Dry Powder Piled High
Money goes where it is treated best. Sometimes idle cash contributes to the inflation of speculative bubbles, while sometimes that same capital gets buried in a bunker out of fear. The mood-swing pendulum is constantly changing; however with the Federal Funds Rate at record lows, some of the bunker money is becoming impatient. With the S&P 500 up +60% since the March lows, investors are getting antsy to put some of the massive mounds of dry powder back to work – preferably in an investment vehicle returning more than 1%.
How much dry powder is sloshing around? A boatload. Bloomberg recently referenced data from ICI detailing money market accounts flush with a whopping $3.5 trillion. This elevated historical number comes despite a $439.5 million drop from the record highs experienced in January of this year.
From a broader perspective, if you include cash, money-market, and bank deposits, the nation’s cash hoard reached $9.55 trillion in September. What can $10 trillion dollars buy? According to Bloomberg, you could own the whole S&P 500 index, which registers in at a market capitalization price tag of about $9.39 trillion. The article further puts this measure in context:
“Since 1999, so-called money at zero maturity has on average accounted for 62 percent of the stock index’s worth. … Before the collapse of New York-based Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. last year, the amount of cash never exceeded the value of U.S. equities.”
Cash levels remain high, but the 60% bounce from the March lows is slowly siphoning some money away. According to ICI data, $15.8 billion has been added to domestic-equity funds since March. Trigger shy fund managers, fearful of the macro-economic headlines, have been slow to put all their cash to work, as well. Jeffrey Saut, chief investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates adds “Many of the fund managers I talk to that have missed this rally or underplayed this rally are sitting with way too much cash.”
With so much cash on the sidelines, what do valuations look like since the March rebound?
“The index [S&P 500] trades for 2.18 times book value, or assets minus liabilities, 33 percent below its 15-year average, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The S&P 500 was never valued below 2 times net assets until the collapse of Lehman, data starting in 1994 show. The index fetches 1.15 times sales, 22 percent less than its average since 1993.”
On a trailing P/E basis (19x’s) the market is not cheap, but the Q4 earnings comparisons with last year are ridiculously easy and companies should be able to trip over expectations. The proof in the pudding comes in 2010 when growth in earnings is projected to come in at +34% (Source: Standard & Poor’s), which translates into a much more attractive multiple of 14 x’s earnings. Revenue growth is the missing ingredient that everyone is looking for – merely chopping an expense path to +34% earnings growth will be a challenging endeavor for corporate America.
Growth outside the U.S. has been the most dynamic and asset flows have followed. With some emerging markets up over +100% this year, the sustainability will ultimately depend on the shape of the global earnings recovery. At the end of the day, with piles of dry powder on the sidelines earning next to nothing, eventually that capital will operate as productive fuel to drive prices higher in the areas it is treated best.
Read the Complete Bloomberg Article Here.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Super Sizing May Be Hazardous to Your Portfolio’s Health
You may be familiar with the 2004 Academy Award nominated documentary titled Super Size Me, in which the creator Morgan Spurlock decides to film his 30 day journey of eating McDonalds (MCD) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, making sure he samples every item on the menu. In addition, any time a McDonald’s employee asked Mr. Spurlock whether he wanted to “Super Size” his beverage or French fry order, he complied by ordering the larger size. What was the result from this gluttonous, month-long, fast food binge?
Mr. Spurlock ended up gaining about 25 pounds in weight, his cholesterol sky-rocketed, his liver function deteriorated dramatically, he experienced heart palpitations, and became depressed, among other symptoms. At one point a doctor told him if he continued overindulging at the same pace, he could die.
Well, over the years, investors, governments, and corporations have been doing their own form of “Super-Sizing,” but not by eating Big Macs, Apple Turnovers, and Fish Fillets, but rather consuming too much debt, real estate, and other risky assets, like stocks and hedge funds. Now, like Morgan Spurlock, investors are “de-toxing” by saving more and creating a better balanced portfolio diet. Investors have learned their lessons from our “Great Recession” and are dieting on lower risk assets and consuming a broader set of asset classes. An investor’s diet should cover a broad spectrum of options, including diversified choices across asset class, size, style, and geography. Alternative asset classes, like real estate, commodities, and loans should be evaluated as well.
After the massive crash post-Lehman Brothers, many investors and academics have cast doubts about the relative benefits of diversification, arguing there was no investment class or segment to hide – everything fell equally. There is some truth to the argument, with some exceptions like treasuries, cash, and certain commodities. Globalization and the tighter inter-connectedness between countries can shoulder part of the blame of the synchronized freefall in late 2008 and early 2009. Nonetheless, unless you were short the market, even if you were relatively diversified, pain was spread out generously across many investors.
What countless investors fail to recognize is the constant variability in historical relationship data (e.g., correlations, standard deviation, and covariance) – all the better reason to be broadly diversified. Nobel Prize winners Robert Merton and Myron Scholes know first-hand what can happen when you rely too heavily on historical correlations. Their over-reliance on their quantitative models led to the economic collapse of Long Term Capital Management, which nearly brought the entire economic globe to its knees. Importantly, the magnitude of diversification benefit varies throughout an economic cycle. Since the market rebound in March of this year, we have clearly seen the advantages of diversification.
From a geographical perspective, emerging markets like Russia, which is up over +117% (excluding dividends), are trouncing the domestic averages. Diversification benefits across particular industries and sectors are also evident in areas like technology. For example, the NASDAQ and IIX (Internet Index) are up about +34% and +52% in 2009, respectively. In relation to style characteristics, “Growth” is trouncing “Value” as measured by the Russell 1000 Growth and Value benchmarks. “Growth” is up +25% this year, more than double the appropriate Russell “Value” benchmark. It comes as no surprise that the conservative investments that outperformed in the market collapse, like fixed income and utilities, have generally lagged the other segments.
Like Morgan Spurlock, investors need to resist the “Super Size” temptations in their concentrated portfolios and learn from the binging mistakes experienced by others. A more balanced investment diet across asset class, size, style, and geography will lead to a healthier portfolio and steadier return profile. Now if you will excuse me, I would like to get a bite to eat – perhaps a wholesome McGarden Burger.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management has a short position in MCD at the time this article was originally posted. 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.
“Pessimism Porn” Takes a Hit – Emotions of Investing
“Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lightning kills hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it.”
–Tongue-in-cheek quote from motivational poster.
There’s nothing like a little destructive global financial crisis to boost viewership ratings. CNBC benefitted last fall from all the gloom and doom permeating the media outlets, but unfortunately for the cable business channel, a more constructive market environment over the last six months doesn’t sell as well as what New York Magazine called, “pessimism porn.” Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge recently provided statistics showing the impact of more optimistic financial markets. CNBC experienced total viewer year-over-year declines of -37% as measured in mid-September – worse than Mr. Durden’s late July statistics that illustrated a -28% decline.
Small wonder that we now see discussions developing between Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and General Electric (GE) over a potential partnership with the NBC-Universal assets. Other potential parties may enter the fray, but GE’s shopping of the traditional media unit is evidence ofthe station’s pessimism over a secularly declining business.
Businesses are not the only ones influenced by pessimism – so are individuals. Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have provided support to the impact pessimism has on peoples’ psyches. Emotional fears of loss can have a crippling effect in the decision making process. Through their research, Kahneman and Tversky showed the pain of loss is more than twice as painful as the pleasure from gain. How do they prove this? Through various hypothetical gambling scenarios, they highlight how irrational decisions are made. For example, more people choose the scenario of an initial $600 nest egg that grows by $200, rather than starting with $1,000 and losing $200 (despite ending up at the same exact point under either scenario).
Of course investors have short memories from a historical perspective. Whether it’s the 17th century tulip mania (people paying tens of thousands for tulips – inflation adjusted), the technology bubble of the late 1990s, or the more recent real estate/credit craze, eventually a new bubble forms.
If you are one of those people that get sucked into “pessimism porn” or big bubbles, then I suggest you grab the remote control, turn off CNBC, and then switch over to The History Channel. You may just learn from the repeated emotional mistakes made by those of our past.
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 CMCSA, GE, 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.
Nation’s CEOs Suffering Severely: Pay Down -0.08%
Hold on, let me pull out my violin to play some sympathetic consoling music for our nation’s Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). According to a Corporate Library survey of 2,700 publicly traded companies, CEO compensation declined -0.8% in 2008. I guess that 4th Ferrari and 3rd yacht will have to be put on hold. With some creative perseverance and a little elbow grease, I’m sure the class of underprivileged CEOs can still salvage a healthy package of stock options and restricted stock (to pad the paltry multi-million dollar salaries).
This is what Payscale.com had to say in a report from 2008:
“In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 – 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.”
Of course, Congress and the public are looking for scapegoats to blame for the global financial crisis. There is no better group to blame than highly compensated CEOs. As a result, we are seeing more “say on pay” proposals brought to shareholder votes, thereby removing power from the hands of self-appointed compensation committees and chummy board members. Currently, a Shareholder Bill of Rights Act is making its rounds through Congress that would establish an annual shareholder vote to approve executive compensation of executive management along with have a separate vote on “golden parachute” payments in the context of a company merger or acquisition.
The U.S. is not the only country to implement these types of shareholder rights. As David Ellis at CNN Money wrote, “In 2002, the United Kingdom embraced the practice, and it has subsequently been taken up in Australia and Sweden.” In the U.S. such proposals being considered are on a “non-binding” basis, which means that if “say on pay” is approved there will be no obligation for management to implement the changes – rather “shame” will be the strategic lever used by shareholders.
Everyone has been impacted in one shape or form by the financial crisis, so when you tuck-in your child or lay your head on the pillow tonight, rest assured our poor corporate CEOs are sharing in the pain…just remember, they only kept 99.2% of their pay last year.
Read More About Corporate Library Survey
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Amazon: Growing Up to be Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart (WMT) got its start almost 50 years ago with its first store in Rogers, Arkansas (1962). Since then, the company has expanded to create a global franchise generating more than $400 billion in revenues with a market capitalization valued at about $190 billion. Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) is a relative toddler (founded in 1995 by CEO Jeff Bezos) generating about $20 billion in revenue with a market cap about 1/5th that of Wal-Mart. Mr. Bezos graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa in electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton University in 1986, and we know he has no problem in thinking big. The evidence can be found in his space travel company, Blue Origin, which is expected to initiate human travel in the upcoming years. Beyond space, Mr. Bezos is presented with a multitude of growth opportunities that have the potential of elevating Amazon from a young toddler into a mature adult like its cousin Wal-Mart.
So how does Mr. Bezos get the company through puberty to adulthood? Well actually, all I believe it will take is just more of the same. The company has created an incredible franchise with huge barriers to entry, if you consider the billions spent on the technology, infrastructure, and its distribution dominance as compared to its e-commerce brethren. Bolting on new categories (whether its jewelry, sporting goods, groceries, private label or digital downloads) can be extremely profitable since unlike Wal-Mart, Amazon doesn’t need to build or reconfigure thousands of stores to expand into new categories. For example, Wal-Mart has opened over 600 Sam’s stores nationally in order to target the wholesale club market. Once a new category is added, the blue-print is rolled out nationally and then eventually internationally. And just like Wal-Mart, as economies of scale are achieved, the cost savings are rolled back into lower prices, which then brings more customers, and even more scale advantages. This virtuous cycle then creates deeper and deeper moats separating itself from competitors.
GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES
Besides just the natural expansion of users purchasing more online and Amazon adding to existing categories, here are some other fertile areas for future growth:
- Amazon Prime (Free shipping membership is driving incremental revenue and usage).
- Kindle (This digital reader is already estimated to account for 35% of Amazon’s book sales and some analysts see $2 billion in Kindle revenues by 2012).
- Zappos.com (This acquisition provides instant dominance in shoes and adjacent product lines).
- International Expansion (Joyco.com acquisition in China is an example of how Amazon is expanding into emerging markets).
- New Categories (There are virtually limitless potential categories, but the migration to digital will be key).
- Cloud Computing, Storage & Other Services (EC2 cloud computing, S3 storage, and other outsourced technology services offer promising opportunities).
TREND IS AMAZON’S FRIEND
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
E-Commerce sales account for only about 3.6% of total retail sales ($32.4 billion in Q2’09), but as you can see from the chart, the upward sloping trend is the friend of Amazon. With the proliferation of broadband and the natural aging of our next generation of computer-savvy internet users, not only is the number of online shoppers increasing, but the amount of time spent online is escalating as well. If you consider catalog sales (e.g. Land’s End, L.L. Bean, Eddie Bauer, etc.) have represented about 7-8% of total retail sales, there is a lot of head-room left for online sales to catch-up or replace these sales. Mr. Bezos believes online industry sales can ultimately reach 15% of total retail sales (double catalog sales). Top-rate online franchises like Amazon will be natural beneficiaries of these trends and funnel shoppers through their internet aisles, as a function of these demographic and behavioral tailwinds.
CAPITAL ADVANTAGE
Even when you account for the significantly higher revenue growth rates and growth initiatives (e.g., Kindle, E3, digital, etc) for Amazon relative to Wal-Mart, the capital intensity (as measured by CAPEX/Sales) is still about 70% higher for Wal-Mart as compared to Amazon. For one thing, Amazon does not need to support the some 8,100 stores in 15 countries that Wal-Mart is saddled with, and in turn Amazon can redeploy that capital into areas such as new products, services, and lower delivery costs. Surviving the dot-com bubble bursting, along with paying down billions of debt has afforded Amazon even more capital flexibility.
VALUATION
Valuation can be tricky, especially when you’re talking about a high growth company like Amazon. The exercise becomes a little easier once you realize Amazon is generating about $1.5 billion in free cash flow per year, with $4.3 billion in cash/investments on the balance sheet with virtually no debt in the middle of one of the worst recessions in a generation. At roughly $90 per share, AMZN is trading at over 53x’s Wall Street analysts’ projected earnings of $1.68 for 2009. Jeff Bezos and the rest of the management make it very clear the company is managing their business to one key goal – maximize free cash flow per share (music to my ears – see my article on cash flow). On that basis, AMZN trades at about 25x’s trailing free cash flow and closer to 22x’s if you strip out the $4 billion+ in cash on the balance sheet. If AMZN can grow 15% for the next 5 years (not a given), the valuations just mentioned above could be chopped in half, if price levels and share count remained constant.
With the large run-up in 2009, I have locked in some gains this year, but tactically I will be doing what “Deep Throat” advised in the movie All the President’s Men, and that is to follow the money (cash). If Bezos and Amazon can continue on its current growth trajectory in the coming years, this toddler will mature into a company more closely resembling its cousin Wal-Mart.
Wade S. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and client accounts do have direct long positions in AMZN and WMT at the time article was originally posted. 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.
Strong Advice from Super Swensen
Playing the financial markets is a challenging game, and over the last decade we’ve witnessed events we will never see again in our lifetimes. Through these muscle aches and pains, listening and paying attention to powerful, seasoned industry veterans, like David Swensen, becomes paramount. Mr. Swensen has proven his durability – he has managed the Yale endowment for 24 years and has overseen the growth of the university’s portfolio from $1 billion to $17 billion. For the decade ending in June 2008, the Yale portfolio averaged an incredible 16.3% annual return.
So what commanding advice does Mr. Swensen have to share? Here are a few nuggets regarding equities as discussed in his May interview published in The Guru Investor (TGI):
“With a long time horizon you should have an equity orientation, because over longer periods of time, equities are going to deliver better results,” he says. “If they don’t, then capitalism isn’t working. And we could well be at a point where investments in equities are going to produce returns going forward that are higher than what we’ve seen in the past five or ten years.”
I find it difficult to argue with him. Perhaps we still have a ways to go, but the equity markets had an explosion after the 1966-1982 hiatus. Perhaps the 2000-2009 period isn’t long enough to mark bottom, but at a minimum, the spring is coiling based on history.
When it comes to diversification, TGI summarized Swensen’s asset allocation as follows:
“He recommends that investors have 30% of their funds in U.S. stocks, 15% in Treasury bonds, 15% in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, 15% in Real Estate Investment Trusts, 15% in foreign developed market equities, and 10% in emerging market equities. As investors get older, they should keep this type of allotment for a portion of their portfolio but begin to decrease the size of that portion, putting part of their portfolios into less risky assets like cash or Treasuries.”
Many investors were taking excessive risk in 2008 (within their asset allocations), and they were not even aware. Let’s hope valuable lessons have been learned and investors adjust the risk levels of their portfolios as they age.
David Swensen (Michael Marsland/Yale University)
Mr. Swensen has some choice words for the mutual fund management industry as well:
“The problem is that the quality of the management in the mutual fund industry is not particularly high, and you pay an extraordinarily high price for that not-very-good management,” he says. Swensen cites one study performed by Rob Arnott that measured mutual fund performance over a two-decade period. The study found that you’d have had a 15% chance of beating market after fees and taxes by investing in mutual funds — and that includes only funds that were around for the entire period; many other weaker funds didn’t last, meaning the results have a survivorship bias.
Tough to disagree, and as I’ve written in the past, I believe there are only so many .300 hitters in baseball (a study in 2007 showed only 12 active career .300 hitters in the Major Leagues – highlighted in my previous Ron Baron article). Outside of baseball, there are consistent alpha generators in the market too. However, I’d make the case that identifying the alpha generators in the financial markets is much more difficult because of the extreme fund performance volatility. Even the best managers can string some bad years together.
Swensen doesn’t stop there. He expands on the reasons behind mutual fund manager underperformance:
Taxes and fees are the big culprits, Swensen says: “Why are the tax bills so high? Because turnover’s too high. The mutual fund managers are trading the portfolios as if taxes don’t matter, and taxes do matter. And they’re trading the portfolios as if transactions cost and market impact don’t matter, and they do matter. And as they trade the portfolios, basically what’s happening is Wall Street is siphoning off its slice of the pie … and that’s at the expense of the investor.”
One thing we learned from the real estate and financial bubble that burst over the last few years is that incentive structures were misaligned. Manager compensation, whether you are talking hedge funds or mutual funds, is based on too short a time horizon, and therefore incentive structures encourage abnormal risk-taking. In baseball terms, you have those that take excessive risk and swing for the mega-bucks fences (loose cannons) and the bunters (benchmark huggers) who seek the comfort of “lower” mega-bucks. Swensen is a much bigger believer in passive strategies (as am I), using passive investment vehicles like ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).
Mr. Swensen continues his critical perspective by targeting investors too:
Individuals and institutions who buy mutual funds “take this mutual fund industry which produces a bunch of products that are not great to start with, and then they screw it up by chasing hot performance and selling after things turn cold.”
The 1984-2002 John Bogle data (Vanguard) included in my “Action Dan” article hammers that point home.
Where should investors go now?
Asked what the one recommendation he has right now for investors is, Swensen cited TIPS. “We’ve had this massive fiscal stimulus, massive monetary stimulus, and it’s hard to see how that doesn’t translate into pretty substantial inflation, or at least pretty substantial risk of inflation … down the road at some point,” he said.
Ditto, once again – I’m a believer in having some inflation protection in your portfolio. Of course there is no free lunch in the investment world, and so there are certainly some risk factors in Swensen’s alternative investment strategy (e.g. hedge funds, private equity, and real estate). Certainly, due to significant illiquidity and other factors, many of these areas got absolutely hammered in 2008.
The best investors prepare their portfolios for these strenuous times. Do yourself a favor and work on your muscle tone too – and listen to the strong advice of David Swensen.
Read the Full TGI Article Here
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and client accounts do have direct long positions in TIP at the time article was originally posted. 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.
Celebrity Tax Evaders Run But Can’t Hide
As Mark Twain said, “The only certainties in life are death and taxes.” That is, of course, unless you decide to not pay your taxes. Some well known celebrities fall into this camp.
The financial crisis has hit the economy hard and the impact has been felt directly by our nation’s cash register (i.e., the Internal Revenue Service – IRS). Based on 2006 IRS data, the U.S. had about an 84% Voluntary Compliance Rate (VCR) by tax payers in 2001; a goal of 85% VCR in 2009; and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has thrown out a 90% voluntary compliance goal by 2017. Those collection goals may be a little ambitious given the recession and the escalating unemployment trends over 2008 – 2009.
So who makes up the deadbeats who have deliberately or unintentionally not paid their taxes? Obviously 10-15% of the non-paying tax-payer base is a large number, but the real fun comes by tracking the smaller celebrity component of the tax evaders. Let’s take a look at some of the more prominent dodgers (data provided by The Daily Beast):
- O.J. Simpson: In 2007 the state of California placed listed Mr. Simpson as one of their worst tax offenders, owing close to $1.5 million. Currently he is serving a 33-year sentence in a Nevada prison for an armed robbery and kidnapping conviction.
- Willie Nelson: The long-haired hippy and king of country music, Willie Nelson, was hunted down by the IRS for $16.7 million in 1990. Fortunately for him, his star-power allowed him to record albums and pay back his debt by 1993.
- Wesley Snipes: The Blade movie star claimed the reason he owed more than $17 million in taxes, penalties, and interest is because he was a “non-resident alien.” The judge didn’t buy the explanation, and now he is appealing a three-year prison sentence.
- Pete Rose: “Charlie Hustle,” the all-star baseball player of the Cincinnati Reds served five months in prison for not paying taxes on his autograph, memorabilia, and horse-racing income. Mr. Rose cleared the slate by performing 1,000 hours of community service and paying off $366,000 in debt.
- Nicolas Cage: Not sure if he is shooting a movie in New Orleans, but Mr. Cage is attempting to iron out a $6.2 million tax liability through a Louisiana court for his failure to keep up with 2007 taxes.
- Judy Garland: Men are not the only non-compliers, even if they account for the majority. Judy Garland, from Wizard of Oz fame, had her own tax problems. Besides tax evasion charges in the early 1950s, she accumulated about $4 million in IRS debt after her 1964 variety show (The Judy Garland Show) was cancelled.
- Al Capone: One of most well known cases in tax evasion history is tied to famous mobster Al Capone. After a long, controversial trial, Mr. Capone was convicted and handed an 11-year sentence, predominantly at Alcatraz. He got out early on parole in 1939 and kept a relatively low profile.
There are countless others that have gotten into tax problems with the IRS. Many of them make plenty of money to pay their taxes, however spending habits, laziness, or aggressive tax accountants may explain the reasons behind the tax evasion problems.
See a more complete media gallery of tax evaders here, provided by The Daily Beast.
Regardless of the celebrities’ tax-paying compliance rates, the IRS will have its collection hands full, given the sad state of the current economic environment and the crafty tax-dodging techniques pursued by some citizens. Unlike others, I’ll make sure to write myself a note, reminding me to write a check to my friends at the IRS on April 15th – especially if it involves millions.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Shiny Metal Shopping with Schiff, Rogers, and Faber
There I am, strolling through Costco (COST) with a pallet full of toilet paper, Diet Coke, and a garbage bag-sized bag of tortilla chips on my flat orange cart. As I roll into the cash register, I feel a cold panic grab me, only to realize I forgot my 25 pound gold brick in my car trunk as a method of payment for my necessities. Sound far-fetched? Probably not, if you are a part of the hyper-inflationary “Three Musketeers”: Peter Schiff, Jimmy Rogers, and Marc Faber.
Here is what some of the “world-is-ending” crowd is saying:
Peter Schiff (President of Euro Pacific Capital – Connecticut Senator Candidate): He sees the market potentially going much higher, but “it doesn’t matter how much money we have because we’re not going to be able to buy anything with it.”
Marc Faber (a.k.a.,“Dr Doom”, creator of the Gloom Boom & Doom Report): When asked by faux frog boiler and Fox News reporter Glenn Beck if he believes “it is 100% guaranteed that we are going to have hyper-inflation like Zimbabwe,” Faber’s short and to-the-point response was simply, “Yes, that’s correct.”
Jimmy Rogers (Chairman of Rogers Holdings): “I’m afraid they’re printing so much money that stocks could go to 20,000 or 30,000,” Rogers said. “Of course it would be in worthless money, but it could happen and you could lose a lot of money being short,” he adds. Mr. Rogers likes gold too: “I own gold, I’m not selling it.”
PRICING IN GOLD
One consistent theme heard from these three economic bears is that the Dow and other market indexes should be measured on a gold adjusted basis. Since Peter Schiff’s Dow 10,000 to 3,000 forecast never came to fruition (See Schiff’s other questionable predictions), he rationalizes it this way, “So if you price the 2002 Dow in gold, the Dow is at 3,000 now.” Marc Faber makes a similar argument by saying the Dow could double from today, but with gold tripling your worth will be down. That’s funny, because if I price the Dow based on 2002 lumber prices (rather than gold), the Dow would actually be up to about 20,000 (more than 2x its value today)! If prices should truly be measured in gold, then why doesn’t Goldman Sachs’ (GS) and others provide inflation adjusted price targets on their research reports? If gold is the true measure of value, then why can’t I pay off my American Express (AXP) bill by mailing in my gold necklace?
GOLD FEVER
With the effective quadrupling of gold prices in the last seven years (~$250/oz to ~$1,000/oz), gold bugs are more confidently pounding their chests and throwing out multi-thousand, frothy price targets. For example, Peter Schiff predicted $2,000 per ounce by 2009 (who knows, maybe he’ll be right and gold will be up another 100% in the ne next 90 days…cough, cough). Not only are you hearing the strategists and investors bang their drums more loudly, but gold advertisements are plastered all over the radio, television, and internet. Here are a few excerpts*:
- “Watch your gold investments be “on the money” every 9 out of 10 times.”
- “Gold prices could reach $2,300 an ounce or more before it’s over. Buyers of gold bullion at $900 an ounce could earn a return of +155%. That’s very good. But there’s an even BETTER WAY!”
- “Discover Our Little Known “Gold Price Predictor” That Has Been Spot On Every Single Time… Since 1901..!”
- “Turn EVERY $1 Of GOLD Into $10…Or MORE!”
Sources: streetauthority.com and soverignsociety.com
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Another scenario to consider is a complete collapse in gold prices (and surge in the dollar) like we saw in the early 1980s We experienced about a -65% drop in gold prices (~$800/oz. to $300/oz.) from 1980-1982 and saw ZERO price appreciation for about a 25 year period. When did this abysmal period for gold begin? Right about the same time that Paul Volcker raised interest rates to fight inflation. Hmmm, I wonder what next direction of interest rates will be, especially with the Federal Funds rate currently at effectively 0%? Could we see a repeat of the early ‘80s? Seems like a possibility to me. Certainly if you fall into the Marshal Law, civil unrest, soup kitchen, and bread line camp, like the “Three Musketeers,” then burying tons of gold in your homemade bunker may indeed be an appropriate strategy.
Another head scratcher is all the talk revolving around an inflation driven market rebound. If inflation is truly the worry, then shouldn’t the “Three Musketeers” be massively short and be concerned about declining PE (Price/Earnings) multiples, like the single digit PE levels we saw in the late-1970s and early-1980s (when we were experiencing double-digit inflation)?
As I have chronicled, there can be some mixed interpretations regarding the direction of future gold prices. If you think a repeat of Volcker driven gold price collapse of the early ‘80s is possible, then establishing a heavy short position may be the ticket for you. If on the other hand, you are in the gold $4,000 camp, then it might be best to carry a few extra gold bars in the trunk for your next Costco trip.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and client accounts do not have direct long or short positions in COST, GS, AXP or gold positions. 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.
Taking Facebook and Twitter Public
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Valuing high growth companies is similar to answering a typical open-ended question posed to me during business school interviews: “Wade, how many ping pong balls can you fit in an empty 747 airplane?” Obviously, the estimation process is not an exact science, but rather an artistic exercise in which various techniques and strategies may be implemented to form a more educated guess. The same estimation principles apply to the tricky challenge of valuing high growth companies like Facebook and Twitter.
Cash is King
Where does one start? Conceptually, one method used to determine a company’s value is by taking the present value of all future cash flows. For growth companies, earnings and cash flows can vary dramatically and small changes in assumptions (i.e., revenue growth rates, profit margins, discount rates, taxes, etc.) can lead to drastically different valuations. As I have mentioned in the past, cash flow analysis is a great way to value companies across a broad array of industries – excluding financial companies (see previous article on cash flow investing).
Mature companies operating in stable industries may be piling up cash because of limited revenue growth opportunities. Such companies may choose to pay out dividends, buyback stock, or possibly make acquisitions of target competitors. However, for hyper-growth companies earlier in their business life-cycles, (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), discretionary cash flow may be directly reinvested back into the company, and/or allocated towards numerous growth projects. If these growth companies are not generating a lot of excess free cash flow (cash flow from operations minus capital expenditures), then how does one value such companies? Typically, under a traditional DCF (discounted cash flow model), modest early year cash flows are forecasted until more substantial cash flows are generated in the future, at which point all cash flows are discounted back to today. This process is philosophically pure, but very imprecise and subject to the manipulation and bias of many inputs.
To combat the multi-year wiggle room of a subjective DCF, I choose to calculate what I call “adjusted free cash flow” (cash flow from operations minus depreciation and amortization). The adjusted free cash flow approach provides a perspective on how much cash a growth company theoretically can generate if it decides to not pursue incremental growth projects in excess of maintenance capital expenditures. In other words, I use depreciation and amortization as a proxy for maintenance CAPEX. I believe cash flow figures are much more reliable in valuing growth companies because such cash-based metrics are less subject to manipulation compared to traditional measures like earnings per share (EPS) and net income from the income statement.
Rationalizing Ratios
Other valuation methods to consider for growth companies*:
- PE Ratio: The price-earnings ratio indicates how expensive a stock is by comparing its share price to the company’s earnings.
- PEG Ratio (PE-to-Growth): This metric compares the PE ratio to the earnings growth rate percentage. As a rule of thumb, PEG ratios less than one are considered attractive to some investors, regardless of the absolute PE level.
- Price-to-Sales: This ratio is less precise in my mind because companies can’t pay investors dividends, buy back stock, or make acquisitions with “sales” – discretionary capital comes from earnings and cash flows.
- Price-to-Book: Compares the market capitalization (price) of the company with the book value (or equity) component on the balance sheet.
- EV/EBITDA: Enterprise value (EV) is the total value of the market capitalization plus the value of the debt, divided by EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization). Some investors use EBITDA as an income-based surrogate of cash flow.
- FCF Yield: One of my personal favorites – you can think of this percentage as an inverted PE ratio that substitutes free cash flow for earnings. Rather than a yield on a bond, this ratio effectively provides investors with a discretionary cash yield on a stock.
*All The ratios above should be reviewed both on an absolute basis and relative basis in conjunction with comparable companies in an industry. Faster growing industries, in general, should carry higher ratio metrics.
Taking Facebook and Twitter Public
Before we can even take a stab at some of these growth company valuations, we need to look at the historical financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement). In the case of Facebook and Twitter, since these companies are private, there are no publically available financial statements to peruse. Private investors are generally left in the dark, limited to public news related to what other early investors have paid for ownership stakes. For example, in July, a Russian internet company paid $100 million for a stake in Facebook, implying a $6.5 billion valuation for the total company. Twitter recently obtained a $100 million investment from T. Rowe Price and Insight Venture Partners thereby valuing the total company at $1 billion.
Valuing growth companies is quite different than assessing traditional value companies. Because of the earnings and cash flow volatility in growth companies, the short-term financial results can be distorted. I choose to find market leading franchises that can sustain above average growth for longer periods of time (i.e., companies with “long runways”). For a minority of companies that can grow earnings and cash flows sustainably at above-average rates, I will take advantage of the perception surrounding current short-term “expensive” metrics, because eventually growth will convert valuation perception to “cheap.” Google Inc. (GOOG) is a perfect example – what many investors thought was ridiculously expensive, at the $85 per share Initial Public Offering (IPO) price, ended up skyrocketing to over $700 per share and continues to trade near a very respectable level of $500 per share.
The IPO market is heating up and A123 Systems Inc (AONE) is a fresh example. Often these companies are volatile growth companies that require a deep dive into the financial statements. There is no silver bullet, so different valuation metrics and techniques need to be reviewed in order to come up with more reasonable valuation estimates. Valuation measuring is no cakewalk, but I’ll take this challenge over estimating the number of ping pong balls I can fit in an airplane, any day. Valuing growth companies just requires an understanding of how the essential earnings and cash flow metrics integrate with the fundamental dynamics surrounding a particular company and industry. Now that you have graduated with a degree in Growth Company Valuation 101, you are ready to open your boutique investment bank and advise Facebook and Twitter on their IPO price (the fees can be lucrative if you are not under TARP regulations).
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and client accounts do not have direct long positions AONE, however some Sidoxia client accounts do hold GOOG securities at the time this article was published. 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.
Avoid Chasing Your 401k Tail
David Laibson, a professor of economics at Harvard University, has done extensive research on the savings habits of Americans in their 401k retirement accounts. What he discovers is that workers, like a dog chasing their tail, allocate more of their investments to the areas that have done well and sell the underperforming segments. In short, workers attempt to “time the market.”
Professor Laibson demonstrates this pyramiding strategy has not worked out so well and provides the following advice:
“We know that individual investors are terrible in terms of their market timing. They tend to buy at the tops, they tend to sell at the bottoms. So don’t try to time the market. Don’t think about recouping – just think about a long term strategy.”
That long term strategy he advocates entails a diversified allocation of stocks and bonds that reduces exposure to equities as a person gets older. In short, he says, “Hold a diversified portfolio appropriate for your age.”
He advises those aged in their 20s and 30s to allocate nearly 100% of their portfolio to equities, or investments with commensurate risk. Alternatively, if investors don’t want to adjust the allocation themselves, people should consider life-cycle funds or Self Directed 401k options (Read story here). For those in retirement, he recommends a portfolio with the following characteristics:
“30, 40, 50% should be equities, more as you’re younger…simply hold a long term portfolio with less and less allocation to equities as you age.”
Jason Zweig, a journalist at The Wall Street Journal, recently chimed in with similar thoughts on performance chasing:
“…to buy more of what has gone up, precisely because it has gone up, is to fall for the belief that stocks become safer as their prices rise. That is the same fallacy that led investors straight into disaster in 1929, 1972, 1999, 2007 and every other market bubble in history.”
There are many different strategies for making money in the market, but a plan based solely on emotion is doomed for failure – Professor Laibson’s data supports that assertion. So the next time you are considering re-allocating the mix of investments in your 401k, implement a disciplined, systematic approach. That approach should include the following:
1) Invest Your Age in Fixed Income Securities. John Bogle, Chairman at Vanguard Group, has long made this argument, with the balance placed in equities. For example a sixty year old should have 60% of their assets in bonds and 40% in stocks. This rule of thumb is a good starting point, but the picture becomes cloudier once you account for other assets such as real estate, convertible bonds, and income generated from private businesses.
2) Periodically Rebalance. Rather than investing more into outperforming areas, harvest your gains and redeploy into underperforming segments of your asset allocation. There obviously is an art to knowing “when to hold them and when to fold them,” nonetheless I concur with Professor Laibson that chasing winners is not the proper strategy.
3) Diversify. Spread your assets across multiple asset classes, segments, and styles, including equities, fixed income, commodities, real estate, inflation protection, growth, value, etc. Too much concentration in any one category can really come back to haunt you.
The key to successful retirement planning is to implement an unemotional systematic approach, so you don’t end up chasing your 401k tail.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: At the time of publishing, Sidoxia Capital Management and some of its clients owned certain exchange traded funds, but had no direct positions in any other security referenced.
Investing Caffeine 
