Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 22, 2002 / 10 Adar, 5762

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

How not to get taken when buying stocks

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
COULD the typical small investor have discovered a year ago that Enron Corp. was on the brink of disaster? It's highly unlikely. Still, if you looked for the right thing, you never would have bought Enron stock in the first place.

The right thing is cash. The earnings statements that obsess Wall Street analysts are based on technical, arcane accounting conventions. But what truly counts for investors is how much cash they can put in their pockets, and shareholder cash is inextricably linked to the cash that the company itself generates and uses.

I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that massive corporate filings rarely illuminate the true state of corporate health. Adding more requirements and plugging the latest Enron-inspired loopholes won't help, either. Most large, publicly traded companies are simply too complicated.

Robert Olstein, who manages the successful Olstein Financial Fund by digging deep into financial statements, says that detecting trouble is a job for professionals. When I asked him whether small investors could ferret out the mess at Enron, he said bluntly, "The public has no chance."

He added: "I don't do my own refrigerator repairs, so why should you think you can do your own stock picking? Instead, you should spend your time finding good people to manage your money." That statement may be self-serving, but it is hard to imagine any amateur beating Olstein's own record. His fund has returned 17 percent during last year's market debacle and an annual average of 21 percent over the past five years, compared with 12 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.

But don't despair. By concentrating on cash, investors can learn enough about a company to eliminate it as a possible investment. For example, if you want to get a quick-and-dirty reading, look not at a firm's "income statement" but at a more obscure - but still readily available - table of numbers called its "statement of cash flows." In Enron's case, that statement - part of the 2000 annual report, published before the firm's problems were revealed - showed troubling numbers.

First, add up the cash that Enron generated from its operations over the past three years. Then subtract the cash that Enron devoted to capital investments - that is, the big-ticket items, including acquisitions, that eventually generate the operating cash.

Here is what you get: Cash from operations - $7.6 billion. Cash used for investments - $11.7 billion.

Subtract the bottom line from the top line and you find a deficit of $4.1 billion. That's not good. Then subtract the cash that went to paying dividends and the deficit jumps to $5.5 billion. Ouch. By the way, Enron made up that deficit, again according to the cash-flows statement, by issuing new stock and taking on more debt.

Our quick-and-dirty analysis does not examine the question of whether Enron's investments - in excess of its operating cash - were wise or foolish. That's an important matter, of course, and it requires more study, but it's not unreasonable to dismiss out of hand any company with such a lopsided difference between the cash it generates and the cash it invests.

By contrast, consider the 2001 annual report of Automatic Data Processing Inc., which handles payroll processing for companies that employ 30 million Americans. ADP has raised its dividend for 28 consecutive years, so it is no surprise that from 1999 to 2001 the firm generated net positive cash flow of $2 billion. ADP used $650 million of that to pay dividends and $1.2 billion to repurchase its own stock (in effect, a tax-free dividend). In other words, it returned the profits to shareholders - an encouraging sign.

A company that plows all the cash it generates into capital investment is not necessarily shaky; the money could be going to productive uses. In three of the past four years, for example, Cisco Systems Inc., the Internet infrastructure giant, has run slightly negative net cash flows. By any measure, however, Cisco is a solid, highly profitable company - it's rated A++ (highest) for financial strength by Value Line - that gets considerable bang for every internally invested buck.

There's no hard-and-fast rule that separates a Cisco from an Enron, but check out the "return on capital" line that you can find in almost any analysis of a company. even with last year's slowdown, Cisco's returns were more than 20 percent between 1997 and 2001. In other words, for every dollar of debt (loans) plus equity (stock), Cisco was bringing 20 cents down to the bottom line. That's impressive. Enron, by contrast, was averaging returns on capital of a mere 7 percent - hardly better than a Treasury bond - over the past five years, even before the company had to reveal some hidden debt and restate its earnings downward.

Finding information like this is relatively simple. Most companies post annual reports on their Web sites, and the SEC makes Form 10-K (and quarterly 10-Q) filings available through its Internet-based Edgar database (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml). In addition, sites such as MoneyCentral (moneycentral.msn.com) offer detailed historical statements of return ratios, income, cash flows and balance sheets.

A balance sheet tells what a company owns (assets) and what it owes (liabilities). Olstein says that all investors should look at a company's cash (on the asset side) and its debt (on the liability side). If there's more cash than debt, that's a good sign. Enron's cash at the end of 2000 was $1.4 billion, and its debt was $10.2 billion - again, a lopsided negative figure.

Enron executives have been accused of deceiving investors by moving debt off the consolidated balance sheet - which is the official statement from which those numbers above are drawn - and onto the backs of "unconsolidated" partnerships and corporations with which the company had a close relationship. In fact, sketchy information about unconsolidated entities does show up on Page 77 of Enron's 214-page 10-K. Debt, for instance, totaled another $9.7 billion.

But there's no need to burrow into the small print. As Olstein says, "when we looked at Enron, we saw negative cash flow." That was a bad sign, and so was the huge difference between cash and debt. Again, compare Enron with Cisco. At the end of fiscal 2001, Cisco had $7.4 billion in cash and no debt. But Cisco is a powerhouse. A more surprising example of a well-heeled firm is Apple Computer, with cash of $4.3 billion and debt of $300 million. Cash minus debt equals $4 billion, or about $12 for every share of stock. Apple was trading Friday at just $24.76 a share, which makes it an intriguing candidate for purchase.

Olstein's own investing style is more sophisticated than simply purchasing firms with lots of cash. "We try to buy companies that are down and out but can keep their balance sheets intact," he says. In other words, finding firms in robust health - like ADP - does not excite him. As a value investor, he wants to own companies that are shunned by the market because they look shaky but which, on closer examination, are pretty sound.

A good example is J.C. Penney Co. The company, at last report, had $1.7 billion in cash, and while its debt totals $5 billion, that number has been cut in half in the past three years, and most of the loans are not due for more than five years. In addition, net cash flow was positive last year by more than $1 billion. Penney's was Olstein's second-largest holding last year, and it rose more than 100 percent over 12 months.

Other winners for the fund include Furniture Brands International, a company with deceptively strong cash flow, and Mattel Inc., which last year suffered a loss on its income statement but maintained a positive cash flow - just the opposite of Enron. Typically, the official numbers reported to the SEC don't tell you as much as statistics that companies use internally and rarely share with investors. American Express Co. is an exception. It devotes a page of its annual report to such data as total credit cards in force (52 million in 2000, up 15 percent from 1999), average basic cardholder spending ($8,229) and past-due loans to cardholders (1.9 percent between one and three months and 0.9 percent longer than three months). This material is meant to be informative rather than promotional, and it helps investors decide whether Amex is a stock worth buying.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the Omaha-based conglomerate with businesses as varied as auto insurance, candy and jewelry, produces an ideal annual report (available online at www.berkshirehathaway.com). It includes not only the wit and wisdom of its chairman, investor Warren Buffett, but also the statistics that investors need to decipher the activities of a large, diversified company.

"At Berkshire," Buffett wrote last year, "full reporting means giving you the information that we wish you to give to us if our positions were reversed." That's a credo that all CEOs should follow. Clear, transparent statements, written in understandable English, attract investors. When you can't decipher reports, it is safe to assume that the company has something to hide - again, remember Enron.

Buffett also refers to the "limitations of conventional accounting" - which are significant. "Consolidated reported earnings may reveal little about our true economic performance," he writes. Investors need more - but often, as in the case of American Express, what they need varies with the business. For that reason, trying to edify investors by writing new, more complex accounting rules is a futile pursuit. Look for companies that want to tell you what's happening - Walt Disney Co., for instance - and dump the obfuscators.

Two other pieces of advice: Favor smaller, simpler companies, whose businesses are relatively easy to understand. A couple of good examples are retailers Urban Outfitters and 99Ę Only Stores; both are top-rated by the Value Line Investment Survey, and they have strong cash flows and zero debt. And remember, as I said last week, that dividends are the most certain evidence that a company is actually earning money - which is why real estate investment trusts (REITs), which consistently pay high dividends, should be in every investor's portfolio.

You can't fake the checks you send to shareholders. In fact, you can't fake cash in general. In a world of more and more complicated accounting rules, of fancy tax techniques and slippery footnotes, cash is the real thing. Count the cash, and you won't go far wrong.


JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.

Up

02/06/02: Investing After 9/11
01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock
01/24/02: Dare to be obscure
01/16/02: Bank on this
01/10/02: What goes down...
01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the Amazon.com
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2002, Tech Central Station