Categories
Articles

Dow Chemical's Liveris Comments on Rohm & Hass and Buffett

Let’s look closer at the Dow Chemical (DOW), Rohm & Haas (RHM) deal

First the video’s. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on CNBC

Part 1:

Part 2:

Important things to note:

– Buffett wanted an investment in Dow Chemical BEFORE this deal came to the table after meeting Liveris and hearing about what is happening at Dow.
– The $3 billion convertible Berkshire (BRK.A) converts in 5 years.
– The deal, in keeping with Liveris’s stated acquisition criteria is accredive withing two years.

Rohm & Hass (ROH):
Is the world’s largest producer of acrylic paint ingredients and also makes chemicals used in adhesives, packaging materials and personal-care products. Dow said the unit that will include Rohm & Haas’s business will have annual revenue of about $13 billion. Dow had $53.5 billion in sales last year.

The purchase will have pretax cost synergies of at least $800 million per year from increased purchasing power for raw materials, supply chain improvements and the elimination of redundant corporate services and governance, Dow said.

With the collective impact of these two deals, performance products and advanced materials will represent 69 percent of Dow’s total sales, on a 2007 pro forma basis, compared with 51 percent prior to these transactions. EDBITDA will change from 51% performance to 62%.

Debt to equity will remain under 40% after the deal. Note: Some of the proceed from the Kuwait deal will pay off initial debt used for the transaction so the 40% number is a post both transactions number. Dow has $1.6 billion in cash as of the last quarter and $9.5 billion coming. $4 billion will come from Berkshire and Kuwait meaning even without any additional pure (convertible aside) debt, Dow would retain $1 billion in cash on its books post deal.

Bottom line, Dow retains tremendous financial flexibility post deal. Look at it this way, do we really think Buffett would pony up $3 billion for a convertible that would convert flat or at a loss? Would he put up the cash of he thought the deal would cripple Dow or its earning power? Think about it… Clearly Buffett sees tremendous upside for both a Dow with and without Rohm & Hass.

In March of this year I said:

“Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett has always said that “price is what you pay, value is what you get”. It is one of my personal favorites because it reminds us that the price of a stock and what you are getting for that price are not always commensurate. There are times you pay in excess of what you are receiving in value and times you pay far less.

This is one of those times.

I have no idea what the price of Dow’s stock will be in the future. I do know that, buying the stock at its current levels, yielding a growing 4.5% is a wise move long term. With earnings expectations above $3.50 for 2010 (the next expected trough), Dow currently sits at about 10 times those earnings. Should Liveris’s “well north” mean $3.90 a share or higher, then we have a 4.5% yielding company sitting at 8 to 9 times earnings…

All this does not take into account the endless possibilities of $9.5 billion coming into the bank this year….”

It would appear Warren agrees….

Now, much is being said today about the premium Dow is paying. Let’s look closer.
The deal is only a 47.9% premium to Rohm and Haas 60-day average price and a 28.7% premium to its 2008 closing high. Liveris did point out the the share price of Rohm dropped 16% during the month the deal came together. If it had just stayed flat, the “premium wretching” we have been hearing about would be nil. With Rohm & Haas, Dow is now committing to industry trough (2010-2011) EPS of $4 a share, up 14% from the previous $3.50 a share announced earlier this year. Let’s not forget the EPS for the trough is an “in the bag” estimate, expect superior results.

View Dow pdf. presentation on the deal:

View Dow Press Release

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Dow Chemical’s Liveris Comments on Rohm & Hass and Buffett

Let’s look closer at the Dow Chemical (DOW), Rohm & Haas (RHM) deal

First the video’s. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on CNBC

Part 1:

Part 2:

Important things to note:

– Buffett wanted an investment in Dow Chemical BEFORE this deal came to the table after meeting Liveris and hearing about what is happening at Dow.
– The $3 billion convertible Berkshire (BRK.A) converts in 5 years.
– The deal, in keeping with Liveris’s stated acquisition criteria is accredive withing two years.

Rohm & Hass (ROH):
Is the world’s largest producer of acrylic paint ingredients and also makes chemicals used in adhesives, packaging materials and personal-care products. Dow said the unit that will include Rohm & Haas’s business will have annual revenue of about $13 billion. Dow had $53.5 billion in sales last year.

The purchase will have pretax cost synergies of at least $800 million per year from increased purchasing power for raw materials, supply chain improvements and the elimination of redundant corporate services and governance, Dow said.

With the collective impact of these two deals, performance products and advanced materials will represent 69 percent of Dow’s total sales, on a 2007 pro forma basis, compared with 51 percent prior to these transactions. EDBITDA will change from 51% performance to 62%.

Debt to equity will remain under 40% after the deal. Note: Some of the proceed from the Kuwait deal will pay off initial debt used for the transaction so the 40% number is a post both transactions number. Dow has $1.6 billion in cash as of the last quarter and $9.5 billion coming. $4 billion will come from Berkshire and Kuwait meaning even without any additional pure (convertible aside) debt, Dow would retain $1 billion in cash on its books post deal.

Bottom line, Dow retains tremendous financial flexibility post deal. Look at it this way, do we really think Buffett would pony up $3 billion for a convertible that would convert flat or at a loss? Would he put up the cash of he thought the deal would cripple Dow or its earning power? Think about it… Clearly Buffett sees tremendous upside for both a Dow with and without Rohm & Hass.

In March of this year I said:

“Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett has always said that “price is what you pay, value is what you get”. It is one of my personal favorites because it reminds us that the price of a stock and what you are getting for that price are not always commensurate. There are times you pay in excess of what you are receiving in value and times you pay far less.

This is one of those times.

I have no idea what the price of Dow’s stock will be in the future. I do know that, buying the stock at its current levels, yielding a growing 4.5% is a wise move long term. With earnings expectations above $3.50 for 2010 (the next expected trough), Dow currently sits at about 10 times those earnings. Should Liveris’s “well north” mean $3.90 a share or higher, then we have a 4.5% yielding company sitting at 8 to 9 times earnings…

All this does not take into account the endless possibilities of $9.5 billion coming into the bank this year….”

It would appear Warren agrees….

Now, much is being said today about the premium Dow is paying. Let’s look closer.
The deal is only a 47.9% premium to Rohm and Haas 60-day average price and a 28.7% premium to its 2008 closing high. Liveris did point out the the share price of Rohm dropped 16% during the month the deal came together. If it had just stayed flat, the “premium wretching” we have been hearing about would be nil. With Rohm & Haas, Dow is now committing to industry trough (2010-2011) EPS of $4 a share, up 14% from the previous $3.50 a share announced earlier this year. Let’s not forget the EPS for the trough is an “in the bag” estimate, expect superior results.

View Dow pdf. presentation on the deal:

View Dow Press Release

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Buffett Invests in Dow Chemical (DOW)

Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett finally sees the light!!!

Dow Chemical (DOW) said today that it has agreed to buy Rohm and Haas (ROH), the specialty chemical maker, for about $18.8 billion in cash with the help of Buffett.

Dow will pay $78 a share in cash, a 74 percent premium over Rohm and Haas’s closing price on Wednesday. Rohm and Haas will continue to do business under its own name, and it will maintain its headquarters in Philadelphia.

The new company will be the nation’s largest makers of specialty chemicals, and helps both companies gain scale at a time when commodities prices are still rising.

The deal is an all-cash one. In addition to debt financing from Citigroup (C), Merrill Lynch (MER) and Morgan Stanley (MS),Dow received an equity investment from Berkshire Hathaway and the Kuwait Investment Authority paid $3 billion and $1 billion respectively for convertible preferred securities.

“The acquisition of Rohm and Haas is a defining step in our transformational strategy to shape the ‘Dow of Tomorrow’ – a high value, diversified chemicals and materials company, creating the largest specialty chemicals company in the United States with a leading global position in performance products and advanced materials,” Andrew N. Liveris, Dow’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

More on this later…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):long Dow,C, none

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Now Its Eddie and Steve and Barry….

Boy, the rumor mill is working overtime on Sears Holdings (SHLD) in recent weeks… Let’s look again.

The NY Times is reporting:
“The company’s management (Steve & Barry’s) held discussions over the Fourth of July weekend with Sears Holdings Corporation about a possible bailout or an acquisition of some of its labels, according to people briefed on the talks.

Sears and its Kmart unit, under the ownership of Edward S. Lampert, were said to remain interested in some of the labels, but that company was struggling as well. Steve & Barry’s, which is privately owned, had been one of the fastest-growing retailers in the country, opening hundreds of stores selling clothes under the names of Sarah Jessica Parker, Venus Williams and Stephon Marbury.”

It continued:
“Steve & Barry’s merchandise might actually excite the Kmart customer, but it could be very complicated to do this without paying G.E. a lot of money,” said Howard Davidowitz, the chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a retail consulting and investment banking firm. He contrasted the situation to the bargain-priced acquisition of the struggling Fortunoff chain by the owner of Lord & Taylor in March. Steve & Barry’s does not own the celebrity brands, but licenses their names, so Ms. Parker and others will retain some control.”

Now, I think it is safe to say we can rule out an acquisition or a cash infusion of the company by Sears. It really just does not seem to jive with what Lampert is doing at Sears.

What I think does make sense and would fit perfectly with Lampert’s current strategy would be either selling the brands in Kmart or an outright acquisition of the rights for some of them. It would be a way to draw shoppers into Kmart without the hassle of establishing a new brand.

Let’s not forget that Steve & Barry’s really kind of got themselves into this mess by operating as though the good times for the economy would never end. As long as it was chugging along, they were fine. But, as soon as it hiccuped, they had no cushion for themselves. The brands are still selling at the stores, it is just that management operated as though landlord concessions would continue infinitely, when they didn’t, ooops..

One also has to consider the online presence Sears has and the additional revenues that can be added through the brand sales there.

Watch the video on the announcement:

So, the brands have tremendous value for a chain looking to lure shoppers. Steve & Barry have to do something and one would think, contrary to what Davidowitz says, GE would be more than willing to make a few concession rather than right off another investment.

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday's Links

Steelers, iPhone, Fox Biz, Gumshoe

– Art Rooney must be turning in his grave….criminal

Disappointment

A coup for Ruppert

– More saving investors hides.

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday’s Links

Steelers, iPhone, Fox Biz, Gumshoe

– Art Rooney must be turning in his grave….criminal

Disappointment

A coup for Ruppert

– More saving investors hides.

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday's Upgrades and Downgrades


Upgrades
Massey Energy (MEE)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
W&T Offshore (WTI)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
Callon Petroleum (CPE)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
Seacoast Banking (SBCF)- Sterne Agee Hold » Buy
MarineMax (HZO)- FTN Midwest Neutral » Buy
Mattel (MAT)- BMO Capital Markets Underperform » Market Perform
Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS)- Broadpoint Capital Neutral » Buy
Gushan Environmental Energy (GU)- Piper Jaffray Neutral » Buy
Transocean (RIG)- JP Morgan Neutral » Overweight
Cameco (CCJ)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Alcoa (AA)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Steel Dynamics (STLD)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Nucor (NUE)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Xenoport (XNPT)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Centex (CTX)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Penn Va GP Hldgs (PVG)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
HDFC Bank (HDB)- Credit Suisse Neutral » Outperform
Sensient (SXT)- KeyBanc Capital Mkts Hold » Buy

Downgrades
EMC Corp (EMC)- Caris & Company Buy » Above Average
Premier Exhibitions (PRXI)- Dougherty & Company Buy » Neutral
Federal Signal (FSS)- BMO Capital Markets Market Perform » Underperform
Coca-Cola Ent (CCE)- Stifel Nicolaus Buy » Hold
SGX Pharma (SGXP)- Cantor Fitzgerald Buy » Hold
OfficeMax (OMX)- Piper Jaffray Buy » Neutral
Employers Holdings (EIG)- Keefe Bruyette Outperform » Mkt Perform
ACE Limited (ACE)- Citigroup Buy » Hold
Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico (PAC)- Citigroup Hold » Sell
NOVA Chemicals (NCX)- Citigroup Hold » Sell
Matsushita Elec (MC)- Credit Suisse Outperform » Neutral
H.B. Fuller (FUL)- KeyBanc Capital Mkts Buy » Hold

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday’s Upgrades and Downgrades


Upgrades
Massey Energy (MEE)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
W&T Offshore (WTI)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
Callon Petroleum (CPE)- Howard Weil Market Perform » Market Outperform
Seacoast Banking (SBCF)- Sterne Agee Hold » Buy
MarineMax (HZO)- FTN Midwest Neutral » Buy
Mattel (MAT)- BMO Capital Markets Underperform » Market Perform
Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS)- Broadpoint Capital Neutral » Buy
Gushan Environmental Energy (GU)- Piper Jaffray Neutral » Buy
Transocean (RIG)- JP Morgan Neutral » Overweight
Cameco (CCJ)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Alcoa (AA)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Steel Dynamics (STLD)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Nucor (NUE)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Xenoport (XNPT)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Centex (CTX)- UBS Neutral » Buy
Penn Va GP Hldgs (PVG)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
HDFC Bank (HDB)- Credit Suisse Neutral » Outperform
Sensient (SXT)- KeyBanc Capital Mkts Hold » Buy

Downgrades
EMC Corp (EMC)- Caris & Company Buy » Above Average
Premier Exhibitions (PRXI)- Dougherty & Company Buy » Neutral
Federal Signal (FSS)- BMO Capital Markets Market Perform » Underperform
Coca-Cola Ent (CCE)- Stifel Nicolaus Buy » Hold
SGX Pharma (SGXP)- Cantor Fitzgerald Buy » Hold
OfficeMax (OMX)- Piper Jaffray Buy » Neutral
Employers Holdings (EIG)- Keefe Bruyette Outperform » Mkt Perform
ACE Limited (ACE)- Citigroup Buy » Hold
Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico (PAC)- Citigroup Hold » Sell
NOVA Chemicals (NCX)- Citigroup Hold » Sell
Matsushita Elec (MC)- Credit Suisse Outperform » Neutral
H.B. Fuller (FUL)- KeyBanc Capital Mkts Buy » Hold

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Bruce Berkowitz Files 13G/A in Mohawk Industries

Bruce Berkowitz just filed a 13G/A for his 10.6% stake in Mohawk Industries (MHK)

“7,223,821 shares of Common Stock of Mohawk Industries, Inc. are owned, in the
aggregate, by various investment vehicles managed by Fairholme Capital
Management, L.L.C. (“FCM”)of which 5,800,653 shares are owned by Fairholme
Funds, Inc. Because Mr. Berkowitz, in his capacity as the Managing Member of FCM
or as President of Fairholme Funds, Inc., has voting or dispositive power over
all shares beneficially owned by FCM, he is deemed to have beneficial ownership
of all such shares so reported herein.

While the advisory relationship causes attribution to Bruce Berkowitz, Fairholme
Funds, Inc. or FCM of certain indicia of beneficial ownership for the limited
purpose of this Schedule 13G Amendment, Bruce Berkowitz, Fairholme Funds, Inc.
and FCM hereby disclaim ownership of these shares for purposes of
interpretations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or for any
other purpose, except to the extent of their pecuniary interest.”

Full filing

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Columbus Dismisses Lead Paint Lawsuit "With Prejuduce"

More good news for Sherwin Williams (SHW) and NL Industries (NL)

Jane Genova Reports
“The city of Columbus, Ohio has voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its public nuisance lawsuit against the former manufacturers of lead paint.

According to a press release issued by Prism Public Affairs, which represents a number of lead paint public nuisance defendants, this action by Columbus “follows a series of significant decisions over the last two years, all of which have rejected public nuisance lawsuits against former manufacturers. On July 1st, the Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously rejected a public nuisance lawsuit filed nine years earlier, saying that the claim ‘should have been dismissed at the outset.'”

This filing is the last of the 10 city lawsuits in OH to have been voluntarily dismissed or, as with Toledo, rejected by the court. Still pending in Ohio is the statewide lead paint public nuisance lawsuit filed by former OH Attorney General Marc Dann.”

Disclosure (“none” means no position):long SHW

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Ken Heebner the Bull

Listen to Heebner. Sounds like a guy loading up for a bull market?

It is hard to argue with a guy like Heebner and his track record…

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Faber on Value Investing

It seems he doesn’t get it. Value Investing is not about a quarter or a year.

Faber talks about financials, value investing, Freddie (FRE) and Fannie (FNM).

If you are a value investor you are buying the unwanted and unloved. That by itself means that your initial investment, unless you happen to perfectly pick the bottom will sink or flat-line for a period, especially in the current economic state.

The hand-wringing that is going on now it just not warranted. Look out a year, that is what the true value investor is doing.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

So, Selling Assets Isn't The Same as "Raising Capital"?

Is anyone going to call Merrill Lynch’s (MER) John Thain out on this one?

first we need to go back to April when Merrill CEO Thain first made the statement that Merrill would “not need to raise additional capital”.

Then, in May he inexplicably followed it up again.

Reuters is reporting:
“A blind trust run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is willing to pay between $4.5 billion and $5 billion to buy Merrill Lynch & Co’s (MER) 20% stake in financial news and data provider Bloomberg LP, the New York Post reported, citing sources.

Discussions are still under way, and a deal could fall apart as Merrill aims to sell its minority stake in the privately held company ahead of its second-quarter earnings call set for July 17, the paper said.

Merrill is also looking to sell part of its 49 percent stake in money manager BlackRock Inc (BLK), which may be sold to multiple parties, the paper said.”

So, this isn’t “capital raising”?

Back in May I wote:
““We deliberately raised more capital than we lost last year … we believe that will allow us to not have to go back to the equity market in the foreseeable future,” Merrill Lynch (MER) CEO John Thain.

What does Thain gain with the proclamation? Nothing. No one believes what comes out of banker’s mouths today anyway, why say it?

It get’s even worse when just hours later he clarified the statement to mean “raise additional cash through equity”. Super, nice job John. Close the door and then go back and open it up a crack.

Now he either will be forced to take a bad deal on a debt offering or asset sale to raise cash if necessary in order to save face. If he does another equity or preferred sale, his reputation at the bank and with shareholders is crushed even before it has a chance to grow. Let’s say he is right? So what? That and $5 will get him a latte’ and Starbucks (SBUX). Had Merrill be forced to tap equity markets again, it would have been bad but now if they do, Thain will most likely be getting his resume updated.

Thain had absolutely nothing to gain by making the proclamation…….nothing. He now has created an atmosphere in which those so inclined (CNBC’s Charlie Gasparino) are going to make sport out predicting when Merrill will need more cash and how they will get it.

I always thought rule #1 was “under promise and over deliver”. Thain ought to see the example set by Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett.”

So, Thain can play semantics here and say he is not raising it through equity. But, isn’t selling very profitable assets hurting the equity? I mean he is taking future earnings from the shareholders through the sale and therefore depressing the future earnings power of the equity holders. Right? One could make the argument that selling assets is a permanent impairment of earnings power while a equity offering isn’t as those shares could be repurchased down the road while the assets continue to become even more profitable than they are now.

It is one thing to shed non-performing assets, this is not what Thain is doing. He is dumping the good stuff.

Once again, shut up and stop making promises you aren’t 1000% sure you can deliver on.

Capital raising is capital raising, I do not care how you do it, equity offering, debt, asset sales, whatever. This is all a bit like saying a high priced escort is not a prostitute because she does not walk the streets, yes she is…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

So, Selling Assets Isn’t The Same as "Raising Capital"?

Is anyone going to call Merrill Lynch’s (MER) John Thain out on this one?

first we need to go back to April when Merrill CEO Thain first made the statement that Merrill would “not need to raise additional capital”.

Then, in May he inexplicably followed it up again.

Reuters is reporting:
“A blind trust run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is willing to pay between $4.5 billion and $5 billion to buy Merrill Lynch & Co’s (MER) 20% stake in financial news and data provider Bloomberg LP, the New York Post reported, citing sources.

Discussions are still under way, and a deal could fall apart as Merrill aims to sell its minority stake in the privately held company ahead of its second-quarter earnings call set for July 17, the paper said.

Merrill is also looking to sell part of its 49 percent stake in money manager BlackRock Inc (BLK), which may be sold to multiple parties, the paper said.”

So, this isn’t “capital raising”?

Back in May I wote:
““We deliberately raised more capital than we lost last year … we believe that will allow us to not have to go back to the equity market in the foreseeable future,” Merrill Lynch (MER) CEO John Thain.

What does Thain gain with the proclamation? Nothing. No one believes what comes out of banker’s mouths today anyway, why say it?

It get’s even worse when just hours later he clarified the statement to mean “raise additional cash through equity”. Super, nice job John. Close the door and then go back and open it up a crack.

Now he either will be forced to take a bad deal on a debt offering or asset sale to raise cash if necessary in order to save face. If he does another equity or preferred sale, his reputation at the bank and with shareholders is crushed even before it has a chance to grow. Let’s say he is right? So what? That and $5 will get him a latte’ and Starbucks (SBUX). Had Merrill be forced to tap equity markets again, it would have been bad but now if they do, Thain will most likely be getting his resume updated.

Thain had absolutely nothing to gain by making the proclamation…….nothing. He now has created an atmosphere in which those so inclined (CNBC’s Charlie Gasparino) are going to make sport out predicting when Merrill will need more cash and how they will get it.

I always thought rule #1 was “under promise and over deliver”. Thain ought to see the example set by Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett.”

So, Thain can play semantics here and say he is not raising it through equity. But, isn’t selling very profitable assets hurting the equity? I mean he is taking future earnings from the shareholders through the sale and therefore depressing the future earnings power of the equity holders. Right? One could make the argument that selling assets is a permanent impairment of earnings power while a equity offering isn’t as those shares could be repurchased down the road while the assets continue to become even more profitable than they are now.

It is one thing to shed non-performing assets, this is not what Thain is doing. He is dumping the good stuff.

Once again, shut up and stop making promises you aren’t 1000% sure you can deliver on.

Capital raising is capital raising, I do not care how you do it, equity offering, debt, asset sales, whatever. This is all a bit like saying a high priced escort is not a prostitute because she does not walk the streets, yes she is…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Sears and Centro JV? The End of Kmart?

There has been some of this floating around as if it is something new so I decided to look at the SEC filings for Centro (CNP) , formerly New Plan Excel Realty Trust for more information.

The rumor was this venture was formed in October to perhaps finish off the Kmart chain for Sears Holdings (SHLD). Like the other rumors (Sears going private), not so fast.

5/5/2008 10-Q
“NPK Redevelopment I, LLC. The Company has a joint venture with Kmart Corporation (Sears Holding Corp.) pursuant to which the joint venture will redevelop three Kmart Supercenter properties formerly owned by Kmart. Under the terms of this joint venture, the Company has agreed to contribute $6.0 million which had been fully contributed as of March 31, 2008. After the Company’s contribution of the total committed amount, the Company had a 20% interest in the venture and is responsible for contributing its pro rata share of any additional capital that might be required by the joint venture; however, the Company does not expect that any significant capital contributions will be required. The joint venture had no loans outstanding as of March 31, 2008. As of March 31, 2008, the book value of our investment in NPK Redevelopment I, LLC was approximately $10.7 million.”


The 2008 filing

“NPK Redevelopment I, LLC. We have a joint venture with Kmart Corporation (Sears Holding Corp.) pursuant to which the joint venture will redevelop three Kmart Supercenter properties formerly owned by Kmart. Under the terms of this joint venture, we have agreed to contribute $6.0 million which had been fully contributed as of December 31, 2007. We will have a 20% interest in the venture and are responsible for contributing our pro rata share of any additional capital that might be required by the joint venture; however, we do not expect that any significant capital contributions will be required. The joint venture had no loans outstanding as of December 31, 2007. As of December 31, 2007, the book value of our investment in NPK Redevelopment I, LLC was approximately $9.5 million.”

2007 Filing:
“NPK Redevelopment I, LLC. We have a joint venture with Kmart Corporation (Sears Holding Corp.) pursuant to which the joint venture will redevelop three Kmart Supercenter properties formerly owned by Kmart. Under the terms of this joint venture, we have agreed to contribute $6.0 million, $3.6 million of which we have contributed as of December 31, 2006. After our contribution of the total committed amount, we will have a 20% interest in the venture and will be responsible for contributing our pro rata share of any additional capital that might be required by the joint venture; however, we do not expect that any significant capital contributions will be required. The joint venture had no loans outstanding as of December 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2006, the book value of our investment in NPK Redevelopment I, LLC was approximately $3.6 million.”

2006 Filing:
“NPK Redevelopment I, LLC. We have a joint venture with Kmart Corporation (Sears Holding Corp.) pursuant to which the joint venture will redevelop three Kmart Supercenter properties formerly owned by Kmart. Under the terms of this joint venture, we have agreed to contribute $6.0 million, of which $1.0 million had been contributed by us as of December 31, 2005. After our contribution of the total committed amount, we will have a 20% interest in the venture and be responsible for contributing our pro rata share of any additional capital that might be required by the joint venture. The joint venture had no loans outstanding as of December 31, 2005. As of December 31, 2005, the book value of our investment in NPK Redevelopment I, LLC was approximately $1.0 million.”

The 2006 filing for FY 2005 is the first mention of the JV. Note the number of Kmart’s affected (3) has not changed.

What is interesting is that they have marked the investment over 50% higher than their cost as of 12/31/2007 and 76% higher on 3/31/2008. In other years, they marked it at their cost. No further details were given.

One can only assume Sears is seeing the same return?

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books