Sunday, 16 May 2010

Investor's Checklist: Banks

1.  The business model of banks can be summed up as the management of three types of risk:  
  • credit, 
  • liquidity and 
  • interest rate.
2.  Investors should focus on conservatively run institutions.  They should seek out firms that hold large equity bases relative to competitors and provision conservatively for future loan losses.

3.  Different components of banks' income statements can show volatile swings depending on a number of factors such as the interest rate and credit environment.  However, well-run banks should generally show steady net income growth through varying environments.  Investors are well served to seek out firms with a good track record.

4.  Well-run banks focus heavily on matching the duration of assets with the duration of liabilities.  For instance, banks should fund long-term loans with liabilities such as long-term debt or deposits, not short-term funding.  Avoid lenders that don't.

5.  Banks have numerous competitive advantages.  They can borrow money at rates lower than even the federal government.  There are large economies of scale in this business derived from having an established distribution network.  The capital-intensive nature of banking deters new competitors.  Customer-switching costs are high, and there are limited barriers to exit money-losing endeavors.

6.  Investors should seek out banks with 
  • a strong equity base, 
  • consistently solid ROEs and ROAs, and 
  • an ability to grow revenues at a steady pace.
7.  Comparing similar banks on a price-to-book measure can be a good way to make sure you're not overpaying for a bank stock.


The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey

Market status of countries 'fall' into three categories: Frontier, Emerging and Developed

Received this interesting globe map in my email. TQ



If we let the market status of countries 'fall' into three categories i.e. Frontier, Emerging and Developed, it would look exactly like the one on the left. According to FTSE Group a provider of economic and financial data, this is done on the basis of their economic size, wealth, quality of markets, depth and breadth of markets.

What we are interested in and would like to discover for ourselves are the Frontier Markets. Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Croatia to name a few. Let's discover Vietnam!

A quick look at Eon Capital (15.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for EON Capital Berhad

A quick look at Eon Capital (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tSgfLNvcIzSMhLmOD_nYDcQ&output=html

Saturday, 15 May 2010

Understanding Leverage

Leverage is easily expressed as a ratio:  assets/equity

Most banks equity:asset ratio is around 8% to 9%.  Thus, the average bank has a leverage ratio in the range of 12 to 1 or so, compared to 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for the average company.

Given the size of the average bank's asset base relative to equity, it's not difficult to imagine a doomsday scenario.

  • Earnings serve as the first layer of protection against credit losses.  
  • If losses in a given period exceed earnings, a reserve account on the balance sheet serves as a second layer of protection.  Banks must have a pool of reserves to protect shareholders, who hold only a small stake in the company because of the leverage employed.
  • If losses in a period exceed reserves, the difference comes directly from shareholders' equity.  When losses at a bank start destroying equity, turn out the lights.


Leverage isn't evil.  It can enhance returns, but there are inherent dangers.

For example, if you buy a $100,000 home with $8,000 down, your equity is 8%.  In other words, you're leveraged 12.5 to 1, which is pretty typical for a bank.  Now, if something atypical happens and the value of your home suddenly drops to $90,000 (just 10%), your equity is gone.  You still owe the lender $92,000 but the house isn't worth that much.  You could walk away from the house $8,000 poorer and still owe $2,000.  Highly leveraged businesses put themselves in a similar situation.

This doesn't mean all leverage is bad.  As a rule, the more liquid a company's balance sheet, the more the company can be leveraged because its assets can be quickly converted to cash at a fair price.

What should investors look for when investing in banks and other financiers?

What should investors look for when investing in banks and other financiers?

Because their entire business - their strengths and their opportunities - is built on risk, it's a good idea to focus on conservatively managed institutions that consistently deliver solid - but not knockout - profits.  Here's a list of some major metrics to consider.

Strong Capital Base

A strong capital base is the number one issue to consider before investing in a lender.  Investors can look at several metrics.

  • The simplest is the equity to assets ratio; the higher, the better.  The level of capital should vary with each institution based on a number of factors including the riskiness of its loans.  Most of the bigger banks have capital ratios in the 8% to 9% range.  
  • Also look for a high level of loan loss reserve relative to nonperforming assets.

These ratios vary depending on the type of lending an institution does, as well as the point of the business cycle in which they are taken.

Return on Equity and Return on Assets

These metrics are the de facto standards for gauging bank profitability.  

Investors should look for banks that can consistently generate mid- to high- teen returns on equity.  

Ironically, investors should be concerned if a bank earns a level not only too far below this industry benchmark, but also too far above it.  After all, many fast-growing lenders have thrown off 30% or more ROEs, just by provisioning too little for loan losses.  Remember, it can be very easy to boost bank's earnings in the short term by under-provisioning or leveraging up the balance sheet, but this can be unduly risky over the long term.  For this reason, it's good to see a high level of return on assets, as well.

For banks, a top ROA would be in the 1.2 % to 1.4% range.

Efficiency Ratios

The efficiency ratio measures non-interest expense, or operating costs, as a percentage of net revenues.  

Basically, it tells you how efficiently the bank is managed.  Many good banks have efficiency ratios under 55% (lower is better).

Look for banks with strong efficiency ratios as evidence that costs are being kept in check.

Net Interest Margins

Net interest margin looks at net interest income as a percentage of average earning assets.

Virtually all banks report net interest margins because it measures lending profitability.  

You'll see a wide variety of net interest margins depending on the type of lending a bank engages in, but most banks' margins fall into the 3% to 4% range.  

Track margins over time to get a feel for the trend - if margins are rising, check to see what's been happening with interest rates.  (Falling rates generally push up net interest margins.)

In addition, examine the bank's loan categories to see whether the bank has been moving into different lending areas. For example, credit card loans typically carry much higher interest rates than residential mortgages, but credit card lending is also riskier than lending money secured by a house.

Strong Revenues

Historically, many of the best-performing bank investments have been those that have proven capable of above-average revenue growth.  Wide margins have generally been elusive in a commodity industry that competes on service quality.  But, some of the most successful banks have been able to cross-sell new services, which adds to fee income, or pay a slightly lower rate on deposits and charge a slightly higher rate on loans.

Keep an eye on three major metrics:
(1) net interest margin,
(2) fee income as a percent of total revenues, and
(3) fee income growth.

The net interest margin can vary widely depending on economic factors, the interest rate environment, and the type of business the lender focuses on, so it's best to compare the bank you're interested in to other similar institutions.  Fee income made up 42% of bank industry revenue in 2001 and has grown at an 11.6% compound annual rate over the past two decades.  As always, examine the number over a  period of time to get a sense of the trend.

Price to Book 

Because banks' balance sheets consist mostly of financial assets with varying degrees of liquidity, book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.

Typically, big banks have traded in the two or three times book range over the past decade; regionals have often traded for less than that.

A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look.  Remember, there is almost always a reason the bank is selling at a discount, so be sure you understand the risks.  On the other hand, some banks are worth three times book value or more, but we would exercise caution before paying that much.


The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey


Summary:

Equity to assets ratio (capital ratio):  8% to 9% or greater
Loan loss reserve:  High level of loan loss reserve relative to nonperforming assets.
ROE: mid- to high- teen ROE
ROA:  1.2% to 1.4% or higher
Efficiency ratios = (noninterest expense or operating costs)/(net revenues):  < 55% (lower is better)
Net Interest Margins = net interest income / average earning assets:  3% to 4% range
Strong above-average Revenue growth: Look at net interest margin + fee income as percentage of total revenue + fee income growth
Price-to-Book:   Big banks often trade at P/B 2 x  to 3 x range.

Book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.

Because banks' balance sheets consist mostly of financial assets with varying degrees of liquidity, book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.  Assuming the assets and liabilities closely approximate their reported value, the base value for a bank should be book value.  

  • For any premium above the book value, investors are paying for future growth and excess earnings.  
  • Seldom do banks trade for less than book, but if they do, the bank's assets could be distressed.  
  • Typically, big banks have traded in the two or three times book range over the past decades; regionals have often traded for less than that.


A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look.

  • Remember, there is almost always a reason the bank is selling at a discount, so be sure you understand the risks.  
  • On the other hand, some banks are worth three times book value or more, but we would exercise caution before paying that much.  
Bank stocks are volatile creatures, and you can find good values if you're patient - especially because even the best banks will generally be hit hard when any high-profile blowup occurs in the financial services sector.  Lining up several banks for a relative P/B valuation isn't as good as putting together a discounted cash flow model, but for this industry, it can be a reasonable approximation of the value of the business.

These metrics should serve as a starting point for seeking out quality bank stocks.  Overall, we think the best defense for investors who want to pick their own financial services stocks is

  • patience and 
  • a healthy sense of skepticism.  

Build a paper portfolio of core companies that look promising and learn the businesses over time.  Get a feel for

  • the kind of lending they do, 
  • the way that risk is managed, 
  • the quality of management, and 
  • the amount of equity capital the bank holds.  
When an opportunity presents itself - and one always does - you'll be in a much better position to act.

A quick look at CIMB (15.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for Cimb Group Holdings Berhad



A quick look at CIMB (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tKdR1ezq71j9tVJQn-ldfKw&output=html

A quick look at Public Bank Berhad (15.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for Public Bank Berhad



A quick look at Public Bank Berhad (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t9xRo-1yCJCfmo6KL-IIg3Q&output=html

Friday, 14 May 2010

A quick look at AMMB (14.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for AMMB Holdings Berhad



A quick look at AMMB (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tXOX1kGVsK5WyU4E0z2xZdg&output=html



A quick look at IOI Corp (14.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for IOI Corporation Berhad



A quick look at IOI Corp (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tb5g_wc85QNAyl7rEqUx7Ng&output=html

Investor's Checklist: Hard-Asset-Based Businesses

Companies in the hard asset based subsector depend on big investments in fixed assets to grow their businesses.  Airlines, waste haulers and expedited delivery companies all fall into this subsector.  In general, these companies aren't as attractive as technology-based businesses, but investors can still find some wide-moat stocks and good investments in this area.

Industry Structure

Growth for hard asset based businesses inevitably requires large incremental outlays for fixed assets.  After all, once an airline is flying full planes, the only way to get more passengers from point A to point B is to acquire an additional aircraft, which can cost US $35 million or more.

Because the incremental fixed investment occurs before asset deployment, companies in this sector generally finance their growth with external funding.  Debt can be used to finance almost all of the asset's cost, so lenders generally require the asset to provide collateral against the loan.  With this model, high leverage is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that the company can make enough money deploying the asset to cover the cost of debt financing and earn a reasonable return for shareholders.

Subsector:  Airlines


(With this in mind, airlines are generally the least attractive investment of all the companies in this subsector.  Airlines must bear enormous fixed costs to maintain their fleets and meet the demands of expensive labour contracts, yet they sell a commodity service that's difficult to differentiate.  As a result, price competition is intense, profit margins are razor-thin - and often non-existent - and operating leverage is so high that the firms can swing from being wildly profitable to nearly bankrupt in a short time.  If you don't think this sounds like a recipe for good long-term investments, you're right - airlines have lost a collective $11 billion (excluding the impact of recent government handouts) between deregulation in 1978 and 2002.  Over the same time period, 125 airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and 12 of them filed for Chapter 7 liquidation.)

Hallmarks of Success for Hard-Asset-Based Businesses

Cost leadership:  Because hard-asset based companies have large fixed costs, those that deliver their products most efficiently have a strong advantage and can achieve superior financial performance, such as Southwest in the airline industry.  To get an idea about how efficiently a company operates, look at its fixed asset turnover, operating margins and ROIC - and compare its numbers to industry peers.

Prudent financing:  Remember, having a load of debt is not itself a bad thing.  Having a load of debt that cannot be easily financed by the cash flow of the business is a recipe for disaster.  When analysing companies with high debt, always be sure that the debt can be serviced from free cash flow, even under a downside scenario.

Investor's Checklist:  Hard-Asset-Based Businesses

  • Understand the business model.  Knowing a company leverages on hard assets will provide insight as to the kind of financial results the company may produce.
  • Look for scale and operating leverage.  These characteristics can provide significant barriers to entry and lead to impressive financial performance.
  • Look for recurring revenue.  Long-term customer contracts can guarantee certain levels of revenue for years into the future.  This can provide a degree of stability in financial results.
  • Focus on cash flow.  Investors ultimately earn returns based on a company's cash-generating ability.  Avoid investments that aren't expected to generate adequate cash flow.
  • Size the market opportunity.  Industries with big, untapped market opportunities provide an attractive environment for high growth.  In addition, companies chasing markets perceived to be big enough to accommodate growth for all industry participants are less likely to compete on price alone.
  • Examine growth expectations.  Understand what kind of growth rates are incorporated into the share price.  If the rates of growth are unrealistic, avoid the stock.

The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey

Investor's Checklist: Telecom Sector

The telecommunication sector is filled with the kinds of companies we love to hate:
  • They earn mediocre (and declining) returns on capital, 
  • economic moats are nonexistent or deteriorating, 
  • their future depends on the whims of regulators, and 
  • they constantly spend boatloads of money just to stay in place.  
Even companies that once boasted wide moats, such as those that control the local phone network, face increasing competition from newer players, such as cable and wireless networks.  Because telecom is fraught with risk, we typically look for a large margin of safety before considering any telecom stock.

Telecom Economics

Building and maintaining a telecom network, whether fixed line or wireless, is an extremely expensive endeavor that requires truckloads of upfront capital.  This requirement provides a substantial barrier to entry and usually protects the established players.  To raise capital, a new entrant must have a great story to tell investors.  The emergence of the Internet, the opening of local networks to competition, and rapid wireless growth during the 1990s gave numerous new players the yarns they needed, which is why the usual barrier provided by huge capital requirements came crumbling down as investors lined up to grab a piece of the action.

While the effects of this massive infusion of capital are still being felt in the industry, ongoing capital needs have sunk many new entrants.  Even a mature telecom firm will need to invest significant capital to maintain its network, meet changing customer demands, and respond to competitive pressures.

Because of the enormous cost to build a network, carriers typically have very low ratios of sales to assets (asset turnover ratios).  Even a mature carrier typically generates only around $1 per year in sales for each $1 of assets invested.  But building a business of ample size to support interest payments and ongoing capital needs is very important.  Because fixed costs are so high, it's imperative for carriers to have enough customers over which to spread the costs.

Squeezing as much profit from the sale as possible is also crucial.  While size again plays a role here, a telecom company must be able to send bills, provide customer service, maintain the network, and market services efficiently.  A mature company, either fixed line or wireless, should expect to earn operating margins between 20 percent and 30 percent.  Short of this level, it is extremely difficult to earn an attractive return on invested capital, given the slow pace at which assets turn over.

With so many companies raising money and building networks in the late 1990s, the volume of business needed to support all these huge investments never materialised.

Conclusion:

The telecom sector of tomorrow will look nothing like the sector of the past.  Competition is far greater throughout the industry and economic moats exceedingly difficult to come by.  The future of the industry will be shaped by regulatory and technological changes, which means that financial strength and flexibility are likely to be what separate successful firms from unsuccessful ones over the next few years.

Investor's Checklist:  Telecom
  • Shifting regulations and new technologies have made the telecom industry far more competitive.  Though some areas are more stable than others, look for a wide margin of safety to any estimate of value before investing.
  • Telecom is a capital-intensive business.  Having the resources to maintain and improve the network is critical to success.
  • Telecom is high fixed-cost business.  Keeping an eye on margins is very important.
  • Watching debt is also important.  Firms can easily overextend themselves as they build networks.
  • The price of wireless airtime is plummeting. Carriers continue to compete primarily on price.


The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey

A quick look at Green Packet (14.5.2010)



A quick look at Green Packet (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tV-54uu4_jzVGfNlURI6rhg&output=html

Business Prospects (Extracted from its Quarterly Report)
The Group's main revenue contributor, the broadband and voice business segment is projected to be competitive even with all the major service providers challenging for better market share by way of intensive awareness events and aggressive marketing campaigns. The broadband market in Malaysia is however projected to see further strong growth in demand over the next few years. The Group projects to achieve better market traction with focus on improving service quality. The Group also expects improvement in the software and application business in line with the growth of more WiMAX Networks globally. Accordingly, the Board expects the performance of the Group to improve for the financial year ending 31 December 2010.

Financial Crisis, Round II: Is it coming soon?

Financial Crisis, Round II: Is it coming soon?
March 26, 2010

Several successful entrepreneurs have recently told me they're keeping their investments locked up in cash, fearful the financial crisis is set to return very soon, only this time it'll be worse. Much worse. And with banking reform in the US almost non-existent and countries like Greece keeping the world on edge, they might be right. So, I asked seven financial thinkers for their forecasts.

Harry S. Dent, Jr. is the author of The Great Depression Ahead. He believes the US government's debt of $12 trillion is just the tip of the iceberg. When private debt and unfunded liabilities are added, "the total US debt is more like $102 trillion or seven times GDP, more than triple that at the top of the Roaring 20s which led to the Great Depression." He's expecting stocks to crash sometime between July and September - only this time China will not be immune. He's convinced it'll "collapse when the Western world falls again," and predicts a global depression that will last well into 2012.

Investment expert, Noel Whittaker, is optimistic. He told me he's spent 50 years in the finance industry, "and there wasn't once in that period that some 'guru' wasn't forecasting financial Armageddon. Obviously, there is concern about the level of debt around the world but the economies of many countries are starting to pick up and the private sector is taking over the spending that was done by governments as part of their stimulus packages. Furthermore, the rise of the Asian countries is continuing and will continue to do so."

But Canadian economic commentator, Sheldon Filger, disagrees. He predicted the global financial crisis two years before it occurred. "Policymakers in major advanced economies have made a gamble; absorbing massive levels of public debt to backstop insolvent banks and fund stimulus spending... They will lose this gamble, I am convinced, sparking a massive sovereign debt crisis in these economies, especially the US and UK, unleashing a synchronised global depression. What is unfolding now in Greece and the other PIIGS is but a harbinger of what is to come. I predict that round two will unfold by 2012."

Phil Ruthven is an economic forecaster and Chairman of IBISWorld. He's not really worried. "There's no doubt there's a second dip coming, but not a second crisis. Governments around the world have pumped $9 trillion into the finance system. That's roughly 3 per cent of the world's finances, which is what we lost during the GFC. Also, the PIIGS group is a small part of Europe and I really cannot see that being a great danger. There is a risk there will be another decline as distinct from a recession, but that's likely to be in two to three years' time rather than in the foreseeable future."

Professor Todd Knoop from the Department of Economics and Business at Cornell College concurs. "I am not worried that another financial crisis is around the corner. History has shown us that crashes are always proceeded by booms, and while leverage ratios and lending are above where they were a year ago, they are not at the historic levels they were at before the 2009 crisis."

Margaret Lomas, the head of Destiny Financial Services and the Property Investment Professionals of Australia, has a different view. "I am of the definite opinion that the US has only just felt the beginning of what is to become a more major crisis for them. Confidence in the President is low and the sheer amount of national debt is simply a bigger version of the subprime crisis - there is little hope of them being able to even meet the interest bill on such a debt and the fallout may well be similar to that of Argentina - formerly an economically strong country now in the grips of severe financial depression."

Economist Professor Ian Harper said that deleveraging across the economy could result in a second dip or delay the recovery from the first one. There's a similar risk involved with excessive government debt but he cautioned that, "Whether the second round is more severe than the first is more difficult to predict. Governments tend to have more room to move compared with the private sector, given their powers to tax and print money. So while rising public indebtedness is certainly an issue, it need not precipitate a deeper crisis, even though it will slow recovery from the first dip, especially in the most affected countries."

Well, that's what the economic gurus foresee. What do you think? Is the global financial crisis set to return, only with more ferocity than before?

-------------------------------
http://blogs.theage.com.au/small-business/workinprogress/2010/03/26/financialcrisi.html

Uni degrees: who needs 'em?

Uni degrees: who needs 'em?
May 14, 2010

140uni.jpgA lot of fellows nowadays have a B.A., M.D., or Ph.D. Unfortunately, they don't have a J.O.B." So said American singer-songwriter, Fats Domino. He had a point. Putting aside professions such as medicine and law where a degree is essential, much of what is taught at university today isn't useful in the workplace.

A British survey conducted in March by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development revealed 60 per cent of graduates are working in a field unrelated to the degree they studied. And roughly one-in-four said their degree didn't equip them with the skills they needed to thrive at work. The results in Australia would probably be similar, with thousands of people thinking the completion of a degree is the finish line, when in reality it only entitles them to stand at the starting blocks. The real work starts at work.

The most talented senior manager I've ever had was a lady who hadn't spent a day on a university campus. The most hopelessly incompetent executives were those who'd completed not only a degree but also an MBA.

This doesn't imply a degree leads to poor performance. Rather, it just doesn't guarantee success. Not all masterful trainers have a degree in Adult Education. Many of the finest journalists don't have a degree in Communication. And some of the best musicians haven't studied at the Conservatorium.

People will argue the value lies not necessarily in the curriculum but with what a person becomes as a result of completing the degree. It'll prove they can solve problems! It'll show they can work under pressure! It'll demonstrate they can organise and prioritise! All of that may be true (or not), but those same attributes can be gleaned from other areas, such as the candidates' work experience, the adversities they've overcome, and their character in general.

I asked Shayne Herriott, the president of the National Association of Australian University Colleges, for his thoughts. "Obtaining a university degree is a lot more than what is learnt within a classroom or lecture theatre," he said. "A university degree is a series of challenges testing our ability to learn new and challenging subjects in a new environment surrounded by many distractions that are greatly different from school."

Admittedly, I'm a uni drop out. I had one year left of a Business degree when I realised it was no longer beneficial. I started it when I was in the corporate world. Eager to progress up the career ladder, I was very aware of the preference decision-makers had for resumes that contained a pithy reference to the applicant's degree. Despite being a student with a distinction average, I didn't learn a thing I could apply at work. Instead, I was forced to remember a bunch of management theories developed in the 1970s, all of which I've since forgotten.

These days, many job advertisements list a degree as a prerequisite. Check out the graduate section of the MyCareer site and you'll find job vacancies for a Recruitment Assistant, a Junior Marketing Coordinator, and another in Media Sales. It's uncertain why the lack of a degree is such a deal-breaker for roles where all the learning would presumably be on the job. It seems a degree merely qualifies you for the interview. It gets you in the door. Actually being able to do the job is an altogether separate and unrelated matter.

Rising in prominence is the Mickey Mouse degree, which is a term that disparagingly refers to qualifications of little relevance in the working world. Golf management and surf science are two such obscure examples, as are more common ones such as English Literature and History. How many job vacancies do you see advertised for a historian? Currently on MyCareer: none.

And then there's the aspirational MBA. There was a time when it was regarded as a unique accomplishment. But currently it seems like every ambitious worker's got one, or is at least contemplating the endeavour. A few years ago, I was recruiting for entry-level call centre positions and was floored by the flood of resumes from MBA graduates. It used to guarantee you a job in middle management. Now it guarantees you a period of muddle management.

People who undertake a degree should be applauded. It's a huge commitment, and the intention here isn't to denigrate their achievement. It's more a reflection on the perception of degrees and their supposed relevance in the workplace. Are they really supporting business? I don't think so. Not to a large degree.

http://blogs.theage.com.au/small-business/workinprogress/2010/05/14/unidegreeswho.html

A quick look at Transmile (14.5.2010)

Stock Performance Chart for Transmile Group Berhad





A quick look at Transmile (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t3UYetvUUuc1vbXWvCaAOTw&output=html

AVOID!!!
The company is still losing money.  It has a lot of debts.  


It's cash and cash equivalent is declining, presently at MR 86.43 million.  It is struggling using cash generated from working capital (account receivables' day decreased from 73 days to 27.5 days, and account payables' days increased from 22.3 days to 37.9 days).


At 50c per share, its market capitalisation is MR 135.06 million.  Its total equity in its balance sheet at 31.12.2009 was MR 22.26 million.  It's assets are in the planes.



Click also:
Lessons From Transmile

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Cooking the Books: Investors, be warned.

This discussion should make you better able to see the clues of fraud and remind you to be vigilant.

Managers most often cook the books for personal financial gain - to justify a bonus, to keep stock prices high and options valuable or to hide a business's poor performance.  Companies most likely to cook their books have weak internal controls and have a management of questionable character facing extreme pressure to perform.

All fast-growing companies must eventually slow down.  Managers may be tempted to use accounting gimmicks to give the appearances of continued growth.  Managers at weak companies may want to mask how bad things really are.  Managers may want that last bonus before bailing out.  Maybe there are unpleasant loan covenants that would be triggered but can be avoided by cooking the books.  A company can just be sloppy and have poor internal controls.

One key to watch for is management changing from a conservative accounting policy to a less-conservative one, for example, changing from LIFO to FIFO methods of inventory valuation or from expensing to capitalizing certain marketing expenses, easing of revenue recognition rules, lengthening amortization or depreciation periods.

Changes like these should be a red flag.  There may be valid reasons for these accounting policy changes, but not many.  Be warned.

Related:



Cooking the Books: The Auditor's Job

Just as some people cheat on their tax returns, thinking they will not be caught, some companies "cook the books" hoping auditors and regulators will not catch them either.

Like "borrowing" $20 from the till until payday, and then not being able to repay the "loan," small illegalities can snowball into major fraud.

Remember, an auditor's job is only to review systematically the company's accounting and control procedures and then sample its business transaction to see whether appropriate policies and procedures are being followed in practice. But it is quite possible for a dedicated and corrupt management to mask transactions and deceive these auditors.


Related:

Cooking the Books: Sweetening the Balance Sheet

Most often both the Balance Sheet and the Income Statement are involved in cooking the books.  A convenient cooking is exchanging assets with the purpose of inflating the Balance Sheet and showing a profit on the Income Statement as well!

For example, a company owns an old warehouse, valued on the company books at $500,000, its original cost minus years of accumulated depreciation.  In fact, the present value of the warehouse if sold would be 10 times its book value, or $5 million.  The company sells the warehouse, books a $4.5 million profit and then buys a similar warehouse next door for $5 million.

Nothing has really changed.  The company still has a warehouse, but the new one is valued on the books at its purchase price of $5 million instead of the lower depreciated cost of the original warehouse.  The company has booked a $4.5 million gain, yet it has less cash on hand than it had before this sell-buy transaction.

Why would a company exchange one asset for a very similar one ... especially if it cost them cash and an unnecessary tax payment?  The only "real" effect of this transaction is the sale of an undervalued asset and booking of a one-time gain.  If the company reports this gain as part of "operating income,": the books have been cooked - income has been deceptively inflated.  If the company purports that this one-time capital gain is reoccurring operating income, it has misrepresented the earning capacity of the enterprise.


Related:

Cooking the Books: Puffing up the Income Statement

Puffing up the Income Statement most often involves some form of bogus sales revenue that results in increased profit.

One of the simplest methods of cooking the books is padding the revenue; that is, recording sales before all the conditions required to complete a sale have occurred.  The purpose of this action is to inflate sales and associated profits.  A particularly creative technique is self-dealings such as increasing revenue by selling something to yourself.

Revenue is appropriately recorded ONLY after all these conditions are met:

  1. An order has been received.
  2. The actual product has been shipped.
  3. There is little risk the customer will not accept the product.
  4. No significant additional actions are required by the company.
  5. Title has transferred and the purchaser recognizes his responsibility to pay.
The other common route to illegal reporting of increased profit is to lower expenses or to fiddle with costs.  A simple method to accomplish this deception involves shifting expenses from one period into another with the objective of reporting increased profits in the earlier period and hoping for the best in the later period.