment health.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) at the time of publishing had no direct position in DIS, NWS/Hulu, TWX, TWC, CMCSA, and CSTR but SCM and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, NFLX, AAPL, AMZN, AAPL, and GOOG, but did not own any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Microsoft’s Hand Caught in Google Cookie Jar
Source: Photobucket
The globalized world we live in has become ever-more connected (see Globalization Train), and the recent events in Egypt where mass protests were organized, in large part by Facebook and Twitter, only goes to show the importance technology plays in our daily lives. As a result of our tight global links and the advancement of technology, product cycles have only become shorter and more competitive, raising the stakes for business success. The expanded field of cut-throat competitors in a digital age has also increased the value of intellectual property (IP). Increasingly, lawyers and judges are being forced to decipher the obscure realm of bits and bytes and vigorously defend unique IP from competitors.
If You Can’t Beat Them, Copy Them
Case in point is the current war of code-words between Google Inc. (GOOG) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Google claims they have caught Microsoft’s hand in the corporate espionage cookie jar by watching Microsoft effectively steal Google’s algorithmic search code for the software giant’s Bing search service. How can Google make such harsh and direct accusations? Google claims to have set up “synthetic” searches, which were designed as digital booby traps. Based on Google’s story, Microsoft appears to have taken the bait…hook, line, and sinker.
You be the judge. Here was the synthetic search result for “indoswiftjobinproduction” when entered in Google:
Source: Search Engine Land
This is the response when the same search term “indoswiftjobinproduction” was keyed in on Microsoft’s Bing search service:
Source: Search Engine Land
Coincidence? Perhaps. Likely? No.
Well, maybe lightning just struck with the “indoswiftjobinproduction” search term gibberish – why not try another?
This is what Google’s search results created when “mbzrxpgjys” was entered:
Source: Search Engine Land
When the same “mbzrxpgjys” term was inputted into Microsoft’s Bing, here was the result:
Source: Search Engine Land
Hmmm, I seem to be detecting a pattern here.
Is Microsoft’s apparent copycat behavior illegal? The evidence for the moment doesn’t appear to be clear, thanks mostly to the fine-print legalese of confusing check boxes that nobody reads when downloading or using any internet service. Evidently, many Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) users have unknowingly provided Google search information typed in through Microsoft’s IE browser, and the Redmond behemoth has been using this information to sharpen their search algorithms.
So if this behavior is not illegal, then should this activity be considered cheating? Here’s what Amit Singhal, a Google executive who oversees the company’s search engine ranking algorithm has to say about the issue:
“It’s cheating to me because we work incredibly hard and have done so for years but they just get there based on our hard work…I don’t know how else to call it but plain and simple cheating. Another analogy is that it’s like running a marathon and carrying someone else on your back, who jumps off just before the finish line.”
I’m sure this will not be the last we hear on the subject of technology and corporate cheating. As a matter of fact, in the field of intellectual property crimes, French-Japanese car giant Renault-Nissan recently brought the case of industrial espionage, corruption, theft, stolen goods, and conspiracy against three senior Renault executives. The allegations of selling crucial electric car information to the Chinese raised concerns to a feverish pitch in the tabloids because so much can be gained or lost by those involved in this estimated $2 trillion electric car market.
The committing of crimes is nothing new, but the types of new crimes are changing. In a globalized world increasingly dominated by technology, perpetrators better think twice about committing these invisible crimes. Cheating may taste sweet, until you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Read More about the Google–Microsoft Tiff
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and GOOG, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in MSFT, Facebook, Twitter, Renault, Nissan, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Bove on Goldman-Facebook Deal: Hug the Public!
In a recent research report titled, Has Goldman Learned Anything?, esteemed Rochdale Research analyst Richard Bove chimed in about the recent controversy surrounding the failed U.S. private offering of Facebook shares by Goldman Sachs (GS) to the bank’s wealthiest clients. In the note, Bove states the following:
“The company is embroiled in a ‘headline’ controversy surrounding its handling of a Facebook offering which implies that Goldman does not understand the public’s interest at all.”
Bove goes onto add:
“I fear that this company may not yet understand that those actions that do not appear to be in the public’s interest can, in fact, harm the company.”
I’m having a real difficult time understanding how Goldman privately raising funds for a private company has anything to do with the public? Am I wrong, or don’t millions of private companies raise capital every year without getting approval from Mr. Joe and Mrs. Josephine Public? What exactly does Bove want Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein to say to Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg?
“Oh hello Mr. Zuckerberg, this is Lloyd Blankfein calling from Goldman Sachs, and if I understand it correctly, you are interested in raising $1.5 billion for your company. I know you are arguably the greatest internet brand on this planet, but unfortunately I do not think we can help you because I believe the broader public may not be happy with their lack of ability to participate in the offering. If you don’t have Morgan Stanley’s or JP Morgan’s phone number, just let me know because perhaps they can assist you. Have a great day!”
Come on…Goldman Sachs is not a charitable organization with a mission to make the world a better place – they are one of thousands of publicly traded companies attempting to grow profits. Sure, could Goldman have more discreetly pursued this offering without attracting the massive media barrage? Absolutely. But let’s be fair, the buzz around Facebook is deafening and the paparazzi are following Mark Zuckerberg around as closely as Raj Rajaratnam chases insider trading tips. New York Times columnist and reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin (see Too Big to Fail book review) summed it up best when he said, “You take the words Facebook and Goldman Sachs and put them in the same sentence, it becomes a media sensation unto itself. So I think this was bound to happen one way or the other.”
So while I have no reason to cheerlead for Goldman Sachs, and I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons for the investment bank to be crucified, attempting to raise money for a private company is not a felony in my book. I commend Richard Bove’s altruistic intentions in protecting the public from Goldman Sachs’s evil capital raising activities, and I may even contribute to a group hug with the mass investing public. If he catches me on the right day, I may even give CEO Lloyd Blankfein a hug.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in GS, MS, JPM, Facebook, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Winning Coaches Telling Players to Quit
How would you feel if your coach told you not only are you going to lose, but you should quit and join the other team? Effectively, that is what Loomis Sayles bond legend Dan Fuss (read Fuss Making a Fuss), and fellow colleagues Margie Patel (Wells Fargo Advantage Funds), and Anthony Crescenzi (PIMCO) had to say about the chances of bonds winning at the recent Advisors’ Money Show.
This is what Fuss said regarding “statistically cheap” equities:
“I’ve never seen it this good in half a century.”
Patel went on to add:
“By any measure you want to look at, free cash flow, dividend yield, P/E ratio – stocks look relatively cheap for the level of interest rates.” Stock offer a “once-in-a-decade opportunity to buy and make some real capital appreciation.”
Crescenzi included the following comments about stocks:
“Valuations are not risky…P/E ratios have been fine for a decade, in part because of the two shocks that drove investors away from equities and compressed P/E ratios.”
Bonds Dynasty Coming to End
The bond team has been winning for three decades (see Bubblicious Bonds), but its players are getting tired and old. Crescenzi concedes the “30-year journey on rates is near its ending point” and that “we are at the end of the duration tailwind.” Even though it is fairly apparent to some that the golden bond era is coming to a close, there are ways for the bond team to draft new players to manage duration (interest rate/price sensitivity) and protect oneself against inflation (read Drowning TIPS).
Equities on the other hand have had a massive losing streak relative to bonds, especially over the last decade. The equity team had over-priced player positions that exceeded their salary cap and the old market leaders became tired and old. Nothing energizes a new team better than new blood and new talent at a much more attractive price, which leaves room in the salary cap to get the quality players to win. There is always a possibility that bonds will outperform in the short-run despite sky-high prices, and the introduction of any material, detrimental exogenous variable (large country bailout, terrorist attack, etc.) could extend bonds’ outperformance. Regardless, investors will find it difficult to dispute the relative attractiveness of equities relative to prices a decade ago (read Marathon Investing: Genesis of Cheap Stocks).
As I have repeated in the past, bonds and cash are essential in any portfolio, but excessively gorging on a buffet of bonds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner can be hazardous for your long-term financial health. Maximizing the bang for your investment buck means not neglecting volatile equity opportunities due to disproportionate conservatism and scary economic media headlines.
There are bond coaches and teams that believe the winning streak will continue despite the 30-year duration of victories. Fear, especially in this environment, is often used as a tactic to sell bonds. Conflicts of interest may cloud the advice of these bond coaches, but the successful experienced coaches like Dan Fuss, Margie Patel, Anthony Crescenzi are the ones to listen to – even if they tell you to quit their team and join a different one.
Read Full Advisor Perspectives Article
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds (including TIP), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Investing Caffeine 
