Seeking Alpha

Latitude of Assurance

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Latitude of Assurance's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    Never said or tried to imply that IBM bought Myspace. I was referencing how badly acquisitions can turn out in tech, and never show any sign of loss until the actual write off. I would suggest you take an accrual accounting basics class, because it can be explained over and over, but I can't understand it for you.
    Nov 24, 2014. 09:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    True. But do investors? GAAP and accounting rules are not perfect.
    Nov 20, 2014. 04:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    When they acquire a company, vs internally developing, they get a boost to earnings because the acquisition is not expensed initially.
    If I am a CEO, and I want to show higher margins and earnings, I would acquire a bunch of products/tech/etc vs developing it internally. That needs to be adjusted for when looking at a company as an investment, and especially when you are looking at an earnings multiple that appears cheap. IBM appears cheap because the acquisitions are keeping expenses from the income statement. Nothing wrong with that, but investors need to see that and adjust for it.


    I mention Myspace as an example. News Corp took no earnings expense when buying. It was years later that they took the expense, and it happened to be a nearly full write off. You could have expensed that acquisition of a questionable tech business and not been blindsided by buying the artificially high earnings because the expense wasn't there.
    Nov 20, 2014. 03:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    AAPL will not necessarily specify individual price on acquisitions, but they do list aggregate amounts in their financials. And I do adjust the tech companies i look at for what i view as logical inclusions or exclusions that will help clarify the actual business economics.

    I don't think I would buy IBM unless it got to a level that was plainly silly, which may or may not happen. AAPL at $70 (split adjusted) was plainly silly.

    I look at investments as if nothing is wrong, then something might be right. In this case, I can see a lot that is wrong, and there is no one forcing me to own it. I think a lot of people own it because of Buffett, and because it's always in the news because it appears cheap.
    Nov 20, 2014. 02:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    AAPL's acquisitions are around ~6% of traditional FCF. IBM's are in the ~25% range. That is the difference. Those acquisitions don't show up as an earnings expense, until down the road when they are likely written off as a "one time" expense. Recall when Myspace was acquired..........not a single expense line to earnings. Years later........... Tech acquisitions shouldn't be assumed to be long lived just because GAAP says so. All I am doing is trying to show how IBM gooses their R&D expense by acquiring.

    My broad point is IBM's "low multiple" and "cheap valuation" is a fallacy.
    Nov 20, 2014. 02:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    You are missing the forest for the trees. To each his own.
    Nov 20, 2014. 02:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    Apple is a tech company, yet they don't buy their innovation with acquisitions. Oracle makes acquisitions, yet not nearly to the extent IBM does. If you think that acquisitions in tech should be accounted for as if they have indefinite assets lives, then why not capitalize R&D? Either way, both R&D and acquisitions should be treated the same in tech. You have to adjust one way or the other. The same is not true for a stagnant, slowly innovating industry. Tech is not that industry.

    I didn't expense dividends or stock comp, but showed that dividends are a big chunk coming out of unadjusted FCF. If IBM halted their dividends and buybacks, what would happen? That's why I look at it as a detractor from FCF. It isn't an option for them. It is a recurring cash drain now.

    A note too, GAAP accounting, for the most part, is skewed towards debt issuers/holders, not equity investors.
    Nov 20, 2014. 08:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM Fundamental And Algorithmic Analysis: Will Big Blue Bring Big-Time Blues? [View article]
    IBM is a $100B rev company.................. spent almost the same amount the last 10 years to grow, and failed. Hope they turn that 100M fund into a few billion.
    Nov 13, 2014. 04:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM Fundamental And Algorithmic Analysis: Will Big Blue Bring Big-Time Blues? [View article]
    if it takes more than a couple minutes, the investment is probably very flawed.
    Nov 13, 2014. 10:30 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oracle: Worth $40 Per Share [View article]
    Not sure random assumptions add any weight to a fair value number. Where is 9% growth dropping to 5% found in any decent business model? Considering their cloud growth is accelerating, I am lost.
    Nov 11, 2014. 11:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    thanks. tomato, tomatoe. ha
    Nov 4, 2014. 10:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM: Red Flags In Free Cash Flows [View article]
    I look at it case by case. Whether or not you consider the dividend as a logical detraction to FCF, the outcome is really the same. IBM can't cut the dividend without crushing the stock, so is it really available for growth? If IBM is spending $7-9B a year on R&D and acquisitions for growth, they really don't have all of this excess capital coming from businesses that they can return. The dividend is just a crutch.
    Nov 4, 2014. 10:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM - Change Won't Happen Overnight, But Will In Due Time [View article]
    Amazon is incredibly profitable. Their investments from 3,4,5 years ago are paying off huge now. They continue to invest capital internally, which shows accounting losses. IBM is the exact opposite. Case in point, IBM has spent almost $100B the last 10 years on R&D and acquisitions. How have those investments worked out?
    Oct 24, 2014. 10:41 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: IBM Misses On Earnings But Is Still A Buy [View article]
    IBM's cloud business: What is the dollar amount in rev coming from that? What are their margins?
    Oct 22, 2014. 08:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is October's Storm Nearly Over? [View article]
    SVXY trades on the contango/backwardation of 1st and 2nd month vix contracts, not the vix index. The vix could fall to 10 or 5 or whatever, and SVXY could still lose money. More people should understand what it is that they buy.
    Oct 14, 2014. 02:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
40 Comments
17 Likes