Eveillard's tax device

I just came across an interview with Jean-Marie Eveillard, who manages one of my 401(k) mutual funds—First Eagle Overseas. There is one little answer that immediately caused me to open the spreadsheets of each of my core holdings.

Fortune: You pay a lot of attention to companies' tax rates. Why? Particularly in the U.S., I don't like companies with very low tax rates, because it's a sign either that the Internal Revenue Service will catch up with them someday or that the profits they report are overstated. The average corporate tax rate is 35%. Any company that has a tax rate of 15% or 20% looks suspicious to me.

This suggests a simple device for estimating how much risk a company has because of trying to game the tax system. Companies with overly low tax rates are like ticking time-bombs. There aren't a lot of positive reasons for a company to pay low taxes. The device also warns of companies that exploit the US system that allows companies to use two sets of books. Oracle has the highest rating and it isn't exactly a blaring fire alarm.

Company        Tax     Device     
-------        ---     ------
Oracle         29.71%   5.29%
Canon          34.52%   0.48%
Select Comfort 37.78%  -2.78%
Berkshire      32.81%   2.19%
Sally          38.82%  -3.82% 
Marblehead     38.51%  -3.51%

Raytheon       31.79%   3.21%

Why I sold a call option on Select Comfort

I already mentioned my intension to sell a covered call option at $17.50 a share and today the order was filled at 45¢ a share. I sold July contracts and the underlying stock ended the day at $16.68. Over the next 31 days, there is a 42% or so chance the option will be exercised.

The odds that I will break even are approximately 62%.

It's important to note that I've only written an option for a portion of my holdings, which means I can still profit from price increases over the next month. I might sell another option at a higher strike or an option that expires later in the year. It's also possible that I will sell shares outright if their price jumps unexpectedly. On the other hand, I could have sold options more cheaply if I'd sold more contracts.

Is seems to me that Select Comfort is undervalued because of a convergence of events that management has some control over. At a recent Analyst Conference, CEO Bill McLaughlin pointed out that the current marketing campaign does a good job addressing the "need" portion of Select Comfort's message, but not the "solution" portion. He mentioned at least twice that consumers don't always know where to buy the Sleep Number bed, which I found a bit surprising. He also said that the housing downturn has had an effect on sales since Labor Day last year because people tend to buy beds when they move into a new house and because the "wealth effect" has been reduced. He also revealed that Select Comfort has seen significantly more cannibalization than expected when it expand from 100 Retail Partner Doors last year to 800 this year.

Fortunately, management has committed to fixing these problems and to borrowing cash to buyback shares. They have a significant amount of control over the marketing and distribution of their own product. Also, there was an announcement today of upgraded products, which gives me encouragement that R&D efforts are starting to pay off.

Why I bought Kaiser Group Holdings (and wish I hadn't)

On May 5^th, I bought 19 shares of Kaiser Group Holdings because of this preliminary proxy. I paid $26.50 a share in hopes getting cashed out at $36 a share. As of this 8-K, I will be forced to sell for much less than that. Today's closing price was $26.85, so I don't foresee making a profit on this position. I broke my rule of waiting for a definitive proxy, so I only have myself to blame.

According to Eric J. Fox and Eric Schleien, Kaiser Group is trading below NCAV. I get a liquidation value of about $33 a share, much of it in cash. Unfortunately, it's hard to know what management intends to do with that cash. Going private seemed like a reasonable choice for all the usual reasons—especially since there's no real operating business here. Since the company was unable to get the deal done over the last few years, it's hard to believe shareholders will get relief anytime soon.

Select Comfort's problems deepen

According to their second quarter update, Select Comfort management is questioning the new marketing strategy. Rather than revive sales, as I anticipated, the company expects sales to decline 5% from a year ago. If that happens, Select Comfort will need to find ways to cut expenses to avoid reporting an EPS loss this quarter. For the year, management is projecting 87¢ to 93¢ a share compared to 85¢ in 2006. They have also lowered sales projections to be 4% to 7% growth over last year, which seems optimistic given the very slow start to the year.

On the flip side, the release also suggested management has found expenses to cut, plans to release upgraded products, and is committed to buying back significant numbers of shares. Also, the Motley Fool points out, it is encouraging that management is taking responsibility for the problem. I had missed this Financial Times article from a few days ago that suggested management is weighing acquisition of businesses that would expand Select Comfort internationally or into bedding accessories. My guess is that these plans are on hold for now, but those are obvious paths to growth in the future.

If Select Comfort doesn't cut Sales and Marketing costs, which would be difficult given their focus on fixing marketing, I'm guessing they will lose 15¢ this quarter and only earn 55¢ this year. I'd consider this to be a fairly conservative estimate. Management's low end 87¢ a share might be more realistic given their insight into the problems, but it's hard to give them much more benefit of the doubt. Given the various growth opportunities and that we are likely at a trough in sales, 15% growth over the next ten years is not unreasonable. Beyond that, I'll assume no more than 3% (or slightly more than inflation) growth in the terminal value. I always use a discount rate of 11%, which is the long-term average of the S&P 500.

Given those assumptions, my DCF model results in fair value between $15.67 and $24.58:

EPS                 0.87    0.55
Historical Growth   2.50% -34.65%
5-year Growth      17.73%   9.11%
  
Growth             15.00%  15.00%
1                  $1.00   $0.64
2                  $1.15   $0.73
3                  $1.32   $0.84
4                  $1.52   $0.97
5                  $1.75   $1.12
6                  $2.01   $1.28
7                  $2.31   $1.48
8                  $2.66   $1.70
9                  $3.06   $1.95
10                 $3.52   $2.24
  
Discount rate      11.00%  11.00%
NPV growth        $10.62   $6.77
  
Stable growth       3.00%   3.00%
NPV terminal      $13.96   $8.90
  
Total             $24.58  $15.67

Select Comfort traded up to $17.13 at the close, so the market is definitely leaning toward the lower estimate. (Not that I think any market participant uses anything like my estimates. More likely, investors are using management's EPS estimates and knocking the growth rate down a notch or two.) Back in December, I predicted this scenario as a possibility when I bought more shares at $18. Obviously, I'd prefer results were better—especially given the change in advertising. Due to this news, I'm going to try selling a covered call at $17.50, which would be a 4% loss on my recent purchase if exercised. I still like the long-term prospects of the company, but I like the prospects of First Marblehead even more.

First Marblehead raises dividend and buys shares

First Marblehead just announced a substantial increase in dividend to a yield of about 2.6%. In the same announcement, the company reported purchasing about 1.39% of its own shares. If I use a dividend discount model to value FMD, I get a ridiculously high figure—as in 3 to 4 times more than the market price. Earlier in the week, the company released results of the most recent securitization, which were quite encouraging given the current point in the financial aid cycle.

It's hard to stand pat without any cash to add to my current position. But I don't know what I'm willing to sell. I suppose this is a good problem to have.

Canon sells to a better class of customer

Every time I think about cutting back on my Canon position, I see an article like this one. Essentially, Canon has created a more efficient customer base than its competitors. It isn't completely clear how they were able to do this, but I have a few theories:

• Canon does not have a personal computer business like HP does. Some of the printers bundled with PC systems will be heavily used, but consumers who purchase unbundled printers seem more likely to use them. Brother, Lexmark, and Epson printers also tend to get bundled with PCs.
• Canon does bundle photo printers with digital cameras. Consumers may not be any more likely to be heavy users of these printers, but if they do, they will likely be using more costly color ink and photo paper.
• Canon has a long history of supplying HP with the print engine for the LaserJet series of printers. This arrangement would artificially increase HP's market share number and decrease Canon's, and therefor alter each measure of efficiency. On the other hand, if Canon sells to HP with a greater profit margin than HP sells to the consumer, which seems likely, the aberration isn't that big a deal.
• In the past, color printers used one cartridge to hold all three ink shades, so when you ran out of cyan (probably because you printed too many Word documents with random phrases underlined as if they were email addresses or web links), you had to throw out half a tank of yellow and red. Canon was fairly early in switching to separate cartridges for each color tank, which intuitively would make one think they sell less ink. But I suspect the opposite occurred. Rather than feeling ripped off by a printer company, Canon users felt free to print Word documents with lots of cyan because they knew they wouldn't be wasting a bunch of red and yellow ink.
• I don't have any hard and fast evidence, but I feel like Canon printers are easier to use—especially if you want to print directly from a camera or memory card. It would be easy to assume that usability is most important as an initial selling point, and that customers are locked in, but that ignores how easy it is to get a new printer at a low cost.
• Brand loyalty thanks to years of producing professional and "prosumer" cameras might encourage consumers to buy genuine Canon consumables rather than generics. I know for my family, we gladly pay more for Canon supplies on the assumption that they will produce better results.

Canon's dividend valuation

Until recently, I've seen Canon's dividend as a nice, but not vital piece of the valuation puzzle. But in the last few years, Canon has raised its dividend to a point where the company can be valued on actual payments to shareholders rather than cash flows which might never reach investors. Here is a chart of dividend information for the last 10 years:

                2007    2006    2005    2004   2003   2002   2001   2000   1999   1998   1997  
Dividend        ¥150.00 ¥125.00 ¥100.00 ¥65.00 ¥50.00 ¥30.00 ¥25.00 ¥21.00 ¥17.00 ¥17.00 ¥17.00
Dividend growth 20.00%  25.00%  53.85%  30.00% 66.67% 20.00% 19.05% 23.53% 0.00%  0.00%  -
Expected growth 11.00%  11.75%  12.28%  13.14% 13.25% 10.49% 10.11% 9.18%  4.61%  8.13%  9.47%
DDM for 5 years ¥7,867  ¥6,813  ¥5,597  ¥3,800 ¥2,939 ¥1,533 ¥1,253 ¥1,003 ¥638   ¥769   ¥824
Price           ¥7,131  ¥7,050  ¥6,710  ¥5,560 ¥5,090 ¥4,580 ¥4,660 ¥4,250 ¥4,160 ¥2,320 ¥3,040

"Expected growth" is the mathematical maximum growth that can be sustained based on a Canon's financial information. It is composed of retained earnings rate multiplied by return on equity. Only earnings that are retained (about 75% of income) may be reinvested to fund future dividend growth and the return on equity over the next five years is likely to be about the same as it is this year (15% or so). Multiply those rates and you get a growth rate of about 11% a year. Notice that actual dividend growth has been somewhat better than that since 1999 in order to make up for some flat years in the late 1990s.

I discount that growth at 5% for the next 5 years. This rate seems appropriate for the low return on Japanese risk-free investment. At the end of 5 years, I assume Canon's dividend will grow at 2% compared to a discount rate of 5%. As you can see above, 2007 will be the first year in which the Dividend Discount Model values Canon higher than its market price. Since the dividend-only model is as conservative as you get in valuation, there's no particular reason to construct a more elaborate model when the value exceeds the current price. Converted to dollars, the DDM values Canon at about $64. Meanwhile, the Quicken model I've used in the past puts the value at $77. The current price is $58.59, so by either measure, Canon is still a good buy after doubling over the last 5 years.

Since this estimate is based on what Canon is already doing, I see at least two free options offered by the stock. First, SED TVs could add substantially to Canon's bottom line. Second, consumers in emerging markets such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico may soon afford lower-end digital cameras and printers to replace traditional film cameras. Canon has pretty much eliminated the PC as a necessary part of the digital imagery work-flow and the upfront costs are within an order of magnitude of film costs. Over the long-term, digital pictures are vastly cheaper to process and far more convenient for most consumers than film, so I expect the switch-over will happen over the next five years or so. Kodak and Fujifilm sell billions of dollars of film equipment and services around the world and Canon has a shot at nearly all of that business now.

Cost of complexity

I've been listening to Aswath Damodaran's valuation class online, which has been very informative. Near the end of Lecture 10, Professor Damodaran suggests an interesting adjustment to "punish" companies for having complex structures that are hard to understand and analyze. The argument goes the more complex a company is, the more places it can hide information about itself and the more likely some of those details will turn out to be bad news. The professor suggests counting the number of pages in a companies 10-K as a simple way to measure complexity.

I sort of assume my companies are more transparent than their peers, but I didn't have any way of measuring that. Now I do. Here are my core holdings with the first competitor I thought of for reference:

Company        Pages
-------        -----
Oracle         103
Canon (20-F)   122
Select Comfort  72
Berkshire       84
Alberto         99   
Sally           99
Marblehead      71+38F

SAP (20-F)     121+70F+1S
HP             152
Tempur-Pedic    48+30F
Citigroup      180
P&G             23
Regis          117
Sallie Mae     118+84F+12A

I don't know how to treat the extra pages (F-38, A-12 and so on), but my sense is that these are a sign of even more complexity than regular pages. Proctor & Gamble walk away with the prize in this group, but overall, the companies I own are objectively less complicated than the ones I don't. I had actually picked Citigroup as a foil to Berkshire because I expected it to have over a thousand pages. Perhaps that number includes all the supplementary documents that I don't plan on even opening. I only included the main 10-K.

One other reason to use this sort of test is that if a company's filings are too long or complicated, chances are you won't read it. My Alberto-Culver investment relied on that principle, since I hoped as few people as possible would have worked though the sum-of-the-parts valuation and I could buy in at a low price. Now that I've bought, I hope the Sally reports at least are going to become more clear and simple so that other investors can begin to appreciate the company's true worth. And since insiders have had these same goals, I'm pretty sure my wish will be granted.

First Quarter results

All of my companies have reported earnings for the first quarter of 2007 (though some of them call it Q2 or Q3). With a single exception, I'm quite happy with the results. Here are the earnings per share adjusted for splits and spin-offs:

1st Quarter EPS      2007  2006  Change
                     ----  ----  ------
Oracle                .20   .14  42.86%
Canon                 .84   .69  21.74%
Select Comfort        .21   .21 -00.66%
Berkshire Hathaway  56.07 50.03  12.07% 
Alberto-Culver        .23   .16  43.75%
Sally Beauty          .06   .17 -64.71%
First Marblehead      .75   .62  20.97%

One quarter isn't really enough to give a clear picture of a company. But with the exception of Select Comfort and Sally Beauty, these companies are performing well on a multi-year basis. I've talked about Select Comfort's issues, so I won't go into them too much more. This Sunday, they ran a clever ad in Parade magazine that gets delivered with many paper in the US, which confirms my basically good opinion of the new campaign.

Sally Beauty is a more interesting story. Remember that I bought it before the split with Alberto-Culver. After the split, I owned one share of Sally, one share of New Alberto, and $25 for each share of Old Alberto. The $25 special dividend was paid for by borrowing huge amounts—in essence prepaying future earnings of Sally. I haven't seen the latest cash flow statement or balance sheet, but you can get a pretty good idea of the effect of the transaction from this portion of the income statement:

3 months ending March 30     2007    2006
                             ----    ---- 
Operating earnings         60,771  51,313
Interest expense           44,947     321
Interest income               300     300
Market interest rate swaps  1,700       -
Net interest expense       42,947      21
   
Earnings before taxes      17,824  51,292
Provision for income taxes  6,785  20,117

Net earnings               11,039  31,175

Operating earnings are up because of growth in the business and cost savings from no longer being part of Alberto-Culver. Interest expenses are up dramatically even after income from interest rate swaps because of the massive debt load. Sally shareholders owe roughly $12.45 a share to Sally bondholders after the special dividend. Fortunately, there is plenty of cash flow to cover the payments and plenty of growth to grow out from under the debt. You'd be forgiven for thinking the whole thing is a pointless exercise if I hadn't included the impact of taxes. Since interest payments are tax-deductible to Sally, net earnings are not as small as you might imagine. Over the life of the debt, this will amount to significant tax savings.

Although the market value of my companies have increased at a healthy rate, I'm not currently interested in selling any of them because I believe their potential has increased even more. That's the reward for buying good companies at a cheap price.

Update May 14

Sally released the balance sheet with their 10-Q and the debt is closer to $10 a share. Book value is about -$5 a share, which makes life a bit tough from a relative valuation perspective.

Value investing is arbitrage

The other day, I talked about the reverse-split arbitrage I've been been engaged in for the past year. Thinking about the methods I use to evaluate the opportunities, I started to wonder if they could be applied to other investments. Certainly the concept of arbitrage can be extended to other realms such as sports betting. The key element is that there must be multiple markets for the arbitrageur to exploit. In the case of a reverse-split, the two markets are the open market where one normally purchases the shares, and the company market where the company buys the shares. The reason this arbitrage is profitable is that the second market is only available to those who hold a small number of shares. In mergers and tender offers open to unlimited amounts, the market adjusts almost immediately to the offered price.

Value investors do something similar when we attempt to profit on discrepancies between the price and the value of a stock. Of course, the value market is a theoretical one, at least in the short term. But the purpose of buying an "undervalued" company is the hope that eventually the market will change in such a way to properly value the position.

Let's take a look at Berkshire Hathaway, the classic value stock. First, we need an estimate of the payout if a bet on Berkshire is successful. The Berkshire Hathaway Intrisivaluator is as good a place to start as any. Currently, the "Cost of Capital" estimate puts BRK.B shares at $4754. This estimate assumes a healthy growth rate discounted at Berkshire's cost of capital. For an estimate of the minimum value, we'll use the "Liquidation" scenario of $3114 a share. Here the assumption is Berkshire sells off all its assets, settles all its debts, and distributes what's left to shareholders. There are other choices offered by the model, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that these are the payouts for success and failure.

The market values BRK.B at $3628 as of today's close. Using the method I described last week, that implies the market thinks there is roughly a 45% chance Berkshire will perform well enough in the future for "B" shares to be worth $4754 today. By elimination, that means there's a 55% chance Berkshire will stall out and only pay out $3114. Obviously any rational view of a company's future will be more nuanced and complicated than a simply success/failure trial. But it does provide a dead-simple method of calculating the odds of a stock investment. In this case, the market seems to think Berkshire doesn't have much gas left in the tank.

One issue with thinking this way for ordinary stocks is that there is no finite termination date. It's as if the coin keeps spinning and never comes down—or maybe the coin is flipped over and over again as shares are traded. But that's not a bad thing from a practical standpoint, since the company's value doesn't stop moving either. Each quarter there is new input into the value calculation, which often makes a good deal look even better. If you flip back in the Intrinsivaluator to 1981 ("B" shares, if they existed, were valued at $40), the value keeps climbing as you step through the years. Even in 1995, when Berkshire seemed most overvalued, a long-term investor would probably regret selling.

Select Comfort's new ad direction

I've just had a chance to review two Select Comfort commercials from its new "Cure Tired" campaign. As I mentioned in the past, the most recent advertisements seemed more like they were hawking drugs not beds. The new ads are much better and get back to the key elements of the original ads: humor and product focused. True to form, McKinney produced one spot aimed at women and another aimed at men.

"Bright Eyed", the weaker of the two in my opinion, begins with scenes of women trying to cover up baggy eyes in the morning with the familiar "What the world needs now..." tune in the background. A voiceover suggests, "The world doesn't need a better way to fake a good night's sleep... It needs a better way to sleep." The payoff is a 5-second explanation of the Sleep Number bed followed by the new tag: "You Can Cure Tired." Since I'm not the target audience, I don't know if my judgment can be relied on, but the makeup and cucumber scenes seem less humorous and more pathetic than I'd like.

On the other hand, "Staying Awake" seems to hit just the right notes. The opening scenes this time represent over-the-top caffeine/energy drink/stimulant attempts to stay awake under the same music. The voiceover this time says, "The world doesn't need a better way to stay awake... It needs a better way to sleep." The spot is a full minute instead of 30-seconds and it uses the time to establish a bit more clearly that the first part is about covering up the real problem: being tired. It also introduces a protagonist who buys a moderate-sized cup of coffee and rejects the "moster caf 72" coffee mug. As he walks down the street, he observes in disbelief the Ka-Blowie stimulant-smoothie stand, Wakey'z Drugmall, a dog lapping up coffee abandoned by a napping newspaper seller, and so on. Finally, the man notices a helpful Select Comfort salesman waving to him from in front of his store. The ad ends with the same explanation and tagline.

"Cure Tired" is a pretty good tag, especially since the beds actually work. Every time I'm forced to sleep in some other bed, even a relatively comfortable bed, I'm quite happy to go home and rest in a bed that adjusts to fit me.

SCSS has just released their first quarter earnings which were fairly well described on the Fool. Obviously I'd prefer if comparable sales were better and it makes me nervous to have management back-load earnings so much. But I think there is a good chance advertising will make a difference.

How I added to Canon's results

There's a pretty good summary of Canon's Q1 at the Motley Fool. As it happens, I feel partially responsible. You see, earlier this year I bought my wife a Canon Rebel XT . It was intended to replace the A85 I bought her a few years ago and the Rebel 2000 I gave her a few years before. For at least this consumer, Canon has been able to sell higher margin products as the years go by.

The financial statements support this. In 1999, the year the Rebel 2000 was first introduced in Japan, Canon converted ¥3 of every ¥100 in sales to profit. In 2006, it converted ¥11. There are lots of reasons for this, such as the move from film to digital, point & shoot to SLRs, black and white to color copiers and printers, currency benefits, and operating efficiencies. Meanwhile, Canon has taken a hit in asset turnover, which has fallen from ¥98 to ¥92 of revenue per ¥100 of assets. This is to be expected since higher margins usually imply lower sales. Fortunately, the overall effect has been positive as measured by ROA, which went from 2.71% to 10.07%.

Meanwhile, Canon has been de-leveraging over that same time-frame. Its equity to asset ratio dropped from 2.15 to 1.51 thanks to decreases in long-term debt and capital leases. Normally this has a negative effect on return on equity, but because of Canon's stellar margins, ROE has improved from 5.84% to 15.25%. Mathematically, it doesn't much matter which of the ROE component ratios improve, but financially its nice to "front-load" the ratios. In general, it is easier to improve asset turnover through discounting or leverage through borrowing than it is to increase margins. This is especially true in a highly competitive business like digital cameras and printers.

I don't imagine margins will improve much from here on out, but there is hope for further growth in new products. Currently the company is working on launching SED TVs and have announced a medical device initiative. I'm a bit worried about the plan to develop (and I'm not making this up) intelligent robots. Whatever that means. I'm confident that Canon's R&D investments will pay off over time, but it's nice to have such strong operations while we wait.

The business of beauty

It's been a while since I wrote about Sally Beauty, but there were two stories that I thought were worth reading. First is a story from Forbes on starting a salon business. Sally got a mention as a supplier of salons, but what was more interesting to me was the advice to adopt a Whole Foods approach to employees. "In the salon world, the most precious resources are stylists, so keeping them around and happy is critical." The article suggested emulating Whole Foods' training program.

On a related note, Regis is dropping out of the beauty school business by merging most of its schools with Empire Education Group. The press release has more information including the suggestion that the need for IT investment was the reason for the merger. As you might recall, Regis was initially interested in buying Sally Beauty, but was rejected at the last moment because of operating weakness.

It seems to me that while the beauty salon industry as a whole resists consolidation, the supporting industries are successfully consolidating. Beauty schools and salon product distributors benefit from economies of scale, but salons themselves rely to a large extent on the services of talented stylists. Since talented stylists know they are an important part of the success of a salon, they demand a larger slice of the profits. There are dozens of professions with this dynamic including chefs, athletes, programmers, artists of all types, and so on. But unlike other professions, it's difficult for individual stylists to scale their work—they can only cut one head of hair at a time.

Arbitrage odds

One of the ways I've been evaluating going-private and other arbitrage opportunities is to look at the market's implied probability of success. Like gambling situations and unlike most investment situations, arbitrage is essentially a binary, win-loss event. That makes it relatively easy to apply the Kelly Criterion.

To show how it works, let's take my first going-private transaction, Major Automotive. On October 14, 2005, the company announced plans to implement a reverse split that would pay $1.90 to shareholders of less then 1000 shares. On March 29, 2006, I bought 999 shares at $1.75 a share. After the $19.95 commission charged by my broker at the time, I hoped to make $129.90 when the reverse split was resolved. I guess that there was at least a 95% chance the split would succeed from that point since insiders owned 49.4% of the company. I don't like the idea of assigning higher odds because of Murphy's Law.

If the split failed to happen, what would my position have been worth? The most pessimistic choice would be to assign no value. It isn't unreasonable either, since I'd done basically zero research into the underlying value of the company. In that case, I'd have lost the entire $1,768.20 that the position had cost. The expected payout would be $129.90*0.95 + (0-$1,768.20)*(1-0.95) = $34.995, which isn't half bad for a zero-research investment. A slightly more realistic value would be the price of the shares just before the reverse split was announced. On October 13, 2005, Major Automotive was priced at $1.40 a share. Using that price as a floor, the expected payout was $103.93. If you are following along don't forget to include an extra commission as an added cost of failure.

As it turns out, you can calculate the odds the market is assigning to an arbitrage situation with a little bit of math. This is the equation for expected payout:

S*p + F*(1-p) = E

where:
S = price if split succeeds
F = price if split fails
p = split probablity
E = expected price

If the market is rational, you'd expect the market price to match the expected price. I used the Mathomatic Computer Algebra System to solve for p:

$ mathomatic
Mathomatic version 12.6.10 (www.mathomatic.org)
Copyright (C) 1987-2006 George Gesslein II.
50 equation spaces available, 960KB per equation space.

1-> S*p + F*(1-p) = E

#1: (S*p) + (F*(1 - p)) = E

1-> solve p

        (E - F)
#1: p = -------
        (S - F)

Now if you plug in the values for Major Automotive when I bought it, you get a 70% probability that the split would happen.

Since my probability estimate (95%) was much greater than the market's, my expected payout was correspondingly higher. Given enough of these situations profits would be astronomical for anyone who could identify them. According to the Kelly Criterion, the optimum allocation for even the pessimistic case is 27%. (This can be calculated by taking the expected payout and dividing by the maximum payout or $34.99/$129.90. The more optimistic case calls for a whopping 80% allocation.) Unfortunately, these situations are rare. The only reason reverse splits are so wildly mis-priced is that arbitrage positions are limited to a small number of shares. Unless you have a portfolio of only a few thousand dollars, it's impossible to allocate the optimal amount even under the pessimistic case.

First Marblehead gets cheaper and I couldn't be happier

First Marblehead has lost 23.67% since I bought it in March (-98.36% annualized). Obviously, I would be happier if I had waited to buy, but getting cheaper is a good thing overall. Consider the Four Factors. The only one that has really changed since I bought is equity valuation, which has improved to 24¢ of equity per dollar of price. Other investors might have lowered their estimates of asset value and future earnings based on potential defaults or the potential acquisition of Sallie Mae. But I don't think those fears are warranted and I haven't changed my estimates.

Having already bought shares, how can the lower price help me? For one thing, I could buy more shares (double down). But as I'm short of investable cash, that isn't an option. If the price doesn't recover before First Marblehead distributes its next dividend, I'll be able to reinvest it at a lower cost. A more likely scenario is that First Marblehead will repurchase on the open market over the next few days.

There are potential disadvantages to a lower prices. For instance, if I needed to sell today, I would realize a substantial loss. Or a third party might attempt to takeover First Marblehead. Or if First Marblehead were to issue shares (perhaps as a part of executive compensation), it will get less value per share than it would have a few months ago. But as long as those things don't occur, lower prices can only be good for shareholders.

As for the "news" that has been driving down FMD's price, I'm not too worried. The default scare seems totally bogus. First Marblehead's estimate of residual value seems very solid.

The issue with the SLM buyout seems to be that two potential purchasers, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, are also two of First Marblehead's clients and might direct private student loan business to Sallie Mae. FMD's CEO has said that there will be no impact on his company. I don't see how there could be an immediate impact since neither company would control SLM. Two private equity investment companies, J.C. Flowers & Co. and Friedman Fleischer & Lowe LLC, hold majority stakes and I doubt they would be willing to give away Sallie Mae's competitive advantages to the giant banks. A scenario that seems more probably is that the banks will outsource their student loans to SLM over time. But they could have done that even before this buyout was proposed, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Four Factors of value creation

Dean Oliver (the Bill James of basketball), describes the Four Factors of Basketball Success. They are shooting, taking care of the ball, offensive rebounding, and getting to to foul line. There are hundreds of other statistics that are of interest, but unless they measure aspects of these factors, they aren't all that important to actual basketball success. Think of the Four Factors as a framework for interpretation.

I believe that there are Four Factors for value creation as well. Obviously there are even more statistics that may be important to understanding a company, but these four represent a complete path from customer to shareholder. I'm going to use my new favorite investment, First Marblehead, to illustrate the concepts.

Most public companies derive their value from sales. (The exception are companies like biotechnology firms that hope to turn ideas or other assets into sales at a later date.) But not all sales are created equal. Companies need to charge more than the goods and services cost to produce. And there are other costs such as overhead and taxes that need to be considered. From a shareholders perspective, those costs add little to the value of the company. So the first factor is Net Profit Margin:

Earnings 
-------- = Net Profit Margin
Sales   

In it's most recent 10-K, from June 2006, First Marblehead reported revenue of $563.572 million and, after subtracting costs, earnings of $235.960 million. Divide earnings by sales and the profit margin works out to 41.87%. In other words, 42¢ of each dollar in sales is profit to First Marblehead owners. Compared to the Consumer Financial Services industry average of 13.77%¹, FMD must be doing something right.

Specifically, what companies with high profit margins have done is a combination of raising prices and lowering costs. The risk is that customers don't like higher prices and that lower costs might mean lower quality products, which also don't go over well with customers. So if you've got two companies and one has a higher profit margin than the other, you would also expect it to have lower sales. But just as we compared earnings to sales, we need to compare sales to something else. If one company has two stores, you'd expect it to sell twice as much as a company with just one store. A company that sells to customers all over the world probably has more sales than a similar company that just operates in one city. So you have to compare sales to the company's size or potential.

Asset Turnover is the second factor:

Sales
------ = Asset Turnover
Assets

Every company has assets such as offices, factories, stores, patent portfolios, and so on, which it can use to generate sales. First Marblehead had $770.346 million worth of assets as of June, 2006. The bulk of those assets are residuals in its securitization trusts, which have the potential to contribute to future income as the underlying loans are paid off. For fiscal 2006, every dollar of assets produced 73¢ of sales. Since the industry average is about 21¢, First Marblehead looks even better.

How much better? Well if you multiply the first two factors, you get another ratio called Return on Assets:

Earnings   Sales
-------- X ------ = Return on Assets
Sales      Assets

This number measures how well management has balanced price, costs, quality and demand. Higher prices tend to depress demand, and lower costs tend to lower quality which lowers demand. But First Marblehead seems to be able to defy those tendencies since it has a ROA of 30.63% compared to the industry at 2.91%.² Given the first two factors, you might wonder how other financial service companies could compete with First Marblehead. There are several answers including some peculiarities in the way GAAP requires it to report earnings that affect the ratios. But the biggest difference is the third factor, which is Leverage:

Assets
------ = Leverage
Equity

Companies, especially financial companies, use debt an other liabilities to buy more assets that can in turn be used to generate sales. If you have one store and you've maximized its ROA, you can borrow money to open a second store. The result on the balance sheet is that you've increased you assets, but your equity has stayed the same. One the second store is operating as efficiently as the first, you will be generating twice as many sales and twice the earnings as well. As an equity investor, I don't really care how much debt a company takes on as long as there is a reasonable chance the company can pay it off with out hurting earnings.

First Marblehead's leverage is 1.34, which is wimpy compared to the industry average of 7.54. Sally Mae, a competitor, is leveraged at $26.6 of assets for each dollar of equity. This is serious leverage which can lead to serious returns. At this point, there is a possibility FMD is leaving money on the table by not taking on debt to increase leverage. In order to decide, we can calculate Return on Equity:

Earnings   Sales    Assets
-------- X ------ X ------ = Return on Equity
Sales      Assets   Equity

First Marblehead's ROE is 40.95% compared to 22.01% for its industry. Imagine a rich uncle offered to give you a fixed amount of equity in any company in the world. You pick the company and your uncle will give you enough shares so that the equity you own equals the fixed amount. It's obvious that you'd look for a company that has the best ROE and seems likely to continue to do well in the future. If you were limited to student loan companies First Marblehead looks a lot better than My Rich Uncle which has a ROE of -253.53%³. If this were the way you acquired shares, we could stop the analysis right here. But normally you have to buy them on the stock market. The final factor doesn't have a standard name, but I'm going to call it Equity Valuation:

Equity
------ = Equity Valuation
Price

In theory, if a company closed shop, sold off all its assets, paid off all its creditors, and distributed the proceeds to investors, shareholder equity would be the value of the company. But some assets (such as newly purchased manufacturing equipment) are overvalued on the books and other assets (such as goodwill from profitable acquisitions) are undervalued. Further, some assets like brand names don't show up on the books at all. So Equity Valuation is rarely equal to one. For First Marblehead on June 30, 2006 the market paid one dollar for just 16¢ of shareholder equity. The industry average is 28¢, so the market rightly considers First Marblehead to be a better than average company.

When you put together all of the factors, you get a familiar measure:

Earnings   Sales    Assets   Equity
-------- X ------ X ------ X ------ = Earnings Yield
Sales      Assets   Equity   Price

Earnings Yield is P/E ratio inverted. First Marblehead's earnings yield was 6.46% compared to 6.88% for the industry. Now you might argue the relative quality of FMD to industry earnings or the relative growth rates or relative risks that make the final numbers better or worse than they appear, but that's missing the point. When I really need to find a companies value, I'm better off running a discount cash flow model. This exercise is more about the way earning yields can be composed and what companies can do to increase their value.

Footnotes:

1. Reuters uses a different method to calculate these ratios, so we have to take these numbers with a grain of salt.
2. Remember, other methods of calculation give different results. The important thing to understand is what the ratios mean and to try to be consistent. In this case, the 5-year average assets that Reuters uses overstates First Marblehead's ROA, since it is growing so quickly.
3. MRU holdings seems an unbelievably bad investment. I suppose the thesis is that eventually it will grow its way into profitability.

Trembling with greed

According to Whitney Tilson, the best time to buy a stock is when you are trembling with greed. That's exactly how I was feeling last week as I set my limit order on First Marblehead each evening. Obviously, given a choice, I prefer to pay at the low end of what the market offers each day. But as the price crept up day after day during the week, I realized that I'd be willing to pay a lot more to get into a position and that my window of opportunity might be closing up. As the sub-prime lending story peeks, its negative effect on financial companies' shares could subside.

Interestingly, the sub-prime meltdown could actually help First Marblehead. In the past, consumers might be tempted to pay for college with a mortgage equity withdrawal (MEW), but that option may be less attractive in the future. Banks in the midst of tightening housing loans, might see education loans as a partial replacement for growth. Bond investors might see education loans (which can't be wiped out by bankruptcy and are backed by third-party guarantees) as a safer alternative investment. It's kinda like how pushing down on one part of a water bed causes another part to be pushed up.

One item to watch as time goes on is the trend of the "trust updates" lines in the income statement. According to the 10-K: "Trust updates reflect changes resulting from the passage of time, which results in accretion of the discounting inherent in the fair value estimates of additional structural advisory fees and residuals, as well as changes in the assumptions, if any, underlying our estimates of the fair value of these service revenue components." In 2002 (the first year I can track down those numbers), the updates represented 1.23% of the total "service receivables" line on the balance sheet, which is First Marblehead's share of the trusts. Since then, the updates have fluctuated between 4.44% and 6.25%. If I understand it correctly, this number represents the sum of all previous years' conservative accounting. If the company gets too aggressive in the coming years or if lots of borrowers prepay their loans, that number could go down or become negative.

In a sense, First Marblehead's conservative estimation of it's trust assets is akin to other under-valued assets such as real estate carried at cost or Oracle's installed base. Analysts tend to discount these assets altogether since they can't be precisely valued. The Standard & Poor's report on First Marblehead says, "Cash generated from operations totaled 21% and 68% of net income in FY 06 and FY 05, respectively. We believe the relatively low percentage of net income converted into cash stems from the large portion of FMD's revenues that are derived from residuals from securitized loans." Now these statements are true, but I'm not sure they are the negative that the report implies. If the company, can't convert earnings to cash, there's an obvious problem. But it seems like management has gone out of its way to structure the trusts so that First Marblehead gets the residuals, which makes sense because it doesn't really need cash and nobody else can value them as well as First Marblehead can. They are eating their own dog food, which must be encouraging to lenders and bond investors.

Why I bought First Marblehead

First Marblehead is an out-sourcer of private student loans. In order to understand why I believe Wall Street undervalues this company, it's important to understand what a difficult asset private student loans are to value:

1. Student loans are not backed by an asset that can be repossessed and sold as are mortgages and car loans.
2. Borrowers often have no income or even credit histories.
3. Student loans do not normally need to be repaid until after the student graduates and enters the workforce.
4. Loans do not normally carry a pre-payment penalty.
5. Loans may take 20 to 25 years to be repaid in full.
6. Private student loans are not backed by a government guarantee, but must compete (at least indirectly) with state and federal government-backed loans.
7. There is great variation in the ability and willingness of students to repay their loans upon graduation.
8. Student loans are highly regulated.
9. Securitization is required for the original lenders to transfer student loans to investors.

These "borrower-friendly" loans (as First Marblehead's CEO calls them) present many difficulties to lenders who would like to enter the market. The only way to be comfortable issuing these loans is to gather a few years (at least 10, I'd imagine) of experience and borrower data. That is exactly what First Marblehead offers. It's important to understand that the company doesn't originate or guarantee any loans, but provide outsourcing to lenders so that they can establish there own "private label" student loan programs.

Currently, First Mablehead provides these services at or near cost, and in exchange, the loan originators agree that if they sell the loans, they do it through First Marblehead. The process of selling loans to investors, called securitization, can be complicated and risky, but banks are generally eager to transfer loans to third parties so that the proceeds may be reinvested. Again, FMD has many years of experience. Once the loans are sold to investors, the originating banks are generally free of them altogether.

If you are observant, you'll notice that so far First Marblehead can't make any profit since it provides services to lenders at cost. When it structures a loan secutization, First Marblehead creates a trust where lenders deposit loans and divides the into tranches with different risks and returns. If the underlying loans are paid off as scheduled, the junior tranches will earn substantial returns on investment. If many of the loans go bad or are paid early, the junior tranches may earn less than expected or even lose principle. Setting up and administering these trusts is a difficult and complicated task, so First Marblehead is able to change substantial fees for these services.

The bulk of the fees are paid upfront by the trust. In the most recent securitization, First Marblehead claimed 13% of the trust balance upfront. It also receives ongoing fees (~1%) and residuals (~5%) of the trust. The later fees are estimates of the present value over the life of the trust, so if the loans default or get paid early, the result could be much worse. Residuals are the most junior tranche in the trust, so in theory, First Marblehead takes the greatest risk and earns the greatest return.

The beauty of the First Marblehead model is that it requires very little upfront and ongoing capital expenses. Most of its value to customers arises from its borrower database, the expertise of its employees, and the strong history of its securitizations. The market for private student loans is growing so quickly, there isn't any need to spend money to expand operations. In my opinion, this investment is a bit like buying Oracle a the start of the internet revolution. As the market increases, lenders are going to be more interested in taking advantage of the intellectual property First Marblehead already owns.

Based on explosive earnings growth, it wouldn't be too surprising to find that First Marblehead is priced to perfection. But my DCF model suggests that the shares are fairly priced even if earnings remain level for the next ten years. Part of the problem seems to be that current earnings are somewhat uncertain since a large portion are estimates of future cash flows from residuals and ongoing fees. The flip-side is that the estimates might under-value these future cash-flows. So far, the estimates seem to be on the conservative side.

One concern is the possibility that lenders will decide to hold onto loans rather than securitize them. If that happens, there's no profit for First Marblehead and the lenders might develop their own borrower databases. This (and many other) concerns are addressed by an excellent analysis from Tom Brown. (To be honest, I never would have found this company without reading his website.)

Is organic growth better?

One response to Oracle's 3^rd Quarter earnings pointed out that we don't really know how much of Oracle's recent growth has been due to acquisitions and how much is organic. All other things being equal, organic growth is the best sort of growth. For one thing, acquisitions tend to be more expensive and can mask problems in the acquiring company.

Suppose, for instance, that Coke noticed problems in its flagship product. So management decides to acquire Budweiser at a steep premium. Then they refuse to break out the portion of revenues that was beer related so that investors won't notice the slowdown in Coke sales. Another issue is that this sort of growth isn't sustainable. Who would Coke buy next?

But not all acquisition strategies are created equal. Right now, Exxon Mobil is raking in huge amounts of cash for delivering gas to American drivers. But it's clear the ride won't last forever. Eventually existing reserves will be tapped and new sources of energy will be required. Although Exxon could use it's current resources to research and develop alternative energy, it might be cheaper and less risky to wait for a smaller company to develop a winning solution and buy that company.

This, in fact, is Oracle's strategy. Actually, the database giant does one better—they supply the platform that upstart companies use to develop new products. Most modern "Enterprise" applications use some sort of relational database to store vast amounts of information about an enterprise and its connections to the outside world. Generally, the Oracle database must be at least among the target platforms that applications support. Therefore, as new companies emerge to write software for specialized purposes, they are likely to target Oracle's database. And Oracle's R&D efforts to improve the Oracle platform will encourage more startups to target it.

But small software companies have several problems that a large company, such as Oracle, can solve. Small companies are required to spend a significant portion of their revenues selling to customers, supporting customers, and providing a productive work environment for employees. These activities scale particularly well, so larger companies have an edge over smaller ones. As a result, a new product has the potential to become significantly more profitable as part of the Oracle stack then it does on its own.

Ideally, Oracle would develop new products for new markets. But it's unreasonable to demand a company grow organically when it has the opportunity to acquire growth for a lower cost and lower risk.

On a mildly related note, there's news today that Oracle is suing SAP. The complaint accuses TomorrowNow, a company SAP bought shortly after the PeopleSoft acquisition, used support login information from customers who had or were about to switch away from Oracle support to download documents, patches and software. It seems there were numerous unnamed SAP employees involved in the project who are included among the defendants. I can't imagine legal documents normally are very good reads, but Oracle lawyers seem to have a knack for producing entertaining briefs. I throughly enjoyed the anti-trust briefs from a few years ago as well.

I am a bit concerned that the lawsuit will backfire in the court of public opinion, since Oracle is attempting a similar support contract end-around against Red Hat. Assuming Oracle has obtained and is using its support material legally, there won't be an actual lawsuit, but there might be questions within the open source community and the media.

Why I sold Alberto-Culver

A few weeks ago, I sold a call option against Alberto-Culver and on Friday, the option was exercised. I can't think of a better way to sell my shares: I sold for $22.50, the price on Friday was $22.51, and I got paid 30¢ for the privilege. As a result, my total combined ratio (after taking a penny a share loss) is 25.92%.

I still have a few shares left, but I got out of the bulk of my position in Alberto, because my original thesis is no longer valid—Sally Beauty was spun off. As it happens, I estimate that I earned 17.47% (38.90% annualized) on the first purchase and 16.32% (46.72% annualized) on the second purchase. "New Alberto" did better than I prediced, so I'm quite pleased with the overall transaction.

I still think Alberto will outperform the market over the next 5 to 10 years, but I don't think it will be a dramatic overachiever. I'll maintain a minimal stake in the company for a long time, if only because it isn't cost-effective to sell. Based on the dividend discount model, I guesstimate the shares are worth closer to $25 apiece, but I'm happy to sell in order to free up cash for an even better opportunity that I hope to buy into within a few weeks.

Final possession on Alberto-Culver option

Today was the penultimate trading day on my Alberto option and (coincidently) the first day of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Watching my option come down to the wire is a bit like watching the final possessions of a basketball game. Early in the game, "fundamental analysis" such as per-possession offense and defense are the best ways to predict the outcome. By the end of the game, however, nearly everything that has happened to that point in the season is meaningless. Often games come down to a handful of possessions in the final minutes that determine which team will come out ahead. In other words, close games are determined by luck.

Yesterday, the odds of avoiding a "loss" on the option where roughly the same as a team up by 2 points playing defense with the shot clock turned off. Today, Alberto-Culver shares jumped 1%, which is sort of like hitting a three pointer. Tomorrow is the final possession of the game, since the option will expire if not exercised. If I'm to record a profit on the option, I need Alberto-Culver to drop by 0.22 or more in tomorrow's session.

Notice that the curve is much smoother around the zero line than the graphs I showed yesterday. That's because I corrected the issue with excess 0% gains. (Basically, I use the adjusted close from Yahoo to avoid miscalculations due to splits and dividends. But that sacrifices precision, especially early in a stock's history. Therefore, if the two adjusted prices are the same and the actual closing prices are only a few percentage points from 0%, I now use the actual closing prices.)

Writing call options is a bit like playing a slightly better team. Over a long period of time, the stock market in general goes up. This graph is the odds that the S&P 500 will advance in a particular day.

On the other hand, call options pay a premium, which is a little bit like being spotted a few points (or betting with a point spread). For the ACV option, the game is coming down to the wire. I think I made the right decision based on fundamentals, but I still might be on the wrong side of the trade tomorrow.

The odds the option will be exercised tomorrow are roughly 80%, so by Monday I should have the cash to make another purchase.

Odds of my ACV option getting exercised

As of the market close today, Alberto-Culver stands exactly at $22.50—my option's strike price. I would expect the option to be exercised if the price ends a penny or two higher on Friday. This graph shows that (if the past is any guide) there is a better-than-even chance I'll be selling my shares.

The horizontal axis shows the range of gains and losses experienced by ACV shares over any two day period. The vertical axis is the odds that the price will increase by a certain percentage or greater in two days. So for a 0% or greater increase, the odds are 56% or so. Actually due to rounding errors there are more 0% gains in my data then there ought to be. (You will notice that the curve becomes vertical on the 0% line. That's not an optical illusion, but an artifact in the data.)

If the increase is 0.89% or greater, my option will lose money compared to simply selling the underlying stock on Friday. This graph shows that the odds are roughly 34% of taking a "loss" on the transaction.

Ideally, the shares will end somewhere between $22.50 and $22.70 so that I will sell the shares at a gain (odds ~ 22%). If that happens, I am ready to roll the proceeds into a new investment. If the option is not assigned, I might sell outright or (more likely) sell another covered call for April.

Why I doubled-down on Oracle

I've been planning on buying more Oracle off and on ever since I sold a portion a few years ago. Lately, I've held off because of price or because I had better ideas for the cash. As recently as last November, I was willing to sell another portion of my holdings. But since then, the price has fallen off far (15.97%) enough for me to switch back to buy mode.

I've borrowed some key ratios from Reuters:

Ratio                    Oracle  Industry*
-----                    ------  --------
P/E (TTM)                 24.02    31.08
Price to Sales (TTM)       5.39     5.96
Price to Cash Flow (TTM)  18.54    26.05
Price/FCF (TTM)           19.70    31.53
Operating Margin (TTM)    32.40    24.49
Net Profit Margin (TTM)   23.03    19.17
Return on Equity (TTM)    26.79    22.22

* Software & Programming 

The point is, Oracle is cheap compared to other software companies. But none of these ratios consider Oracle's superior growth. Year over year, Oracle has increased sales by 24.72% compared to 18.66% for the industry as a whole. Now much of the growth has come from the purchase of Siebel systems in January 2006, so we can't expect that growth to be repeated this year. But it's also becoming clear that the acquisition strategy is working. In particular, when a customer decides to buy one portion of the Oracle Suite, there is a strong incentive to buy all of their enterprise software from Oracle. Oracle the platform company is an even better business than Oracle the database company.

I also must admit that part of the reason I bought more Oracle was to round up an odd lot. Since Oracle doesn't currently pay a dividend, I intend to sell call options against my position. Of course, that requires Oracle to increase in price to where it is overvalued. That might take a few years, however.

Odds of successful call writing

Earlier today, I wrote a call option on my ACV stake. At the time, I was more concerned about getting paid to sell than loosing out on gains. This afternoon, I took a look the odds of exceeding my break-even price at the end of the two weeks. I calculated that if miss out on any increase of beyond 1.89%. First, I grabbed all the closing prices for ACV and loaded them into an SQLite database. Then I counted the total number of two week periods in my dataset:

sqlite> select count(*)
   ...> from (select * from acv_prices a
   ...>       join acv_prices b
   ...>            on (julianday(b.date) = julianday(a.date) - 14));

5503

Next I counted the number of those periods in which the closing price increased by 1.89% or more:

sqlite> select count(*)
   ...> from (select (a.close-b.close)/b.close increase
   ...>       from acv_prices a 
   ...>       join acv_prices b
   ...>            on (julianday(b.date) = julianday(a.date) - 14))
   ...> where increase > 0.0189;

2088

Therefore, if the past is any indication of the future, there is a 38% (2088/5503) chance my option will be called for a loss.

One of my goals in writing the option was that I would like to sell my Alberto-Culver shares. It's likely that a 1% increase will result in my option being assigned, so I also took a look at the number of fortnights in which the stock increased by that percentage or more. I won't show the code, but it turns out that 2551, or 46% of the periods resulted in greater than 1% increases. And just for kicks, I looked at the odds ACV will loose value over the fortnight, which is 43%.

Overall, the odds for each scenario shakes out like this:

ACV	Option	Odds
Down	Expire	43%
Up	Expire	11%
Up	Excerised for gain	8%
Up	Excerised for loss	38%
Total		100%

Why I sold an Alberto-Culver call option

Today I sold a call option on part of my Alberto-Culver position. Between now and March 16, I may be required to sell shares at $22.50. I'd be happy with a higher price, obviously, but I'm getting eager to use that cash to pick up shares of other companies that I have more confidence in. My current combined ratio is 24.92%.

Look-through earnings

"Merry Christmas!" At least that's what I feel like saying every year around this time. Warren Buffett likes to publish his annual report to shareholders on a Saturday, but we get Christmas a few days early thanks to new SEC regulations. Needless to say, Berkshire's actual results were almost as good as its Chairman's commentary and advice.

This year, I thought it would be fun to present my investment's results using one of Mr. Buffett's favorite tools—look-through earnings. Essentially, I calculate my share of each companies earnings by multiplying the quarterly earnings per share by the number of shares I hold each quarter. Then I aggregate four quarters into a year and divide by the number of "shares" in my IRA. (For an explanation, see this article). This way, I can focus on the economic value the various businesses have added as if I owned each one outright. All 2007 numbers exist only in the imagination of analysts; I use them as placeholders to get an idea of what the future holds.

Earnings         2007*   2006    2005    2004    2003    2002
Oracle           0.19    0.13    0.21    0.30    0.44    0.34
Canon            0.31    0.28    0.49    0.34    0.08 
Select Comfort   0.26    0.19    0.27   
Berkshire        0.19    0.25    
Alberto-Culver   0.12    0.08    
Sally Beauty     0.04    0.00    
Look-through     1.12    0.93    0.97    0.64    0.52    0.34

* 2007 numbers are consensus analyst estimates.

The 2006 results are down in part to my purchase of Alberto-Culver and its spun-off subsidiary, Sally Beauty. I bought these shares more for the value I hoped would be unlocked by the spin-off and for the large special dividend (see below). Oracle has slowly been losing its share in my personal look-through earnings because it is a smaller part of my overall portfolio. On an absolute basis, its earnings have increased smartly.

Last year was the first in which I made more than 2 trades. Besides three new positions, I added to one of my old positions, executed three going-private, arbitrage transactions, initiated two more and sold one option. Plus I left substantial (relatively speaking) sums in cash. So my non-look-through earnings and costs were significant for the first time. In the following chart, I've included actual year-to-date results in the 2007 column.

Interest         0.01    0.16    0.01    0.03    0.02    0.00
Costs           (0.05)  (0.19)  (0.04)  (0.06)  (0.22)  (0.12)
Arbitrage        0.39    0.41    
Options          0.06     
Operating        1.47    1.32    0.94    0.61    0.32    0.23
Gain            11.28%  40.94%  52.78%  89.99%  41.50% 

My "operating" earnings are more impressive, smooth and meaningful when presented this way. The market value of my IRA is substantially more lumpy due to market fluctuations. Note that while the arbitrage earnings are quite significant for last year's results (not to mention this year's), they would be partially offset by a tax cost if this were a taxable account. I'm also batting 1.000 with a pitifully small sample size. One day I will experience a setback and the loss may very well wipe out significant gains.

Finally, if you add in my sale of Oracle a few years ago and the large special dividend from Sally Beauty, you will arrive at some very lumpy net earnings. Once again, these earnings benefit greatly from the tax-deferred status of the traditional IRA.

   
Realized Gain                                    1.79 
Special dividend         2.99    
Net              1.47    4.31    0.94    0.61    2.11    0.23
Gain           -65.97% 360.84%  52.78% -71.01% 827.21% 

The fun part about looking at results this way, is that it's easy to imagine being at the helm of a large conglomerate controlling an array of subsidiaries. But this approach ought to also aid an investor's thinking about the businesses he partially owns. Clearly, I will need to consider eliminating my Alberto-Culver and Sally Beauty stakes in the next few years if they do not improve performance. I might want to increase my investment in Oracle instead. Arbitrage and option activities have added considerably to my bottom line.

Eupa International shares cashed out

My shares of Eupa International were cashed out yesterday for the expected price of 40¢ a share. My total gain was only 10.84%, but on an annualized basis the gain was 139.66%.

Buying Alberto-Culver (and trying to sell it too)

I can't say I know very much about Alberto-Culver. It's a consumer products company that mostly caters to women, and my wife doesn't use their products. My original thesis was that the spin-off of Sally Beauty would unlock value in Alberto-Culver. As far as I'm concerned that has already happened.

But, as it turns out, I just bought a faction of a share of ACV. Why? Because I've instructed my broker to reinvest dividends. If your broker offers dividend reinvestment as a free option on your account, there's no good reason not to buy some fractional shares of a company you already hold. Alberto-Culver's earnings yield is about 4.22% versus 4.85% that cash would earn. But remember, companies have the potential to increase earnings over time.

Meanwhile, I'm attempting to write a call option on the bulk of my holdings. I've got better ideas than Alberto-Culver at this point and I'm overexposed on this particular stock at roughly 11% of my IRA. But I'm not quite ready to sell outright. I like the dividend I'm getting, management seems very shareholder friendly, and I think a few acquisitions combined with cost-savings could push earnings up over the next year or two. So the middle ground for me is to write slightly out of the money call options until something drastic changes.

My stock option insurance business

Back in November, I wrote my very first covered call option. Since then I've been struggling to understand how I ought to evaluate these transactions—especially when the option expires worthless.

Oracle slid from $19.48 to $17, so there was no possibility that the option would be exercised. On the one hand, I certainly didn't lose any upside. On the other, if I had sold my shares instead of the call option, I would have avoided a worse than 11% loss. I'm not terribly upset about the "loss", however, since I wasn't committed to selling Oracle. $20 is at the low end of the stock's intrinsic value, and I'm interested in becoming at buyer again now that Oracle is priced under $17. From the perspective of the option buyer, the option was well worth its price. Instead of out-right buying Oracle and taking an immediate loss, the buyer has the luxury of buying at much cheaper price or taking a pass altogether. So who won and who lost in this transaction?

If you think of an option as an insurance transaction, it becomes more obvious that there don't need to be losers (though often there are). Although the option buyer lost the premium paid to me, their bigger concern was to avoid the sell-off that did, in fact, occur. And although I suffered a big, unrealized loss, I would have suffered it whether or not I'd sold a call option. So like an insurance contract, the party (me) that could afford a sudden price drop sold protection to the other party that couldn't afford it.

Insurance writing is usually evaluated with a metric called the combined ratio. It takes any losses, costs or dividends to policy holders and divides by total premiums. Ratios greater than 100% indicate underwriting loss. Insurance companies prefer to operate at the lowest possible combined ratio, but can still be profitable thanks to investment gains on the premium float, which is the money that has been paid in and has not yet been paid out in claims. Based on a single option, my combined ratio is 21.37%, so I'm currently making an underwriting profit.

The paper loss on the underlying asset (Oracle) is unfortunate, but not really relevant to the activity of writing call options. Think of the underlying asset as a reserve that is required to ensure that I can pay out a loss. When my reserve shrinks, it is the result of an investment decision to not sell not because I wrote a call option against it.

I expect that in the future, I will make a small profit on covered call options. Thankfully, USAA lowered my commissions, which will lower my cost. But I will also probably suffer some loses when options I write are exercised and I imagine I will accept smaller premiums than I did with Oracle.

January performance

I haven't written in a while, but my IRA portfolio turned in a spectacular January:

Date      S&P 500  Delta   IRA    Delta  BRK A  S&P 500   NAV    BRK A
01/31/07  1.41%    1.07%   2.47%  2.42%  0.05%  1,438.24  24.44  110,050.00

Here are a few highlights:

• Sold Pegasus Communications for $3.25 a share.
• Bought Eupa for 35¢ a share.
• Sold Meritage Hospitality for $5.50(!) a share. (That works out to a 295.71% annualized return.)
• My Oracle call option expired. The good news is that I was not forced to sell my Oracle shares. The bad news is that Oracle lost more than 12% of its value in that time. Fortunately, I didn't want to sell anyway.
• Select Comfort gained nearly 6% for the month. I guess the shock of bad news in December wore off.
• Sally Beauty gained 9% for the month. I guess the shock of bad news in December wore off.
• Alberto-Culver gained nearly 5% for the month based, I suppose, on a 5.5¢ a share quarterly dividend.
• Oracle and Canon had poor Januaries based on being large companies with little real news.
• Berkshire Hathaway, as you can see above, ended flat.
• Earned 4.85% (annualized) on any cash I had lying around.

All of this is to say that my stock prices bounced around randomly. I'd say the going-private transactions that I've participated in show true skill since they've worked exactly as I expected. My other investments have did well in January mostly due to luck. Long term, I expect to have more good months than bad ones and make more good decisions than bad, but one month isn't a big enough sample.

February is turning out to be my best month yet. My IRA balance right now is over $5 million. That easily surpasses the half million dollars I "had" back in September. But I expect my balance will return to earth shortly when my Eupa are cashed in.

Why I bought Eupa International

Eupa is using a reverse-split, going-private transaction as a lead-in to a merger with its majority shareholder, a Taiwanese company. Normally the merger would require some fairly expensive regulatory costs, but by executing a reverse split and suspending the reporting requirements (which require no proxy vote), those costs can be avoided. It seems to me the transaction is fairly safe now that the notice has been filed with the SEC since the benefits are fairly obvious and compelling.

I bought in at 35¢ and in a few weeks, I expect to get back 40¢ a share. This isn't the best profit (someone else bought at 30¢ later in the day), but it should be a fairly quick turnaround. One nice thing is that I was able to plow in my Pegasus cash which should result in an extra $44 gain.

Why I sold Pegasus Communications

I checked my brokerage website and it turns out I sold Pegasus Communications last Friday. Normally when I enter a going-private position like Pegasus, I initiate a limit-sell order near the cash-out price. It's sort of a safety valve in case the deal falls through later. Naturally, if the deal goes through (as this one had), I should raise the limit price to cover the commission cost which I won't have to pay when the reverse-split is paid. But the whole process is a bit silly since it's unlikely anyone will pay more than the cash-out price to purchase the shares. For some reason, someone did this time.

The final tally on the Pegasus Communications position was a 47.55% gain over 18 days. That works out to a 268,006.81% annualized return. If I had canceled or raised the limit order, I would have recorded a 111.80% gain, but my annualized return would have been much lower. Obviously, the total amount of this transaction is trivial. One nice thing about this deal is that my broker (USAA) recently lowered my commission from $19.95 to $11.95, which means I'm going to spend a lot less in the future.

Why I bought Pegasus Communications and Meritage Hospitality Group

In another going-private transaction, I bought 99 shares of Pegasus Communications. With this press release, the company announced the shareholders vote and a name change to Xanadoo Company.

I'm also waiting on the results from Meritage Hospitality Group, which will hold its meeting on January 23.

2006 in review

2006 was a great year for my IRA portfolio (up 28.50%). Not only did I outperform both the S&P 500 (13.62%) and Berkshire Hathaway (24.11%), I also posted my best calendar year performance. After 4 1/2 years of out-performance, I feel confident that my results so far are not a fluke.

Date      S&P 500  Delta     IRA   Delta BRK A  S&P 500   NAV    BRK A
06/23/02                                         992.72 10.00  72,200.00
12/31/02   -11.37% 42.32%  30.95% 30.18%  0.76%  879.82 13.09  72,750.00
12/31/03    26.38% -1.49%  24.89%  9.08% 15.81% 1111.92 16.35  84,250.00
12/31/04     8.99% -2.16%   6.84%  2.49%  4.34% 1211.92 17.47  87,910.00
12/31/05     3.00%  3.23%   6.23%  5.42%  0.81% 1248.29 18.56  88,620.00
12/31/06    13.62% 14.88%  28.50%  4.39% 24.11% 1418.30 23.85 109,990.00
Total Gain  42.87% 95.63% 138.50% 86.16% 52.34%    
Annualized   8.20% 12.97%  21.17% 11.43%  9.75%    

A significant factor in my success this year was that my patience with Oracle finally paid off. I bought at a ridiculously low price and Oracle proceeded to perform quite well and account for nearly all of my IRA's gain for the second half of 2002 and all of 2003. 2004 and 2005 represented a fair amount of uncertainty for Wall Street, which refused to believe that "tech mergers" worked. This year, the various acquisitions started contributing to the bottom line and Oracle's shares followed (up 40%). The interesting thing is that Wall Street still undervalues Oracle. Too many analysts focus on new database licenses to the exclusion of higher margin renewals. Also, I think the Oracle database is under-appreciated as a platform for other businesses to develop new products on. It's nice that Oracle the company is standing in the wings to buy startups that succeed.

Canon, at 23% of my portfolio, is tied for my largest holding in large part due to its exceptional performance during 2006 (up 44%). Once again digital cameras and printer-related consumables continue to be the mainstays of Canon's business. The digital camera revolution is nearly over in my opinion—most people have a digital that meets their needs. Canon is going to have to have a new product boom in the next year or so to keep up their revenue growth. Perhaps YouTube will do for digital camcorders what Flickr did for still cameras. I think Canon's management is counting on its new flat-screen TV product to drive revenue growth.

Select Comfort endured a rocky ride this year and ended down 4.6%. Operationally, nothing much changed in my opinion. They are still the same company with the same management operating in the same business as when I first bought shares nearly two years ago. It's entirely possible that macro factors such as the slowing housing market and credit tightening will make 2007 a disappointment, but over the next ten years Select Comfort ought to do very well. After buying more shares, it is now tied for my largest holding.

Berkshire Hathaway is up 23.5% since I bought it. 2006 was a spectacular year to be a reinsurer since claims were low and premiums high. (The catastrophes of 2005 are largely to blame so its possible premiums will head down in 2007.) Auto insurance continues to be a good business since cars continue to be built safer. Berkshire's other lines of business seemed to perform well during the year. From now on, a portion of my portfolio will match Berkshire's results, which is something to keep in mind when I compare my results to it.

The year end spin-off math for Alberto-Culver is Alberto-Culver ($21.47) + Sally Beauty ($7.86) + the special dividend ($25) = $54.33. Given that I bought at a dollar-weighted average of $49.34 a share, I've made nearly $5 a share or 10% on the spin-off. Alberto-Culver and Sally Beauty together make up 15% of my portfolio, which is fairly significant. But I haven't yet decided if they will become core positions. Both companies have now released initial 10-K reports, which I hope to have a chance to read in-depth soon. But I think I'll have a better idea of how the new companies operate after a quarter or two. Also, I'd like to know what Alberto's dividend will be.

The rest of my portfolio is a smattering of going-private transactions and cash. I'm also short January 2007 options on Oracle at $20, which should expire without value. In some ways, this "short-term" portion of my portfolio is the least important. By their nature, going-private transactions are very profitable, but also very small. Last year I completed 3 and initiated 2. But if they were to make a significant impact on my portfolio, I would have had to have completed something like 10. This year, I'll need to complete even more, since my total portfolio has grown considerably. On the other hand, since they require little in the way of effort, risk or capital, I see no reason not to continue attempting to make a little profit there.

Why I bought more Select Comfort on disappointing news

Yesterday, Select Comfort reported that it was seeing a massive slow-down in sales and lowered its 2006 estimate to 80 to 87¢ a share. Since the previous guidance was 95 to 97¢, this was a huge disappointment. Last year, Select Comfort earned 76¢ a share (after adjusting for a 3/2 split), so the growth this year is between 5 and 14%. Worse Q4 earnings look to be 21 to 46% lower than 2005.

What happened?

According to the press release:

“This quarter’s sales have been disappointing, as we’ve noted a closer correlation in our business with housing industry trends. Our sales programs and promotional offers have been consistent with prior years, and we are protecting product margins,” said Bill McLaughlin, Select Comfort chairman and chief executive officer.

For a high-end furniture company, this is actually a decent excuse (though not encouraging). People moving into a new house tend to want new furniture to go with it and have access to cash from home equity lines of credit. Also, if the soft housing market foretells a recession (and it seems to be doing just that), customers might be holding off on large purchases for the moment.

But I think the specific problem for Select Comfort is the new ad campaign, which started this year. Two of the new commercials are available on the company website ("Five Senses" and "Revere"). If you aren't paying attention, you might be forgiven if you think these are drug ads (probably for sleep aids, but maybe anti-depressants or ED treatments). The bed just isn't a big part of the commercial. Sure, the message is clear if you pay attention, but you've got to figure that the people who aren't fixing themselves a snack are TiVoing through the commercials. In contrast, the previous commercials were funny and focused on the mattress itself.

The good news it that Select Comfort has already addressed the problem by hiring a new ad agency. Poking around their website, I think Select Comfort made a pretty good choice with the one reservation that McKinney also has Southern Comfort as a client. Overall, they seem to produce polished, memorable commercials often using humor. Their Sony commercials are especially informative, because like TVs, men and women need to agree on buying the same bed.

Based on the low earning range ($42,160,000) and low growth range (20% a year), a DCF shows Select Comfort to be worth over $40 a share. $18 a share implies a growth rate of about 8%. A more conservative estimate works out to a fair value of $21. I'm concerned about a recession in the next year that could further hurt earnings, but I think the problems are likely to be temporary. In the meantime, Select Comfort will be able to buyback shares at a reasonable price, improve its advertising and find operating efficiencies.

Why I sold a call option on Oracle

Today I sold a January, 2007 call option on Oracle at a strike price of $20. The premium was 70¢ a share. Yesterday (when I placed the limit order for the option) Oracle closed at $19.48. After commisions and fees, I recorded 2.83% income on the transaction. On an annualized basis, that's 19.18%. If the option is assigned, I'll earn 4.47%, which is at least 24.53% annualized. For me, this is a win-win.

According to this calculator, the option was worth 62¢. I don't know if that's acurate or not, but it doesn't really matter to me. Option pricing models, such as the Black-Scholes model and the binomial options model, are interesting in the acedemic sense, but relying on them for actual options trading seems speculative. The problem with generic models is that they include volatility among their inputs. But the odds of a stock reaching a certain price are also influenced by the company's intrisic value and the probability of positive or negative news, which cannot be included in a generic model.

Writing a call option amounts to a soft sell of Oracle. I think $20 is a reasonable (though maybe low) selling price, but I'm not ready to put in a limit order. I also don't see any reason for the price to jump much higher in the next two months. Oracle Openworld, when Larry Ellison announced the company's Unbreakable Linux initiative, happened in October. There aren't many big aquisition targets on the horizon. I doubt the second quarter earnings release will be significantly better than expectations. In fact, given the persistent inverted yield curve, I suspect stocks in general will be flat at best.

Accounting for spin-offs

Now that the Sally Beauty spin-off has occurred, it's time to figure out how to account for it. Thankfully, Quicken has a spin-off transaction type. Unfortunately, it isn't entirely clear how it works. After fiddling with it for a while, I think I understand the accounting.

The first principle is that you received both the parent and the spun-off company (plus the dividend) on the day you bought the original shares. So on September 18, 2006 I bought Alberto-Culver plus Sally Beauty (plus the dividend) for $49.40 a share (and on October 23, 2006 for $49.24). The spin-off event has a retroactive effect on the original transactions.

Second, the cost basis for each company is determined by the market on the day of the spin-off. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the opening prices, but I have seen the average of the day high and low used. I believe Alberto-Culver will file the official ratio to be used for tax purposes sometime soon. At any rate, New Alberto traded at $20.10 and New Sally traded at $7.35 (and the dividend was $25). For our purposes, I'm going to lump the dividend into the value of New Sally, because the dividend was paid for through the money Sally borrowed. Therefore, the ratio to use is Sally—61.68% and New Alberto—38.32%.

Third, a "Return of Capital" transaction on the date of purchase lowers the cost basis of the parent company by cost basis of the spun-off company. So for September 18, Sally Beauty was acquired for 61.68% of $49.40 or $30.47 a share. (And on October 23 for $30.37 a share.) Therefore, Alberto's cost basis is reduced by the same amount.

Fourth, the dividend is recorded as a return on the Sally Beauty investment. Currently, Sally trades for $8.51 a share, which is quite a bit lower than my original cost. But when you add in the $25 dividend, those shares have returned about $3 each so far. Meanwhile, Alberto has gained a little over a dollar a share since I bought it.

I've been able to get my Yahoo portfolio to more or less work out, but it requires more faking since it doesn't properly account for dividends. I wish someone would provide a really useful online-portfolio tracking system.

Sally Beauty (when issued)

Alberto-Culver shareholders approved the Sally spin-off on Friday and as of today Sally shares are being bought and sold on the "when issued" market. Since there is also a market for both new Alberto and old Alberto, it's now possible to find out what the market says about the breakup math: $25 (cash) + $7.50 (Sally) + $17.85 (Alberto) = $51.35

But it is still possible to buy old Alberto for around $50, so there is still time to take advantage of a market inefficiency. (Basically, index funds that track the S&P 500 need to sell Alberto before the index drops Alberto and replaces it with some other company.) Although I have a little more cash to invest, I'm holding back for when Sally Beauty trades on the open market and after I have received the $25 dividend. I still think Sally conservatively is worth 30% more than $7.50. I suspect that when the company releases financials, the conservative value will be even higher.

Many salons in the US resemble malls in the way they operate. Each beautician rents a "chair" from the salon and keeps any profit they earn above that. Besides the basic services like washing, cutting and styling hair, salons are also an outlet for high end hair and beauty products. These are products that you can't buy at Wal-Mart or drug stores, because the makers of those products (e.g. Paul Mitchell) are aiming for a "Professional" market. As a result, there is a distribution problem—how do manufacturers get their products into the hands of beauticians?

Enter Sally Beauty Supply and Beauty Systems Group. BSG sells only to beauty professionals and Sally sells both to the general public and (under the Sally ProCard program) to professionals. Wal-Mart, Target and drug stores are more or less locked out of Sally's market pretty much by definition. On the other end of the spectrum, it's difficult to imagine another company building or buying a distribution network that competes with Sally.

The one exception is Regis, which is consolidating the salon industry through expansion and acquisitions. As you might recall, Alberto's original plan was to spinoff Sally and merge it with Regis. That plan failed in large part because Regis suffered some operational setbacks that made the merger unlikely to succeed. Ultimately, however, product sales are likely to be merely a sideline in Regis's business. (Humberto Barreto wrote an interesting paper that uses the salon business as a modern example of Ricardian Rent Theory.)