The national average is 4.41%, so states in white have delinquency rates at or below the national average.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Delinquency rates up
The national average is 4.41%, so states in white have delinquency rates at or below the national average.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Laborers International Union leaving AFL-CIO
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Burger King IPO
Monday, May 08, 2006
Wachovia to acquire Golden West
Shares of Wachovia fell fell 6.7%, the biggest decline since October 2002. Investors worried that Wachovia may have overpaid for Golden West, amid signs of weakness in the mortgage industry as interest rates rise. Wachovia also said the purchase will cut earnings per share by 11 cents in 2007 and seven cents in 2008.
Stories:
Wachovia CEO defends surprise Golden West deal
Wachovia to Acquire Golden West Bank for $26 Billion
Wachovia sees deal as fortification
Wachovia acquires Golden West
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Friday, April 07, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
More Bad News from GM and Delphi
Officials of Delphi's two largest unions (UAW and IUE-CWA) rejected the company's latest proposed wage and benefit cuts. Officials of both unions said there was nothing in the proposal to even warrant taking it to union members for a vote. The proposal included a pay cut from $27 to $22 an hour in July 2006 and to $16.50 an hour in September 2007. The proposal also included new, larger health care premiums. As a result of the rejection, Delphi is likely to file Friday in bankruptcy court to void labor agreements covering over 33,000 union members.
GM
General Motors laid off 500 salaried employees at facilities across the country. The layoffs are the first wave of job eliminations in a program aimed at reducing the number of salaried and contract workers 7%.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Housing Banks May Be Forced To Cut Dividends
Source: WSJ
Friday, March 24, 2006
Lucent and Alcatel Merging
Here are some financial publications' take on the merger:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060324_429614.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/24/lucent-alcatel-merger-0324markets03.html
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Google Settles Suit
As of this writing, the stock is at $347.76, down 1.73%.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Monday, March 06, 2006
AT&T-BellSouth Merger
Now, it looks like a third one is being confirmed as BellSouth gets swallowed up too, by the new AT&T.
The short story:
- AT&T is offering 1.325 shares for each share of BellSouth, which amounts to a 17.9% premium, $37.09 a share at Friday's AT&T closing price, or $67 billion for all outstanding shares. AT&T will also take on BellSouth's debt of $22 billion, putting the total price of the deal at $89 billion. (Compare that with the paltry $16 billion SBC paid for the old AT&T.)
- Current BellSouth shareholders will own 38% of the new company.
- AT&T will own all of Cingular Wireless after the deal. (Will they change the name of the company to AT&T Wireless?)
- About 10,000 jobs will be eliminated after the merger. This is in addition to the job cuts already announced after the SBC-AT&T deal.
- Although the boards of both companies have already approved the deal, there could be regulatory hurdles due to the size of the combined company. (It would constitute a very large portion of the Ma Bell of olden days.)
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Google sell-off
Wait a second. Google points out the obvious fact that a $6 billion dollar company is not going to grow 90% this year, and this causes a 7% plunge in the stock price. Sounds like a case of inflated expectations to me.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Burger King IPO
Founded in 1954, Burger King has amazingly enough never been a public company. It was sold by its founders to Pillsbury in 1967. Pillsbury was then acquired by Grand Met PLC in 1988, which in turn merged with Guiness in 1991 to form Diageo. "As a result, Burger King Corporation became a small, non-core subsidiary of a large conglomerate, making it difficult for the brand to prosper," the company said in an IPO document.
From 1989 to 2002, the company ran through eight CEOs before being acquired by private-equity firms Texas Pacific and Bain Capital Partners for about $1.5 billion. Since then, the company says, it's been "focused on turning a great brand into a great business." It boasts of its seven consecutive quarters of same-store-sales growth and a rise of 11% in average per-restaurant sales over the past two fiscal years. In the six months ended December 31, Burger King reported net income of $49 million on revenue of $1.02 billion(*).
In its third fiscal quarter, now underway, Burger King said it'll record an expense of $367 million for a cash dividend paid to shareholders, prominently including Texas Pacific and Bain. The company also agreed to pay a one-time $30 million fee to terminate its management agreement with the private-equity firms upon completion of the IPO. Meanwhile, the strong stock-market debut of Chipotle - a spinoff of Burger King archrival McDonald's - and the hefty $2.43 billion price fetched by the private sale of Dunkin' Donuts provide evidence of strong investor interest in fast-food-chain operators.
Source: CBS MarketWatch, Chicago Tribune
(*) Note: I have seen many websites (including WikiPedia) that advertise Burger King's revenue as $11 billion a year. That figure is not correct. That is the total sales at Burger King restaurants whether company owned or franchised, not the revenues of Burger King Corporation.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
More Trouble at the AFL-CIO
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Friday, February 03, 2006
More on Google
Google has a superb balance sheet:
- $10.3 billion in assets, with an incredible $8 billion of that in cash and marketable securities, and very little in bogus goodwill
- almost no debt, resulting in stockholder equity of $9.4 billion
They also had a very good income statement in 2005:
- Revenue of $6.14 billion, an increase of 92.5% over last year's $3.19 billion
- Net income of $1.47 billion even with coming in under expectations
However, it is trading at $381.50 (down a further 3.7% from yesterday's price as of the time I'm posting this). That's 76x earnings. Does anyone really expect that Google is going to double in revenue and income again next year as it did from 03 to 04 to 05? Price seems a little bit high to me, although let me stress that I am NOT expecting a dotcom-like meltdown since this is a company with a clearly proven business model.
Google's Problems not all tax-related
But a closer look at Google's results show that only half of the earnings shortfall - 11 cents a share - may be related to taxes. Google had to record more taxes than expected in the fourth quarter because more of its expenses were allocated to its international operations than it had expected, compared with its U.S. operations. That, in turn, raised U.S. pretax profit as a proportion of Google's total, and a greater percentage of Google's profit was taxed at a higher domestic tax rate. The company's effective tax rate for the fourth quarter was 41.8%; the rate for the full year was 31.6%, compared with Google's projection of about 30%.
Google recorded about $2.14 billion in pretax profit for the year. Applying Google's prior estimate of a 30% effective tax rate to that gets a tax bill of $642.6 million. Google had an actual tax of $676.3 million, the upshot being that the company paid $33.7 million more in taxes than it expected, a figure all attributable to the fourth quarter. However, this equates to only 11 cents a share, using Google's diluted share count of about 304 million. Scott Devitt, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus, uses different numbers to arrive at a similar conclusion and says the company is off base in blaming most or all of its shortfall on the tax issue. The analyst, who has a "sell" rating on Google shares, stresses that whatever the particular reason for the shortfall, the stock is vulnerable to the market's ever-rising expectations.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Response to Comment
Yes, but there's one additional thing to consider. In 1996 the "predictors of doom" were saying that the market was overvalued and prices would crash. They were not proven correct until 2000, but when the market did hit bottom in 2002 prices were in fact lower than in 1996. So it's not just a matter of time, but an actual price consideration.
Note that the real-estate bubble will not burst a-la the dot com stock bubble.
I agree it will never be as bad as the dot com stock bubble. The reason for the difference is clear - unlike stocks, homes are physical assets.
I think prices will only stagnate or wane slowly over the years...
Here I disagree. Current prices are sustainable only because of very low interest rates and absurdly generous financing options. I see prices dropping as much as 20% in a relatively short period.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Two Books on AT&T
Grade: C
I managed to finish this book because the story is captivating, but the book definitely is not. The analysis is superficial, and Cauley clearly runs out of new things to say so she ends up repeating the same things over and over and over again. As one example, she mentions AT&T strong balance sheet (pre-Armstrong) a half dozen times, and even gets it wrong - on one page, she says AT&T long-term debt was $126 billion; elsewhere she says $12 billion. Her description of the personalities involved is likewise superficial and repetitive. She mentions Armstrongs "Big Blue way of looking at things" at least a dozen times (I am not exaggerating). There's even a entire discussion (regarding negotiations with Time Warner Cable) that is given in its entirety twice (pp. 189 and 190).
Another serious complaint is that the language of the book is inappropriately informal for the subject matter, even downright vulgar in a couple of places. Her very poor writing style just adds to the book's generally sloppy impression. This impression is not aided by the careless errors that pepper the book (e.g., referring to Microsoft as a cable giant). Didn't anybody edit this thing before it hit the shelves?
Most annoying of all is the approach of following parallel lines to that fateful summer of 2000, then backing up to follow another line of thought. It seems to be an attempt to highten the drama, but it fails miserably. A chronological order would have made the story much more interesting as well as making it much easier for the reader to figure out what went wrong with AT&T and maybe learn something from the book. But perhpas this is just as well since Cauley's research would not have been up to this task.
I bought this book expecting some new insights, but there was nothing in here one wouldn't already know from reading the Wall Street Journal as the collapse was happening. Cauley simply did not do any homework or dig beneath the surface in the least. Overall, a very weak effort.
Tough Calls: AT&T and the Hard Lessons Learned from the Telecom Wars by Dick Martin
Grade: D-
The back cover says that this book is "an up-front seat for the roller coaster ride" and a "look at how a great company tumbled" that will give us a "tour of AT&T's wild ride" and "chart the dissolution of an American icon." Not one of those comments is even remotely warranted.
I was expecting to find interesting insider discussions of important questions like:
- Did AT&T make any mistakes during the "trivestiture" in January 1996 (akin to giving away the wireless licenses to the RBOCs in the 1984 breakup)? Martin doesn't say, beyond talking about the PR fallout of the layoffs. These layoffs were only a side issue of the broader business strategy; communication mistakes surrounding them hardly merits mentioning at all.
- Was pursuing cable the right strategy for Armstrong to implement? Probably, but Martin doesn't weigh in on this.
- Did AT&T overpay for MediaOne? Of course, but again Martin is silent.
- Did AT&T further compound its cable problem by putting poor executives (first Hindery and then Somers) in charge of broadband? Not a peep.
- How should AT&T have handled the $2 billion @Home acquisition? Silence.
- Were all these problems unavoidable due to AT&T's pre-1996 succession planning problems? The only aspect of this question that Martin bothers to discuss is the PR fiasco surrounding Walter's departure. As if that were the most important aspect of AT&T's succession problems. He strikes me as having an exaggerated sense of his importance to the organization.
Despite naming the first chapter "Don't dance to the music of your own buzz" it seems that Martin has done exactly that. His book is the ultimate example of form over substance, confusing the need to address important business questions facing AT&T with the buzz surrounding him and the mostly irrelevant matter of how the answers were communicated. Whether the answers were the right ones or not, Martin is unwilling (or more likely, unable) to say. If this book is an example of the caliber of executive thinking at the level of Executive Vice President at AT&T no wonder the company sank so far so fast.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Google Buys 5% of AOL
Two thoughts come to mind:
(1) The writing is on the wall. Time Warner is slowly laying the groundword for a spin-off of AOL. It looks like it's 5% down, 95% to go.
(2) This values the whole of AOL at $20 billion. Interesting, very interesting! At its peak in December 1999, AOL had a market cap of $210 billion. Ouch!
Monday, December 12, 2005
Pepsico Market Cap Exceeds Coca-Cola's
Source: AJC
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Nikkei breaks 15,000
I ran across the most interesting graph of the Nikkei (see page 1). It overlays the period 1982-1992 for the Nikkei against the period 1992-2002 for the S&P500. The similarity is uncanny. However, there seems to have been a divergence after 2002 with the S&P recovering after 2002 while the Nikkei remained in a 12-year funk in the period 1992-2004.
While I don't think we will return to the returns that people came to expect from the S&P, I also don't think we are headed for a prolonged slump like the Nikkei experienced. A big reason for the Nikkei's decline was the Japanese practice of cross-holding where two companies doing business together would cement the relationship by buying large chunks of each other's stock. At the peak in 1990 more than half of the Nikkei's market cap was cross-held. As the slump began, companies began dumping their cross-holdings exacerbating the market decline. By the time the market hit bottom, less than 20% of the Nikkei's market cap was cross-held. This much healthier number is probably part of the reason that the Nikkei has been able to stabilize and start climbing again.
Monday, November 28, 2005
More on Real Estate
The end (of the real estate boom) is near!
When people start thinking that they can make a guaranteed 33% profit (I don't know what timeframe she was thinking about, but I'm sure it was as ridiculously short as the gain was ridiculously large), it is time for sensible investors to stay clear of real estate. This is definitely starting to sound too much like the irrational exhuberance regarding stocks in 1999-2000 for my comfort.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Most Successful Business Leaders?
Lessons from the Top: The 50 Most Successful Business Leaders in America by Thomas Neff and James Citrin
This book includes two convicted felons and one accused felon - Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski and Ken Lay - as well as Hank Greenberg (who resigned from AIG in disgrace and may yet become the fourth felon in the book), Michael Eisner (who was recently ousted from Disney) and Mike Armstrong (who pretty much single-handedly managed the sinking of AT&T).
Now I know that hindsight is 20/20, but six stinkers (and some other questionable choices) in a list of 50?
A great read, highly recommended ... for the IRONY!
Friday, November 18, 2005
SBC Acquisition of AT&T Closed
SBC Communications announced today that it has closed the books on its $16.9 billion acquisition of AT&T immediately following its receipt of final regulatory approval.
It is worth noting that the new company going forward will use the AT&T name, iconic blue and white logo, and NYSE stock symbol (T).
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Koch Industries buys Georgia-Pacific in $21 billion deal
Source: AJC
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Saturday, October 01, 2005
"Little evidence of a housing bubble"
Friday, September 30, 2005
Ameriprise
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Third Union Is Leaving AFL-CIO
In addition to the UFCW, Teamsters and SEIU, the new labor coalition includes three AFL-CIO member unions (the United Farm Workers, Laborers' International and Unite Here) and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Who would fall for this?!
Got another one today and actually took a minute to read through it. A footnote reads, "[The producer of the flyer] may hold positions in the company mentioned." Even more ridiculous, it discloses that, "The profile of XXXX is a paid advertisement by a third party shareholder to XXXX in the amount of 250,000 shares of stock that need to be sold to pay for the cost of this advertising." And most farcical of all we are treated to "The target price was determined arbitrarily."
Who would fall for this?!
Obviously, this scam works or they would have stopped sending me the flyers. But I am amazed to learn that there are enough people dumb enough to fall for this pitch to keep it alive.
What is even more unbelievable is that they obtained my name due to my Financial Planning Association membership. I have cancelled my membership not just for the obvious reason that I believe they violated their duty to take reasonable care with my information, but even more so because the FPA apparently has enough members who might fall for this scam to make them worth targetting.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Ford and GM Hurting
Ford already has announced plans to reduce its salaried work force in North America by 2,700 people by the end of this year. It also has said it will reduce the use of agency workers and other purchased services by 10%. But Suris said the company is considering even more aggressive measures. "We have operating challenges that include our cost structure and excessive production capacity, and we have plans to address that," Suris said.
Ford said it earned $946 million in the April-June period versus a profit of $1.17 billion in the year-earlier period. It lost $907 million in North America, down $1.4 billion from a year ago. Ford's U.S. sales were down nearly 4% in the first six months of this year.
So Ford made $1.853 billion on sales outside the US? Man, if they could somehow wipe their US operations off the face of the Earth, they would be on easy street!
Ford CFO Don Leclair said the automaker would no longer issue quarterly earnings forecasts. GM withdrew its earnings outlook for 2005 after reporting a stunning $1.1 billion first-quarter loss in April. Both GM and Ford have been hurt by a dramatic slowdown in sales of profitable mid- and large-size sport utility vehicles amid high gasoline prices. They are also struggling with higher borrowing costs following cuts in their debt ratings to "junk" status by the Standard & Poor's rating agency in May.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
To Rein In CEO Pay, Why Not Consider Outsourcing The Post?
Outsourcing is the rage. It is possible to find qualified and cheaper workers to write software and perform other tasks in India, China, Taiwan, Turkey, etc. It makes competitive sense to outsource. Which leads to the following statement. Maybe it's time for American CEO's to include themselves in the outsourcing strategy. Certainly from a compensation standpoint it could be a great deal. US executives are by far the highest paid in the world, and their pay seldom has anything to do with performance. Directors give executives a boatload of money before they have done a lick of work. And when they fail, they are given another boatload of money so it doesn't hurt too much when the door hits them on their way out. If outsourcing the CEO's job isn't appealing, then what is the solution? Directors have to put a price tag on every single form of compensation so shareholders truly know what is going on. And directors have to stop rewarding incompetence. If a CEO is fired for screwing up, no more exorbitant severance packages.
(The Wall Street Journal, 19-Jul-2005, Midwest ed., p. B1)
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Real Estate
But the financial firepower of interest-only mortgages is affecting all home owners. They are further elevating already lofty housing prices, a trend that's raising fears of crash that could plunge the economy into a recession. "When this market adjusts, it's going to be painful," said UCLA economics professor Edward Leamer, who has been warning of a California housing bubble for three years. "Borrowers are getting in over their heads, and lenders are too."
The growth of interest-only mortgages reflects a fundamental shift in the way many Americans think of their homes. Rather than places to grow old in, they see homes as part of their investment portfolios — in fact, a much better bet than the stock market in recent years. In California alone, homeowner equity has grown by a whopping $1 trillion since 2000, according to the California Building Industry Association. Even borrowers who can afford the higher payments of a conventional mortgage are opting for interest-only loans, so they can free up more cash to invest in retirement plans, college education funds or other home purchases, [2] said Mark Carrington, director of information products for LoanPerformance, a mortgage research firm.
[1] Yes, interest-only loans typically don't require payments toward the principal for 3-7 years, but at the end of this period eventually you *will* have to start paying down principal and/or re-finance your loan (either of which will result in a higher payment). Furthermore, we are in a period of historically low rates, and interest-only loans are generally variable-rate. So at the end of the interest-only period, rates will almost certainly be higher, causing payments to be even higher still. People are jumping into these loans under the assumption that their income will be substantially higher in 3-7 years; in most cases that assumption is unwarranted.
[2] Retirement investments or college funds would not be an altogether bad reason to do this. However, this statement is inaccurate. In most cases, the only reason people get into these loans is to buy a lot more house than they could otherwise be approved for (and often a lot more house than they can actually afford). Their payment is still a stretch, and any savings are used to finance current consumption not investing.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
There's a reason people talk about "liberal media bias"
Today's the headline at the top of the AJC's business page blares out at me, "GDP report fans stagflation talk." Well, if you read the story, you learn that the economy in 2005Q1 grew 3.1% (less than the expected 3.5%). This (pretty good) rate is the weakest growth pace in two years, when growth has ranged from this quarter's 3.1% to a high of 7.4% (in 2003Q3) and averaged a very healthy 4.3%. Yet one not-blistering quarter (but still over the magic 3%) and out comes the "stagflation" talk.
During Clinton's tenure as President, 13 of the 32 quarters had less than 3.1% GDP growth, and I don't recall any "stagflation" "talk" being "fanned." Something to think about...
Thursday, April 28, 2005
More Trouble for Krispy Kreme
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is trading at $5.93, down 82.7% from their all-time high of $34.33 (on 4/29/2004, exactly one year ago tomorrow).
Friday, April 22, 2005
Response to Comment on Google
IPO = 95.96, Stock value as of this posting = 216.80. God, I wish I had gotten in on the ground floor for this.Getting in on the ground floor is great, as long as you are able to recognize when the elevator has gotten to the top and don't ride it all the way back to the basement. There is just no way that Google is worth $216.88 a share, which is 151x 12-month earnings which are widely described as "blow-out." Consider what will happen once earnings are no longer "blow-out." The multiple and stock price is going to come crashing down. As well it should ...
Keep in mind this is a company with rapidly shrinking margins. In 2002 it was 22.7% ($100M/$440M); it 2004 it was 12.5% ($399M/$3.19B). Yes, revenue is growing at an incredibly fast pace, but is this real? (let's remember Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing and to a lesser extent AOL with their revenue "growth") And is it sustainable? Revenue from 2003 to 2004 may have doubled from $1.5B to $3.2B, but it is not going to double again in 2005.
Can anyone seriously believe that Google with $3.2B of revenue and $400M of earnings is worth $60 BILLION??? Let's compare it to the companies immediately above and below it on the market cap list - Hewlett-Packard and 3M. HP has $82B in revenue and $3.5B in income; 3M has $20B in revenue and $3.1B in income. Not only are both of these companies' INCOME approximately the same size as Google's REVENUE, but 3M has a healthier profit margin (15.5%) than Google. There's just no way that Google is fairly valued at its current price.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
More on the Verizon/MCI/Qwest saga
Verizon Communications said yesterday it is paying $1.1 billion ($25.72 a share) to acquire a 13.7% stake in MCI directly from its largest single stockholder [Mexican investor Carlos Slim Helu]. The transaction removes a major wild card in Verizon's bid to fend off a higher-priced offer to acquire MCI by Qwest Communications.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
42% of first-time home buyers put 0% down
Source: Money
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Most people "above average" financially
- 53.7% feel they are better off than other people of the same age and education level
- 36.3% say they are on par
- 9.9% believe they have fallen behind
54-10. Wow! How can people's perception be this far off from reality?
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The "Please don't hurt me" Defense?
I don't buy this defense, which has been / will be used by other CFOs and CAOs in the recent spate of fraud trials. If you are the CFO or CAO and the boss tells you to cook numbers, you grow a pair and refuse. That's all there is to it. Take away all the fancy business-speak, and it really is THAT simple. I mean, c'mon now, this defense boils down to, "He told me to to commit a crime, so I did." If a mugger tried that defense, we'd throw his butt in jail, right? Same for these guys, as far as I'm concerned.
The Parade of Shame
- Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth
- Dennis Koslowski and Mark Swartz, former CEO and CFO of Tyco
- Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, two former CEOs of Enron
- Richard Causey, former Chief Accounting Officer of Enron
- Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest
IAM Local 709: "Never mind!"
Striking Lockheed Martin machinists began going back to work at midnight, just hours after they had overwhelmingly approved a new contract, just one week after launching a walkout. By a vote of 1532 to 537, IAM Local 709 ratified the contract. Union members rejected the same basic terms February 27, although the deal was approved at Lockheed facilities elsewhere. Opponents in Marietta said they objected to rising health care and retirement insurance costs. But those concerns seem to have diminished during a week on picket lines in which workers had no insurance coverage at all. The company said it made no significant changes to its offer before Tuesday's second vote. "There were some minor modifications that were specific to Marietta," corporate spokesman Tom Greer said. "But the economics were exactly the same." Stevens [president of IAM Local 709] attributed the change of heart to more information. "People have a better overall understanding of the contract than they did the first time they voted," he said Tuesday. "The company didn't move on the economic terms." Outside the Cobb Galleria Centre, where Tuesday's balloting took place, it was hard to find Local 709 members who said they voted to ratify the contract, even though it passed by a 3-to-1 ratio. "This is the same thing we turned down two weeks ago," said Jerry Worley, a 23-year Lockheed employee who works on the F/A-22 assembly line. "I don't know why they even brought us back." In 2002, the union's walkout also ended with no major changes in the deal that was initially turned down.
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Iger to succeed Eisner as Disney CEO
Friday, March 11, 2005
Jetsgo, Canada's third-largest airline, ceases operations
Jetsgo, which employed 1350, will seek permission from a Quebec court to consider options for reorganizing. Jetsgo, led by President Michel Leblanc, spent "big" on ads and expanded too quickly beyond its flight bases in Montreal and Toronto, Raymond James analysts said in January. Leblanc, who started Jetsgo in June 2002, is the former head of Royal Aviation, which he sold for C$84 million in 2001 to Canada 3000 before it went out of business after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
WestJet [Canada's second-largest airline] stock climbed C$4.33 to C$15.50 after earlier touching C$16.90 [at which peak the shares had risen 51%]. Shares of ACE Aviation [parent company of Air Canada, the nation's largest airline] climbed C$3.26, or 10%, to C$35.50.
Source: Bloomberg
[Thanks to DVD for the link]
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Unhappy Fifth Anniversary
On 3/10/2000 the Nasdaq stood at 5049. By the time the bear market saw its worst day (10/9/2002), the index had dropped to 1114 (a gut-wrenching 78% plunge). Today it closed at 2060 (up 85% from its low, but still down 59% from its high).
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Yup
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Possible Strike at Lockheed Plant
The elements of the deal in question:
- 10% wage increase over three years.
- $1,500 signing bonus.
- 17.8% increase in company's pension contributions.
- Increase in amount of 401(k) contributions company will match.
- Company pays 87% of employee medical plans, down from 100%.
- Company caps payments to retirees' Medicare Supplemental Insurance.
- New hires not eligible for retiree medical plan.
Story 3: Federal mediators are trying to avert a machinists strike at Lockheed Martin's Marietta plant that could begin as soon as Tuesday. "Anytime there's a possibility of a work stoppage that could have this much impact on the economy and national defense, it's on our radar screen," said Jack Buettner, regional director for the Federal Conciliation and Mediation Service.
(I drive past the Lockheed plant on my way to work.)
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Housing
Monday, February 28, 2005
Federated-May merger a go
The combined company would have about 950 department stores and an additional 700 bridal and formal wear stores. It would operate in every state except Alaska, along with Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The combined company will be in the nation's top 65 markets except Jacksonville, Florida.
Federated doesn't plan to change May store names before 2006, but then will rename its stores - even some Bloomingdale's stores - as Macy's. That means that May store names including Filene's, Foley's, Hecht's and Kaufmann's could disappear next year. The names Rich's (an institution in my current home of Atlanta) and Burdines (a Florida landmark) are in the process of disappearing right now.
Source: Associated Press
Some home buyers may be overextended, experts fear
Experts are concerned that home buyers who have chosen adjustable-rate loans or interest-only mortgages could have financial problems if home prices decline or flatten out. Although nationwide prices, adjusted for inflation, have risen a dizzying 36% since 1995, according to the Center of Economic Policy Research, they are due for an adjustment eventually.
"Although"? Perhaps "because" is a more accurate word there.
Many people I know personally have over-extended to ridiculous proportions to buy the most house they can. ("Can" being a relative term here.) The confidence with which people say, "An interest-only loan is OK because when I have to start paying principal, my income will have gone up." Really? How do you know that ... cause my crystal ball is not quite that good. Particularly scary are adjustable-rate mortgages (or even worse, adjustable-rate interest-only loans) because when interest rates go up increasing these people's housing payments, that's precisely the same time that house prices fall because people can afford less house when rates rise.
And recently, I've even started hearing about an extreme case of the interest-only mortgage: the negative-equity mortgage, where the monthly payment is not sufficient to pay off even the interest due so your mortgage balance goes up. The rationale for taking on such a loan? "My house is going to appreciate more than the additional debt accruing on my mortgage." Yeah, good luck with that. What really upsets me is that if/when the market crashes down around people making idiotic decisions like that, my house price is going to suffer right along with theirs.
Ever heard the word "bubble," people?
[Source of the quoted paragraph was the business section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a few days ago. Sorry, no link.]
Friday, February 25, 2005
MCI in play
Wow. My prediction regading MCI took even less time to materialize than I expected.
The Cliff Notes version of the facts:
- On February 4, MCI received an unsolicited $6.3 billion takeover bid from Qwest Communications International.
- On February 14, Verizon made an offer to buy MCI for $6.7 billion in stock and cash. (Each share of MCI stock would garner $14.42 in Verizon stock, $1.50 in cash and $4.50 in MCI dividends.)
- Today, Qwest upped its offer for the second time. (Under the latest Qwest offer, each share of MCI stock would receive $15.50 in Qwest stock, $3.10 in cash and $6 in MCI dividends.) The revised Qwest offer is worth about 20% more than the Verizon offer.
- Also today, MCI reported a loss of $32 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a loss of $3.89 billion ($12.12 a share) for all of 2004 (due to heavy bankruptcy-related impairment charges in the third quarter). Quarterly revenue fell 10% to $4.97 billion (from $5.5 billion a year before) and annual revenue fell 15% to $20.7 billion.
- MCI's board will review Qwest's offer while pressing ahead with a deal with Verizon, says CEO Michael Capellas told investors on a conference call. Verizon is the "right partner" for MCI, he said.
The "insights" from the "experts" and other observations:
- The SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI transactions are an acknowledgment of what insiders have known for a while: that the long-distance business as a stand-alone service is, for all practical purposes, dead. "I think we all knew it was over two to three years ago," says Dominic Endicott, head of the telecommunications practice at Booz Allen Hamilton. "The deals are just cleanup work." Raul Katz, CEO of Adventis, a consulting group in Boston, goes a step further. "The long-distance business was always dead," referring to the industry's ultimately fruitless scramble to figure a way around the Bells' grip on the local phone markets. "It was just a matter of when it was going to die."
- Qwest has a market value of just $7.5 billion but $17 billion in debt. Analyst believe that if Qwest wins the bidding war, it will use MCI's $5 billion cash reserve to help pay down its debt.
- Analysts have said Qwest is a weaker partner for strategic reasons. It doesn't own its own wireless network, which is considered critical for growth in the telecom industry. It also serves a primarily rural, 14-state region where there are few business centers, so a marriage with MCI would not likely result in as many cost efficiencies.
- Although Verizon is the strongest among the regional phone companies, it faced a difficult task of determining whether it would be cheaper to build its own corporate client base, rather than buy MCI's, analysts said. With most of MCI's business going away or under attack from stiff competition, some said it could have been more effective for the company to build its own roster of customers.
Articles:
- http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2005-02-14-verizon-mci-usat_x.htm
- http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2005-02-25-mci_x.htm?POE=MONISVA
- http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1760078,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
- http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aj2OsGSJ9V0Q&refer=us
- http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/technology/verizon_mci/
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/ap/business/main673848.shtml
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22085-2005Feb13.html
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Trump Makes Out OK in Trump Bankruptcy
The deal submitted by the company includes the following perks for Donald Trump:
- Remains Chairman and CEO, at a $2 million a year salary
- Retains a 26% stake in the restructured company (reduced from 56%) as well as a 25% stake in the Miss Universe Pageant
- First dibs on serving as contractor for any construction project over $35 million undertaken by the company after it emerges from bankruptcy, including a proposed 1250-room hotel tower at Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort and planned capital improvements at Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino and Trump Marina Hotel Casino
- The right to veto any changes made in bankruptcy court
- The right to veto the sale of any casinos. If any casinos are sold, he would receive up to $100 million in tax indemnification for personal tax liabilities incurred from the transaction.
- A licensing deal giving Trump Hotels exclusive rights to the Trump name and image, valued at approximately $124 million
Not a bad deal for the person who ran the company into the ground in the first place.
Fed will probably increase rates again
Source: MarketWatch
Winn-Dixie Files for Bankruptcy
Question: why was the loss almost 5 times what the analysts expected? Did they drop the ball? AGAIN?
The article does not mention this, but Winn-Dixie is the 13th largest grocery retailer, with approximately 1150 stores (920 with the Winn-Dixie name and 230 of subsidiaries such as SaveRite) and annual revenues in the $13 billion range.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Friday, February 18, 2005
XOM surpasses GE
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
German Economy Stagnant since July
The German economy actually contracted in 2003 (as opposed to the near-zero but positive growth previously reported), in what was a year of healthy growth for most other OECD countries.
[Thanks to DVD for bringing this to my attention]
Thursday, February 10, 2005
WSJ weighs in on HP
http://www.ftponline.com/weblogger/forum.aspx?id=1&Date=1/26/2005&blog=#311
"Many knew it at the time, but now everyone should: Walter Hewlett was right."
Hewlett was the board member from the founding family who argued that the Compaq merger would depress HP's stock and make the company overly reliant on the PC industry with its negligible or nonexistent profit margins. Since then HP has laid off thousands of workers and has a 55% decline in its stock price to show for those sacrifices.
"Since the merger, HP has lost market share and failed to revive its profit margins. It relinquished the #1 position in market share of personal computers last year to Dell. The Compaq merger hasn't helped in other areas either. In the 12 months ended in September, IBM and Dell gained share in network servers, while HP fell to 26.6% from 28.7%, Morgan Stanley says. HP's operating margins in business services have fallen for two years."
http://www.ftponline.com/weblogger/forum.aspx?ID=1&DATE=01/27/2005&BLOG=#313
"At bottom, they made a huge error in asserting that the merger of two losing computer operations, HP's and Compaq's, would produce a financially fit computer business. The irrefutable evidence on how wrong they were is contained in the two companies' own merger proxy, which precisely laid out the healthy operating margins that the combined company expected to be earning in its 2003 fiscal year (HP's ends Oct. 31) on its computer operations. The margins weren't earned then, and in 2004 they weren't either—not by a long shot. Only the prodigious, money-coining strength of HP's star business, Imaging and Printing (better known as 'printers'), has kept the company looking respectable."
Public accounting standards could force HP to write off $14.5 billion in goodwill allocated toward the value of Compaq. HP is carrying $15.8 billion in goodwill [that's the excess of purchase price over book value for an acquisition] on its books.
Twenty top executives have left in what some call a brain drain, and the legendary HP culture has been deliberately destroyed to be replaced by an "East Coast management culture." But the fundamental problem is that HP is not a leader in any of its markets other than printers. Fiorina recently decried the media's and analysts' inability to see HP as a software company, yet she has virtually gutted all marketing for HP's software.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
HP Chronology
July 1999: HP appoints Fiorina as president and CEO. [$27.24]
June 2000: HP completes divestiture of Agilent Technologies. [$58.18]
September 2000: Fiorina is named chairman of the board of directors. [$45.33]
October 2000: HP announces plans to acquire middleware vendor Bluestone Software. [$43.46]
March 2001: HP creates a new business organization, HP Services. [$29.39]
September 2001: Plans are revealed for HP to acquire Compaq in an all-stock deal. [$15.20]
May 2002: HP officially closes its acquisition of Compaq. [$18.22]
January 2005: HP announces that it will merge its PC and printer divisions. [$19.59]
That's an annualized return of -5.8% per year over Fiorina's 5.5-year reign.
Fiorina out!
Good riddance. She was not a good leader at Lucent, and she has not been a good leader at HP. Here is a good chronology of the highlights of Fiorina's tenure at HP.
Problems at Krispy Kreme
Krispy Kreme said the moves are necessary to avoid a cash crunch. The company said it also will need additional credit to fund operations and capital expenditures by March 25, when a waiver from its primary lenders expires. "There can be no assurance that the company will be able to reach any agreement with the banks or that funding will be available when and in the amounts needed," the company said. Last month, the company's lenders agreed to push back to March 25 a deadline under which the company would be in default of its credit line because it has not filed quarterly financial statements for the period that ended Oct. 31. In the agreement, Krispy Kreme agreed not to borrow any more cash without its lenders' consent.
Krispy Kreme closed at $7.21, down 9.2% for the day and 85% from its all-time high. (When I wrote this post, the stock was trading at $9.64.)
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Vacation v The Economy
Average Vacation Days
France 37 days
Germany 35 days
U.S. 13 days
... I urge you to remember the other side of the coin ...
Unemployment Rate (January 2005)
Germany 10.0%
France 9.7%
U.S. 5.4%
Real GDP Growth (2005 Prediction)
Germany 1.0% [Edited based on more recent information]
France 1.7%
U.S. 3.5%
This thought was inspired by this Bloomberg article (condensed below).
[Thanks to DVD for emailing the Bloomberg article to me.]German unemployment jumped to the highest level since World War II as new rules added welfare recipients to the jobless register. The number of people out of work in January rose by 227,000 to 4.71 million in seasonally adjusted terms, including 230,000 new jobless claimants. The adjusted unemployment rate rose to 11.4%, a seven-year high, while the unadjusted jobless total passed 5 million for the first time since the war. Schroeder's government had cut jobless benefits and forced claimants to take low-paid jobs in an attempt to get more people into work in Europe's largest economy.
Economy and Labor Minister Wolfgang Clement said he expects a further rise in unemployment in February, though experience from other countries suggests the new policies may eventually cut the jobless total by as much as 20%. Even before the labor-market changes, German unemployment had risen for 11 straight months, as companies moved jobs to countries with lower labor costs and stagnant domestic demand deterred hiring. In December, Germany had the second highest unemployment rate after Spain among the 12 countries that share the euro, at 10% on a comparable basis.
Disregarding the effects of the new labor law, seasonally adjusted unemployment was "stable," Labor Agency Vice-President Heinrich Alt said. The adjusted unemployment rate is higher than it has been since March 1998, when it was 11.5%. The record rate was set in October 1997 at 11.8%. "Unemployment has grown steadily over the last three decades and then reunification came on top of that," said Bert Ruerup, the head of Schroeder's council of economic advisers. The government last week pared its forecast for economic growth in 2005 to 1.6% from 1.7%. [New predictions indicate that even this number is overly optimistic. March estimates indicate growth could be as small as 1%. By contrast U.S. growth is predicted to be 3.5% in 2005. - ALD] Germany is losing 1,200 full-time jobs a day, Juergen Thumann, head of the BDI industry federation, said last week. Unemployment won't decline unless labor costs are cut, he said.
[Edited on 3/1/2005 based on more recent information.]
The Decline of Lucent
No industry looked more promising [in 1996] or bled more money [in 2000-2002] than telecommunications. With a collapse in market capitalization of more than $4 trillion [yes, that's Trillion with a capital T] and job losses in excess of 500,000, the telecom meltdown ranks as the greatest stock market debacle ever.
[This is something that's often lost as the dot-com bust has somehow dominated headlines related to the 2000-2002 stock market collapse. The dot-com losses in terms of both the companies' bottom lines and the stock market wealth wiped out are the merest drop in the bucket compared to the telecom collapse.]
Lucent was born in April 1996 as a spin-off of the foundering telecom giant AT&T. It was the largest initial public offering ever, and because each AT&T shareholder became a Lucent shareholder (along with the new investors attracted by Lucent's stellar performance), it was not long before Lucent was the most widely held stock in America. Lucent was born at the inception of the greatest market bubble ever, at the outset of an investment boom that poured billions of dollars into the telecommunications industry. Lucent's startling transformation from an obscure division of AT&T to the sixth-largest corporation in America and then to a company gasping for its financial life left investors and observers by turns delighted, shocked, confused, and finally dismayed as they sought an explanation for the company's descent. The speed of Lucent's decline was as staggering as its magnitude. In the space of twenty-four months, the market capitalization of the company dropped by a quarter of a trillion dollars as its stock price plummeted by 99 percent. Lucent went from spending $100 million to advertise its new name to turning off lights and shuttering bathrooms to save pennies. [emphasis mine]
This is the story of a financially sound company steeped in world-class talent, dominant in one of the world's fastest-growing industries, that in the space of two painful years found itself branded with a junk-bond credit rating, under investigation by the SEC for its fraudulent accounting practices, fighting off rumors of insolvency, and, hat in hand, begging its bankers for a little more time. But the story is surprisingly dramatic for a telecom equipment vendor, complete with a boardroom coup, a stock rise and fall in the shape of Mount Everest, and a series of financial and product decisions that left the company enfeebled.
Lucent's leaders were the men and women of AT&T, the people who practically invented the modern corporate structure. As an old-world stalwart turned new-world bellwether, Lucent experienced the fallout from this historic event with as much force as any ethereal dot-com. When it was over, CEO Henry Schacht was forced to admit that the frenzy that engulfed the stock markets had badly distorted the company's value structure, tampered with its moral compass, and led to decisions that would never have been made in saner times. [Right, Henry, it's the market's fault.]
Additional mistakes by AT&T
- Hanging on to Western Electric for years when it should have spun out on Day 1 after divestiture in 1984.
- Handing over its wireless licenses to the RBOCs at divestiture
- Spinning out its recently acquired McCaw Cellular/Vanguard Cellular, the one industry sector that demonstrated growth and value creation.
- Acquiring NCR and then completely dropping the ball in the computer industry.
- Failing to join with other industry participants in a full-scale assault on the regulatory foundations of RBOC dominance, letting the RBOCs fight tactically as needed and ultimately be victorious.
Some of the above are discussed in this article.
Some Telecom Predictions
(2) MCI can not survive as an independent company. It will be bought by either Verizon (in a bid to regain its number one slot from SBC, which will be number one after combining with AT&T) or BellSouth (in a bid to join the big boys SBC and Verizon).
(3) If BellSouth is not the one to merge with MCI, it will be in trouble itself in the new telecom landscape.
(4) Sprint will be in trouble too, no matter what else happens. Maybe it can merge with whoever doesn't get MCI.
Some links with additional analysis and predictions (with more detailed explanations of the reasoning):
http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1022825,00.html
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3466691
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2428/050131sbcattdeal/
Response to Comment
On a related note, it looks like AT&T will be getting back into the wireless game once again, after the Cingular aquisition is complete, by leasing bandwidth from Sprint.(1) I don't think that will happen anymore. Here's a link to another story from the same source you provide in your comment below. http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/
(2) I'll go further, I don't think this re-entering the wireless market will happen at all now. Why would SBC set up an operation to compete with its own Cingular joint venture?
(3) This is further evidence that AT&T has been run by a bunch of yahoos. You divest your wireless business, and just a couple of years later you are going to invest what I'm guessing would be huge amounts of money to get back in? WTH?
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Decline and Fall of AT&T
In 1999, I (and others) looked at AT&T as a massive cash cow. It was declining in influence and size, and its markets were under attack by wireless and broadband companies and its core business long distance operations were under attack by fiercer-than-expected competition from WorldCom, MCI and Sprint. But it also didn't need to make any massive investments to maintain its existing business, and this business was (a) quite profitable and (b) generating a great deal of revenue and free cash flow. Under these circumstances, I would have expected AT&T to follow a conservative strategy for its core business. If innovation or a new market needed exploring, a joint venture or subsidiary could be set up with the cash flows from the core telephone and business services operation. Beyond that, the company could have / should have paid dividends, lots of them. It didn't need and couldn't effectively use the excess cash.
Instead of this, AT&T embarked on an ill-advised (and ill-fated) strategy under former Chairman and CEO C. Michael Armstrong, which resulted in losses of over $53 billion related to a cable company acquisition spree (MediaOne, TCI, etc.) and the subsequent divestiture of these same companies. Armstrong later advocated splitting the company into four separate entities, a plan which was only partially implemented with the sale of the cable operations to Comcast and the spin-off of AT&T Wireless into a separate company (a company which was utterly unable to compete in the wireless marketplace and was very quickly gobbled up by Cingular Wireless).
[Come to think of it, that sounds almost word-for-word like what happened at Tyco, with an acquisition spree ending in 2001, and the subsequent abortive strategy to break up into 5 companies.]
In October 1999, AT&T had a market capitalization of $152 billion. Today, what's left of that mighty empire is less than $16 billion. Add to that the $47 billion that Comcast paid for AT&T's cable assets and the $50 billion that AT&T Wireless was worth at its spin-off (ignoring the fact that AWE's return was basically a straight line decline and the company was valued at considerably less than that when it was finally put out of its misery by Cingular), and you arrive at $113 billion. So in five years, Armstrong made $39 billion disappear like a fart in the wind. That's a total return of -25.7% or -4.5% per year for five years. Thank you, and good riddance.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Ma Bell to re-unite with Baby Bell
SBC Communications Inc. said yesterday that it would buy AT&T Corp. for around $15.7 billion, making SBC the largest U.S. telecommunications company and ending the independence of the company that created the telecommunications industry over a century ago and is still one of the world's most recognized corporate names.
Former Federal Communications Commission chief Reed Hundt had deemed a reunion of AT&T with one of the companies spun off in a 1984 government anti-trust action "unthinkable" in 1997. But since then AT&T has had a steep decline in fortunes. (See next post up for a discussion of my thoughts on this.) Even so, the $16 billion deal may take until mid-2006 to clear intense regulatory scrutiny.
SBC will issue 0.78 of a share for each AT&T share, valuing AT&T at $18.41 a share. AT&T will then pay a special cash dividend of $1.30 a share. Combined, the deal would value AT&T at $19.71 a share, equal to its closing stock price on Friday. No premium!! The total price would thus be $14.7 billion in SBC stock and $1.0 billion for the special cash dividend.
Analysts have criticized the $16 billion purchase price for the deal as too much for a company with shrinking revenues and questionable growth prospects.
Sources:
Reuters (at Yahoo Finance)
Associated Press (at Yahoo Finance)
Something which neither of these stories mentions, but which was in a story in this morning's AJC, is that this deal may strain relations between SBC and BellSouth (SBC's partner in the Cingular Wireless joint venture) because BellSouth has long wanted to acquire AT&T but could not settle on terms with the AT&T board.
[edited to add link to AJC story]
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Oracle to acquire Peoplesoft
The shares of both PeopleSoft and Oracle rose sharply yesterday. PeopleSoft shares rose $2.47 a share [10.3%] to close at $26.42 a share, just under the offer price [an indication that Wall Street thinks this is a done deal]. And Oracle's stock price increased $1.35 a share [10.2%] to close at $14.63 [an indication that Wall Street think this is a good deal].
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/business/14CND-ORACLE.html