A Comment Worth Sharing

There was a comment made in response to my post “On Shareholder Wealth” that I wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to read. Since I just put up a very lengthy analysis of Pacific Sunwear (PSUN), this comment could have drifted off into oblivion. It has given me all sorts of ideas for a post, but I’m working on the next podcast at the moment, so that’ll have to wait a day or two. In the meantime, I’d like to give you the chance to read the comment and think about it. It’s a very important topic, and I’m glad Bill (of Absolutely No DooDahs) is there to make sure you get the whole story.

Bill and Geoff,

In the last 3-4 months, since I began investing, the information I have gather from your two websites has been perhaps the best information out there, professional or otherwise.

What makes your blogs unique is that both of you are unafraid to engage in a dialogue on a topic of discussion which you may disagree. In essence we as readers get two blogs for the price of one, so to speak.

I find myself often agreeing with both of you on most issues. Much like Fred Flinstone who had a devil and angel appear on his shoulders when he was torn between two choices, Geoff and Bill sit on my shouldes and shout “all value no TA” or “Value and TA can coexist without destroying the universe” as I ponder my investment choices (I make no assertion as too who is the devil or angel among the two).

I must say that I feel I fall somewhere in the middle of you two, but will admit that because of my lack of math skills, skills Bill has been blessed with, I lean more towards Geoff but embrace the TA analysis Bill provides.

With that said..this is what I have taken so far from the current discussion…as well ad both of your previous writings…

I am investing for a minimum of 24 years (thats when I can take disbursments from my various IRA’s) so I understand what Geoff says about buying the business. I own PETM, when I go shopping for the dogs, I get a kick out of knowing that my “shares” represent an owneership interest in PETM. Even thought my actual interest may only equate to one bag of dog food or 5 rawhide bones, I know I “own” it as well as portions of future earnings.

So over the next 24 years (if i ere to keep it that long), whther PETM tades at 10 a share or 300 a share, as long as the value of the business itself grows at a sufficent rate, than when I choose to sell the future share price will take care of itself.

But I also get what Bill is saying. Gains are only gains when you can feel them in your hand. buying BUBL at 50 …

Suggested Link: Cheap Stocks

This is not the blog that is already in the Value Investing Directory. That blog is at stocksbelowncav.blogspot.com. This is a new blog at cheapstockhunter.blogspot.com. While I’m not yet ready to add it to my Value Investing Directory, I do like to bring any blogs with company specific posts to your attention. So far, the blog has covered Walter Industries (WLT) and HCC Insurance Holdings (HCC). I’m sure the author would appreciate your comments and suggestions.

The posts have been submitted to Fat Pitch News. So, if you like the posts, please bid them up over at Fat Pitch News so others will get a chance to read them as well (if enough people vote for the link, it will appear as one of the five headlines displayed on various sites).

Also, let me know whether or not you think this is the kind of blog that should be included in the Value Investing Directory. If enough people are in favor of including it, I will be happy to add it during the next update.

Visit Cheap Stocks

Please provide comments regarding this site and its suitability for the Value Investing Directory by clicking on the comments link below.…

Suggested Link: The Market Collapses – Does Anyone Lose Money?

Bill of Absolutely No DooDahs has written a very intelligent post about market prices and investor wealth. In it, he writes:

One popular misconception many people have is that “money is lost” or “evaporated” when the stock market collapses. This is patently and provably untrue.

I submitted this link to Fat Pitch News. So, if you like Bill’s post, please bid it up over at Fat Pitch News so others will get a chance to read it as well (if enough people vote for the link, it will appear as one of the five headlines displayed on various sites).

Read “The Market Collapses – Does Anyone Lose Money?”…

On Pacific Sunwear

Pacific Sunwear (PSUN) operates two mall based retail chains: PacSun and d.e.mo. PacSun is a nationwide surf and skate themed chain with about 900 locations comprising approximately 3.25 million square feet. d.e.m.o. is a hip hop themed chain with about 200 stores comprising approximately 500,000 square feet. Both chains target the “teen” market (specifically, guys and girls ages 12-24).

Note: When discussing Pacific Sunwear (PSUN), all uses of the term “Pacific Sunwear” will be references to the company; all uses of the term “PacSun” will be references to the skate and surf themed chain. This practice is intended to avoid confusion as to whether a particular statement applies to the PacSun chain alone or to the PacSun, d.e.m.o., (and soon) One Thousand Steps chains collectively.

Locations

PacSun has expanded from 11 stores in California at the end of fiscal 1986 to almost 900 stores spread across all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

For the most part, the stores are distributed among the states roughly in line with population. The largest exceptions are the usual suspects: Pennsylvannia, New Jersey, and Connecticut. However, the chain also operates more stores in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona than would be expected on the basis of population alone. Despite the company’s California roots, its presence in California is roughly proportional to California’s population, if PacSun Outlets are excluded.

Nationwide, PacSun operates approximately 800 PacSun stores and 100 PacSun Outlets. Unlike PacSun stores, which are very evenly distributed on the basis of population, PacSun Outlets are skewed towards highly populous states with large areas of extraordinarily high population density (“suburban sprawl”). The only exceptions are Virginia, North Carolina, and Louisiana. While the number of stores in any one state is small enough that the disproportionate concentration of PacSun Outlets in these states may be purely coincidental, I doubt it.

More likely, PacSun Outlets in these states are meant to benefit from the expected population growth in their surrounding communities, and were developed because of the danger of saturation in states such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, and California. I have not heard management discuss this matter. So, it is pure conjecture on my part. It will be interesting to see where the new PacSun and PacSun Outlets are located.

For the most part, PacSun stores are not unusually concentrated in any state or region. In fact, they are eerily evenly distributed relative to state populations. It is likely management has intentionally acted to ensure an even distribution of PacSun stores across the U.S. As a result, regional economic and demographic trends will have no material effect on PacSun’s operations.

d.e.m.o. stores are not (yet) as evenly distributed. They are disproportionately located in Northeastern states, Southeastern states, and California. There are relatively few d.e.m.o. stores west of the Appalachians and east of the Sierra Nevadas. The number of stores in the d.e.m.o. chain is still growing at about 20-25% a year; so, a more even distribution may be achieved in …

Suggested Link: A Free Lunch With Mr. Thrifty

This is a long article written by a journalism student about a business class’ visit with Warren Buffett and a course devoted to teaching the investment strategies of Mr. Buffett. The article includes some nice comments from Buffett about Graham, and helps explain the Buffett-Graham relationship. “(Graham) wrote what we call the Bible, and Warren’s thinking updated it. Warren wrote the New Testament.”

There’s no new information in this article. I like it simply because it’s a neat story that’s well told. If you have the time, I encourage you to read it. I submitted the link to Fat Pitch News.

So, if you like the article, please bid it up over at Fat Pitch News so others will get a chance to read it as well (if enough people vote for the link, it will appear as one of the five headlines displayed on various sites).

Read “A Free Lunch With Mr. Thrifty”…

On Shareholder Wealth

Bill of Absolutely No DooDahs, wrote this comment in response to my earlier post Google Price Target: $16,578.90:

Other than getting paid dividends, how does one extract wealth from a company one holds shares of?

Call me a cynic (I’ve been called worse), but with the exception of divs, what investors get from buying stocks is selling them at a higher price … meaning that we are not really extracting wealth from anyone except the buyer …

Here is my response:

I think the two of us may have encountered this difference of perspective before. So, you may disagree with some of what follows.

You do not extract cash from anyone but the buyer; however, the value of the security is derived from the value of the business you have an ownership interest in. A common stock represents an ownership interest, not merely a right to receive cash distributions. The fact that cash has not been distributed to the security holder does not mean that the holder’s wealth has not increased. Most public companies are primarily engaged in creating wealth through reinvestment in the business, not through distributing cash to shareholders. Some owners may do better than others in buying and selling their ownership interest; however, owners in the aggregate will only do as well as the underlying business.

I disagree with the idea that owners only extract wealth from the buyer. Although legally there is a separation between a corporation and its owners; economically, a corporation has no wealth that doesn’t belong to its owners. Owner’s earnings (whether distributed or retained) are wealth. Cash is extracted in the form of dividends. One form of wealth is converted into another (cash) at the time of the sale of the common stock. However, the owner’s wealth increases at the time the business earns the money (i.e., increases it net worth) not at the time of the sale. The stock sale does not create the wealth – it merely converts an undivided interest in the corporate assets into cash. Some of our laws (and accounting practices) may obscure this fact.

Although we (almost always) dispose of our ownership interests in corporations by selling them in the open market; they are more than mere pieces of paper that can be sold for ever higher amounts. Ultimately, shareholders have control over the assets of the business. They may choose to dispose of them (or encumber them) as they see fit. Distinct assets may be separated from the business as a going concern. Sale of the common stock is not the only way to transfer wealth into cash.

If your point is that to obtain cash a shareholder must either receive cash thrown off by the assets (i.e., dividends) or sell his interest in the assets, I agree. However, I think that’s true of the ownership of all assets.

If I want cash for any of my property, I must either sell the asset or collect a rent. In …

On Some Lessons From Buffett’s Annual Letter

Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) shareholders was released over the weekend. Readers will find plenty of investing lessons among the twenty-three pages. Warren began this letter as he begins each letter, by stating Berkshire’s change in per-share book value:

Our gain in net worth during 2005 was $5.6 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 6.4%. Over the last 41 years, (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown from $19 to $59,377, a rate of 21.5% compounded annually.

Some may wonder why Buffett opens by announcing the change in per-share book value rather than the earnings per share number. Over long periods of time, the change in per-share book value should nicely approximate the returns to owners. You may remember that, in my analysis of Energizer Holdings, I applauded the company for reporting comprehensive income within the income statement. Although a company’s net income is often referred to as its bottom line, net income is, in fact, a (sub)component of comprehensive income. Energizer Holdings (ENR) literally reports comprehensive income as its bottom line.

FASB merely requires that “an enterprise shall display total comprehensive income and its components in a financial statement that is displayed with the same prominence as other financial statements that constitute a full set of financial statements”. Unfortunately, despite the lack of attention paid to it by investors, the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity is considered “a financial statement that constitutes a full set of financial statements”.

Therefore, comprehensive income can be reported in a statement many investors either do not review or do not understand. Alternatively, a company may choose to report comprehensive income in a separate Statement of Comprehensive Income. This, of course, baffles many investors, who think they are reading a second copy of the income statement. After all, what is comprehensive income? Isn’t the net income number reported in a (traditional) income statement a comprehensive number?

No. The widely reported earnings per share number is not comprehensive. That isn’t to say the EPS number isn’t important. It is very important. In fact, for certain businesses, it may be the most useful figure for evaluating a going concern. This is especially true if the investor is only looking at the financials for a single year. A single year’s comprehensive income may actually be less representative of a business’ performance than a single year’s EPS number (both can be pretty unrepresentative).Remember, the earnings per share number does not tell you how much wealth was actually created (or destroyed). You need to look to the comprehensive income number to find that information.

Essentially, Buffett is reporting Berkshire’s earnings in that opening line. He is simply using a more comprehensive income figure. He’s saying here’s how much wealth we created, and here’s how much capital it took to create that wealth. When he writes “Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $5.6 billion, which …

Suggested Link: Enough Whining For “Guidance”

Nearly all the investment pundits are blaming the recent decline in Google’s share price on the company’s refusal to provide guidance. But, one very familiar name isn’t. Today, former Wall Street internet analyst Henry Blodget writes: “I respect Google for not giving guidance, a practice that often reduces analysts to Excel-savvy parrots.”

Google (GOOG) has been mentioned surprisingly often on this blog, considering its lofty price. But, I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned Henry Blodget before – and until today, I thought I never would. However, I find myself in complete agreement with the author of Internet Outsider.

I would love to write about other things besides Google, because it’s not a topic that’s likely to help you make a good investment. Later today, I will post an analysis of Pacific Sunwear (PSUN), a much better bet for investors, and a stock that’s more in keeping with my own value investing proclivities. However, I just couldn’t let the Google gaffe pass without writing anything about it.

Many of you already know the facts. If you don’t know them, I’m really not the one to tell you; I don’t pay much attention to Google and I don’t pay any attention to communications with analysts. So, for those that don’t know the facts, just Google “Google gaffe”.

I’m suggesting this link to Mr. Blodget’s post, because I reached the tipping point this morning, when I heard one analyst say a public company has a duty to instill confidence among investors. I’m paraphrasing here, I doubt he used the word “instill”. But, one hopes that confidence is the sort of thing that can only be earned gradually; so, instill would be the right word.

Obviously, I believe no such duty exists. Managers are not (or at least ought not to be) responsible for marketing shares. They have no duty to ensure a current owner rips off a future owner by dumping his shares at the highest price.A good management has the same two primary duties as a good agent.

Management has a duty to act on behalf of owners in exercising delegated powers (primarily those required for day-to-day business operations) and a duty to report back on its activities. Management does not have any duty to facilitate sales of stock on advantageous terms. Now, you could argue that the issue of confidence is larger than I’m making it out to be – that it goes beyond simply keeping the stock price up. However, I haven’t yet heard anyone argue that there is a lack of confidence among anyone but investors. In fact, this issue has nothing to do with Google’s business, which is management’s responsibility. The selling of shares is the investor’s responsibility.

I submitted this link to Fat Pitch News. So, if you like Mr. Blodget’s post, please bid it up over at Fat Pitch News so others will get a chance to read it as well (if enough people vote for the link, it will …

Google Price Target: $16,578.90

Regular readers of this blog will immediately recognize this headline is a joke. For the rest of you, I was kind of hoping the ninety cents part would give it away.

If you’re reading this because you’re interested in what I have to say about Google (GOOG), you can stop now. I’m not going to say anything interesting about Google. Rather, I’m going to say something (that I hope is) very interesting about the wonders of compounding.

Warren Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders was released today; I’ll write a lot more about it tomorrow. For now, I’m just going to pull out one little nugget:

Between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, to give a really long-term example, the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497 (Guess what annual growth rate is required to produce this result; the surprising answer is at the end of this section.)

I knew what Warren was up to, and had some idea of the historical growth rate for the Dow, so I guessed 6%.

Here’s the answer to the question posted at the beginning of this section: To get very specific the Dow increased from 65.73 to 11,497.12 in the 20th century, and that amounts to a gain of 5.3% compounded annually. (Investors would also have received dividends, of course). To achieve an equal rate of gain in the 21st century, the Dow will have to rise by December 31, 2099 to – brace yourself – precisely 2,011,011.23. But I’m willing to settle for 2,000,000; six years into this century, the Dow has gained not at all.

I wish I could tell you that my guess was close. But, it wasn’t even in the right ballpark. The difference between a 5.3% annual gain and a 6% annual gain may look relatively small. In fact, the difference is not small. If, during the 20th century, the Dow had achieved a gain of 6% compounded annually rather than a gain of 5.3% compounded annually, on the eve of Y2K, the index would have been sitting at 22,302.33.

The rallying cry of the bubble years would have been Dow 20,000. And what of Dow 10,000? The index would have added its fifth figure in 1987. That’s right, if the Dow had achieved a gain of 6% compounded annually during the 20th century, the index would have broken the 10,000 mark while the Berlin Wall was still standing.

Over a century, that extra 0.7% really adds up. I recently wrote an email to a member of my family who had just had her first child. You would think that blathering on as I do here each day, I would have a sea of investing advice to offer. In fact, I provided only a single drop: Time trumps money.

If you want to have more money than you will ever need, your best bet is to find a few places where you can deploy large sums of money that will earn good returns for …

News Item: Pacific Sunwear

On Wednesday, shares of mall based specialty retailer Pacific Sunwear (PSUN), the company that operates PacSun stores, fell sharply on news that sales for the quarter were about $2.5 million less than analysts had expected. The earnings per share number matched analyst estimates.

Pacific Sunwear’s same store sales fell by 3.1% in February. Analysts expected a rise of 1.4% in same store sales. Generally speaking, teen retailers reported poorer same store sales in February than Wall Street had expected. Of course, Pacific Sunwear did not simply fail to grow same store sales as quickly as expected; the company actually saw same store sales decline for the month.

Pacific Sunwear now trades at about fourteen times earnings. The company has long been the one teen retailer I would like to own – at the right price. At today’s price, PSUN is the best bargain among well known American retailers. Expect a more detailed discussion of the company within the next few days.

Note: When discussing Pacific Sunwear (PSUN), all uses of the term “Pacific Sunwear” will be references to the company; all uses of the term “PacSun” will be references to the skate and surf themed chain. This practice is intended to avoid confusion as to whether a particular statement applies to the PacSun chain alone or to the PacSun, d.e.m.o., (and soon) One Thousand Steps chains collectively.…