Why I sold Canon

I'm pretty far behind in updating my transaction diary. Partially that's because I don't want to think about the carnage done to my portfolio in recent weeks and partially because I got busy with other things (i.e. buying a house). Because I need some cash to use as a down payment, I sold off my Canon shares at a price less than what I consider to be their value. On August 6, I got $46.49 a share. The first lot (bought in December, 2003) returned 62% compared to 6% for the S&P 500. The second lot (bought in December, 2004) returned 47% compared to 7%. The annualized return was about 11% for both lots. Needless to say, both lots were excellent investments.

Canon has lost a lot of market cap since I sold, so I lucked out there. Since Berkshire had about the same price to value ratio, I was tempted to sell it instead. But I resisted in part because I assumed consumer electronics will be harder to sell in the next few years and Berkshire will be able to pick up some good deals over the same time period. Like Oracle, I suspect Canon will be a compelling value and on my investment radar in the future.

Price/Value ratio

Reading the latest Longleaf Partners Funds report, I was inspired to calculate the Price/Value ratio for my holdings:

Company          P/V
-------          ---
Canon            86¢ 
Select Comfort   36¢ 
Berkshire        82¢ 
Sally Beauty     59¢ 
First Marblehead 23¢ 

I recently sold Oracle for somewhere between 90¢ and $1 to the dollar. Cash is always worth $1 to the dollar and I used the same rate for Alberto-Culver, since I haven't put a value on that company. My composite P/V for the portfolio is roughly 66¢ to the dollar.

Select Comfort and First Marblehead still seem insanely cheap to me even after slashing my value estimate. I expect these will be truly outstanding investments for those who purchase today, but both have been classic value traps for me. (A value trap is an investment that looks cheap, but whose value falls as fast or faster than the price.) First Marblehead in particular has been a head-scratcher, since it operates in a great business that has been abandoned by other companies due to short-term problems. Both companies now include a free option on any future growth.

Of course, the value portion of the ratio is my conservative estimate of the present value of all future earnings. Further, there's no way to know when or if the price will converge on the value, assuming I estimated it correctly.

Why I sold off my Oracle position

For the first time since I began buying individual stocks, I do not own Oracle outright. The call option I sold last month was exercised at expiry and was worth 80¢ since Oracle ended the week at $21.80. Although I lost a little bit on this option, my combined ratio stands at 68.04% for all options written.

The position I sold over the weekend was purchased a little over a year ago for $16.50, which works out to a 29.32% annualized gain. The S&P 500 has lost about 1% over the same time. So that particular trade has been very profitable, as has my Oracle trades in general. I still believe Oracle is misunderstood, but I believe it is trading near its fair value and I don't think its prospects look particularly good in the next few months. Eventually, companies will respond to slowing consumer demand by cutting capital spending. And we have not yet seen the end of bankruptcies even within the financial sector. Perhaps I will be able to buy back into the company if it misses earnings in the next year or two. I hope so, because I'm already starting to miss it.

Good and bad news for Oracle

Oracle had a pretty good third quarter, but not good enough for Wall Street's standards. Earnings came in at 26¢, which was 6¢ better than the previous year, but 4¢ less than the average analyst prediction. I don't see anything too surprising about the numbers on first inspection—there aren't as many companies buying new licenses, but current customers still seem to be paying. But Oracle's shares fell $1.50 or so this morning.

Meanwhile, my short call position gained about 75¢ over the same time period, which effectively cushioned half of the loss for me. Further, the news does not substantially lower my long-term opinion of Oracle's value, though it did reduce the odds I'd get $21 for my shares. So selling the call option has served my purpose. Interestingly, the call ought to have served the purpose of whoever bought it as well. Rather than buying shares and losing $1.50 overnight, the buyer would have lost only 75¢. And the insurance would have required less cash be tied up than if the shares were bought outright. Altogether, it was a fair exchange.

With 22 days remaining before expiration, there the odds the option will be exercised are less than 30%

Why I sold another call option on Oracle

I sold a call option on Oracle with a strike price of $21 that expires in April. I think $21 is near the bottom of Oracle's fair value range and I'm willing to be paid 75¢ for the risk it will be worth more than $21 in a month. Oracle took a little dive today after I sold the call and the odds that it will be exercised are about 2 in 5 as of right now. I'll also be happy to get the cash if I need to sell—Oracle is most nearly fully valued of my positions.

2007 Look-through earnings

As usual, I have to wait for Warren Buffett to release Berkshire's earnings before I can tabulate mine:

EPS              2008* 2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002
Oracle           0.15  0.27  0.13  0.21  0.30  0.44  0.34
Canon            0.37  0.31  0.28  0.49  0.34  0.08 
Select Comfort   0.18  0.19  0.19  0.27   
Berkshire        0.22  0.30  0.25    
Alberto-Culver   0.02  0.02  0.08    
Sally Beauty     0.05  0.04  0.00    
First Marblehead 0.41  0.14     
Look-through     1.00  1.13  0.93  0.97  0.64  0.52  0.34

* 2008 numbers are consensus analyst estimates.

I keep track of my IRA like an open-ended mutual fund and this is the look-through earnings per "share" of my IRA "fund". As I buy and sell stocks, my portion of their earnings fluctuates and when I add cash, it alters the percentage of portfolio's total value comes from look-through earnings. So when I sold Oracle shares over the year, I reduced the earnings I give myself credit for and when I bought Select Comfort, I increased my share of earnings.

Thanks in very large part to Oracle, my look-through results actually improved. When you add in call option premiums and capital gains on selling shares, my results are even better. But my relative share of the company has been reduced and I won't get anywhere near those returns in 2008.

My two troubled positions look ok in this table, but that is mostly an illusion because I've increased my holdings to a large degree. In his just released letter, Mr. Buffett lays out four criteria he looks for in buying a business: "a) a business we understand; b) favorable long-term economics; c) able and trustworthy management; and d) a sensible price tag." The CEOs First Marblehead and Select Comfort have earned my respect anew by taking voluntary pay cuts for poor results that are largely out of their control. Also, the stock market has cut share price of these companies from cheap to practically free, in my opinion. The reason in both cases is largely a result of worsening economic conditions. In both cases, there are internal changes that need to be made if the companies are going to thrive, but they continue to have advantages compared to competitors that are not likely to disappear. If I weren't already up to my ears in these companies, I'd be buying at these prices.

Canon and Berkshire continue to earn about what is to be expected. They are both too large to grow quickly, but have very wide and clear moats that ought to preserve the businesses for decades to come. Unlike Oracle, the market has not come close to recognizing these company's intrinsic values, so I have not been tempted to sell.

Sally Beauty earned very little this year because it has needed to pay so much in interest expenses since splitting with Alberto-Culver. This year and next ought to be pivotal for the company, so it's very encouraging that directors have bought $3 million of shares to the $1 million worth they purchased with their own money last year. When the restrictions on selling agreed to by the principals of the spin-off transaction expire at the end of the year, I expect management will begin to trumpet business growth instead of underplaying it. I've noticed there are plenty of mom-and-pop beauty supply shops here in Southern California, and I expect there will be plenty of opportunities to consolidate the industry while paying down the debt.

Interestingly, 2007 looks similar to what analysts predicted last year, but that result is misleading because I'm more invested in these stocks than I was at that time. Looking at operating earnings, which includes various cash returns and costs, shows a fuller picture of my results:

Interest    0.01    0.03    0.16    0.01    0.03    0.02    0.00
Dividends   0.00    0.08    0.06    0.08    0.03  
Costs      (0.01)  (0.14)  (0.19)  (0.04)  (0.06)  (0.22)  (0.12)
Arbitrage   0.00    0.50    0.41    
Options     0.07    0.14     
Operating   1.07    1.79    1.37    1.01    0.65    0.32    0.23
Gain      -38.18%  25.76%  35.66%  56.70% 100.59%  41.50% 

I'm fairly pleased with these results, but I can't expect them to continue into the future. In particular, I likely will not have any arbitrage earnings this year, since I've invested most of my cash into businesses that I feel are too cheap to pass up and which might not pan out for a few years. Finally, here are my net results juiced by large realized gains that will not be repeated this year:

Realized Gain           2.88                            1.79 
Special dividend                2.99    
Net              1.07   4.60    4.37    1.01    0.65    2.11  0.23
Gain           -76.79%  5.41% 331.08%  56.70% -69.39% 827.21% 

Portfolio news

First, Footnoted.org has some details on the Oracle/BEA merger and gave First Marblehead a gold star.

In worse news, Select Comfort has again disappointed shareholders, though it seems the market is overreacting a bit. Now that it's clear air beds are not immune from recession the way Tempur-Pedic memory foam beds seem to be, no one should be surprised by slowing sales in the quarters ahead. There is no reason the company can't survive and come back much stronger. At these prices the risk is minimal and I suspect that recent price drops have more to do with institutions dropping losers and "penny stocks" than real analysis of the business.

That said, there are some huge opportunities that the company has missed. Having established their brand and product as legitimate, they should have addressed the question of why buy from them. The competition, in my opinion, is regional mattress stores and traditional mattresses, not other premium mattresses like Tempur-Pedic. Now that Select Comfort has established stores all over the country, the network needs to be leveraged.

Here's my idea for a new ad campaign:

A sleazy looking salesman in a wrinkled suit is standing in front of a mile of mattresses next to a guy in a bear costume.

Salesman: Come on down to Miles of Mattresses! If we can't get you the cheapest bed, I'll wrassle this bear!

The picture jumps and slows down as if it were on a film projector that is starting to die. The scene fades to a clean Select Comfort store with three beds or so and a clean-cut salesman in a polo shirt and slacks. There might be another salesman helping a couple try out the bed in the background, but the store should not look cluttered.

Spokesman: Why buy an outdated spring mattress that needs to be flipped every year? Springs start to sag after a while in cheap mattresses and become uncomfortable. Select Comfort sells only modern Sleep Number beds that support sleepers with their exclusive adjustable air chambers. And unlike foam or water beds that are difficult to move, the a Sleep Number bed can be emptied and packed in a matter of minutes. Why buy from this guy, when you can sleep on a layer of air for a lot less than you might think. Come to one of our X locations in Y.

As the spokesman talks, cut to the standard "pressure point and support" image or, if there are customers in the store, show them adjusting the bed to minimize pressure. When the spokesman says, "this guy", cut to the salesman and bear wrestling or cycling each other. Finally cut to a map of the Y region with X stores clearly marked.

These ads should be short, well produced and run constantly. They need to be shown in the cheaper time-slots at night, during the day, and on weekends so that they get seen by people who are ready to buy a new bed. Hopefully everyone who has a TV will see them at least occasionally. I think retail partners are a mistake unless Select Comfort has no locations in a region, and even then, they should make sure the retailer's ads put Sleep Number beds in a good light.

I don't think the financials are nearly as bad as they appear, especially if you allow for a recession. I also don't think it will be too hard to turn this ship around. In fact, I think they are one good TV spot away from returning to high growth, since they have cultivated a number of advantages over regular beds.

Four types of moats

Recently on the Motley Fool, there was an article highlighting four different moat types:

1. Economies of scale
2. The network effect
3. Intellectual-property rights
4. High switching costs

Personally, I'd divide IP rights into: patents/secrets and brands, which is to say: what you know and what your customers know. Also, economies of scale and network effect are really two sides of the same coin. Size can give a company advantages or it can give customers advantages or both. I think high switching cost has an analogue as well: monopoly. Regulated monopolies are especially impervious to assault.

1. Size
   1. Economies of scale
   2. The network effect
2. Knowledge
   1. Intellectual-property rights
   2. Brand
3. Stickiness
   1. Monopoly
   2. High switching costs

In each case, the moat is developed by created an advantage that other companies can't steal. Bigger companies, like bigger ancient cities, are more likely to have established moats. For instance Oracle, Canon and Berkshire Hathaway have multiple and deep moats in nearly every category. First Marblehead mostly fends off competition with intellectual property. I'm worried that Select Comfort might have lost their primary moat—their brand. Those are much smaller companies that have not completely staked out their territory.

So for smaller, fast-growing companies, the question is what moats can they develop?

2007 Year in review

On the last day of 2007, my IRA ended the year down 13.3%, which was the first down year I've had and substantially worse than my benchmarks, the S&P 500 and Berkshire Hathaway. These things happen and especially with an ultra-concentrated portfolio. Here are my core positions:

Stock               2007 Return
-----               -----------
Alberto-Culver      20.83%
Berkshire Hathaway  29.19%
Canon              -17.74%
First Marblehead   -87.43%
Oracle              34.23%
Sally Beauty        16.03%
Select Comfort     -57.70%

Select Comfort has been the biggest disappointment of my short investment career. I certainly misjudged the business though I still think my initial purchase was a good decision. I now believe my follow-on purchase last year was a mistake, because I did not recognize the danger of air mattresses becoming a commodity. Select Comfort is built from the ground up to be a specialty bedding company, so if it ever needs to compete on price, quality and service alone, it must be revalued. That said, I think the current price is actually less than what the company would be worth as a commodity manufacturer. So any future turn-around comes as a free option at prices less than about $7 a share. As I mentioned when I made my third purchase, I plan to aggressively sell covered call options until the future becomes more clear.

First Marblehead has always looked stunningly cheap to me. Incredibly, the price has dropped to just over book value because of worsening conditions in the student loan paper market. Basically the market assumed for a while that the company would just close up shop. Since the supply (or from the perspective of students, the demand) of private student loans is growing at breakneck speed, walking away from the business would be crazy. Instead, First Marblehead has entered into an agreement with Goldman Sachs that will allow it to hold the loans it currently sells off in exchange for nearly 17% of the company's equity. I haven't had time to dig into the details of the deal yet, but it does seem like First Marblehead simultaneously removed short-term risk, reshaped its business model, and bought a powerful ally with a vested interest in its success. Buying more shares is a definite possibility, though I don't like the message sent by the dividend cut.

Canon became cheaper in part because of a delayed entry into the TV business due to patent problems. In the meantime, the company's core camera and printer products have sold well and profitably, and it is working on other entries into the display business. The dividend for 2007 was raised another 10% without seriously eating into cash flows. Canon's dividend is important because it is a signal from management that the business is doing well and it provides me with another reason to keep holding. Based solely on the dividend, Canon is trading below its fair value.

Outside of these three stocks, my investments performed quite well. Unfortunately, my losers made up a larger portion of the portfolio than the winners did. Options and arbitrage transactions worked extremely well for me on the whole, but I'd have to dramatically increase my trading activity to come close to making up for any one of the losing positions. On the other hand, my returns would undeniably be worse without these small, short-term, trading successes. Along the same lines, Alberto-Culver helped, but is a portion of my portfolio too tiny to profitably sell. Its performance barely matters.

Sally Beauty meets my current expectations. Everything seems quiet at the moment, but that will change as the company pays down debt and the restrictions on insider sales expire over the next year or so. I'm contemplating increasing my exposure in what amounts to a publicly-traded, private-equity investment (if you can imagine).

I'm in the process of wishing Oracle, my first and most successful investment, a fond farewell. On an annualized basis, my return on shares sold in 2007 has been over 20%. I've decided to end this investment because I believe the company is trading at a fair value. For the last few months it seems that Larry Ellison agrees with me as he has been exercising options for and selling a million shares a day. He has plenty of shares left to keep his financial future firmly tied to the company he founded, but I'm guessing he is more excited about other investments such as NetSuite. I'll keep my eye on the price in case it falls below its fair value again, however.

Berkshire Hathaway remains the anchor of my portfolio for the foreseeable future. This year will almost certainly be the moment when the company can finally use its dry powder. There are certainly plenty of quality assets available for pennies on the dollar due to "lack of liquidity" (i.e., over-leveraged entities that can no longer refinance). No doubt we will see some buys in the months to come.

Perhaps I'm foolish, but I feel fairly optimistic about 2008. Besides Select Comfort, the portfolio has improved financially and the businesses are stronger than ever. I have no urgency to sell until the future becomes clear, so the market price isn't all that important in the short run. Further, lower prices for stocks in general ought to present me with better opportunities for future purchases.

Praising with faint damnation

An analyst downgraded shares of Oracle Corp. late Monday, saying a slowdown in spending on software by companies may pressure its earnings.

JMP Securities analyst Patrick Walravens downgraded the business-software maker to "Market Outperform" from "Strong Buy" and lowered his price target to $23 from $24.

"While we still believe Oracle will outperform the software industry, our due diligence suggests Oracle's business is slowing along with enterprise software spending," Walravens said in a client note.

JMP conducted a survey of 38 businesses across the economy and 61 percent said their software spending would stay the same or fall in 2008, he said.

"This survey result is the worst we have had since 2001 and is similar to the result in May 2003, which marked the beginning of a two- to three-year choppy period for Oracle's business," Walravens said.

Business in the Americas may be the slowest, he said, and should be helped by performance in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Yet the slowing North American unit may make the company's forecast conservative, Walravens said. He lowered his 2008 earnings forecast to $1.21 per share from $1.23 per share.

From an AP story.

It's hard to get too worked up about this "downgrade". For one thing, I don't know what the difference between "Strong Buy" and "Market Outperform" might be. Second, $23 is still a pretty good premium over the current price. Third, the difference between $1.23 and $1.21 a share is well within noise, not much different from Wall Street's consensus, and nearly 20% up from this year.

Only swing at soft pitches

I've been working on a model for pricing options that does not rely on volatility as an input. (I know: I might as well try to design an airplane without wings.) Testing it out on real prices, I've found that it give vastly different answers for most options. But when the stock price is fairly close to the strike price and the expiration date is only a few months in the future, my estimate doesn't stray too far from the market quote. So as a general options pricing model, this one pretty much fails.

But today I realized that I really don't care. The vast majority of options are ones I don't really care to sell in the first place. For the most part, I want to sell options with strike prices near the price I would value a company. And options longer than a few months in duration are not interesting either since it would be hard to value the underlying shares. Further, I don't really plan on selling options that are less than 50 or 60¢ because commissions eat up too much of the premium. In essence, my model pins a value on the options I'd really like to sell and I don't care what it does to options I want nothing to do with.

Now I'm interested in selling a January $22.50 option on Oracle that currently trades for 50¢. It's pretty far out of the money, so my model does a rotten job of evaluating its price. It comes up with a negative price, which obviously won't work. On the other hand, my model values the $20 option at about $1.32 while the market says the option is worth $1.50. If I were interested in selling Oracle at $20, I'd take that price, which would amount to selling Oracle at $21.50 with a 67% probability.

As it turns out, if Oracle where trading at $22.50 today, I estimate that the $22.50 option would be worth about $1.24. Now there isn't much chance that Oracle will jump from $20.21 to $22.50 in one day, but it does exist. And if it did happen, I'd gladly sell an option on my Oracle shares for that price. It would be a pitch I'd know what to do with.

Why I won't be rolling my Oracle call options

The November call option I wrote will be expiring this weekend and the December option is likely to expire too (35% chance). But instead of rolling them forward, I now plan on hanging on to my Oracle shares for a bit longer. I listened to the recent OpenWorld keynotes and also the analyst meeting and I think I've ignored some significant real options that Oracle might exploit.

According to my discount cash flow models, Oracle is well within the low range of its fair value. The market is assuming 10% growth for 10 years or 14% growth for 5 years. Safra Catz, Oracle's CFO, has set 20% as the goal and hinted at 26% as a possibility. Normally, there would be reasons to be skeptical of these claims, but Oracle has some unique attributes that make this sort of growth possible and even likely.

To begin with, much of Oracle's revenues are incompressible. In other words, once a client begins to depend on HR, accounting, CRM or other software as a critical element in their business, it isn't possible to reduce the licensing stream going to Oracle without shutting down altogether. As a result, there is a floor on how much revenues can fall. Also, the natural tendency is for margins to increase over time rather than decrease. Continuing licenses are nearly cost free to Oracle because of scale.

Now assuming there is a recession this year and next, Oracle will have a harder time growing organically. But the revenue stream shouldn't fall too much and it will have an opportunity to either lower costs or buy up other companies cheaply. If the recession doesn't occur or is mild, Oracle has the option to expand its offerings organically in addition. So because of the nature of its business, Oracle has more flexibility than most companies to deal with downturns. That flexibility represents a real option that I hadn't accounted for in the past. Being able to grow earnings in the face of economic headwinds could be a huge advantage.

I know I've flip-flopped on Oracle lately. Part of the reason is that its share price has been jumping around my lower edge of my value estimates. It hasn't gotten so expensive that I feel the need to sell right away, and it isn't so cheap I'm interested in buying more.

Did BEA's financial results make it more valuable?

One of the tough things about evaluating BEA is that they have been delinquent in their SEC filings until today. For an Oracle investor trying to see if it makes sense to acquire BEAS, the only number that really matters is total revenue. Everything else is pretty much noise, since the purpose of such a deal would be allow much better operating margins. Over the last 12 months, revenues were $1,486,713,000 compared to $1,351,967,000 the twelve months before that. Given Oracle's operating margin (~33%), that would result in $491 million in operating income. That is a significant increase from the $206 million it made in FY 2006, which was the most recent filings investors have had access to. That would indicate Oracle would need to raise its price.

But I don't think that is going to happen. For one, only $541 million of the revenues are from licenses—the rest are from far less profitable services. Also, BEA's operating income was actually negative over the last 12 months. So independent of Oracle or some other buyer, BEAS may be worth less than it was before. Further, the profitable license reviews are decreasing while Oracle's middleware sales are increasing. In any case, Oracle is in an excellent negotiating position.

Why I sold two more call options on Oracle

This morning I sold November and December $22.50 call options that cover all of my remaining shares of Oracle for 60¢ and $1.05 respectively. I've already discussed a number of reasons for trying to sell, so I won't go into too much detail. I should note, that a) my call options have captured nearly a full year of Oracle's earnings and b) I find Wall Street's estimate of 20% earnings growth seems fairly unlikely. In fact, the next few quarters may very well be disappointing because of a global slowdown. Buying BEA, even at a discount, just isn't enough to justify Oracle's current market price and make up the difference.

I should point out that by writing calls for two separate expiry dates I'm raising my costs fairly dramatically. Assuming both options are assigned, I basically have doubled my costs. But I've also doubled my opportunities. Imagine a coin-flipping offer where you earn a prize each time you flip heads and lose the coin the first time you flip tails. If you can chose between one coin that earns $2 for heads or two coins that earn a dollar each, which is a better choice? Although the expected return on the first turn is the same ($1), taking two coins gives you a 3 of 4 chance to go to a second turn as opposed to a 50% with one coin. This won't change the expected return, but it does keep you in the game longer. With two coins, you have more expected options to leave the game if the odds were to shift.

Thanks to a 3.4% increase in Oracle today, the odds the November option will be used are 63% and for the December option 66%. There isn't much short interest to propel shares higher on unexpected news and the market is already expecting good news during next week's OpenWorld conference and Q2 earnings announced in December. Therefor, I feel these options are likely to be profitable for me even if my shares are called away.

Earnings yield of my IRA

Currently, my IRA is flat on the year compared to an 8% or so gain for the S&P 500 and a 17% gain for Berkshire. Select Comfort (-37.5%) and First Marblehead (-28.25%) are the primary culprits, though Canon is somehow down 11% on the year too. Now I don't like the idea of seeing my portfolio stagnate, but there is a ray of hope here: my IRA's earnings yield is improving.

Here's how I calculate yield for my portfolio. Each quarter, I multiply the EPS for each company I own by the number of shares I hold at the end of the quarter. I add up those numbers and at the end of the year I have a value for "look-through" earnings. That's how much my stocks would have returned if they had paid out 100% of earnings in the form of a cash dividend. For 4^th quarter earnings, I use analyst or company estimates which are decent first-order guesses. Then I divide by the total value of my portfolio to get look-through yield.

Yield         2007   2006   2005   2004   2003   2002
-----        ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Look-through  4.57%  3.90%  5.22%  3.65%  3.20%  2.59%

Since my account value has not changed significantly since the beginning of the year, the increase in yield is entirely due to increases in my companies' earnings. This measure does not include income from cash in the numerator, but it does include cash in the denominator. That means, cash-heavy portfolios are penalized. One solution would be to subtract cash from the denominator. A better solution is to add in interest earned to the numerator. I also add in premiums from call options, profits from short-term arbitrages, and cash dividends, while subtracting commissions, fees, and option losses. This produces a sort of operating earnings yield:

Yield         2007   2006   2005   2004   2003   2002
-----        ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Look-through  4.57%  3.90%  5.22%  3.65%  3.20%  2.59%
Operating     6.21%  5.76%  5.46%  3.70%  1.97%  1.74%

I know this double counts cash dividends, which are also reflected in look through earnings. Notice that my cash position has added to earnings in the last two years thanks to a number of arbitrage opportunities.

Higher yields indicate a sort of potential energy for a portfolio. Like the spring in a windup toy, increasing earnings give a portfolio a chance to run. Over a long period of time and given more or less efficient markets, an increase in earnings would represent a corresponding increase in price. Imagine what would happen to a company that earned 50¢ a share and sold for $10 were to increase earnings to $1 a share. If the yield remained at 5%, the stock would also double to $20. But until those gains are realized by selling the stock, that $10 a share increase will not be released. In order to calculate the effects of buying low and selling high, I add in realized gains and special dividends (like the one Sally Beauty distributed last year).

Yield         2007   2006   2005   2004   2003   2002
-----        ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Look-through  4.57%  3.90%  5.22%  3.65%  3.20%  2.59%
Operating     6.21%  5.76%  5.46%  3.70%  1.97%  1.74%
Net          12.84% 18.31%  5.46%  3.70% 12.92%  1.74%

Unfortunately, the net yield is extremely choppy. The simplest solution is to take the geometric mean, which is the best way to get an average of rates or percentages:

Yield         2007   2006   2005   2004   2003   2002
-----        ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Look-through  4.57%  3.90%  5.22%  3.65%  3.20%  2.59%
Operating     6.21%  5.76%  5.46%  3.70%  1.97%  1.74%
Net          12.84% 18.31%  5.46%  3.70% 12.92%  1.74%
Geomean       6.89%  6.08%  4.62%  4.36%  4.74%  1.74%

This smooths the data to show that net yields are also creeping up for my portfolio.

So what does all this mean? In my opinion, these yields are a rough estimate of potential. As I make good investments in companies that are cheap and have high earnings, my portfolio potential goes up. When I'm able to make money with the cash potion of the account, as I have over the last few years, I increase my portfolio's potential a bit more. When I harvest some of that potential by selling positions or receiving special distributions from a position, I have a chance to reinvest in companies with increased earnings potential. As I make good choices in allocating assets, my portfolio's yield and potential increase.

It's important to look at measures besides stock value when considering changes in investments. At the moment, First Marblehead and Select Comfort have the highest earnings yield, but are my worst performers. Oracle has the lowest yield, but is also one of the bright spots in terms of price performance. A narrow focus on recent price movement (momentum investing) would lead me to cut my losers and ride my winners. But as a contrarian investor, I'm looking to sell Oracle (low potential) and buy First Marblehead (high potential).

Dickering over the price

"Lady, you are about to be offered a bribe."
"How big? It'll take quite a chunk to keep me in style the rest of my life in Rio."
"Well . . . you can't expect me to outbid Associated Press, or Reuters. How about a hundred?"
"What do you think I am?"
"We settled that, we're dickering over the price. A hundred and fifty?"

Stranger in a Strange Land—Robert A. Heinlein

Well, BEA has responded to Oracle's Sunday deadline to take or leave a $17 a share buyout with a $21 a share counter offer. When the offer was originally announced, I estimated that $18.55 a share was a fair price, but considered the possibility of a $21 offer. The market is pricing BEAS at $17.67, which is a touch low in my opinion. The two companies have been rumored to be in merger talks for years, but only this month have the rumors been confirmed.

Here's my guess about what has happened since then: Initially, BEA rejected the Oracle offer because it hoped some other company would step in with a competing bid. When that didn't happen, management sent Oracle a letter rejecting the bid again saying it was too low. Oracle responded by setting a limit on the offer of this Sunday. Now BEA was in a bind: if it let the offer expire, it would be clear that there was no competing offer. But management needed to induce Oracle to bid more. That is why they produced the counter offer.

We know that Oracle will end up buying BEA. The only remaining question is the price.

Could monopolies be healthly for the software industry?

Reading commentary about Oracle's BEA offer made me wonder if monopolies really are bad for software consumers. Logically, monopolies are detrimental in every industry because a single supplier is able to control prices that customers must pay. But there are some cases where a monopolistic structure seems to be not so bad or at least a natural result in certain industries.

In software, there are only two real factors in a purchasing decision: price and features. Price isn't just the amount that goes into the software company's pocket, but also the cost to implement and maintain a system. For large systems, the cost to simply train users might dwarf all other costs combined. As Microsoft has taught us, the biggest company tends to win out when price is the primary factor if only because training costs can be minimized. Nobody bothers to mention "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Office" on a resume anymore, because every halfway qualified candidate has learned to use those programs already.

The other factor is features. Since the biggest companies have a huge advantage on the price side of the equation, upstart companies must compete on features. In my experience, it's fairly difficult to justify spending more on software on the basis of "nice-to-have" features. So in order to compete with bigger competitors, a small software company needs to create functionality that is so totally different and useful that its customers start to depend on it. For instance, a few years ago I purchased a copy of Quicken that downloads all of my transactions from my bank's website. Since I've grown to depend on this feature, Intuit has locked me into their software indefinitely.

The other lesson Microsoft has taught us is that big companies have an advantage when it comes to features as well, if the big companies catch the trend soon enough to copy the feature. For instance, Excel, Word, Windows, Money, Internet Explorer, and Outlook were introduced in order to outflank Lotus 123, WordPerfect, Macintosh, Quicken, and Netscape. There are dozens of smaller examples as well. Apple and Intuit survived only because they stayed under the radar long enough to lock-in a critical mass of customers before Microsoft moved in. Other competitors, such as Google, have thrived because Microsoft didn't understand their features until it was too late to emulate. Notice that these mistakes and oversights have occurred more often as Microsoft and the software industry have grown. It's just too hard for them to see everything that is going on.

From the customer's viewpoint, the Microsoft monopoly has been surprisingly benign. Sure, personal computers are probably too expensive because of the Windows and Office taxes, but cooperate America's software training costs are probably lower than they would be with more variety. It's hard to say if we are suffering from a lack of features, but until recently Microsoft has been the leader in distributing new types of software. Where they have failed, it seems like some other company has filled in the gap fairly quickly. In either case, innovation has thrived under the Microsoft monopoly to a greater extent than is possible to imagine under the IBM monopoly of the the 1970's.

Of course, once a monopoly develops, there is a new reason to buy software from a particular company: there is no other choice. And if everyone knows the monopolistic company will simply copy any new and revolutionary product, there is little reason for startups to startup. On the other hand, if the biggest companies are willing to buy up smaller players, like Microsoft in the 1990's and Oracle in the last three years, there is an incentive to fill functional gaps. From the market leader's perspective, purchasing successful competitors when they are small is both cheaper and more certain than developing their own copy. Customers also benefit, since the original products tend to be better than the imitations, at least for a while.

So the dynamics of the software industry may produce benevolent monopolies if:

1. Big companies drive down the total cost of software ownership.
2. Small companies have an incentive to compete on features and are not overly afraid of their ideas being copied by larger companies.

It's like a pond with two niches: small fish (that specialize in features) and big fish (that reduce overall price). Companies like BEA are in the uncomfortable middle: too big to be truly innovative and too small to be cost effective for customers. In this case, if the big fish swallows the medium-sized one, it might be best for the entire ecosystem.

Oracle's offer to BEA

It looks like I won't sell Oracle for $22.50 this week (1 chance in 5). I plan to continue trying to write $22.50 call options on my shares because they continue to be fully-valued. I mentioned last month, that it is nice to have more than one reason to own a stock and the income from writing options is a good reason. Besides that, if the option is exercised, I feel I'm getting a fair price.

The big news for Oracle was their offer last week to buy BEA. I've learned a bit about how to evaluate mergers and I think the offer is pretty good, but is likely too be raised before all is said and done. If the premium offered is less than the expected value of the synergies produced, a transaction my be considered successful. In this case, the premium is at least $1.3 billion. Before the announcement, BEAS was priced at $13.62 a share and the offer price is $17—a premium of $3.38 a share times 392 million shares. Oracle hinted it considers the premium to be even higher: "Our proposed price is a substantial premium to an already-inflated stock price that reflected speculation of the potential sale of BEA and represents a more than 40% premium to BEA's stock price before the appearance of activist shareholders in mid-August of this year." Carl Icahn is, of course, the "activist shareholders" the letter refers to. I'm not going to factor that in, however, since the stock traded higher than $14 as recently as July 19 of this year and has been in the general range for most of the last twelve months.

Synergies are a bit harder to calculate. The market clearly thinks Oracle will need to raise its price since BEAS is trading at $18.55 a share (a $1.9 billion premium). An obvious source of synergy stems from Oracle's high operating margin (33%) compared to BEA's (14%). If Oracle simply trimmed BEA costs to match its own, it would earn an extra $205 million a year in synergies. Using an 11% cost of capital, that works out to about $1.9 billion. Further benefits, such as the ability to cross-sell products to BEA customers and technological improvements, are not included but are also less certain and harder to calculate. I'd assume they are a counter-balanced by integration costs, but they probably do exist.

I just read the chapter on Mergers and Acquisitions in Expectations Investing. One important concept it presents is Shareholder Value at Risk (SVAR), which quantifies how much of current shareholder's value the company is betting on an acquisition. For an all-cash offer, the math is pretty easy and works out to 1.2%. If the offer goes up to $18.55, as the market currently predicts, the SVAR is 1.7%. The highest offer I've seen speculated is $21 a share, which would risk 2.5% of shareholders current value. Any way you slice it, this offer will not have a huge impact on Oracle's long-term performance.

So to sum up, I like Oracle's prospects and the current offer to BEA, but I'm still trying to sell call options so that I can earn some extra income on this fairly-valued position. Got it?

Why I'm selling Oracle

I'm now in the process of writing in-the-money call options on my remaining Oracle shares with the intention of closing my position soon. Today I sold a $22.50 October call for 60¢ when Oracle was selling for about $22.85. By my calculations, there is about a 63% chance the option would be exercised. Oracle ended the day at $22.92, which boosts the odds a couple of percentage points. After commission, I'll be selling Oracle for the equivalent of $23 a share in about 9 days. I'm also trying to sell November options to cover the rest of my Oracle position.

In my opinion, Oracle is no longer a good value. A conservative growth assumption of 10% a year for the next 5 years would come out to about $21 a share. Using more aggressive growth rates will produce higher estimates, of course, but we are now firmly in the range of reasonable valuations. That makes Oracle less attractive to hold and unattractive to buy. If there was a dividend, especially if there was a good chance it would be raised, I'd have more reason to hang on. But the share buybacks Oracle currently uses to return value to shareholders don't excite me at these prices.

I should note that Oracle will continue to be on my radar over the next few years because it is a business that is not well understood. Earlier this week, SAP made an offer to buy Business Objects, which was widely reported as a change in course to Oracle's acquisition strategy. The trouble with that statement is that Oracle's strategy isn't to just buy up competitors, but to get the best software even if it has to buy whole companies to do so. SAP might be doing the right thing, but only if Business Objects to improves SAP's own suite of products and doesn't cost too much. SAP's action doesn't "validate Oracle's strategy"—it merely increases the cost for Oracle to buy good businesses. So it's been odd to see Oracle's price going up this week rather than down.

Having multiple reasons to own

Looking at my overall portfolio performance, I feel pretty good, but two of my biggest positions are way down against the market (as defined by the S&P 500). First Marblehead doesn't bother me too much because I just bought shares and I can't believe how cheap they are. The first and primary reason to own a company for a value investor is that shares are worth far more than the price assigned them by the market. It's sort of the litmus test of value investing.

Select Comfort is a different story. Since I doubled-down, at the end of 2006, the price has gone down, but so has the value. Based on 85¢ EPS last year and 20% projected growth, a fair value would have been about $34 a share. But this year, 87¢ EPS seems pretty optimistic and 15% is a better guess for growth, which makes my best guess for Select Comfort's value to be $24 1/2. I wouldn't argue against a valuation as low as $20 or so. Even so, this is still less than the $18 I paid last year or the $13.30 (adjusted for a 3:2 split) I paid in 2005.

The other reason First Marblehead is easier to own is that it pays a regular dividend. I cheer for low prices since they mean I'm reinvesting at low prices. But Select Comfort doesn't pay a dividend. They do have a buyback program, which I expect is taking full advantage of the low prices the market is offering. I still prefer a dividend, however, since it is more certain and reliable. First Marblehead is buying back shares as well, so I'm doubly pleased.

One lesson I've learned from Select Comfort over the last year is that as a stock price approaches parity with its value, there needs to be another reason to own the stock. You can't force a company to pay a dividend and share buybacks become less worthwhile, so selling becomes a reasonable option even for a company that is operating on all cylinders. As I have done with Select Comfort and Oracle, you don't have to place a sell order in order to sell a stock—writing a call option works nearly as well. I missed that chance a year ago when Select Comfort was trading near $25, but I won't miss it next time.

I've already started practicing sell discipline with Oracle. Improving, rather than worsening, financial conditions make a company easier to own. But stock prices tend to peak around the time that performance peaks. If price are getting close to value, there has to be another reason to keep the company. At the moment, Oracle is priced to grow earnings at 14.5%. Though this is possible, I'm afraid there is a real possibility Oracle's business could falter like Select Comfort's did. I don't see any reason to take that risk when there are other investments that trade well under their current value.