Unique financial nuggets

The goal of this thread is to provide content from leading financial papers (WSJ in my case) that throw new light on not so obvious matters. Here is the 1st set.

WSJ Feb 15 2012
Apple market cap $475B
S&P500 earnings rise 6.6% in 12 months
without apple, rise is 2.8% only

WSJ Feb 17
Facebook share-based compensation (stock options) $2.5 billion last 2 years - will take bite out of earnings. But it does include this expense in its accounting

Zynga, LinkedIn, Groupon use non-GAAP accounting - so earnings look artifically higher
For exaple, Zngya’s stock option expense was $0.6B - resulting in $0.4B loss.
Groupon - 94$ expense = $200M loss!

Re: Unique financial nuggets

The Saturday and Monday editions (bookending Sunday) are always very informative. So here we go.
Sat Feb 18 edition
Jason Zweig: Think beyond S&P500 index to Total market index. Diversify to intenrational stocks, emerging market and invetment grade bonds.

OK - nothing new, but needs reinforcement.

Justin Lehart: S&P500 P/E is 15.5 under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Average P/E since 1950 is 17.8. So market is 15% below fair value? Not quite so fast, says Lehart.
Yales Shiller, Benjamin Graham, Dodd all have talked about cyclicality of earnings. So use average of last 10 years earnings (with earnings adjusted for inflation) in denominator. Now P/E is 22.3. The average of P/E based on inflation adjusted 10-yr average earnings is 18.7. So are stocks 19 overvalued? Not quite so fats, says Lehart!
In last 10 years, 2003 and 2008 had negative earnings. Companies did lots of write-offs in 2003 and 2008 after tech bubble and financial bubble burst.
Commerce dept data on after tax profits of US companies show that in years leading up to bubble, the company reported earnings grew faster than commerce dept reported earnings, and dived faster than comm dept reported earnings!
So companies overstated boom year profits and understated lean year profits.
Based on US commerce dept earnings, P/E is 18.9 - same as the 50 yearaverage of 18.7!
So stocks fairly valued.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Todays (Feb 23) WSJ has a very nice perspective on lack of safety of government bonds w.r.t. corporate bonds. Example given was Greek bonds. Greek bondholders are being forced to write off 100 billion euros ofdebt in a swap. While it is "voluntary" if enough sign up, it is no longer so. But the Euro Central Bank, which holds a lot of Greek debt, has special provisions (after the fact) to retain full value of the bonds it owns! Since ECP owns 45 billion euros, individual investors are on the hook for 145 billion euros! This kind of treatment cannot happen with corporate bondholders.

The cost to insure 10 million euros of Italy bonds is 391 euros annually, while cost for typical Italian company bonds is 141 Euros! Even in the US, where govt bonds are safe, the Fed injecting money and also forcing banks to hold bonds has increased bond prices. Cost to insure US 5 yr bonds is $36, 2hile that for IBM is $32!

Who wound have thunk it.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

"Greek bondholders are being forced to write off 100 billion euros of debt in a swap"

I meant write off part of this debt. In other words, they are forced to take some loss - maybe 30%, 40% or whatever.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Feb 24 WSJ - Berkshire Hathaway has been growing book value at a rapid pace - its price to book value is 1.1, while its normal P/B is 1.6 historically. So maybe looking cheap.

Last 2 years, its stock has increased only 4%, while S&P500 increased 27%. Since they announced share buyback last fall, share price increased by 19%. Buffett believed shares were undervalued - hence announced buyback.

In the last 42 rolling 5 year periods, Berkshire has beaten S&P500 each time!

Re: Unique financial nuggets

It is Saturday - so one of the good days for useful information.
Feb 25 - Jason Zweig
People take on more risk by "derisking" selling perceived "dangerous" assets at wrong time and actually indulge in "rerisking" - by buying assets with less perceived "danger".

Since Jan 2009, investors took out net $105 billion out of US stock funds. Of course we know US stocks are up ~` 100% since then.

Investors have been buying more of sector funds with concentrated stock holdings - in real estate, utilities - after they have gone up!

In January 2012, investors put in $8B in emerging market funds - over last 10 years, emerging mkts have returned 15% annually vs 3.5% for S&P 500. Again buying high!

In Jan, corporate and high yield bond funds took in $23 billion, again after huge move up!

Between 2006 and 2011, university endowments cut US stock holdings from 25% to 16%, and increased exposure to hedge funds, private equities.

Here is the kicker - since Jan 2009, pension plans have sold a net $1.3 Trillion in US stocks and bought 1 Trillion in bonds. That is Trillion with a T.

So buy high sell low appears to be not just limited to the little guy.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

i've been wanting to buy some brk-b from a while now, but how safe is it in the event of something like buffet being sidelined due to illness etc? dude is plenty old..

Re: Unique financial nuggets

^ Same here! It is possible that sevreal folks are thinking along the same lines - so could this be baked into the stock? If the stock drops another 10% - so P/B = 1 (which is rare nowadays), I might dip my toes into it a little. Have not done any homework on it though. At the leasy, have to read say last 5 years of their Annual report.

If all signals are AOK, then will be rooting for it to go down say another 20% after establishing initial position.

My other fear is it may not drop 10%! In that case, oh well, let someone else make money off of it.

(I was not planning to provide opinions on individual stocks, since that could be dangerous - so just want to add a disclaimer to folks- this opinion is just an opinion - worth what you pay for)

Re: Unique financial nuggets

i guess he reads gupshup. look at today’s news.

Buffet says a successor is lined up to replace him

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Interesting. So earnings down from $13B to 10B due to recent Tsunami and other natural disasters.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Anyway, I got motivated to read Buffett's 2011 letter to shareholders. Berkshire as you know has investments in several companies such as Wells Fargo, recently IBM, Burllington Santa Fe, Coca Cola etc. Apparently, the dividends these companies pay out goes into the Berkshare earnings, but the retained earnings not given out as dividends do not flow into Berkshire's earnings in their income statement! This shows their financial staements are very conservative, and understate their true value. Here are his thoughts on share buybacks. He tells us why he wants IBM share price to remain low while IBM buys back its shares.

At our limit price of 110% of book value, repurchases clearly increase Berkshire’s per-share intrinsicvalue. And the more and the cheaper we buy, the greater the gain for continuing shareholders. Therefore, if given the opportunity, we will likely repurchase stock aggressively at our price limit or lower. You should know, however, that we have no interest in supporting the stock and that our bids will fade in particularly weak markets.

Nor will we buy shares if our cash-equivalent holdings are below $20 billion. At Berkshire, financial strength that is unquestionable takes precedence over all else.


This discussion of repurchases offers me the chance to address the irrational reaction of many investors to changes in stock prices. When Berkshire buys stock in a company that is repurchasing shares, we hope for two events: First, we have the normal hope that earnings of the business will increase at a good clip for a long time to come; and second, we also hope that the stock *underperforms *in the market for a long time as well. A corollary to this second point: “Talking our book” about a stock we own – were that to be effective – would actually be
harmful to Berkshire, not helpful as commentators customarily assume.

Let’s use IBM as an example. As all business observers know, CEOs Lou Gerstner and Sam Palmisano did a superb job in moving IBM from near-bankruptcy twenty years ago to its prominence today. Their operational accomplishments were truly extraordinary.

But their financial management was equally brilliant, particularly in recent years as the company’sfinancial flexibility improved. Indeed, I can think of no major company that has had better financial management, askill that has materially increased the gains enjoyed by IBM shareholders. The company has used debt wisely, madevalue-adding acquisitions almost exclusively for cash and aggressively repurchased its own stock.

Today, IBM has 1.16 billion shares outstanding, of which we own about 63.9 million or 5.5%.

Naturally, what happens to the company’s earnings over the next five years is of enormous importance to us.

Beyond that, the company will likely spend $50 billion or so in those years to repurchase shares. Our quiz for theday: What should a long-term shareholder, such as Berkshire, cheer for during that period?

I won’t keep you in suspense. We should wish for IBM’s stock price to *languish *throughout the five years
Let’s do the math. If IBM’s stock price averages, say, $200 during the period, the company will acquire
250 million shares for its $50 billion. There would consequently be 910 million shares outstanding, and wewould own about 7% of the company. If the stock conversely sells for an average of $300 during the five-yearperiod, IBM will acquire only 167 million shares. That would leave about 990 million shares outstanding afterfive years, of which we would own 6.5%.

If IBM were to earn, say, $20 billion in the fifth year, our share of those earnings would be a full $100million greater under the “disappointing” scenario of a lower stock price than they would have been at the higherprice. At some later point our shares would be worth perhaps $1billion more than if the “high-price repurchase scenario had taken place.

The logic is simple: If you are going to be a net buyer of stocks in the future, either directly with your ownmoney or indirectly (through your ownership of a company that is repurchasing however, too often complicate the matter: Most people, includingthose who will be net buyers in the future, take comfort in seeing stock prices advance. These shareholders resemblea commuter who rejoices after the price of gas increases, simply because his tank contains a day’s supply.

Charlie and I don’t expect to win many of you over to our way of thinking – we’ve observed enoughhuman behavior to know the futility of that – but we do want you to be aware of our personal calculus. And herea confession is in order: In my early days I, too, rejoiced when the market rose. Then I read Chapter Eight of BenGraham’s The Intelligent Investor, the chapter dealing with how investors should view fluctuations in stock
prices. Immediately the scales fell from my eyes, and low prices became my friend. Picking up that book was oneof the luckiest moments in my life.

In the end, the success of our IBM investment will be determined primarily by its future earnings. Butan important secondary factor will be how many shares the company purchases with the substantial sums it islikely to devote to this activity. And if repurchases ever reduce the IBM shares outstanding to 63.9 million, I willabandon my famed frugality and give Berkshire employees a paid holiday.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Cut aDs paste and sebsequent removal of nuisance "font" etc resulted in some errors. I have edited one para to the best of my guess as to what it should state (MY TExT IN CAPS)

The logic is simple: If you are going to be a net buyer of stocks in the future, either directly with your own money or indirectly (through your ownership of a company that is repurchasing) YOU SHOULD HOPE STOCK PROCE REMAINS LOW

Most people, including those who will be net buyers in the future, take comfort in seeing stock prices advance. These shareholders resemble a commuter who rejoices after the price of gas increases, simply because his tank contains a day’s supply.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Nice scoop, queer. The succession news was all over the front page of WSJ today.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

The Dow closed at 1, 339, 410.97 this week. No that is not a typo. This would have been the close if all reinvested dividends were to be included.

The Dow closed at 456.22 this week. Again not a typo. This would have been the close without dividends reinvested AND taking the erosion of inflation into account.

The Dow closed at 46986.48 this week. Again not a typo. If reinvested dividend AND inflation taken into account, this would have been the clos - (Real Wealth Dow they call this).

Counting dividends, the S&P 500 is only 3.5% off its Oct 07 high of 1565! So while 1370 is about 15% off the high, reinvestments of dividend makes the losses magically disappear.

While people keep saying iver last 220 years, stock mkt has returned 9% annually, this is a mirage. Because till 40 years ago, commissions were so huge that investors took their dividends as cash and did not reiinvest. Now one can if one chooses to.

So per this article, there has never been a better time for an individual investor to be in the Stock Market.

Source WSJ March 3- Jason Zweig.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

interesting numbers, southie. historically though, aren't we at the period where dividends are really low compared to what companies were paying out say 50 yrs ago? i wonder if we look back only for the last 20-25 years, would the impact of dividend reinvesting be significant.

i've also heard its better for stockholders if the company used the money for stock buyback than paying out dividends, since dividends get taxed again.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

queer - I agree that in the last 20 years or so, the payout ratio has been low. So yes, if we were to do the same analysis starting at say 1992, the difference between the actual Dow value and the dividend reinvested Dow value may not be as great. Maybe 2.5% compunded over last 20 years. So that would be ~ 70% or 1.7X higher.

In theory, you are correct - buybacks are probably better than dividend payouts, since the latter get taxed (currently at 15%). When Obama raises the dividend tax rate for some, this will be a greater effect.

In practice, lots of companies announce buybacks with fanfere. That results in their stocks rising rapidly before the buyback. So they but at high prices. Also lots of the buybacks are to compensate for stock options. So share count does not even go down.

Buffett is ine of the few who believes in buying back shares when they are cheap.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

This link captures the absolute upside down strategy of companies that have done buybacks. Weyerhauser soent $800M ~ in 2008 to buyback its stocks at 80 dollars per share, and when market tanked, it spent only $2M to buy back stocks at $30 per share! MEMC Electronics bought back at $90 but did not at $8. Citigroup soent $31B to buyback at in the decade up to 2007 highs, and then needed $45B infusion after financial bubble collapsed. If these guys would just give the money to us as dividends, we can do better.

Stock buybacks: Buy high and sell low - The Term Sheet: Fortune’s deals blog Term Sheet

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Talking about buybacks, an example of a prudent buyback (just my unprofessional opinion, time will tell) is the $3B buyback announced by Applied Materials on March 5. They still have $1B left to buyback from a previous ongoing buyback program. So over next 4 years, that is an exoected total of $4B in buyback. The stock is only 40% above its 20-year low. So clearly at the lower end of its 20-year price range.

PS - this is not a recommendation or subliminal message to buy this stock - just wanted to present the other side of the buyback. Only the buyback announcement is news - rest is my opinion - worth what you paid for.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

Private sector defined benefit pension plans are being replaced by 401Ks. For companies that still have defined benefit pension plans, due to low interest rates, the discount rates they use to determine how much money to put in the plans is low. The discount rate is a "mix of corporate bond yields over past 2 years". The lower this rate, more the company has to contribute to the plan, greater the bite out of its earnings, and lower revenue to US govt. A provision attached to the "Senate highway bill" would allow the companies including GE, Boeing, Lockheed to decrease their anual contibution by "billions of dollars a year". Companies whose pension plans are healthy need not increase the contribution with the law as is, but AMR for exampl,e could benefit if this new proposal becomes law.

WSJ March 6

My comment - when rates are high, I do not see any company making a beeline to Congress requesting they be allowed to put more money into the pension plan.

Re: Unique financial nuggets

WSJ March 9
Strange alliance between unlikely partners to stop export of Nat gas from US/ The Am Chemistry council representing chemical makers (such as Dow Chemical) and the environmental Sierra group have joined forces. Siera group frowns upon fracking used to get Nat gas from shale. The chemical makers want Nat gas to be cheap so their raw material (and energy) cost to make chemicals is kept low. The cost for Nat gas in Japan is 4X that of uS. So with higher export, natural gas prices in US would rise too. With prices so low, the coal and renewable sectors find it hard to compete vs nat gas for electricity production. So more export of nat gas would benefit both coal (dirty electricity) and renewables (clean electricity). And the plot thickens.

On another note, Greece has finally been able to swap its debt at 52% of original value - it got the required percent of debtors to agree. so the others have no choice (other than long trials in court).