Seeking Alpha

Amir Houriani's  Instablog

Amir Houriani
Send Message
Graduated Lehigh University with a major in Finance and concentrations in Real Estate and Accounting.
View Amir Houriani's Instablogs on:
  • Dell 2012/2011 Financial Statement Analysis

    In comparing Dell's financial statements from 2012 and 2011, we can notice several discernible trends taking place; however, the interpretation of these trends is mixed. Generally, Dell experienced an increase in year-over-year net revenues and gross margins, but also a disproportionate increase in year-over-year operating expenses, primarily from selling, general, and administrative expenses. My analysis is targeted towards revenues, operating expenses, net income, and cash flows.

    Revenues

    On a total revenue basis, Dell's revenues increased 0.938% year-over-year; however, breaking down the revenue composition illustrates an interesting new trend for Dell. Dell's total revenue is composed of its product sales and services. Dell's product sales revenue decreased 0.191% year-over-year, while its services revenue increased 5.86% year-over-year. The resulting net increase in revenues totaled a 0.938% increase, along with an increase in gross margins, from 18.53% in 2011, to 22.25% in 2012. This margin expansion is attributed to Dell's push towards margin expansion in product sales. Product margins increased from 15.84% in 2011 to 20.47% in 2012, while services margins decreased from 30.12% in 2011 to 29.54% in 2012. Overall, Dell has experienced relatively flat year-over-year total revenue growth, due to a weakening PC industry, but has pushed to increase its profitability through margin expansion.

    Operating Expenses

    Total operating expenses, composed of Selling, General, & Administrative and Research and Development expenses, increased 17.8% year-over-year. When broken down, much of this increase is attributable to a large increase in Selling, General, and Administrative (NYSEMKT:SGA) expenses, with a less noticeable impact from Research and Development (R&D). Overall, SGA expenses increased 16.74%, from $7.3 billion in 2011 to $8.5 billion in 2012, while R&D expenses increased 29.5% from $661 million in 2011 to $856 million in 2012. Taken alone, the total operating expense increase is extremely negative, especially when accompanied with nearly flat revenue growth. It signifies a weakness within Dell with regards to managing its expenses, and also signifies a rapidly increasing competitive environment resulting from the lagging growth in the PC industry. Taken in overall context, however, there is some positive indication from the increase in operating expenses. Dell's Research & Development expenses increased 29.5% year-over-year, which signifies shrewdness in management's strategic orientation. Rather than increasing profitability through cutting back on R&D, especially in such a fragile economic market, Dell's management is doing exactly what needs to be done in such a competitive market: increasing expenditures on R&D, which is the lifeline of the company.

    Overall, Dell's operating expenses as a percentage of revenues increased from 12.94% in 2011 to 15.11% in 2012, directly affecting Dell's bottom-line profitability because of its flat revenue growth. Typically, in a consolidating environment, such as the PC industry, operating expenses should increase, since expenses on advertisements and marketing will help preserve, or increase, market share. Nevertheless, Dell's organic revenue growth has declined despite its large increase in these expenditures, and growth may continue to decline unless Dell's management can increase its effectiveness in penetrating growing hardware industries, such as smartphones and tablets.

    Net Income

    Year-over-year, Dell's net income increased 32.52%, from $2.6 billion in 2011 to $3.5 billion in 2012. Much of this bottom-line growth resulted from increased efficiencies in top-line expenses. Dell also experienced international tax rate efficiencies, especially from a 13% revenue growth in the Asian Pacific and Japan regions. Its overall effective tax rate fell from 21.34% in 2011 to 17.64% in 2012.

    The 32.52% increase in Dell's net income is extremely interesting, especially since its net revenues only increased 0.938%. The entirety of this net income growth is due to top-line expense efficiencies, primarily through increased product margins. As a percent of sales, Dell's profit margin increased from 4.29% in 2011 to 5.63% in 2012. Although this increase in net income seems like a positive trend, it was generated primarily through operating efficiencies, and not through organic sales growth. This sort of profitability is more often than not short lived and not indicative of long-term profitability.

    Cash Flows

    As a year-over-year trend, Dell's operating cash flows increased 39.25%, from $3.97 billion in 2011 to $5.53 billion in 2012. Much of this increase is due to Dell's $857 million increase in net income and increased efficiency in turning over its accounts and financing receivables accounts. When taken together, Dell's increased net income and increased receivable turnover efficiency contributed to a $1.85 billion increase in operating cash flows year-over-year. Overall, Dell has been trending towards increasing operating cash flows from 2011 to 2012, which is a strong signal in such a weak, illiquid, economic environment.

    On a year-over-year trend, Dell's investing cash outflows increased tremendously, from $1.16 billion in 2011 to $6.2 billion in 2012. Of this $5.04 billion increase in investing cash outflows, $3.3 billion came solely through increased purchases of investments, such as securities. Dell also experienced an extraordinarily large expenditure from acquisitions in 2012, representing a $2.6 billion outflow in 2012, while only representing a $376 million outflow in 2011.

    Finally, and most necessary for interpretation, is Dell's large increase in capital expenditures (capex), which increased from $444 million in 2011 to $675 million in 2012, a 52% increase. This increase in capex results from increased expenditures on improving current facilities, increasing the life of equipment, building new facilities, and other improvements which help generate future income for Dell. Overall, the increase in investing cash outflows signifies strength for Dell's long-term outlook, and confidence from management within the industry.

    Dell's cash inflows from financing activities increased 21% year-over-year, from $477 million in 2011 to $577 million in 2012. In totality, this represented a net $100 million increase; of which, the most material events were Dell's activities in common stock repurchases, and proceeds and repayment of debt. In the past year, Dell has increased common stock repurchases by $1.9 billion; Dell also increased its proceeds from debt by $1 billion, while increasing its repayment of debt by $200 million.

    Dell's strategic decision to increase its common stock repurchases from $800 million in 2011 to $2.7 billion in 2012 represents management's belief that its common stock is grossly undervalued in the market; however, this move also indicates an attempt to increase its stock's valuation by decreasing its number of outstanding shares, and more effectively increasing its earnings-per-share by Dell.

    The Bottom-Line

    My general conclusion is that in the short-term, Dell is experiencing increased profitability primarily due to increased efficiencies in managing top-line expenses. Looking forward, though, Dell's organic product sales experienced a 0.192% decline, although it experienced a 0.938% net increase in revenues from an increase in services revenue. In the long-term, the implications of increasing net income solely through efficiencies in expenses, while experiencing relatively flat net growth, and negative organic growth, is a dangerous sign for Dell's long-term growth.

    There is some light at the end of the tunnel, however; Dell has increased its Research and Development expenses by 29.5%, and its capital expenditures by 52%, which can trickle into increased future profitability.

    To increase long-term profitability, Dell should utilize its increased operating leverage by dramatically increasing its advertising and marketing for its products to increase its market share. Due to Dell's expanded top-line margins, the effectiveness of advertisements and marketing on Dell's bottom-line becomes amplified significantly. Specifically, in 2012, every 1% increase in product sales trickled into a $102.2 million gross margin profit, as opposed to just $79.34 million in 2011.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Tags: DELL
    Dec 12 7:17 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Wrote 2 Functions: A Buy And A Sell Function For Skullcandy

    (click to enlarge)

    Red arrows signify selling current positions + shorting

    Green arrows signify buying to cover + going long

    Disclosure: I am long AAPL, AIG, SKUL, HAL.

    Tags: SKUL
    Nov 06 1:07 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Short Selling Explained

    The process of short selling is actually quite screwed up. The person owning the shares is actually never informed that his shares have been short sold. The whole process of short selling is transacted through a third part (a broker) who lends a short seller some shares to sell in the market.

    Excessive short selling can be quite destructive to a stock's price though, as we've seen with Skullcandy. To elaborate on how this works, let me give an example:

    Lets say company xyz has issued 1,000,000 shares in the market. I believe this company is extremely valuable so I go and buy up all their shares. So, at this point, there are a total of shares 1,000,000 shares; however, I'm holding all 1,000,000 of them, so market supply is 0. Lets say person B comes along and short sells all 1,000,000 shares. What happens at this point is my brokerage firm transfers my 1,000,000 shares to him (without my knowledge) and person B dumps them in the market.

    What has just happened is VERY important. Because person B just shorted shares that weren't his, he has just artificially created more shares in the market. Now there are 2,000,000 shares in the market (1,000,000 shares that I bought + 1,000,000 shares that were resold to the market). In order for the market to absorb all these shares, it requires much more purchasing power; however, with the supply of shares doubling (while demand remaining constant), the price drops (law of supply and demand).

    So now, because person B over-saturated the market with shares, he caused the price to drop. Eventually though, he'll be forced to buy-to-cover under a few scenarios:
    1) If I chose to sell my shares, person B will be forced to buy back all the shares in the market (at whatever the price is) to give me back my shares
    2) If the stock price goes up too much, person B may receive a margin call, forcing him to buy back all the shares (regardless of the price/loss)
    3) To capture gains/losses

    What we know is this: even though the stock will severely under-perform the market, those who short sold the stock will be forced to buy back their shares if they ever want to capture their gains or if they're forced to by their broker. In the long term, severely short selling a stock (like with Skullcandy) is unsustainable.

    Disclosure: I am long SKUL, AAPL, AIG.

    Tags: SKUL
    Sep 21 9:02 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.