Devon Energy Asset Disposition Plan Should Bode Well For Shareholders

Devon Energy (DVN), a leading oil and gas exploration and production company, announced yesterday an asset disposition strategy for 2010 that appears to be very accretive for equity holders should it be completed as planned. Devon announced that it plans to sell its Gulf of Mexico and international operations next year in order to focus on North American onshore energy properties. The sales are expected to bring in between $4.5 and $7.5 billion on an after-tax basis.

Devon's stock rose $3 to $71 on the news as investors realized that Devon simply had too many properties to explore given its finite financial resources. By selling non-core assets and using the proceeds to focus on their strongest properties, Devon should be able to operate in the most efficient and shareholder friendly way.

A deeper look at the numbers shows a very attractive proposition for stockholders. Devon believes it can reap $6 billion from their gulf and international assets, which represents about 20% of the company's current equity market value of ~$30 billion. These same assets only represent 7% of the firm's energy reserves and 11% of current production. Since energy production companies are largely valued by investors based on reserves, selling these assets appears to be a very smart move for Devon. Clearly Wall Street is undervaluing these assets if indeed Devon can get $6 billion for only 7% of the company's reserve base.

In addition, Devon will see its exploration expenses drop meaningfully after shedding these non-core assets. These non-core assets currently account for 29% of Devon's annual capital expenditures. So, not only is Devon trying to unload assets that are undervaluing the company, but they are also the company's most expensive assets to develop.

To recap, Devon currently spends 29% of its capital budget to develop only 7% of their reserves and it believes it can sell those assets for 20% of its current equity market value. This looks like a no-brainer for Devon and its shareholders.

As previously mentioned, Wall Street applauded the move, sending Devon shares up $3 to $71 after this strategic announcement. Since I am not fan of buying stocks after a big move up, now might not be the best time to scoop up the stock, but if it drops back to $65 or lower I will likely take a hard look at it based on recent developments.

Full Disclosure: Peridot Capital had a position in Devon at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

United Airlines: How Not To Run An Airline

I came across this article by John Battelle over on Business Insider and thought I would share it with everyone. I am a loyal Southwest customer so I have managed to avoid the crazy complicated (and irrational) dynamic pricing algorithms that many of the major carriers use. Hopefully there are not too many United shareholders out there reading this...

Thanks For Flying United. Please Give Us All Your Money

Chad Brand Interviewed on "Behind The Spread"

I recently did an interview with the investment site "Behind The Spread" which focused on learning about the backgrounds of various investment professionals.  They are interviewing the genius investors on KaChing and it was my turn in line. If you would like to learn a bit more about me and my investment philosophy, you can check out the Q&A here:

Chad Brand interview on "Behind The Spread"

Analyst Silliness with Research in Motion

In recent days I have been paying special attention to shares of Blackberry maker Research in Motion (RIMM). The stock is one that had decent earnings this quarter but some investors wanted more, which prompted a pretty significant sell off in the stock. Despite the market having recently made new yearly highs, RIMM shares have dropped from the high 80's to the mid 50's. The stock is down several points today after the analyst who covers them for Citigroup downgraded it from "buy" to "sell."

Skipping the "hold" rating completely is pretty rare on Wall Street, but what caught my eye even more was that the analyst lowered his price target on RIMM from $100 to $50. What happened to make the company worth 50% less overnight in his view? The upcoming release of Motorola's Droid smart phone.

Call me skeptical of this bold call from Citigroup's research department. The new Droid is going to be such a huge success that it will translate into a 50% haircut in the value of Research in Motion, which has a stronghold on the corporate smart phone market? Have we not seen dramatic hype surrounding new cell phones recently that only served to disappoint investors? The Palm Pre comes to mind immediately. While it may help Palm get back on the map, the Pre is certainly not looking like a genuine iPhone challenger like many were expecting. Should we believe that the Droid will similarly make a huge dent in RIMM's Blackberry franchise?

I haven't made the plunge into RIMM stock yet, but the odds are getting higher each day the stock continues to slide. At a current $55 quote RIMM trades at 11 times 2010 estimates ($4.85 per share), which seems reasonable even if that figure proves too high due to increased competition. Right now I might just be willing to make the bet that the Blackberry retains its lead in the corporate market for years to come. If so, the stock looks pretty cheap here.

How have this analyst's past calls on the mobile sector turned out? Pretty lousy, which is par for the course on the sell side. Today the analyst upgraded Motorola to a buy and downgraded Palm and RIMM to sell. He initiated coverage for all three back in September 2007. Here is how the calls since then have turned out:

His track record on Palm has been decent; initiated at sell at $8, upgraded to hold at $6, and now back to sell at $11.

How about RIMM? Dismal. Recommended as a buy twice at $99 and $69, and now says you should sell in the mid 50's.

Lastly, the Motorola record isn't all that impressive either; hold at $18, buy at $12, hold at $6, buy today at $9.

All in all, the current negativity on Research in Motion looks overdone to me and as a result I am considering a contrarian investment. As always, please share your own thoughts if you care to join the discussion.

Full Disclosure: Peridot Capital had no position in RIMM at the time of writing, but is certainly taking a very close look at current prices.

Google Recaptures 5th Spot On Most Valuable U.S. Companies List

Nearly two years ago I wrote about internet search giant Google (GOOG) seeing its stock price surpass $700 per share, and as a result, become the fifth most valuable U.S. company in terms of equity market value. Shortly thereafter the recession hit and Google shares tumbled with everything else. The stock is making a comeback though, after reporting strong third quarter earnings last night. Analysts are once again very bullish, boosting their target prices today.

With the stock up $21 today, Google has reached $550 per share and has now returned to fifth place on the most valuable company list, as you can see below.

My main question has not really changed over the last two years. Does Google deserve to be number five, or will we look back five or ten years from now and realize that being a leader in internet search and advertising (while certainly an impressive feat) doesn't really translate into a company being valued nearly the same as some of the others on this list.

Full Disclosure: Some Peridot clients have been long Google over the last two years, and some still own it, but I have been cutting back the positions as the stock's forward P/E ratio has gotten back over 20 (currently about 22).

Earnings Will Likely Be Good, But How Will The Market React?

I have been prepared for a market correction for a while now, but we have yet to get one. The rally off of the March lows has reached +61% and the momentum continues to be strong. Will it continue even as companies report their third quarter earnings?

Nobody can know for sure, but over the years we have often seen a "buy on the rumor, sell on the news" mentality on Wall Street, especially during earnings season. Stocks ramp up heading into reporting season, only to fall after the news of solid results actually comes out. A similar phenomenon could certainly happen this quarter and as a result I will be carefully watching both what the numbers are, but also how the market reacts to them.

If stocks sell off even after companies post in-line or slightly better than expected earnings, such market action could be the first sign that a long overdue correction in stock prices is on the horizon. In fact, we might already be seeing this. This morning Johnson and Johnson reported earnings seven cents ahead of estimates but the stock is trading down in premarket trading. Will that be the start of a trend, or simply an aberration? We will have to wait and see.

Corporate Tax Breaks For Hiring Workers Won't Work

There is chatter today that Congress is considering new tax breaks for corporations that hire unemployed workers. On the face of it this might seem like a good idea; incentivize companies to start hiring again. The only problem is that this is yet another example of a tax cut that won't work. Proponents of tax cuts seem to think they can solve any problem in a capitalist economy, but that argument defies logic much of the time.

I have long argued that cutting the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% (as the Republican-led Congress did under President Bush) did nothing to boost demand for stock market related investments. The argument seemed to be that lower tax rates on profits would encourage more capital being allocated to the market, but that conclusion falsely assumed that the chief reason investors buy stocks is to save money on taxes.

In reality, we buy stocks if we think we can make a profit from doing so. Nobody was avoiding the stock market because of a 20% tax rate of capital gains (which, if anything, would encourage investing since it was lower than the income tax rate). They were avoiding the market because they didn't think they could make good money in it. Cutting the tax rate on stock gains from 20% to 15% doesn't make investing any more attractive to people because a 20% tax rate wasn't what was holding them back to begin with.

The situation with any corporate tax break for hiring unemployed workers is essentially the same. Companies don't hire workers based on tax rates, they hire them based on whether they need them in order to produce the amount of goods and services demanded by their customers. No competent CEO is going to hire a worker he or she doesn't need simply to get a tax break. That would be like making a charitable donation simply to get the tax deduction (you wind up foolishly spending a dollar in order to save 30 cents).

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of incentives (unfortunately, our country all too often needs to rely on them to get people to do productive things they otherwise wouldn't), but we have to match up the incentive with the desired behavior. If we don't, it's just wasted time, money, and effort.

The Bull Market in Gold Looks Familiar

Here is a 35-year chart of gold prices. Based on what you see, would you want to jump onto the gold buying bandwagon? I am bearish on gold over $1,000 per ounce and this chart is a good reason to at least be careful with the current precious metal of choice. The latest trend looks very familiar...

Comcast Making Another Bid For Mega Content Deal

You may remember a few years back when Comcast (CMCSA) made a bid for Disney (DIS) only to be turned down. Reports today have them once again making a play for a blockbuster media content deal. Initial reports out of a Hollywood web site last night had Comcast buying NBC Universal outright from General Electric (GE) for $35 billion but that story has conflicted with more reliable news sources today that have Comcast forming a joint venture with GE's NBCU division. Comcast would contribute cash ($6-$7 billion is the rumored figure) and combine its own content assets with NBCU, spin the new company off, and retain 51% ownership (with GE having the other 49%).

As Peridot Capital clients own shares in both Comcast and GE, this deal is of great interest to me. I am not convinced Comcast making a huge push into content is the right move (cable service and content creation are quite different businesses) but I can see why Comcast CEO Brian Roberts might want to expand his net.

After all, they are already the largest cable operator and moves to boost that position will draw anti-trust concerns. Given that phone companies like Verizon are making a big play into cable, not to mention the typical satellite competition, owning solid content providers would make Comcast less concerned with how many people are using their pipes for cable access.

How does this play out for investors? Well, in the short term it will be seen as a negative for Comcast as people wonder if content is really where the company should be turning its focus, especially if it means spending billions of dollars in cash to do so. Longer term, as long as Comcast does not make any significant changes that threaten the profitability of NBCU, it could contribute a nice chunk of stable cash flow and diversify their business.

The impact on GE is harder to predict. On one hand, investors worried about GE's balance sheet would be happy to see the company unload some of NBCU's debt and also collect some cash in exchange for giving up 31% ownership (GE currently owns 80% of NBC, with Vivendi owning 20%). On the other hand, GE would become even more concentrated in cyclical and financial services business lines for its earnings. In a weak economic environment, the stable cash flow from NBCU has been helping, not hurting them.

Overall, I would be slightly more bullish on Comcast should this deal go through, mainly because I think CMSA stock would trade down more in the near term. Comcast is a stock I really like already, and although people will question a foray into media, I don't think Comcast's long term profitability will be negatively impacted by this deal. The uncertainty might just provide investors a nice entry point.

As for GE stock, I still think it represents a good value longer term (assuming you think the global economy will slowly improve) but I don't think reducing its NBC stake would warrant as much of a change for the company relative to the impact on Comcast). I would not chase GE stock if it moved higher on this deal, but if both stocks dropped on the uncertainty surrounding it, both would be good values at the right price. That said, I would give the nod to Comcast for value investors looking to make an initial investment post-deal.

Full Disclosure: Peridot clients owned positions in both Comcast and GE at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Evaluating Market Level With S&P 500 Having Reached My Fair Value Target

I have written here previously that my personal fair value target for the S&P 500 index was around 1,050. I got there by using an average P/E multiple of 14-15 and projecting a "normalized" earnings run rate for the index of around $70 annually. The index has now risen 60% from its March low and hit a level of 1,074 intra-day on Thursday, about 2% above my target. Naturally, the next question is "what now?"

First we need to reevaluate my initial assumptions to determine if they need to be revised. Current earnings estimates on the S&P 500 for 2009 are about $54, which is a 9% increase from 2008. Estimates going forward are significantly higher than that, at around $73 for 2010. Does my $70 still apply?

In my mind it does. The idea behind trying to determine "normalized" earnings is to eliminate the long tails of the distribution. Valuing stocks based on earnings during a recession ($50-$55) is not very helpful given that the economy grows during the vast majority of all time periods. Conversely, using the previous peak earnings level ($87) factors in a period of easy credit and dramatic leverage which surely boosted profits to unsustainable levels.

So, I would define "normalized" earnings as the level of corporate profits that we could expect in neither a recessionary environment (negative GDP growth), or a highly leveraged economy (say, 4-5% GDP growth). Put another way, what would earnings be if the economy was growing, but not very fast (say, by 2% per year). Something between $50 and $87 most likely, and the number I have been using is $70 for the S&P 500.

Interestingly, the consensus for 2010 is for moderate economic growth, positive but not at the pace we saw earlier this decade. Given that the current earnings estimate for next year is $73, I believe my $70 figure still makes sense, given what we know right now anyway.

Where does that put us in terms of the market? Well, in my mind we are trading pretty much at fair value, but it is helpful to look at both the more bearish case and the more bullish case to get an idea of what the risk-reward scenario looks like. Comparing your potential upside with the corresponding downside should make it easier for investors to gauge how they should be allocating their investment capital.

First, the bears will argue that earnings are being helped merely by cost cutting and that revenue growth will be non-existent because the economy will remain in a rut for a long time. They will contend that earnings in the $70 range for 2010 is overly optimistic and will cite the $54 figure for this year as a more reasonable expectation in the near term. Assign a 14-15 P/E (the median multiple throughout history) on those earnings and you get the S&P 500 index trading between 750 and 800, or 25-30% below current levels.

Next, we have the bulls on the other end of the spectrum. They believe that slow to moderate growth in 2010 is likely and S&P 500 earnings in the $70 to $75 range are reasonable expectations. They go further and argue that given how low interest rates and inflation are presently, P/E multiples should be slightly above average (the argument there being that low rates and low inflation make bonds less attractive and stocks more attractive, so equities will fetch a premium to historical average prices). They will assign a 16-17 P/E to $73 in earnings and argue that the S&P 500 should trade up to around 1,200 next year, giving the market another 10 to 15% of upside.

From this exercise we can determine the risk-reward using all of these arguments. Bulls say 10-15% upside, bears say 25-30% downside, and I come in somewhere in between at a flat market. Therefore, I am cautious here with the S&P 500 trading at 1,066 as I write this. To me, aggressively committing new money to equities at these levels comes with a fair amount of risk given that the best case scenario appears to only be another 10 or 15 percent. As a result, I am holding above average cash positions and being fairly defensive with fresh capital. There just aren't that many bargains left right now, so I am hoping the next correction changes that.