WEBINAR: 10 Ways to Protect & Grow Your Nest Egg
If analyzing quarterly reports, managing a hedge fund/client accounts, teaching a course, writing a second book, and squeezing in a vacation is not enough, then why not try to squeeze in a webinar too? That’s exactly what I decided to do, so please join us on Friday (7/23 @ 12:30 p.m. PST) to learn about the critical 10 Ways to Protect and Grow Your Nest Egg in Uncertain Times.
Webinar Details:
—July 23, 2010 (Friday) at 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time)
CLICK HERE TO CONNECT TO WEBINAR
Toll Free # (if not using PC): 1-877-669-3239
Access Code: 800 505 230
Managing your investments has never been more difficult in this volatile and uncertain world we live in. With life expectancies increasing, and ambiguity surrounding the reliability of future financial safety nets (Social Security & Medicare), prudently investing your hard earned money to protect and grow your nest egg has never been this critical.
Invest in yourself and block off some time at 12:30 p.m. PST on July 23rd to educate yourself on the “10 Ways to Protect and Grow Your Nest Egg” in a relaxed webinar setting in front of your own computer.
CLICK HERE TO CONNECT TO WEBINAR
Toll Free # (if not using PC): 1-877-669-3239
Access Code 800 505 230
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 positions in any 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 Big Short: The Silent Ticking Bomb
A bomb was ticking for many years before the collapse of Bear Stearns in March of 2008, but unfortunately for most financial market participants, there were very few investors aware of the looming catastrophe. In The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, author Michael Lewis manages to craft a detailed account of the financial crisis by weaving in the exceptional personal stories of a handful of courageous capitalists. These financial sleuths manage not only to discover the explosive and toxic assets buried on the balance sheets of Wall Street giants, but also to realize massive profits for their successful detective skills.
Lewis was not dabbling in virgin territory when he decided to release yet another book on the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Nonetheless, even after slogging through Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail and Gregory Zuckerman’s The Greatest Trade Ever (see my reviews on Too Big to Fail and The Greatest Trade Ever), I still felt obligated to add Michael Lewis’s The Big Short to my bookshelf (OK…my e-reader device). After all, he was the creator of Liar’s Poker, The New New Thing, Moneyball, and The Blind Side, among other books in his distinguished collection.
Genesis of the Bomb Creations
Like bomb sniffing dogs, the main characters that Lewis describes in The Big Short (Michael Burry/Scion Capital; Steve Eisman/Oppenheimer and Co. & FrontPoint Partners; Gregg Lippman/Deutsche Bank (DB); and Jamie Mai & Charlie Ledley/Cornwall Capital) demonstrate an uncanny ability to smell the inevitable destruction, and more importantly have the conviction to put their professional careers and financial wellbeing at risk by making a gutsy contrarian call on the demise of the subprime mortgage market.
How much dough did the characters in the book make? Jamie Mai and Charlie Ledley (Cornwall Capital) exemplify the payoff for those brave, and shrewd enough to short the housing market (luck never hurts either). Lewis highlights the Cornwall crew here:
“Cornwall Capital, started four and a half years earlier with $110,000, had just netted from a million-dollar bet, more than $80 million.”
Lewis goes on to describe the volatile period as “if bombs of differing sizes had been placed in virtually every major Western financial institution.” The size of U.S. subprime bombs (losses) exploding was estimated at around $1 trillion by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). When it comes to some of the large publicly traded financial institutions, these money bombs manifested themselves in the form of about $50 billion in mortgage-related losses at Merrill Lynch (BAC), $60 billion at Citigroup (C), $9 billion at Morgan Stanley (MS), along with many others.
The subprime market, in and of itself, is actually not that large in the whole scheme of things. Definitions vary, but some described the market at around 7-8 million subprime mortgages outstanding during the peak of the market, which is a small fraction of the overall U.S. mortgage industry. The relatively small subprime market became a gargantuan problem when millions of lucrative subprime side-bets were created through investment banks and unregulated financial behemoths like AIG. The spirits of greed added fuel to the fire as the construction of credit default swap market and synthetic mortgage-backed CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) were unleashed.
Triggering the Bomb
Multiple constituents, including the rating agencies (S&P [MHP], Moodys [MCO], Fitch) and banks, used faulty assumptions regarding the housing market. Since the subprime market was a somewhat new invention the mathematical models did not know how to properly incorporate declining (and/or moderating) national home prices, since national price declines were not consistent with historical housing data. These models were premised on the notion of Florida subprime price movements not being correlated (moving in opposite directions) with California subprime price movements. This thought process allowed S&P to provide roughly 80% of CDO issues with the top AAA-rating, despite a large percentage of these issues eventually going belly-up.
Lewis punctuated the faulty correlation reasoning underlying these subprime assumptions that dictated the banks’ reckless actions:
“The correlation among triple-B-rated subprime bonds was not 30 percent; it was 100 percent. When one collapsed, they all collapsed, because they were all driven by the same broader economic forces. In the end, it made little sense for a CDO to fall from 100 to 95 to 77 to 70 and down to 7. The subprime bonds beneath them were either all bad or all good. The CDOs were worth either zero or 100.”
Steve Eisman adds his perspective about subprime modeling:
“Just throw the model in the garbage can. The models are all backward looking.”
Ignorance, greed, and other assumptions, such as the credibility of VAR (Value-at-Risk) metrics, accelerated the slope of the financial crisis decline.
Eisman had some choice words about many banking executives’ lack of knowledge, including his gem about Ken Lewis (former CEO of Bank of America):
“I had an epiphany. I said to myself, ‘Oh my God he’s dumb!’ A lightbulb went off. The guy running one of the biggest banks in the world is dumb!”
Or Eisman’s short fuse regarding the rating agency’s refusal to demand critical information from the investment banks due to fear of market share loss:
“Who’s in charge here? You’re the grown up. You’re the cop! Tell them to f**king give it to you!!!…S&P was worried if they demanded the data from Wall Street, Wall Street would just go to Moody’s for their ratings.”
A blatant conflict of interest exists between the issuer and rating agency, which needs to be rectified if credibility will ever return to the rating system. At a minimum, all fixed income investors should wake up and smell the coffee by doing more of their own homework, and relying less on the rubber stamp rating of others. The credit default swap market played a role in the subprime bubble bursting too. Without regulation, it becomes difficult to explain how AIG’s tiny FP (Financial Products) division could generate $300 million in profits annually, or at one point, 15% of AIG’s overall corporate profits.
My Take
The Big Short may simply be recycled financial crisis fodder regurgitated by countless observers, but regardless, there are plenty of redeeming moments in the book. Getting into the book took longer than I expected, given the pedigree and track record of Lewis. Nonetheless, after grinding slowly through about 2/3 of the book, I couldn’t put the thing down in the latter phases.
Lewis chose to take a micro view of the subprime mortgage market, with the personal stories, rather than a macro view. In the first 95% of the book, there is hardly a mention of Bear Stearns (JPM) Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (GS), Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE), etc. Nevertheless, at the very end of the book, in the epilogue, Lewis attempts to put a hurried bow around the causes of and solutions to the financial crisis.
There is plenty of room to spread the blame, but Lewis singles out John Gutfreund’s (former Salomon Brothers) decision to take Solly public as a key pivotal point in the moral decline of the banking industry. For more than two decades since the publishing of Liar’s Poker, Lewis’s view on the overall industry remains skeptical:
“The incentives on Wall Street were all wrong; they’re still all wrong.”
His doubts may still remain about the health in the banking industry, and regardless of his forecasting prowess, Michael Lewis will continue sniffing out bombs and writing compelling books on a diverse set of subjects.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and AIG subsidiary debt, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in BAC, JPM, FRE, FNM, DB, MS, GS, C, MCO, MHP, Fitch, any 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.
Blushing Pinocchio – The Half Trillion Lie
When in doubt, or when in debt by half a trillion dollars, why not just make some crazy stuff up? This is the exact strategy California pension administrators used when implementing +50% increases in union member benefits earlier this decade. The pension plans decided to take a break from reality and enter fantasyland when they projected the Dow Jones Industrial Average would hit 25,000 by the end of the decade and 28,000,000 by 2099, a forecast that would even make Pinocchio blush.
Dealing with the Problem
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his economic advisors attempted to take on the unions. Unfortunately, not everyone got the message. On the day the Governor struck a deal with the unions, California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) ordered a hike of $4 billion to the annual pension payments to its members.
The financial woes of California have been well documented as the state looks to lower its $19.1 billion deficit and an estimated one-half trillion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities – a level equal to about seven times the state’s total debt level. Even after multiple years of severe cuts, Schwarzenegger has had to resort to drastic measures, including his most recent desperate move to get some 200,000 state workers to accept slashes in pay to a $7.25/hour minimum wage.
Facing Reality
As I have discussed in the past, dealing with excessive debt requires a gut check. Cutting debt is similar to dieting – easy to understand, but difficult to execute (see my Debt Control article).
Whether Republican candidate Meg Whitman or Democratic candidate Jerry Brown wins the thankless position of California Governor, they will have to face the elephant in the room, but hopefully they will not resort to fuzzy accounting or predictions of Dow 28 million that would make even Pinocchio blush.
Read Full Related Article from Vincent Fernando at Business Insider
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 positions in any 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.
Living Large – Technology Revolution Raises Tide
It’s hard to believe that my kids will never truly know what it is was like to live without a microwave, VCR, GPS device, internet connection or many of the other modern day inventions. In my elementary school days, when I had to write a report about Alfred Hitchcock, I was forced to drag my mom to the public library, chase down some librarians, and comb through floors of book shelves, only to find the book I needed was already checked-out. Today, it’s amazing to watch my kid, barely old enough to pull the milk container out of the fridge, scamper over to the computer, type in a few search words on Google (GOOG) and access an endless pool of information for a homework assignment. Fortunately for my wife and me, my daughter has not discovered Facebook yet.
Rising Tide Lifts All
In the uncertain times we live in, many people lose sight of the incredible advancements achieved over our generation, and ignore the difficult challenges and problems entrepreneurs are solving today. And many of these advancements have trickled down to wide swaths of the population. The minimum wage worker, cleaning dishes at the local restaurant, may not be able to afford the new $500 iPad from Apple Inc. (AAPL), but technology advancements have benefited the less privileged in different ways. For example, similar computing power used in the iPad has also been used in the logistics and sourcing departments of retail chains like Family Dollar (FDO), thereby making goods cheaper for lower-income consumers.
One person who has not lost sight of these advancements of productivity is Mark J. Perry of the Enterprise Blog. In a recent article, Perry compares what a consumer working 152 hours in 1964, earning an average wage, could purchase versus an average consumer today (46 years later) working the same 152 hours. Beyond the average wage of $2.50 per hour increasing to $19 per hour, Perry shows the unbelievable increase in the quality and number of products.
Perry places the continuing technological revolution in context by stating:
“Americans today can purchase low-priced electronics products that even a billionaire in the past wouldn’t have been able to buy.”
Another person that knows a little about technology, Sergey Brin (Co-Founder of Google Inc.), put recent technology advancements in perspective in the company’s 2008 annual report:
“Our first major purchase when we started Google was an array of disk drives that we spent a good fraction of our life savings on and took several car trips to carry. Today, I walked out of a store with a small box in my hand that stores more than all those drives and cost about $100. Similarly, the processors available today are about 100 times as powerful as those we used in 1998.”
Advancements in our standard of living are not only limited to electronic gadgets and internet searches, but also tangible benefits continue to be realized in the most important elements of our human survival. A picture says a thousand words, and these charts speak volumes about our standard of living:
Lives are Extending and Food More Affordable
Obviously, everything is not a bed of roses and some of these improvements have come at a cost. Our country has lost millions of jobs over the last few years, and globalization has significantly increased foreign competition in broad areas of our economy. But before you succumb to the devastation rhetoric of the nay-sayers, please do not forget about the almost imperceptible rising tide of technological innovations that are allowing us to live better lives, even in uncertain times.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, GOOG, and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in RSH, FDO, 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.
Kass: Triple Lindy Redux
About a year ago, I wrote about Doug Kass (founder and president of Seabreeze Partners) and his attempt at pulling off the famous “Triple Lindy” dive, which was made famous in the classic movie Back to School starring Rodney Dangerfield. If I were a judge, I would say Kass’s landing wasn’t a perfect 10, but rather closer to a 6.5. After successfully nailing the bear market in 2008, and subsequently declaring the “generational low” of March 2009, Kass became cautious in June 2009. At the time, Kass pulled in his horns by pronouncing a consumer-led double dip in late 2009 or in the first half 2010 from a consumption binge hangover, while declaring his previous 1050 S&P 500 index target as overly ambitious. What actually transpired is the S&P 500 went from around 942 to 1220 over the next ten months, or up about +30%.
Today, Kass is trying to make another large splash, but now he is reversing course and once more calling for a rally…at least a mini one. Rather than speaking in terms of his previous generational low (S&P 666), Kass sees the recent lows around 1,010 being the “bottom for the year” and his new 2010 target is based on climbing to positive territory for the year, implying a +10% to +12% move from the beginning of July.
View Doug Kass Interview and Prediction
Kass is not your traditional investor, and he admits as much:
“I’m not a perma-bear, I’m not a perma-bull. I try to be flexible and eclectic in my view, and this is especially necessary in a market, which is so volatile as it’s been for the last several years.”
In explaining his upbeat rationale, Kass highlights nuanced aspects to employment data, payroll growth, moderate economic expansion, and an attractive valuation for the overall market:
“I’m not technically based, therefore I’m not sentiment based, I’m fundamental based….The markets are traveling on a path of fear and share prices have significantly disconnected from fundamentals.”
Even if Kass didn’t nail the “Triple Lindy,” he still deserves special attention as a practitioner, in addition to his side job as a market prognosticator. Additional recognition is warranted solely based on the potshots he aimed at rent-a-strategists like Nouriel Roubini, CNBC celebrity, (see Roubini articles #1 or #2) and Robert Prechter, long-running technician who is currently predicting Dow destruction to unfathomable level of 1,000. I’m not in the business of predicting short-term market gyrations, but I’ll enjoy watching Kass’s next dive to see whether he’ll make a splash or not.
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 positions 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.
Jobs: The Gluttonous Cash Hog
Really? Do you think Steve Jobs actually needs to hoard $42 billion in cash reserves on the company’s balance sheet, when they are already adding to the gargantuan mountain of money at a $12 billion clip per year. Let’s not forget, this gaudy amount of money is being added after all operating expenses and capital expenditures have been paid for.
Perhaps Steve is just a little worried about the economy, and wants a little extra loose change around for a rainy day? I’d buy that argument, but Mr. Jobs and the rest of the executives just witnessed the worst financial crisis in a generation, and the company still managed to generate about $9 billion in free cash flow in both fiscal 2008 and 2009.
If Apple was not creating cash flow like those cascading chocolate fountains I see at wedding receptions, then perhaps a cash safety blanket is needed for acquisitions? Here’s what Steve had to say about Apple’s cash levels in February:
Steve Jobs (Source: Photobucket)
“We know if we need to acquire something – a piece of the puzzle to make something big and bold – we can write a check for it and not borrow a lot of money and put our whole company at risk…The cash in the bank gives us tremendous security and flexibility.”
Let’s explore that idea a little further. First of all, what type of experience does Apple have in doing large acquisitions? Not a lot, and just to humor myself I ran a screen on a universe of more than 10,000 stocks and I came up with 111 companies with a value (market capitalization) greater than $40 billion. Unless Apple plans on buying companies like Coca Cola (KO), Chevron Corp. (CVX), Pfizer (PFE), or United Parcel Service (UPS), I think Apple can part ways with some of their billions. Certainly, there are a handful of theoretical targets in the areas of technology and content, but for certain, (a) any large deal would face intense regulatory scrutiny, and (b) if truly there were grand synergies from doing a massive deal, then most definitely they would be able to issue stock (if Jobs hates debt) to help fund the deal. It is pure nonsense and laughable to believe any “big and bold” acquisition would put the company “at risk.” The only thing at risk for doing a large deal would be Apple’s stock price.
The truth of the matter is returning cash to shareholders would be a fantastic self-disciplining tool, like putting mayonnaise on a brownie to prevent excess calorie consumption. Steve should give current or former CEOs of AOL, Time Warner, Mercedes Benz, Chrysler, Sprint, and Nextel a call to see how those large deals worked out for them. Apple could use an acquisition security blanket, but they do not need a circus tent of cash.
Times of Change
Although times have changed, some executives have not. Many tech companies, including Apple, have nostalgic memories of the go-go tech bubble days of the 1990s when growth at any price was the main mantra and no attention was paid to prudent capital allocation. With a stagnant stock market over the last twelve years, and interest rates sitting sluggishly at record lows (effectively 0% on the Federal Funds rate), investors are demanding prudent decision-making when it comes to capital allocation. Mr. Jobs, it is time to expand your narrow views and show the stewardship of sensibly managing the cash of your loyal investors.
Believe it or not, there are still a few of us actual “investors” that still exist. I’m talking about investors who do not just speculatively rent a stock for a day, week, or month, but rather those who invest for the long-term because they believe in the vision and execution capabilities of management and believe the company’s capital will be invested in their best interest.
I do not mean to single Mr. Jobs out, because he is not the only gluttonous, cash-hog offender among CEOs. In many respects, Apple has the good fortune of becoming a cash-hoarding poster child. The company does indeed deserve credit for becoming a $225 billion technology-consumer-media-retail juggernaut that has spread its tentacles brilliantly across numerous massive markets, whether its PCs, cell phones, music, television, movies, games, advertising etc.…you get the picture. But just because you are an exceptionally gifted visionary doesn’t give you the right to destroy value of hopelessly idle cash, which is begging for a better home than a 0.25% T-Bill.
Solutions – Taming the Cash Hog:
1) Divvy Up Dividends: With $42 billion in cash on the balance sheet and additional annual free cash generation on pace for $12 billion per year, there is no reason Steve Jobs and the board couldn’t declare a dividend that would yield 3% today. If that feels like too much, then how about shave off a pittance of $5 billion or so to pay out a sustainable dividend, which would yield a market-matching 2% dividend yield to investors. This scenario would accommodate Apple with at least a few decades of a cash cushion to cover ALL the company’s operating expenses and capital expenditures. This meagerly, ultra-conservative dividend policy can actually persist (or grow) longer than expected, if Apple can sustainably grow profits – a good possibility.
2) Share Buyback: This solution is much less desirable from my perspective compared to the dividend route, since many of the large share repurchasers tend to also issue lots of new shares to employees and executives, thereby neutering the benefits of the share repurchases.
3) Bank of Apple – (B of A): Why doesn’t Jobs just create a new entity, plop $40 billion of cash from Apple Inc. into the venture, and then open it up as Bank of Apple. At least that way, as an investor in the bank, I could make more profitable lending spreads at B of A relative to the 0.25% yield earned on the mega-billions deteriorating on Apple’s corporate balance sheet.
The downside of instituting these cash reducing solutions:
- The company doesn’t have as much cash as it would like to do large stupid acquisitions.
- The company loses a bunch of day-traders and short-term stock renters that don’t even know what a dividend is.
The upside to efficiently allocating capital through a 2% dividend is Steve (and the other investors) will receive a nice fat quarterly check. In the case of Jobs, he’ll collect a handsome $27 million or so to his measly $1 annual salary. In the process, the company will also gain long term shareholders that buy into the strategic vision of the company.
Stubbornness has served Steve Jobs tremendously well in his career, and a successful CEO like Steve Jobs is not required to listen to my advice. However, I am hopeful that Mr. Jobs will see the hazards of choking on a rapidly growing $42 billion cash hoard and discover the benefits of slimming down a gluttonous cash hog.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in KO, CVX, PFE, UPS, AOL, Time Warner, Mercedes Benz, Chrysler, Sprint, Nextel, 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.
Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Fixed Income Securities
Having just celebrated another 4th of July holiday, I reflected on the historical importance of our country’s independence finalized 234 years ago, the defining birthday of our great country that permanently marked the separation of our nation from Great Britain. In honor of this revolutionary milestone, our culture has added a few American traditions over the centuries, including watching baseball, and gorging ourselves on hot dogs, and apple pie.There is no better symbol of the importance our culture places on overindulgence than Nathan’s International Hot Dog Eating Contest, held each year on July 4th in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York. The 95th annual contest winner was Joey Chestnut with a total of 54 HDBs (Hot Dogs & Buns) consumed, but not without some controversy thanks to the arrest of former Nathan’s champ Takeru Kobayashi, who watched from the sidelines this year due to a contract dispute with event organizers. Chestnut holds the world record set in 2009 with 68 HDBs, equivalent to about 20,000 calories. In setting the unmatched record, the winner of wiener eating contest inhaled in 10 minutes what an average human should consume in 10 days.
Bond Binge
In the financial markets, Americans have been pigging out on something else over the last few decades, and that is bonds. The craving for bonds has not changed since the end of the financial crisis either. According to Morningstar, since the end of 2008, investors have placed a net $390 billion into taxable bond funds and withdrawn -$45 billion out of U.S. stock funds. A continuation of these trends can be seen in the latest ICI (Investment Company Institute) fund flow data, in which we saw a +$6.3 billion inflow into bonds and a -$1.3 billion abandonment of stocks from the hands of jittery stock investors.
Beyond the endless checklist of worries (Europe default, China slowing, twin deficits, elections, etc.), there has been a consistent exodus of capital from money market funds due to the ridiculously low yields – the seven-day yield on taxable money-market funds, as measured by IMoneyNet, has recently held steady around 0.04%. For yield-hungry investors, bondholders are not getting a lot of bang for their buck if you consider the 10-Year Treasury Note is trading at 2.98%. Nothing in life comes for free, so in the case of Treasuries, bond investors are predominantly swapping market risk for interest rate risk. As I have repeatedly stated in the past, bonds are not evil, however fixed income exposure in a portfolio should be customized for an individual in the context of a diversified portfolio that meets investors’ objectives and risk tolerance.
Although the inflation skies are sunny now, there are clouds on the horizon and the stimulative monetary policies conducted over the last few years do not augur well for a likely climb in future interest rates.
Reversal of Fortune
In the competitive eating world, there is a so-called “reversal of fortune” that disqualifies eaters. At some point, you can only consume so much before the forces of nature take over.
I don’t know when the day of regurgitation will come for many fixed income securities, but managing your consumption of bonds, and the associated duration, becomes crucial as bond bellies continue to bulge. Takeru Kobayashi discovered this first hand at the Nathan’s 2007 championship event.
Baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie have been essential components to the unique aspects of the great American culture. In the world of investing, we have witnessed an acceleration in investors’ appetite for bonds – I just hope for the sake of overzealous bond investors, they will not suffer a reversal of fortune.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds (including fixed income ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions 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.
LeBron James’s Stock: Buy, Sell, or Hold? (Ticker: LBJ)
The world is watching. With the National Basketball Association (NBA) free agency period officially kicking off on July 1st, frothing-mouthed NBA owners have been released to attack LeBron “King” James in hopes of dragging him back to their home teams. Don’t be surprised to see extensive media footage of paparazzi chasing around a Cadillac Escalade with tinted windows or LeBron’s custom logo’d Ferrari – at least until James officially announces his new team of choice (or reasserts his loyalty to his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers). Stalking one of the greatest professional basketball players of all-time may be fascinating to many, but in the high stakes business of professional sports, LeBron is nothing more than a financial asset being shopped around everywhere from Los Angeles and New Jersey to Miami and New York. So, if LeBron James was a stock, would he be a buy, sell, or hold? And if so, at what price? By the way, his bud, and fellow biased posse member, Warren Buffett, is not eligible to answer these important questions.
Hot IPO Season
Although LeBron is the talk of the town these days, there is a flood of other new contract issuances coming to market. Unlike the stock market, the IPO (Initial Public Offering) and Secondary Offering markets for NBA players is flaming hot this year, with some fresher faces mixing it up with some steely veterans. Beyond LeBron James, you have an incredibly talented cast of characters chasing big bucks, including Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Amar’e Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson, and Michael Redd.
Valuation
James is not an unknown commodity like a private start-up company with a limited track record, so valuing LeBron is much easier than sizing up a rookie. What is a 25 year old, two-time MVP phenom, who averages 27.8 points per game, 7.0 rebounds, and 7.0 assists worth?
Well, what kind of coin are other illustrious players making…for example Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers? Even with Bryant’s slightly less dazzling stats (25.3 points per game, 5.3 rebounds, and 4.7 assists), in April he signed a three-year contract extension worth almost $90 million that will keep him in Los Angeles through the 2013-14 season. The comparison isn’t exactly fair, since Bryant, a 12-time All-Star, has been in the league twice as long as James (14 years vs. 7 years) and Bryant also just secured his fifth golden championship ring (versus zero for James).
To get an even better feel on LBJ stock’s comparable analysis, let’s look at the green that other premier players in the league pulled in last season:
1. Tracy McGrady (Houston Rockets): $23.4 million
2. Kobe Bryant (LA Lakers): $23.2 million
3. Jermaine O’Neal (Miami Heat): $22.8 million
4. Tim Duncan (San Antonio Spurs): $22.2 million
5. Shaquille O’Neal (Cleveland Cavaliers): $20 million
6. Dirk Nowitzki (Dallas Mavericks) $19.8 million
Paul Pierce (Boston Celtics): $19.8 million
8. Ray Allen (Boston Celtics): $19.75 million
9. Rashard Lewis (Orlando Magic): $18.9 million
10. Michael Redd (Milwaukee Bucks): $17 million
Big bucks all these players make, but so sad what they do with it (read Hidden Pro Athlete Train Wreck)
M & A Perspective
Another way of looking at the LBJ free agency circus is from a mergers and acquisition standpoint. Unfortunately, the vast majority of mergers fail (see CNET article). One major reason is the culture dynamics that need to align between the coach, LeBron, and the other supporting cast on the team. Golden state Warrior Latrell Sprewell’s choking of Coach P.J. Carlesimo in 1997 is proof positive of what can go wrong when cultures collide. Another aspect of deal-busters is the tendency for suitors to overpay for acquisition deals, and bake in too optimistic assumptions regarding the target’s capabilities to perform.
On the flip side, some obvious complementary skill-set synergies could mesh nicely if a multi-player deal could be constructed between Chris Bosh (Toronto Raptors), Dwyane Wade…cool name (Miami Heat), and resurrected Coach Pat Riley, also of the Heat.
The Buck Stops in ???
When all is said and done, LeBron’s choice is simple – join the team that offers the best hope of winning a championship. The dollars and cents component of the deal are pretty formulaic due to salary caps and league maximums mandated through the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between owners and players. As the Associated Press points out, the difference between staying in Cleveland and going elsewhere is around a measly $30 million (easy for me to say):
“James can get perhaps $125 million over six years by staying in Cleveland; $96 million over five years if he goes.”
My bottom line is that LBJ’s stock is pricey right now, but well worth the BUY if he ends up in Miami with Wade and Bosh. Unfortunately, a restructuring or 1-time charge in Cleveland will not get the job done (Shaq proved that point), so in the Cavs’ hands James is a sell. On the speculative BUY side, let us please forget I am a biased California native, and not fully dismiss the possibility of the Los Angeles Clippers landing LeBron. Billy Crystal is no iconic Laker fan like Jack Nicholson, but nonetheless with LBJ dressed up in red, white, and blue, Billy would have no trouble recruiting some of his celeb pals to hang courtside with him.
Given all the suitors and scenarios, determining a precise Buy, Sell, or Hold rating can be quite challenging. Information in this epic story is changing by the hour, but based on the current data, I am selling LeBron short in Cleveland, and buying him long in Los Angeles. Kobe, don’t confirm your 6th celebration parade next June just quite yet.
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 positions in MSG, 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.
Colombia: The Hidden Latin American Gem
Judging by the all the volatility in the markets and the gloomy headlines blanketing business periodicals, one would think the global walls of capitalism and democracy were crumbling into oblivion. That’s why it’s a nice diversion to discover a diamond in the rough, shining through the darkness in the form of the Colombian stock market. How special is this South American gem? An +1,845% return over 10 years sounds pretty exceptional to me. Those are the results that Professor Dr. Mark J. Perry from the University of Michigan calculated in a posting he recently wrote about the MSCI Colombia stock market index in his blog, Carpe Diem.
Source: Carpe Diem
Fueling the surge in the equity markets has been a right-leaning, free market government with a hawkish defense stance, led by President Álvaro Uribe for the last eight years. The voters voted to continue Uribe’s mandate by voting in his former defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, who promises to keep the disruptive guerilla forces operating under Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in check.
Colombia has been a close ally of the United States, thanks to their support of a joint crackdown on drug smuggling into the U.S. In return for their support, Colombia has received a nice fat $600 million check from the U.S. each year. What would even make our relationship tighter is an approval stamp placed on an awaiting U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, which Congress has inexplicably kept on the backburner.
The U.S. and Colombia also agree on something else…their mutual disdain for Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez poses a threat to the region, but Santos and the wave of free market leaders in the territory are more likely to wreak havoc on the Venezuelan leader according to Investor’s Business Daily:
“But Santos is probably most dangerous for Chavez, because Colombia’s rags-to-riches success story is so dramatic — showing that any beat-up nation can drag itself out of misery through markets — and because Venezuela and Colombia are such close neighbors. Word gets out about how well things are going in Colombia and it spreads fast in Venezuela. Santos need never fire a shot at Venezuela to slay Chavez’s revolution because the power of the markets will do it for him.”
Colombia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not overly large relative to some more developed neighbors, but the World Bank estimated the country’s 2008 GDP at $244 billion, almost triple the figure from five years earlier. The explosive economic growth explains how this market was the highest returning market in the world over the last decade, even eclipsing white hot markets like China, Russia, Brazil, Peru, India, and Turkey, among many others.
How does one invest in this Colombian gem? One way to gain exposure is through an exchange traded fund (ETF): Global X/InterBolsa FTSE Colombia 20 ETF (GXG). This particular ETF is concentrated into 20 positions, with heavy weightings in financial, energy, and industrial stocks. So, as you continue to read about the so-called inevitable “double-dip” recession and collapse of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, please do not forget there are some brilliant free market economies, like Colombia, that are growing brilliantly and producing sparkling returns.
Read Professor Perry’s complete article on the Colombia market
Read the WSJ article written on the subject
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 positions in GXG, 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.
Dividends: From Sapling to Abundant Fruit Tree
Dividends are like fruit and an investment in stock is much like purchasing a sapling. When purchasing a stock (sapling) the goal is two-fold: 1) Buy a sapling (tree) that is expected to bear a lot of fruit; and 2) Pay a cheap or fair price. If the right saplings are purchased at the right prices, then investors can enjoy a steady diet of fruit that has the potential of producing more fruit each year. Fruit can come in the form of future profits, but as we will see, the sweetness of a profitable company also paying dividends can prove much more fruitful over the long-term.
Investing in growth equities at reasonable prices seems like a pretty intelligent strategy, but of late the vast majority of fresh investor capital has been piling into bonds. This is not a flawed plan for retirees (and certain wealthy individuals) and should be a staple in all investment portfolios, to a degree (some of my client portfolios contain more than 80%+ in fixed income-like securities), but for many investors this overly narrow bond focus can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Right now, I like to think of bonds like a reliable bag of dried fruit, selling for a costly price. However, unlike stocks, bonds do not have the potential of raising periodic payments like a sapling with strong growth prospects. “Double-dippers” who are expecting the economy to spiral into a tailspin, along with nervous snakebit equity investors, prefer the reliability of the bagged dry fruit (bonds)… no matter how high the price.
How Sweet is the Fruit? How Does a +2,300% Yield Sound?
Not only do equities offer the potential of capital appreciation, but they also present the prospect of dividend hikes in the future – important characteristics, especially in inflationary environments. Bonds, on the other hand, offer static fixed payments (no hope of interest rate hikes) with declining purchasing power during periods of escalating general prices.
Given the possibility of a “double-dip” recession, one would expect corporate executives to be guarding their cash with extreme stinginess. On the contrary, so far in 2010, companies have shown their confidence in the recovery by increasing or initiating dividends at a +55% higher clip versus the same period last year. Underpinning these announcements, beyond a belief in an economic recovery, are large piles of cash growing on the balance sheets of nonfinancial companies. According to Standard & Poor’s (S&P), cash hit a record $837 billion at the end of March, up from $665 billion last year.
The S&P 500 dividend yield at 2.06% may not sound overwhelmingly high, but with CDs and money markets paying next to nothing, the Federal Funds rate at effectively 0%, and the 10-Year Treasury Note yielding an uninspiring 3.11%, the S&P yield looks a little more respectable in that light.
If the stock market yield doesn’t enthuse you, how does a +2,300% yield sound to you? That’s roughly what a $.05 (split adjusted) purchase of Wal-Mart (WMT) stock in 1972 would be earning you today based on the current $1.21 dividend per share paid today. That return alone is mind-blowing, but this analysis doesn’t even account for the near 1,000-fold increase in the stock price over the similar timeframe. That’s what happens if you can find a company that increases its dividend for 37 consecutive years.
Procter & Gamble (PG) is another example. After PG increased its dividend for 54 consecutive years, from a split-adjusted $.01 per share in 1970 to a $1.93 payout today, original shareholders are earning an approximate 245% yield on their initial investment (excluding again the massive capital appreciation over 40 years). There’s a reason investment greats like Warren Buffett have invested in great dividend franchises like WMT, PG, KO, BUD, WFC, and AXP.
Bad Apples do Exist
Dividend payment is not guaranteed by any means, as evidenced by the dividend cuts by financial institutions during the 2008-2009 crisis (e.g., BAC, WFC, C) or the discontinuation of BP PLC’s (BP) dividend after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Bonds are not immune either. Although bonds are perceived as “safe” investments, the interest and principal payment streams are not fully insured – just ask bondholders of bankrupt companies like Lehman Brothers, Visteon, Tribune, or the countless other companies that have defaulted on their debt promises.
This is where doing your homework by analyzing a company’s competitive positioning, financial wherewithal, and corporate management team can lead you to those companies that have a durable competitive advantage with a corporate culture of returning excess capital to shareholders (see Investing Caffeine’s “Education” section). Certainly finding a WMT and/or PG that will increase dividends consistently for decades is no easy chore, but there are dozens of budding possibilities that S&P has identified as “Dividend Aristocrats” – companies with a multi-year track record of increasing dividends. And although there is uncertainty revolving around dividend taxation going into 2011, I believe it is fair to assume dividend payment treatment will be more favorable than bond income.
Apple Allocation
Growth companies that reinvest profits into new value-expanding projects and/or hoard cash on the balance sheet may make sense conceptually, but dividend paying cultures instill a self-disciplining credo that can better ensure proper capital stewardship by corporate boards. All too often excess capital is treated as funny money, only to be flushed away by overpaying for some high-profile acquisition, or meaningless share buybacks that merely offset generous equity grants to employees.
So, when looking at new and existing investments, consider the importance of dividend payments and dividend growth potential. Investing in an attractively priced sapling with appealing growth prospects can lead to incredibly fruitful returns.
Read the Whole WSJ Article on Dividends
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and WMT, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in BAC, WFC, C, BP, PG, KO, BUD, WFC, AXP, Lehman Brothers, Visteon, Tribune, 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.
Investing Caffeine 
