SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cfimx who wrote (1573)6/8/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: Michael Burry  Respond to of 4691
 
Twister,

The meaning behind the numbers wasn't meaningless at all, even if the numbers themselves were imperfect. See my the immediately prior post.

Mike



To: cfimx who wrote (1573)6/9/1999 9:56:00 AM
From: cfimx  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4691
 
Let's say a private investor went out and bought 100 shares of Apple at $40 and it had $20 of tangible book. It earns $4 and should continue to earn that going forward. The "cash" earnings are distributed annually. So he bought the thing at two times book. But lets also say the rules of the game suddenly changed, and that individual investors now had to play by the same silly rules as corporations do when they buy a company in its entirety. That is, individual investors now must record the excess of purchase price over tangible book as goodwill on their own "personal" balance sheet. So on this guy's personal balance sheet, he has to record $2000 of "goodwill." And, he will need to amortize this goodwill over 20 years. So each year, he must reduce his $400 of annual earnings by $100. So, lo and behold, instead of $400 of earnings he thought he was getting, the "books" say he is only getting $300 ( $400 annual earnings less $100 annual amortization). The investor is reminded, however, that there is absolutely ZERO economic cost to this charge and his true "cash earnings" will go on being $400 per year. He deposits $400 in the bank. But it doesn't sink in.

It turns out this investor is a stickler for goodwill and the annual charges against it. In his mind, this seems to represent a REAL ECONOMIC cost!!! So this investor thought he was buying a stock at a reasonable p/e ratio of ten times. Now, however, with these new rules, his p/e goes up 33% to 13.3, since according to the new GAAP rules for individual investors, his annual earnings have now been reduced, to $3 per share. Not so attractive he surmises!! So our intrepid investor who is "buy the book" when it comes to goodwill and amortization immediately sells the stock, which had gone down a little. Gee, with these new rules, suddenly everything looks expensive, and his OWN ROE, that is, what he can make on his equity investments, now doesn't look so hot. He starts to think about a career change because investing is starting to look like an unattractive way to make a living.

Of course there really is no personal economic cost to these amortization charges. His true cash earnings are not reduced in any sense. And the same holds true for corporations. A company like MAT, with a large amount of goodwill on its balance sheet, must make regular amortization charges against earnings. This will reduce the reported ROE, but in economic terms, the returns to owners are not reduced at all. As he states in the Berkshire Hathaway owners manual, Buffet, ignores the effects of amortization on reported earnings. When getting at the true profitability of a company, the analyst is advised to isolate the tangible operating assets of the business before making the calculations.