Categories
Articles

Lead Found In Children’s Toys and Furniture Recalled: Today!!!

So states are in the process of suing paint companies Sherwin Williams (SHW), NL Industries (NL) and Valspar (VAL)for products that have not been produced in 50 years now. Why are not these same states taking action against items that are affecting children that are being produced today, affecting children today, being used by them today, sold to them today?? Why are we so concerned about a product that has not been produced, sold or used in more than half a century? Here are the current lead recalls:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the manufacturer named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer products. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Antique White Furniture from the Cottage Collection

Units: About 2,000

Importer: The Land of Nod®, of Northbrook, Ill.

Hazard: Some of the recalled furniture contains paint with high levels of lead. The lead level exceeds that allowed by the federal ban on lead-containing paint which is designed to protect children who might ingest paint chips or peelings. Lead paint is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

Description: The recall includes the following furniture and item numbers. The item number can be found on a label located on the back of the product. The shelf kits include one shelf and two shelf supports for use in the Low Rider Bookcase, the Double-Door Armoire or the District 28 Armoire.

Sold by: Land of Nod® catalog and Web site nationwide, and The Land of Nod® stores in Illinois and Washington from September 2003 to August 2006 for between $50 and $1,100.

Manufactured in: Mexico

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firm below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Multi-colored and solid-colored sidewalk chalk.

Units: 50,000 packages

Manufacturer: Manufactured by Agglo Corporation, Hong Kong (China), and imported by Toys “R” Us, Inc., Paramus, NJ.

Hazard: The multi-colored and solid-colored sidewalk chalk contains high levels of lead, posing a risk of poisoning to young children.

Description: The sidewalk chalk is packaged in a clear-plastic backpack-type carrying case with these words on the label: “Chalk To Go…Totally Me!…24 pieces, sidewalk chalk in different colors, fun chalk shapes.” The label on the package also says “Conforms to ASTM- D4236.” The sidewalk chalk comes in several shapes: butterfly, spider, ice cream cone, bottle, cylinder, and triangular stick. The chalk pieces are solid-colored or multi-colored, including red, blue, green, yellow, and purple.

Sold at: The sidewalk chalk was sold at Toys “R” Us stores nationwide from March 2003 to November 2003 for about $4.99 per package.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Return the sidewalk chalk to Toys “R” Us for a refund.

So here we are. Products full of lead being imported into the country and sold to parents for use with their children. How long has this been going on? Could this be the “public nuisance” poisoning children. I find it much more likely that a child playing with chalk or a toy ingests it from their hands or from the air as they erase it vs. a kid gnaw on a windowsill. Since we cannot prove the source of lead in children, how can we arbitrarily exclude all these other more likely sources?

Categories
Articles

CSX: Rolling At Full Steam

CSX (CSX) provides rail, intermodal and rail-to-truck transload services that are among the nation’s leading transportation companies, connecting more than 70 river, ocean and lake ports, as well as more than 200 short line railroads.

Its principal operating company, CSX Transportation Inc., operates the largest railroad in the eastern United States with a 37,170-mile rail network linking commercial markets in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX is the gateway to the west for goods coming into eastern ports and the main hauler of products coming from the Midwest to be exported.

Earnings in 2006 grew 64% and CSX increased it’s dividend 50%. Management predicts record revenues cash flow and profits through 2010. The key drivers? Gas and ethanol. Diesel fuel price increases disproportionately affect trucking vs railroads. It has become increasingly cost ineffective to ship goods long distance by truck as prices have risen. This has pushed more users to go the the railroad who, due to this increased demand volume have been able to add fuel surcharges to offset their increased fuel costs. In ethanol, CSX experienced 24% volume growth in 2006 shipping the corn based fuel. CSX is the main shipper of ethanol from the Midwest to the east coast. It passes through it’s Chicago hub and from there to points east. This market will only continue to grow as mandates and demand do. When Archer Daniel’s (ADM) reports “strong ethanol demand”, this is good for CSX.

These factors lead to CSX producing cash from operations of $2.1 billion, $1` billion higher than 2005. To return this to shareholders, at the end of 2006 the board approved another $2 billion to be completed by then end of 2008. Today’s announcement of another $1 billion means that a total of 15% of the company’s outstanding shares will be off the market by the end of next year. This is a huge win for shareholders.

The rail business is booming and CSX is doing its best to reward its shareholders.

Categories
Articles

iPhone: Apple’s (APPL) First Flop

Apple (AAPL) begins selling it’s revolutionary iPhone this summer and it will mark the end of the string of hits for the company. Billed as “your life in your pocket”, it will sell for $599 with a one year or $499 with a two agreement through AT&T wireless. The company has had a string of hits since it introduced the iPod and it’s shareholders have benefited sending shares from $7 in 2003 to the $100 they sit at today. The introduction of the iPhone will be the first miscue for the company and send it’s shares, priced for perfection tumbling. “Why”? you ask.

More Isn’t Always Better:
The beauty of the iPod was and is its simplicity and singular purpose. It enabled even the most tech phobic of us the ability to operate and enjoy it. Because of this sales have been phenomenal. There are several versions of mp3 player phones out there and none of them are big sellers. The reason? The market does not want them together. I do not want to have to turn of my music to get a phone call. If I am driving my family in my car and we are listening to the iPod, having to turn off the music to answer my phone becomes a major hassle. The same holds true for any event that I use the ipod to play music at. Having both in one creates problems, it does not solve them. Why would I pay $600 for this, or, buy an iPod in addition to this in order to avoid the hassle?

One Carrier:
All of have cell phone agreements and have a cancellation fee. This varies from $100 to $150 dollars. This price need to be added to the costs of the iPhone for those who want it right away or will cause a lag in initial sales. This lag will allow cell competitors to create their own, cheaper versions to compete, hurting future sales.

Touch Screen
Being able to make a call simply by pointing a finger at a number is an feature touted for the phone. How is this any different or accurate than scrolling on my blackberry? This feature will lead to frustration as users who do not point exactly at the number they want will keep initializing errant calls.

“All In One” Historical Issues:
How many people have had TV/VCR or DVD combos or the dreaded all in one fax, scanner, copier? Now, how many regret that decision? When you have an all in one you then become a slave to that device. If either breaks, the both units must be replaced. If a newer, better version or either comes out, you cannot purchase it because it then entails buying both again at considerable cost. Now, when you consider the unimpressive reliability history of the iPod and the cost to attempt to repair them (usually it is cheaper to just buy a new one), it is not an unrealistic stretch to consider that you may be purchasing one of these every 2 or 3 years. An expensive proposition.

What Should Apple Do?
This is the easiest part. There is no reason to have an 8GB iPod on the phone. Give us a 2GB capacity so we can put our favorite stuff on it and listen when we want and cut the price to $299 and you may have something. A $599 phone will not gain mass acceptance no matter what it does, especially when people can still get it’s functionality from their existing devices. Also, the exclusive deal with AT&T was not a very bright idea. Until it is expanded to all carriers, you will have nothing more than a little niche product.

The real winner in all this? AT&T, not Apple or its shareholders.

Categories
Articles

Lead Paint: Recommended By the US Gov’t.

Here is a freebie for the defense teams at Sherwin Williams (SHW), NL Industries (NL) and Valspar (VAL).

From the US Dept. Of Agriculture , Forest Service Lab in Madison, Wisconsin in January 1949 in a paper called “A Standard of Quality for House Paint”. “Pure white lead paint, usually classified as group L type lA grade 1, is an excellent paint for some uses, especially where repainting may be put off longer than is generally desirable”. What makes this “classification system” detrimental to those currently suing lead paint manufacturers is the opening paragraphs:

“You can now buy house paint and barn paints labeled by the maker with both his trade brand and a classification recommended by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The classification is a form of quality standard. It tells briefly what kind and grade of paint you are buying. The trade brand tells, as it always has, who made the paint and expects to be held responsible for it. Together, classification and trade brand supply all that is needed to buy from reputable sources with an eye to quality as well as to price.

The USDA classification plan was suggested by the Forest Products Laboratory after more than 20 years of research in the painting of wood. Under the plan there is a classification for every kind of house or barn paint for wood buildings.

Paint buyers should think of grade chiefly as a guide to the way paint should be used for best and most economical service. Although grade 1 (more lead in pigment) of suitable group and type is likely to be the best purchase for most work even if it costs a little more, good work can still be done in many cases with paint of grade 2 or grade 3.”

After 20 years of research, where is the “danger warnings” for lead paint by the US government? In fact, they classify lead based paint and recommend it to consumers as the “highest quality.” How were “leadless” paints described on the 1 to 5 scales (one being best)? “There are also leadless paints of groups TZ, SZ, or STZ for use particularly where there may be hydrogen sulfide in the air, which blackens paints containing lead. The leadless paints are of type 4D or, if they are low-grade paints, sometimes type 5.

What is also of important note here is that the USDA was running tests in the 1950’s, to determine the best paint for household use using paints with lead pigment in them. This means that even in the 1950’s when many paint makers had stopped making lead pigment based paint for household use the US Gov’t was still running tests for a classification system that determined lead pigmented paint was the most desirable due to it’s durability. The result? Master painters were able to purchase their own lead and added it to paint to improve its performance. How can we now hold paint companies responsible?

Categories
Articles

Don’t Pay High Prices For Declining Earnings

Here is an equation that does not work for me. Paying 32 times earnings for a company who, if it hits the high end of analyst estimates, will grow 9.4% this year and maybe 17% next. When you consider this company has missed the last three quarters estimates, and four of the past 6, one has to wonder what investors are thinking.

The company?

Whole Foods

Two years ago if I wanted organic foods, I had two choices, Whole Foods or the local health food store. Since Whole Foods was the low cost purveyor of those items, sales at WFMI surged and investors enjoyed a huge run in the stock. Today I can go to Sam’s Club, BJ’s Wholesale or and of my local markets and get organic food. The question now is, since I can get the same items, cheaper, at numerous other locations, why go to Whole Foods? The answer is I wouldn’t and not many other people are either as same store sales growth last quarter was non existent at .3%. Further dampening the outlook is there is no growth impetus for the company on the horizon to justify the lofty PE shares now enjoy.

In an effort to jump start sales in February they agreed to purchase the Wild Oats Markets chain that lost $16 million last year. Revitalizing this chain will not be that easy as cash on hand for WFMI has plummeted from $267 million to $46 million in the last 12 months and cash from operations has seen a steady decline during the same period. Even should they sink the money into this chain, sales growth from it will not be impressive due to the much smaller square footage at Wild Oats locations vs. Whole Foods. Simply put, investments in Wild Oats will need to be accomplished by the addition of debt without tremendous payoff, further squeezing margins.

Much like Starbuck’s, Whole Foods is a company whose best years are behind it. Competitors have encroached on its theme and the originality that made it such a fast grower is gone. Both companies are selling products that are perceived by most people as equal to their competition for higher prices. In today’s price sensitive environment, that is not a recipe for growth.

It especially does not deserve a PE over 3 times its growth rate. Current investors of Whole Foods are in for a painful lesson in growth vs. the premium investors will pay for shares

Categories
Articles

Land’s End: Expand It, Don’t Sell It

There was a blog post out there this past week that said Sears Holdings (SHLD) should spin off it’s Land’s End line in order to create value for shareholders. It was a well written and thought out piece and I could not disagree with it’s author more. I cannot find where I read it but if the author reads this and wants, they can drop me a line and I will link to it. Here are the reasons for my disagreement:

The future of Sears retail:
In February I wrote, “I am rapidly becoming convinced that the future of Sears Holdings retail clothing operations will be predominantly Land’s End merchandise.” This thought was further bolstered when in his annual shareholder letter, CEO Eddie Lampert said that the Land’s Ends division had a record year in 2006 for both sales and profits. If this was not enough to convince people, at the annual meeting last week, Lampert said that the Land’s end “store in a store” concept was being expanded from 100 to 200 locations in 2007. If you have not been to one of these yet, go (here me Maggie?). The layout is enticing, the merchandise is wonderful and the pricing is good. In short, there isn’t anything not to like and based on this years results, I am not the only one who thinks this way. As these locations expand, watch as the retail metrics for Sears improve at an increasing rate. There has been some concern out there that the stores would just cannibalize the online operations. Results to date have proved just the opposite. People seem to be more willing to buy online if they are able to return merchandise to a store for an exchange rather than going through the annoying mail return procedure.

Selling Land’s End now would actually destroy long term shareholder value. Each of these locations, as they open increases the value of the retail operations. It would no doubt give us a short term boost, but it would come at a far too heavy long term price.

Brand Value
Recently Lampert created $1.8 billion dollars essentially out of thin air. What he did was to create a bond out of the Craftsman, Kenmore and DieHard brands. He found a way to quantify the value of these brands. As Land’s End becomes more prevalent and profitable for him, he can do the same for it. I have come to realize that Lampert is smarter than most people out there and sees things that most do not. If you look at it, he has created billions of dollars in shareholder value from two names, Kmart and Sears, both of whom were left for dead by the investing world. Land’s End will eventually have a value to him as a brand that is far in excess of the simple annual sales and profits from the division. Rather than selling this increasingly valuable asset, I would love to see it’s expansion grow at a faster pace. Lampert, however, is a far more patient and wealthier person than I so I will defer to him on it’s pace (that and the fact he has yet to ask my advice). Now, how much value could it have? It is hard to tell since Sears does not breakout individual results in their 10K, making quantifying it guesswork. My opinion is that since Lampert has repeatedly given Land’s End the lions share of credit for margins improving from 24% in 2004, to 27% in 2005 to almost 29% in 2006, its value is substantial and will continue to increase as more locations open.

Future Investments :
Now that Lampert has said he will begin to “look for investments” for Sears Holdings, between the cash on he has on hand and the value of the bonds he created he is sitting on almost $6 billion and multiples of that in borrowing power. The guessing games will begin. If Lampert’s, recent activity within Sears is any indication of his plans, any acquisition will have “Brand Appeal”. What is Dr. Phil’s saying? “The most accurate predictor of future behavior is past behavior”. He is the first retailer out there to quantify the value of a brand name in addition to it’s immediate effect on the profit and loss column. Expect the acquisition(s) to be of strong, respected brand names as for Lampert, it provides him value few seem to be easily able to see..

Categories
Articles

This Week’s Top 5 Fron VIN

Here are the week’s “Top 5 Favorite Stories” as voted on by members of the Value Investor’s News website. It’s owner George has been kind enough to let me post this and I am thinking it will become a weekly feature for me since I find much of what is posted there very valuable. So, if it is good for me, why not you? With that said, here they are, enjoy them this weekend

1- Author Says Work “Has Been Wonderful” Omaha.com
2- Google: Caveat Emptor– ValuePlays
3- Buffet Never Makes Bet With Sucker Odds– Financial Times
4- Sears Holdings To Spend Cash Hoard– ValuePlays
5- Notes From The Wesco Meeting– Gurufocus

Categories
Articles

Circut City: Ripe For Buyout

Circuit City (CC) released results last Monday an holding true to current managements history, they disappointed. They restated earnings for the past two quarters and revised its guidance for fiscal 2008. The restatement of earnings took a backseat to news of “substantially below-plan sales” of large flat panel and projection TVs in April, resulting in a larger forecast loss from continuing operations before taxes of $80 million – $90m for Q1’08 (ending in May). It withdrew its previous guidance of an H1 loss of $40m$50m with a “strong recovery in the second half.” Circuit City said if business trends improve and restructuring efforts are effective, then it expects FY’08 earnings from continuing operations (before taxes) as a percentage of sales at the low end of its prior forecast of 1.4% to 1.8%. News now has them replacing the 3,000 highest paid associates.

Shares, now down almost 50% in the past year are priced for a buyout and have great value, sans current management. CC is sitting on $4.05 a share in cash (after LT debt is subtracted), $2.94 a share in owned inventory and last year generated another $2.11 a share in cash from operations. At today’s price of $16.72, the cash on hand and value of the owned inventory would give a buyer a 42% return almost immediately or, assuming a buyer would have to pay a premium for the shares, CC’s cash and inventory values would more than finance it.

Act one of the new buyers would be to show current management the door. Julian Day at RadioShack (RSH) has shown what good management can do for investors and a buyer of Circuit City woulds have the same opportunity. CC has appealing stores in good locations with a nice product mix, they are just abysmally run.

Categories
Articles

Some Friday Housekeeping

With summer coming upon us a few tidbits.

  • Weekend readership is expected to plummet so my posts on the weekend will be more of the quick read variety
  • Forbes Online pickup another article. You can read it here. I have agreed to provide them the articles first before they hit the blog going forward so they have them “hot off the press” so to speak. They will be published under the Personal Finance section in an area they call the “Adviser Soapbox” . I will let you know going forward when they appear. Currently it looks like every couple weeks, depending on my output.
  • Has anyone heard from Geoff Gannon? As one of my favorite blogs to read (Gannon On Investing), it has been while since his last post. Here is hoping everything is ok.
  • Some of you may have noticed that I have also been providing the site 24/7 Wall St. some exclusive content. I do not know how long this will last but if you keep an eye out there, you will find some additional articles. I tend to give them one or two articles a day. Some of them will appear here after they run there first. Others do not really pertain to the focus of this blog so they will not.
  • I have received some fantastic email questions lately and are in the process of turning them into posts. Due to the news cycle and the timing of events it may be a week or so until they reach the blog but rest assured I am working on them.
  • Please keep the email comments and questions coming. I take criticism as well as compliments as long as it is constructive and not petty or nasty. I have taken suggestions from viewers and implemented them into the blog. I like to think I am smart enough to know I do not know everything…..
  • Over the coming week I will attempting to make some changes to the blog layout. If you log on and things look bizarre, it is just me fumbling my way through computer code and learning it on the fly. Rest assured any oddities are temporary and hopefully the end result will be better..

Thank you for reading, have a great weekend and Happy Mother’s Day to all out there.

Categories
Articles

Sell Your Wireless Phone Service Stocks

What? Why would I advise you to sell your wireless phone service stock at a time when more and more people are using cells phones for everything? We now get our emails, news alerts, text messages via our cell phones and more and more people are even forgoing their land lines to use a cell phone exclusively. If you have been out lately, people cannot seem to function without their cell phones. How can I possibly advise people not to own stock in this industry?

One word: SKYPE

On Thursday Research In Motion (RIMM), in an stunningly under reported event announced:

SHAPE Services announced today the release of a new version of its IM+ for Skype Software for BlackBerry® smartphones from Research In Motion (RIM) (Nasdaq: RIMM; TSX: RIM).

IM+ for Skype Software by SHAPE Services is a mobile client for Skype Software. It enables voice and text communication with other Skype users as well as cost-effective calling to landline or mobile connections. IM+ for Skype Software uses SkypeOut credits for voice communication ensuring cost-effective calls to any number around the globe. For users of Skype Unlimited plan (only USD 29.95 per year) IM+ enables almost free calling from a BlackBerry smartphone to any PC with Skype or any landline/mobile number. All you need is a BlackBerry smartphone and IM+ for Skype Software installed.

Providing desktop-like access to a familiar Skype experience from any mobile device is the plan of SHAPE Services. In the nearest future the company is going to release versions for Windows Mobile Pocket PC, Windows Mobile Smartphone, Palm OS, Symbian OS and J2ME devices. A WAP version for universal access from low-end devices is also in the company’s plans for the upcoming months.

I guess it was only a matter of time in retrospect as technology in our cell phones advances, desk top like functionality should also.

A $30 annual fee for unlimited calling? The only question here is how fast people will begin buying blackberries and switching to the lowest cost cell plan from their providers. You can buy a blackberry from any provider and instead of paying $100 a month for cell service, pay $30 a year.

Once this catches on cell company profits will tumble..

Categories
Articles

Using "Stops": Are You Stopping Gains?

I got a great email from a subscriber a few weeks ago. He asked me about the use of “stop-loss orders”. To paraphrase:

“Do you use stops to protect yourself from a drop in stock prices and protect profits? If you do, where do you set them 10%, 20%?”

Let go to the basics. What is a “stop-loss order”? In its simplest form, it is a standing sell order place for a security you own at a set price below its current price. The theory is that they enable you to avoid a “meltdown” in the stock and protects you from a lost, or if you have a profit in the stock, preserve it. We need to look closer at this strategy though to see if it really delivers.

Investing vs. Trading
First things first. I am a value investor, not a trader. I only buy stocks in stable, fiscally strong companies that have a history of success. I have no use for fad stocks or 90% of technology stocks (I adhere to Warren Buffets thought process, “how can I invest in something that two 18 year olds writing code in their parent’s garage can destroy”?). Because of that, I have no use for stops. The reason is simple. When I buy stock in a company, whether it be 100 or 10,000 shares, I do it with the thought in mind that I am now buying a part of, and becoming an owner in, the company. This is no different than were I to buy a Dairy Queen franchise for example. I only consider selling my shares if there is a fundamental negative change in the company’s prospects or share prices become irrationally overvalued. This causes my outlook and perspective to differ dramatically from the trader who buys shares in the morning with the thought in mind to get rid of them in the afternoon. I fully expect the prices of my shares to fluctuate in value throughout my ownership period which in most cases is several years. Because if this thought process, dips in the price of my shares are for me, great opportunities to purchase more shares at a now discounted price. I always find it funny that Wall St.is the only place in America where buyers get upset when the things they want to purchase go on sale. If you consider yourself a long term owner of a company, think of a drop in the price of the stock simply as a “sale” and not a loss of money.

The “Stop Effect”:
Let’s do a real life example to see how stops can negatively affect our long term results. Our investor owns shares in Archer Daniel’s Midland (ADM) and has a 10% trailing stop in the shares. This means that the stop “trails” the price of the shares up so that it automatically adjust up to preserve profits. Here is the chart:

To give the investor full credit let’s say he bought shares at their lowest point at $15 a share in August, 2004. He set a trailing stop at 10% and watched as shares slowly increased to $25 a share in mid February, 2005. In the third week of February, shares dropped from $25 to $21 a share for no reason. There was no earnings released, no warning, nothing. Now, because the investor had a 10% stop in place, his shares were sold at $22.50 (10% of $25 is $2.50 below the $25 price). He was right to have the stop in right because he saved himself the extra $1.50 a share they dropped, correct ? No, and here is why. Taxes. Since the investor owned his shares for less that a year he is not eligible for the long term holdings tax rate of 15%. He has to pay his effective rate and we will assume that to be 28% (most investors fall into this rate). His gains were $22.50 -$15= $7.50. He now must pay taxes on that $7.50 which equal $2.10. This reduces his gains to $5.40. Now, if we add his realized gain to his purchase price, he effectively sold his shares at $20.40 or a full $2.10 BELOW his stop price. To rub more salt in his wounds, AMD shares traded back up at $25 a share the next week, so he effectively lost $5 in potential gains.

Wait, there is more….

Our investor has learned from his mistake but still believes in “stops.” He rubbed his wounds and bought into ADM the following week but this time moved his stop to 20%. This way he will be saved from “disaster” but not hurt by normal price fluctuations. At the end of March 2005 ADM announces earnings and they fall 9%. The stock sells off from $25 to $17 over the next few weeks. Now, the earning miss was just due to short term commodity price issues and not long term problems with the company or its businesses. In fact, cash flow increased, debt decreased and the company reiterated the results were short term in nature. Our investor though, because he had a 20% stop, sold his shares at $20 (20% of $25 is $5) avoiding the extra $3 a share loss as the share sunk to $17. Smart? Not so much….

Let’s look closer. In the first transaction he ended up with a profit of $5.40 a share and after the second one, a $5 loss, his profit was reduce to a total of 40 cents. Now, if he had never had a stop placed on the shares, he would be at this point sitting on a $2 profit ($15 purchase price- $17 current price). Our investor is undoubtedly frustrated with ADM and like most investors gives up on it and tries another stock. In doing this he then ends up missing the greatest run in the history of the stock to the $39 a share it sits at today.

Without the “stops“, this frustration would not have been present and he most likely would have still be in ADM and wondering what to do with the over 200% profit he is now sitting on.

Who was our “investor” in ADM? None other than yours truly. I was lucky enough to learn from my mistake(s), purchase more shares at the $17 level and have held on for the very profitable ride since then. I have no stops in place for ADM currently (nor do I in any of my investments) because the stock is a long term pick based on two things, food and fuel and until the world need neither, I will be a shareholder.

Lessoned Learned: Sears Holdings:

I bought shares in Sears Holding (SHLD) in December 2005 for $120 a share. I bought them because of Edward Lampert and his ability to make is investors money and having been to Sears and seen the changes there (the Land’s End “store in a store” concept is a sure winner), believed in his direction for the retailer. Another fact that did not hurt was his hedge fund, ESL Investments, sports a 28% annual return for investors. Remembering my ADM experience I did not place a “stop” order on the shares. They rose to their peak of $169 in early June 2006 and then plunged 20% over the next 7 weeks to $134 a share at the end of July. Had I placed another 20% “stop” on the shares, I would have sold them for a profit of $14 a share ($10.08 after taxes) or 8.4%. I also would have missed out on the immediate reversal of the shares as they then climbed to $180 by Halloween.


There was no reason to sell the shares in July. Eddie Lampert did not loose his ability to make money and Sears Holdings did not suffer a deterioration of the metrics he uses to measure its success. Do you know what the Summer 2006 prices were? A “Sears Sales Event”. I did take my other advice and bought more shares while they were “on sale” and at their current level of $180 a share I am sitting on a very nice 9 month return of 30%.

If you are an investor buying quality companies for the log haul, it is my opinion that “stops” will do you more harm than good in most cases. If you are a gambler just trading stock symbols with no real idea of how the underlying company operates, placing a stop on those trades may save you from the inevitable terrible trade you will make.

Categories
Articles

Blockbuster (BBI): NetFlix’s CEO is right…

Blockbuster’s (BBI) earnings call last week was a list of triumphs. To recap:

  • Total revenues for the quarter increased 5.4% to $1.47 billion
  • Worldwide same-store rental revenues increased 1.3%
  • Met aggressive online subscriber growth objective for the quarter and have added approximately 800,000 Blockbuster Total Access subscribers; our highest subscriber growth quarter thus far
  • Worldwide same-store retail revenues increased 14.3% during the quarter,
  • Our year-over-year comparison, our online revenues increased 116%, and we picked up 10 percentage points in market share going from approximately 20% of the online market to 30%. On the store side, despite the store-based industry’s first quarter decline, our customer visits and new membership sign-ups were both at the highest levels we’ve experienced in two years

    CEO John Antioco
    “We’re also attracting customers from outside the video rental category, customers who have been getting their movies from other sources,like satellite or cable pay per view services. Simply put, consumers are discovering or rediscovering Blockbuster in increasing numbers because of the flexibility, the convenience, and the value Total Access offers. As a result, we believe we will continue to pick up share in the overall rental market by attracting business from both our traditional and non-traditional competitors”.

    “We also believe it will be very difficult for our major online competition to impact our growth since we don’t think they have an answer to what we believe is a superior integrated service. Our competition has said they will simply wait us out until we change our proposition. They may have a long wait. We have no intention of making any changes to our Blockbuster Total Access proposition any time soon, unless we feel these changes will fuel our growth even faster or improve our cost efficiencies and service metrics”.

    Antioco was referring to NetFlix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hasting’s who said it’s “not a question if, but when Blockbuster will reset prices,” and that Blockbuster’s low prices weren’t “economically feasible.”

    Here is the issue, is everything is working as planned, why did Blockbuster’s operating loss for the first quarter totaled $18.4 million as compared to operating income of $32.1 million during the first quarter of 2006 and cash flow was also a negative $144 million, down from a positive $41 million in 2006.

    Unfortunately for Blockbuster, Hasting is right. They cannot add and subscribers and revenue and then increase losses and say “everything is working”. Blockbuster has two choices. They need to either rapidly accelerate the rate of store closings or raise prices because what they are doing now is just not getting it done. They were late to and continue to realize the stand alone video store concept is dead (or on its last breath). Technology is taking care of it. The race here is not to the mail, but to the download. When people are able to downloads movies to their TIVO’s (TIVO) or TV’s are internet enabled and they can do it that way, mail and store video rentals cease to exist. This technology does exist and will be more prevalent in the next 2-3 years. Click here for an article on it. The early bird price here ironically goes to neither of these companies but to Amazon. (AMZN)

Until Blockbuster acknowledges the realities of it’s business, I will avoid shares.

Categories
Articles

Google Update: IL Caveat Emptor


As rapidly growing businesses become larger percentage growth inevitably declines. This is the law of large numbers

Back in January and February I had two posts on Google and it’s share price. Rather than regurgitate all of them you can view them here and here. Please read them before continuing so we are all thinking the same way. Let’s update with more recent numbers.

My opinion was and is that Google shares will be stagnant of fall near term (1-2 years). This is not due to a failure of management, products or execution. It is due to the share price getting ahead of the laws of math (large numbers)

% of Income From Revenues:
Net income as a percent of revenues fell from 29% in 2006 to 27% Q1 2007. This is probably due to the YouTube acquisition and the Doubleclick one will further deteriorate this metric but we will use it as so as to not being accused of fudging numbers to make a point.

Let’s do some numbers. Consensus estimates are for 2007 earnings of $15.12 a share (48% EPS growth over 2006). So the question is, “what revenue number do we need to get there”? I am going to use 329 million shares outstanding at year end to be consistent with the share dilution the last year. This number will turn out to be too low as there will be more dilution but again, don’t want to be accused of fudging. This gives Google net earnings of $4.97 billion in 2007. This is 60% net earnings growth but the continued share dilution will prohibit this from all dropping to the bottom line. At net income of 27% of revenues, Google must produce revenues in 2007 of $18.4 billion.

I should note here that that the $18.4 billion dollars represent 80% revenue growth of $8.4 billion dollars and is almost equal to the total revenue growth of 2005 and 2006 combined. Won’t happen. It is an especially large nut to crack when you consider that 2006 revenue only grew 73% and Q1 2007 only 63%. We also need to consider that Google is coming into the slower summer months which will put real pressure on the last 3 months of the year to produce revenues equal to almost the entire first 9 months. I get this by taking the $3.6 billion from Q1 and giving Google $3 billion for Q’s 2 and 3 to reflect the anticipated seasonal slowdown. This leaves us with $9.6 billion left at the end of Q3, $9 billion short of the revenue needed for our $18.4 billion to give us $15.12 a share eps. Even if we allow for Google to turn Q’s 2 and 3 into Q1 beaters and give them $4 billion in revenues each, that still leaves them $7 billion short for the Q4. Just too much.

Other Share Price Headwinds:

Dilution:
Google used stock to purchase YouTube and as of q1 2007, basic shares outstanding have increased 2.6% to 308 million since Dec. 2006 (13% since 2005 and 60% since 2004) and the employee option program will expedite the rate of increase of this dilution.

From the Google site:
“If an employee chooses to sell options in the TSO program, he or she will use an internal online tool built by Morgan Stanley to sell them to the highest-bidding financial institution. The financial institutions buying the options will then likely hold them until maturity and then settle with Google. Google’s employee stock options typically have a ten-year term from the grant date. Under the TSO program, Google’s employee stock options, upon transfer, will have a lifespan of the lesser of two years or up to the remaining term under the original grant.”

What is very interesting here is that in January, the Google site speculated that buyers of the options would short the stock to hedge the option purchase. This now has been has been eliminated from the explanation.

Now, Google could offset this dilution by buying back huge blocks of shares but this is highly unlikely since they re using the shares as currency to make purchases. This implies that they feel a dollar of stock is currently valued at more than a dollar of currency. This is another valuation warning

Acquisitions:
A large acquisition from Google could blow EPS estimates out of the water. But, looking at past history, Google did overpay for YouTube and did the same thing for Doubleclick and neither will do anything for earnings anytime soon and YouTube will likely turn into a litigation drain on cash well before it actually makes any money. Based on history, we need to discount this possibility as acquisitions are one thing Google has not done very well at all so far.

Analysts:
I cannot find a single “hold” or “sell” rating on shares of Google. As a bit of a contrarian, when I see that I instantly get alarmed. No company is flawless and when there are no dissenting voices, people hear the same positive drumbeat repeatedly. That leads to overconfidence in the company and its shares and make the inevitable mistake harder on everyone.

Now, let’s talk multiple on the shares and prices. Last year, Google grew EPS 97% and traded at a PE multiple of roughly 2/3 that in the 60’s. Companies with declining growth rates trade at multiples that are a discount to those rates. Let’s say I am wrong on everything and they do end up hitting the $15.12 estimates. That would mean EPS growth in 2007 of 48%, down from 97%. If we apply the same 2/3 multiple we get a PE of 31 times earnings or a price of $468. It is not unreasonable to expect a multiple contraction of 50% for a growth rate reduction of a like amount especially when you consider EPS growth in 2008 will be even slower.

In January I wrote:
“You should expect the multiple for Google to contract to a range commensurate with its growth rate. If that rate this year is around 30% expect the PE to shrink to about 30 times 2007 earnings. That gives us a price for Google shares of about $450 a share.”

Google hit $450 not long after (it was $500 when I wrote it) and has bounced around the $460 to $470 range most days since then. I cannot see any reason that Google deserves to be priced at any higher than that anytime soon.

I recently had an email conversation with a hedge fund manager who will remain nameless since I did not get his permission to air our discussion and have no desire to anger anyone. In that discussion he stated “…Google is at a new pace, one of none other than Google’s…” When I hear talk like that, I instantly flash back to 1999 and 2000. “New” seldom is new, only “different” and that means the same laws of finance and math still apply. In our digital age competitors catch up more quickly and tech titans reign at #1 become shorter and shorter. This is rather ironic because it is the same digital technologies that enable their meteoric accent to begin with. IBM reigned for almost 30 years, Microsoft for about 12 and Google has been there for about 5 now. Growth slowed for all as they grew and matured and Google has proven to be no exception. It shares, however, have not realized that fact yet as they have already priced in this years earnings. Should Google stumble one quarter as all companies eventually do, look out below.

I will reiterate my closing statement from my January post. Great company, great products, it’s shares are just over priced.

I await the angry emails and comments.

Categories
Articles

Sears Holdings To Spend It’s Cash Hoard

Sears Holdings announced Thursday it currently expects that net income for its first quarter ending May 5, 2007 will be between $200 million and $235 million, or between $1.30 and $1.53 per diluted share. In the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company reported net income of $180 million, or $1.14 per diluted share. At those numbers we will have 14% to 34% EPS growth. Excluding one time items from 2006 and 2007, the high end range of the estimates gives us 13.5% EPS growth in a challenging quarter.

What did the street focus on? Domestic comparable store sales (as usual) for the first twelve weeks of the thirteen-week fiscal 2007 first quarter which ends May 5, 2007 for its Kmart and Sears stores. Kmart comparable store sales decreased by 4.7%, primarily due to lower transaction volumes across most businesses.

Results were buffeted by an improvement in children’s apparel sales and this marks the second consecutive quarter an apparel segment’s sales have increased. Last quarter it was women’s apparel. This is huge because once mom’s start going there for their kid’s and themselves, the retail results begin to really pick up. Home appliances and lawn and garden were down. No kidding. We are in a housing slump and had miserable weather to this point this spring. Lawn and garden will pick up now that the weather has changed for the better and housing will turn around this summer spurring increases in both segments. When you add this to improving apparel results, the second half of this year looks to be very exciting for us shareholders

Lampert has several options available aside from retail results to boost EPS and share price this year.

  • -He still has $604 million on the share repurchase plan left. This simply means that at today’s price of about $180 he could repurchase 3.6 million or 2.3% of outstanding shares.
  • -Cash on hand, the metric most Lampert followers watch will be “about $3 billion excluding Sears Canada”, essentially flat from earlier in the year. In March, the Sears Canada number was $700 million and I expect this to remain constant after the excellent quarter they just reported seeing a C$29 million swing in results from a loss to a profit. With this amount he could pay off 100% of Sears debt and complete the buyback program.
  • -He has also created over $1.8 billion in securities with the DieHard, Craftsman and Kenmore brands. He will use these when the time is right to make a big acquisition or sell them for additional revenue. With many retailers stumbling, there will be assets out there soon he can add at good prices.

Shares plummeted over $10 in after hours Thursday and those who bought in picked up over $2.50 a share Friday, and will see much more by year end. It is tough to get rich betting against Eddie Lampert. If you do not own shares, I would get some. Sears Holdings is in the infancy of what it will eventually become.

At the annual meeting on Friday, Lampert answered shareholder questions in a Buffet like Q&A session. Some notables:

  • In early March I opined “I am rapidly becoming convinced that the future of Sears retail operations will become predominately Land’s End merchandise”. It would appear I was correct on that one as Lampert announced they were doubling the “store in a store” Land’s End concept in Sears locations from 100 to 200 this year.
  • Kmart is bringing back the famed “blue light special” that was so successful for so long
  • Sears has a new marketing campaign entitled “Sears: Where It All Begins” with a new commercial that analyst Bill Dreher called “brilliant”. These begin Sunday, May 6th
  • Will expand the Craftsman and DieHard brands in Kmart locations

Personally, I feel the Craftsman and DieHard move should have been done long ago but probably was not due to production constraints with current suppliers. At any rate, the expansion of sales channels of these products will provide more value to the names and add more value to the recently created securities created from them. What does that mean? Essentially, Lampert created a bond – like instrument based on the Craftsman, Kenmore and DieHard brands. Holders of these “bonds” receive interest payments based on the performance of the brands. The better the performance of the brands (more sales) the more value these “bonds” then have. Here is the brilliant part. Currently these “bonds” are valued at approx. $1.8 billion and as these brands are sold through more channels, that only increases. In theory, Lampert could use them as cash to buy another company. Because there are future payments attached to the “bonds”, he would then be able to pay a discount for the company to it’s current price based on the future value of those payments.

Another way to look at it is Lampert now sits on about $4 billion in cash at Sears. By creating these securities, he essentially created another $1.8 billion “out of thin air”. The value of these brands was always there, he just found a way to monetize it.

2007 will be a seminal year for us shareholders, much like 2005 was for Kmart holders. My guts tells me that several acquisitions are on the way that will transform Sears holdings forever. Lampert seems to like brands so do not be surprised to see several smaller ones involving brands, not necessarily sales outlets. By doing it this way, he gives more people reason to go to Sears and Kmart locations to get those brands and by adding them to the “securtization bonds”, increases the value of them also.

Categories
Articles

Don’t People Get Tired Of Doubting "Lampert U" Grads?

Another blowout quarter for RadioShack (RSH) and it’s Lampert University grad CEO Julian Day. Much has been written that past few weeks about The Shack in anticipation of its result and the sentiment was for of the end of the ride for shares. I will not point out those who wrote these articles but suffice it to say, wrong again folks. Results: