Categories
Articles

Davidson "Looks Across the Valley" $$

“Davidson” submits:

When you are a value investor you are really an asset buyer with an expectation on ROE on those assets over an anticipated future period. The “science” that Ian Cumming references in his quote, “The science is in the “In”. The poetry is in the “Out”.”, is in the means that a value investor assesses the potential that the expected returns are likely to be realized. It is important to be cognizant of financial history, Hamilton, Fed Reserve history, economic philosophy of Hayek and etc as well as how this has played out since the 1871.

A powerful record of the effect of the Federal Reserve acting as a financial shock absorber has been in effect since 1933-see chart 1 (click to enlarge).

With all the manipulations of govt., war, high taxation, excess govt. spending leading to inflation and the recovery and disinflation under Reagan and Volcker, one can build a great deal of confidence in US society and the its economic underpinnings that can serve to let one see thru the current fog of issues clouding our economic future.

If one measures BV (the productive assets of public cos) growth of the SP500 (I see this as quite steady at ~6.2%) (see Chart 2, click to enlarge) and then when one examines the ROE on these assets and measures that regression analysis produces a quite steady 14.2%.

Between 1978 to Present, one can produce a forecast for SP500 earnings and convert this to an earnings yield. This earnings yield is compared to the Real US GDP trend which is 3.16% and the current core inflation rate which is 2.3%; the combination of these 2 rates becomes the benchmark against which all investments are compared. The market has priced the SP500 against this benchmark return since 1978 in a fairly close relationship with allowances for market psychology which is an important factor at all times (see Chart 3, click to enlarge).

The current relationship is that the SP500 is priced at an estimated 8.08% earnings yield while the Market Cap Rate (MCR) is 5.4%. For the SP500 to return back to a normalized rate of return, this means that it needs to rise by 49.6% to roughly 1,350 from 900 currently. This is how a value investor converts assets to future returns by assuming that a historical trend with many periods of in which problems like those we fear today will eventually be resumed and return to trend.

Can value investors be wrong? Absulutely!! But, there is a very strong trend of economic history that supports these assumptions and the Fed is easing like it has done in the past. The cry, “But, but, but…it is different this time!!!” has be uttered at every major low in our financial history, i.e. 1974, 1982, 1987, 1990, 1998, 2002-2003 and 2008-2009. The odds greatly favor recovery, strong recovery which few are forecasting.

Our greatest problem today is fear and a complete lack of perspective. Historical perspective is how value investors look across the valley.


Categories
Articles

Wednesday’s Links

Paulson, Gitmo, Home sizes, Taxes

Paulson and Lehman

– 49% oppose its closing

Size fluctuates

– Another state losing millionaires due to increased taxation


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

The Geography of Jobs – TIP Strategies

For those who want a more visual interpretation of the job situation. Full link to the flowing data below. It really is striking..

Jan. 2007

Q1 2009:

The Geography of Jobs – TIP Strategies

Posted using ShareThis

When you look at this and consider US home prices fell 19% in Q1 over last year, I still can not find a convincing argument for the “housing has bottomed” theme. People having confidence does not equate to having money in the bank to buy a home. Nor does it equate to banks not continuing to tighten credit standards….

When making investments, please keep these charts in mind…pictures really do tell a rather convincing story

Categories
Articles

SEC Proposed Proxy Rule Changes

This is interesting stuff. I don’t see anyway this does not lead to a flood of nominees being proposed by investors should it pass. I also think it leads to chaos the first year and current managements will be unprepared for what comes but in the longer term, it becomes a normalized part of the business and then becomes better for all shareholders.

The less guaranteed job safety and person has in a job, in my opinion the better their performance in that job becomes.

Here is the proposal…

SEC Proxy Rule Proposal

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law proxy Sec


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Ackman Pledges to Keep Target Shares 5yrs. if Elected

As stated here before, I have no “skin in this game”. The sole reason for my interest in this is the message it hopefully sends to other corporate boards should Ackman be successful.

Hopefully there is little objection to the “corporate boards are unresponsive to shareholders” meme. That being said, a successful Ackman may spur changes at other boards if for no other reason the avoid a similar situation.

My main issue is with Target’s changing of their governance rules in order to entrench the board. Also, their refusal to publicly debate or discuss the ideas of their largest shareholder, while at the same time using press releases to snipe at the ideas he floats is more than a bit distasteful..

Read other ValuePlays post on this here, here, and here.

Here is today’s CNBC appearance.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Pershing Square Press Release May 26

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Finance Business & Law project PMP



Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Categories
Articles

Bernanke’s BU Speech and a Candid Admission

Recently Fed chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech to Graduates at the Boston College School of Law in which he said:

Instead, I’d like to offer a few thoughts today about the inherent unpredictability of our individual lives and how one might go about dealing with that reality. As an economist and policymaker, I have plenty of experience in trying to foretell the future, because policy decisions inevitably involve projections of how alternative policy choices will influence the future course of the economy. The Federal Reserve, therefore, devotes substantial resources to economic forecasting. Likewise, individual investors and businesses have strong financial incentives to try to anticipate how the economy will evolve. With so much at stake, you will not be surprised to know that, over the years, many very smart people have applied the most sophisticated statistical and modeling tools available to try to better divine the economic future. But the results, unfortunately, have more often than not been underwhelming. Like weather forecasters, economic forecasters must deal with a system that is extraordinarily complex, that is subject to random shocks, and about which our data and understanding will always be imperfect. In some ways, predicting the economy is even more difficult than forecasting the weather, because an economy is not made up of molecules whose behavior is subject to the laws of physics, but rather of human beings who are themselves thinking about the future and whose behavior may be influenced by the forecasts that they or others make. To be sure, historical relationships and regularities can help economists, as well as weather forecasters, gain some insight into the future, but these must be used with considerable caution and healthy skepticism.

Bold type emphasis mine..

Now this goes to a post herejust last week on the subject of the Fed’s forecasts.

The only question we could have then is, “if Bernanke admits the forecasts made by himself and other economists are equatable to a weather forecast, why are the making them so far out into the future and why aren’t we bring told they are essentially guesses”? I mean, even the weather man is not insane enough to be making prediction for next May, yet Bernanke and company are making them not only for next May, but the one after that.

Haven’t we learned yet that any economic prediction, push out to a year is not at all reliable, much as a weather forecast for that date would be? Even the weatherman is careful enough to preface what he says with “stay tuned tomorrow because things can change”.

Yet, when we read ANY of the Fed forecasts, they are delivered with such a certainty that one is lead to believe their belief in the accuracy of their predictions despite what we know to be the error rate (it is large). Now, there are those who will say they are required to make the forecasts they produce.

Then ought not the type of candor Bernanke expressed at BC be required when he is testifying before Congress and millions are being updated as to his every utterance? Since we are lead to believe he has a more exact idea of what the future of our economy holds for us than any other economist out there, if he truly believes in the inaccuracy of his profession, shouldn’t he lead with that disclaimer. Even us bloggers put them on our blogs…..

The cold hard reality just may be he does know more, but because he must put on a “happy face” so as to not start a panic, hides it from us all. This was the essence of my previous post on the subject and if it is true, is a worse scenario. The more his “predictive” abilities are wrong, the less faith anyone will have in him or the institution he presides over. When that comes to pass, a certain level of panic/doubt cannot be avoided…

Who knows, maybe we are already there???

Full Text

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Tuesday’s Links

Foreclosures, Porsche, Nukes, Hyack

– 70% of “saved” homes………re-default

Almost worked

– This is a really big deal folks

Revisited

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Monday’s Links

Music, Flip-Flops, Jim Rogers, Robert Reich

– All your music on your Blackberry FREE

– Say one thing and do another

– Alex has a great site on Jim Rogers

– Looking at the problem backwards…Universites have >$340B in endowments…..how about lowering tuiton to reduce student debt?

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Sunday Viewing….Madoff via "Frontline"

Frontline once again nails it…


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Saturday Viewing….PJ O’Rourke’s Satire (video)


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

S&P 500 PE: It Must Correct $$

A constant theme here and really for any value investor is “price always meets value”. They just do. It is the “when” that we cannot predict but we know eventually it does. For that reason we buy when the value is above the current price and sell when it reaches or exceeds it. Easy right? Well, not really, it is the determination of what that value is that trips folks up and causes mistakes.

Thus is the dilemma of the current market. By any valuation it is way over valued. The S&P 500 last Friday after another quarter of reduced earnings (most are in now) sat at an stratospheric 122 times earnings. For those who are not sure what “normal” is, it is about 20 times earnings.

Here is the whole thing visually (from Chart of the Day):

So, that must mean the market is headed for a big fall, right? Well, there are two parts to the equation. The “P” or price and the “E”, earnings. In order to get the ratio down to a normal level the “P” must fall and the “E” must rise. Q1 earnings numbers were smacked by a -6% Q1 GDP. We know Q2 will be better and Q3 three ought to show even more improvement (both may still be negative but less so). That means we can expect the “E” part of the equation to increase.

With S&P earnings as of last Friday at $7.21, it will not talk much improvement for the PE ratio of the market to be brought down by even a modest earnings improvement. For reference, last year at this time the S&P had earnings of $62 and sat at 1400 vs 888 today. For the market to sit where it is and have its PE fall to around a more “normal” 20 times earnings, they  must increase 485% to $45. 

Again, visually, this is what has happened to earnings:

So, what happened to Q1? Companies wrote off billions in Q1 and used it as a “kitchen sink” quarter. We all expected it to be bad so they wrote down everything that had or might deteriorate in value. Q2 ought to show improvement if for no other reason the massive Q1 writedowns ought to be just about over. Even if operating earnings stay flat, we will see overall earnings improve.

Again, visually (click to enlarge): This is the S&P operating earnings.

Notice Q4 was the worst operationally and improvement is expect through the year. This is what to watch going forward. As long as this continues upward, the rest will wash out in the end.

It is fairly safe to say that the decline in earnings is or is near over and we ought to begin to see improvement. Note: this does not mean the overall economy improves immediately or dramatically, just that the decimation in earnings is done. Because of that, there is a very real scenario where the market just pauses and waits for earnings to catch up. Then, depending on the Q2 results as they come in, the next move in the market is defined. If they are as or better than expected the market will feel justified at its current level. Should they begin to come in worse, the high levels it currently sit at will indeed appear irrational and we could see a decent sized sell off.

Please know that I am not predicting what the market is going to do over the next two months, no of us know that. What I do know is that the current PE of the market is unsustainable and has to come down to more normal levels. The only way for that to happen is a rapid rise in earnings and/or an fall from the current levels of the S&P.

It also means the risk to current levels is downward. If we do not get increasing earnings, the market has to fall to regain valuation balance. If we do get modestly increasing earnings, it could sit here while the earnings take down the valuation disparity. Either way, the markets upside is limited to down.

One then has to extrapolate from this that the market could continue its upward march if we get a large increase in earnings in Q2. That would justify the
recovery theme currently “en vogue” and reduce the market valuation in one step. All eye then turn to continued improvement in Q3 for continued market appreciation.

In talking with “Davidson” about the subject yesterday he said:

That is the way it happens. Markets that move ahead of earnings are always called “speculative”. It is a question that value players would answer that they buy on P/Assets or P/BV but sell on earnings expectation or P/E when the earnings come in.

A quote from Ian Cumming from the Leucadia (LUK) annual meeting I went to. “The science is in the “In”. The poetry is in the “Out”. The value buyer assesses the potential earnings power of the assets, but buys when there are no or at least very low earnings and the market not having the sense to do the same type of work is lost in the pricing and giving stocks away. But, when the earnings are at full potential and have recovered, the market believes that some new earnings trend has begun and priced the stock at “poetry levels”-“so beautiful” and it is this is where one should sell.

So what to do? Be careful. Something has to happen either way and two of the three scenarios have the market doing nothing to falling.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

According to Target’s Guidelines, 2 Directors Must Resign $$

Interesting development just days before the Target (TGT) proxy vote…

According to Target’s Own Governance Guidelines,
Two Directors Should Step Down Promptly

NEW YORK, May 22 – The Nominees for Shareholder Choice commented today on recent developments concerning corporate governance issues at Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT).

Under Target’s Governance Guidelines – which are based on principles articulated by Target’s former CEO and founding family member Kenneth Dayton – two current members of its board, Solomon Trujillo and Anne Mulcahy, are required to tender their resignations promptly, making room for directors with relevant experience and fresh perspectives. In light of the on-going proxy contest, the Nominees for Shareholder Choice expressed concern that the company has not made any public disclosure regarding each of these incumbent directors’ resignations under the company’s Governance Guidelines.

Two Incumbent Directors Should Resign Promptly
According to Target’s Governance Guidelines

Incumbent director Solomon Trujillo (who is currently running for re-election to the Target board) has recently been asked to resign as CEO of Telstra, the Australian telecommunication company that he headed. In addition, yesterday, Xerox Corporation announced that incumbent director Anne Mulcahy has stepped down as CEO of Xerox. Under Target’s Governance Guidelines, as a result of changes in their principal employment, Mr. Trujillo and Ms. Mulcahy are required to promptly submit their resignations. Target’s Governance Guidelines provide as follows:

“Changes in Director’s Principal Employment – Any director (including management directors) whose affiliation or position of principal employment changes substantially after election to the Board will be expected to offer to tender his or her resignation as a director promptly to the Board. The Nominating Committee shall make a recommendation to the Board on whether to accept or reject the offer, taking into consideration the effect of such change in employment on the director’s qualification as an independent director and on the interests of the Corporation.”

Given the clear mandate of Target’s Governance Guidelines, Target should disclose whether either or both of these directors have submitted a resignation, and whether the board intends to delay taking action on their resignations to thwart the effective exercise of the shareholder voting franchise at the upcoming annual meeting.

Ronald J. Gilson, a renowned corporate governance scholar and a Nominee for Shareholder Choice stated, “The board and nominating committee know that board policies require members to offer their resignations when their principal employment changes substantially. It is poor corporate governance to deprive shareholders of the opportunity to choose successor directors to Mr. Trujillo and Ms. Mulcahy.”

Trujillo Era at Telstra

Mr. Trujillo’s departure from Telstra has been widely reported in the Australian press. A recent article in The Australian IT entitled, “Quiet Last Supper for Sol,” observed that under Mr. Trujillo’s leadership, Telstra’s share price declined materially, its relationship with the Australian government became severely strained, and a $12-billion IT transformation program originally lauded by Mr. Trujillo was over-budget and over-time with little results to show for it. The Australian IT quoted an analyst as saying, “The Sol Trujillo era at Telstra will be characterised by $15 billion of shareholder value destruction, uncertainty around the outcome of his much-heralded transformation program and customer satisfaction at an all-time low.”

The Nominees for Shareholder Choice believe that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trujillo’s departure from Telstra suggest that, after a 15-year long tenure on the Target board, it is time for him to give up his seat to make room for a director with fresh perspectives and more relevant experience.

Despite Mr. Trujillo’s departure from Telstra, not only has Mr. Trujillo apparently failed to tender his resignation, but instead the company’s nominating committee and board have nominated him for yet another three-year term at the upcoming annual meeting. Mr. Trujillo’s nomination comes after multiple extensions of Target’s director term limits – which have increased from 12 to 15, and more recently to 20 years – in an apparent accommodation to Mr. Trujillo who is the only incumbent director who would have been immediately impacted by the prior 15-year term limit.

The Nominees for Shareholder Choice believe that Mr. Trujillo’s continued board candidacy is emblematic of the erosion of the governance principles first articulated and implemented by Target’s founding family member and chairman Kenneth Dayton decades ago.

The Nominees for Shareholder Choice are of the view that under these circumstances, if he has not done so already, Mr. Trujillo should promptly submit his resignation, and the Target’s nominating committee and board should accept his resignation and withdraw his nomination. The resulting vacancy should be filled by a vote of all shareholders at the upcoming meeting. According to the express terms of Target’s Governance Guidelines, Ms. Mulcahy must also promptly submit her resignation.

Now the whole resigning thing isn’t really the issue as the nominating committee could have recommended the Board not accept it. The problem is, and this is actually more disturbing is that so close to such a contested proxy vote that the Board and the Nominating Committee chose to ignore Target’s own rules.

One has to assume they rather not draw attention to potential issue with current members so close to the vote and give shareholders a possible reason to not re-elect them. I have a real hard time believing it was any type of over-site on their part also. It really does not pass the smell test…not even close..

Pershing’s Ackman has been on record questioning Target corporate governance…..they just gave his gas to add to his fire…

Read Former Board Member Bill George’s rebuttle to Ackman written yesterday. It now reads as more that a bit ironic given today’s events..


Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Categories
Articles

Taubman: "No Distessed Sales at General Growth" $$

There has been a ton of speculation out there that General Growth would be forced to dump holdings on the cheap, reducing the odds of equity preservation in the Chapter 11 process. This ought to dump some cold water on them…

When you take this and the recent TALF news, things are looking better for shareholders daily..

From Bloomberg:

“Even with a distressed owner of a good quality regional mall asset, you rarely, rarely see distressed pricing of those assets,” Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert S. Taubman said in a telephone interview. “If you’ve got a great one, no one’s going to want to sell an asset like that at a distressed price.”

General Growth (GGWPQ) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month after amassing $27 billion in debt during an acquisition spree that made it the second-largest U.S. shopping mall owner. Taubman’s comments echo those made last month by hedge-fund manager William Ackman, whose Pershing Square Capital Management LP owns about 25 percent of Chicago-based General Growth. Ackman said the probability of competitors “buying any of General Growth’s properties on the cheap is zero.”

It continues:

Taubman, whose Bloomfield Hills, Michigan-based company (TCO) has 24 regional malls, said the court likely will support a plan by General Growth management to keep the company’s portfolio together and emerge from bankruptcy without selling off a large number of properties.

“Maybe on the margin an asset will leak out,” he said in an interview from the International Council of Shopping Centers convention in Las Vegas, where his company is meeting with retail tenants. Even so, the predictable income offered by regional malls such as those in General Growth’s portfolio will attract buyers willing to pay the full price, Taubman said.

“There are enough buyers out there,” he said. “You’re never going to see a genuinely distressed price.”

This further bolsters to “asset” part of the equation in the eternal “are assets > liabilities” argument. It is key because depending on the structure of the 11 process, having assets > liabilities is key for shareholders remaining partly or totally whole when all is said and done.

Usual disclaimer. This is a highly speculative bet that depends greatly on the whims of the US legal system. You must be prepared to lose 100% (or close to it) in this investment before you invest. BUT, if we are right (I think we are)……..wow will it be good…


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GGWPQ, none

Categories
Articles

Friday’s Links

Oil, California, Retiring?, France….We are it

– A look at price

– A mess….. no other words for it

– Here are the “Best Places”

– Another small biz killer



Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Sears Holdings Laps Estimates, Extends Credit Facility $$

Looks like another nails in the coffin for those calling for the demise of Sears Holdings (SHLD)

Q1 Earnings
Sears Holdings Q1 Earnings

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Finance Business & Law sears holdings eddie

For those who do not want to read the release, important items:

1- We had cash balances of $1.2 billion at May 2, 2009 (of which $515 million was domestic and $734 million was at Sears Canada) as compared to $1.4 billion at May 3, 2008 and $1.3 billion at January 31, 2009. For the quarter, the significant uses of our cash included $40 million for share repurchases, $76 million in capital expenditures, and $52 million of contributions to our pension and post-retirement plans. $465 million of common shares under the share repurchase program remain still available

2- The credit facility, the assumed reason Sears would self destruct as the dooms-dayers said it would not be refinanced or would be on onerous terms was, and at terms better than the previous one in terms of assuring more than ample liquidity for Sears.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long SHLD