Showing posts with label Oracle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oracle. Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2009

Of Roll-Ups and Markets


Roll-up #1:  BofA, originally a modest Charlotte, N. C.  bank, then the pretentiously-named Nations Bank, then a truly national bank with a name to match after merging with/taking over the San Fran-based BofA, has announced an upside "earnings surprise".  The stock has more than quadrupled since its low point this winter.  How any financial journalist/editor team can use that term "earnings surprise" to refer to a TARP recipient with the journalist equivalent of a straight face is, well, a surprise.

Because with Big Finance it is all politics, all the time, their stocks are unanalyzable and therefore  untradeable, as stated here a while ago.  Having been short financials or long puts these entities on and off since last year and having stopped that behavior with AXP around 10 and BofA around 4, my temptation is to go to the well one more time.  Too far too fast at the very least; but why fight the Fed?  Perhaps systemically less important entities such as AmEx (AXP)?  TBD . . .

To both explicate some current issues and show how confusing matters are with Big Finance, please see the post from last night by James Kwak (h/t Naked Capitalism) at the Baseline Scenario, titled More Accounting Games, which both explains the lack of real importance of converting preferred stock to common stock and then goes on to clarify/correct one of his points.  

Roll-up #2:  Oracle (ORCL) is buying Sun Microsystems (JAVA) for about $7.4 B, or about $6 B after net cash.  ORCL currently has a negative $3 B tangible net worth, after years of profitability and only one quarter of a dividend payment.  Basically, ORCL has used most of its positive cash flow over the years to buy its common stock from people and institutions who no longer want to own it, without rewarding the long-term holder with dividends until very recently.

ORCL has turned into another Citigroup, it would appear, or perhaps a once-superior acquirer, namely Nations Bank.  Yet even Wachovia and Fifth Third were until not long ago viewed as very well run banks that were also great roll-up acquirers.  Wrong!

ORCL stock has, on the heels of well-received earnings, punched above its 50 and 200 day moving averages for the first time since last August.  One wonders if if the company will be viewed as making a material error by acquiring an unprofitable hardware/software company at a premium valuation.  If so, and if the stock collapses in any way similar to what happened to Pfizer when it plummeted much more than the market after announcing the Wyeth takeover, that might be a bad metaphor for the market as a whole.

Other comments:  Following the bear market script, the best chart performers of last year, namely Treasuries, gold and the two Dow 30 winners, WMT and MCD, are underperformers the last few months, with charts that look similar to various falling markets and stocks from last year.  Short term, no asset class looks attractive.  Longer term, the view here is that belief in paper/fiat money will continue to be eroded as everyone sees how easily trillions of dollars have been "poofed" into existence by the strong will of the Establishment.  The greenback is a Federal Reserve note, and the Federal Reserve now holds assets that are increasingly dodgy.

Re the argument that stocks are a good inflation hedge, the truth is that they were in the early-t0-mid 1980s,  but only after immense inflation had driven up the nominal value of various assets and after a commitment to a disinflation/high growth (Volcker/Reagan) economy had been made.  Matters are more fundamental now:  the survival of the central bank absent a bailout, the survival of a now-lapdog FDIC (which should NOT be participating in PPIP), and any belief that the reserve currency of the world is being managed responsibly.

Thus it appears likely that on a secular basis, more rather than fewer people will seek out alternatives to the dollar as a store of wealth.  The Euro?  Too risky.  The Deutschmark?  Yes, but sorry, see the Euro.  The yen?  Laughable.  The yuan/renminbi?  Premature at best.

Except for the dollar, there is only one "thing" that will get one past border guards, out of prison, and that in general will be accepted where feasible in a transaction.  The fact is that everyone reading this knows what that mystery "currency" is.  Case closed.  Longer term investors should consider accumulating on weakness.

Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009

Monday, January 19, 2009

Procter & Gambling

This blog is devoted to matters of equity, in both the moral and financial senses of the word. We are not interested in providing stock analysis, except where such is relevant to broader economic, financial and related policy considerations. That said, we live in a world where stocks are major actors in our economic system, one which is unbalanced. It is no longer news that our large financial companies are troubled. It is also not news that General Electric is at least half a financial company, and that that half is troubled. What may be news is the extent to which a prototypical consumer non-durable company is an emperor that also has no clothes.

Consider Procter & Gamble. The company has been around longer than you or me. It seems as secure as the Royal Bank of Scotland seemed not long ago. It raises its dividend yearly. Yet what we have learned in the past year and a half is to ignore dividends (yes, they can lie) and restrain our enthusiam for the value of profit and loss statements. What we need to really focus on is a company's balance sheet. It will surprise many that Procter & Gamble basically reports that it is in a sense running on fumes. This writeup relies on P&G's SEC filing of its September 2008 quarter, as reported on Yahoo's Finance site.

Consider:

Total current assets: $25 B
Total current liabilities: $38 B

Therefore net working capital is negative $13 B. (Ed.: This is real money, even for a bank!)
Worse, cash plus receivables are $4 B less than payables.

Surely, a rich old company such as P&G must have lots of long-term assets. Well, not exactly.

Property, plant and equipment plus "other assets" are $24 B.
Long-term liabilities are $38 B.

Excluding intangible and good-will assets, the Company has a long-term asset balance sheet that is valued at negative $14 B.

The tangible net worth of "PG" is negative 26.7 billion dollars.

Now, what are its business prospects? I have no idea, neither do you, and really neither does the company. The U.S. and the other parts of the world where P&G makes the bulk of its profits are slow-growth/no-growth sectors at best, but are currently experiencing a new era of frugality. In the current environment, people will buy store brands like crazy. I hear that local dentists are laying off receptionists and struggling to pay their bills, people are deferring getting their teeth cleaned, etc. In that environment, people will definitely save a buck or two buying cheaper toothpaste (which doesn't do much for you other than lubricating a toothbrush when it removes stuff from your teeth, anyway, I am told by my dentist), cheaper toothbrushes, cheaper household goods . . . and thus P&G is, you can be certain, either experiencing margin pressure and/or sales volume pressure.

I have no idea whether the stock market has discounted all this and for purposes of this blog I have no interest in whether PG is a good investment or not. The point here is that there is really less "there" there in the company beyond its current turnover than one would think. PG is yet another example of financial engineering; it has a stock market value of $172 B against its -$27 B of tangible net worth. If economic times stay bad and business goes downhill, there is little obvious asset base behind this company. Contrast that with Apple Computer, which in a down-cycle for its business prospects several years ago was a financial fortress, with massive amounts of cash and no debt.

As long as Apple got a mention and some praise (and it remains debt-free), consider also the venerable AT&T, which markets Apple's IPhone. "T" is a twin to P&G financially: negative $23 B in tangible net worth (much of which may be overstated due to technologic innovation) against a stock market value of $149 B.

When we look hard at these behemoths, there's less "there" there than we think. That's a trend that goes on and on, in differing degrees, to IBM, GE, the Dow Transports, most NASDAQ stocks (check out Oracle's $4 B negative tangible net worth), etc. We all want to hope for the best, but Dr. Taleb of the Black Swan keeps pointing out that we have to look out below.

To change metaphors, we may be in a sort of eye of the storm. We know we've been battered, but we see stability and help from low money rates and other central bank maneuvers, and know (or think) we can repair the damage to date. As a Floridian, I know to fear the winds that come from the other direction after the eye passes at least as much as the first blow. And I fear that the next blow will be from an unexpected direction. It may be that the P&G's and AT&T's of the world will blow up next.

Not a prediction, certainly not a hope, but definitely a caution.

Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC