To: Mark Oliver who wrote (2861 ) 3/17/1998 6:51:00 AM From: Gus Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9256
It's always difficult to call a bottom on these things, Mark. Purely as a matter of self-preservation, I am operating under the assumption that the Chinese will have to devalue their currency sooner or better yet, later. There are reported rumors that the US is holding out WTO (World Trade Organization) membership as an enticement for China not to devalue its currency while its Asian neighbors are still recovering from the aftershocks of the current crisis. Whatever the timing, the consensus is that the devaluation of the Chinese currency could set off another round of destabilizing region-wide devaluations. As it relates to SEG, my understanding is that all its FX contracts expire at the end of its fiscal year (June 1998). I don't think it's quite accurate to say that SEG has been setting aside money to cover its currency losses because as you know, SEG's currency losses are mark to market losses that stem from the fact that SEG could have delivered fewer dollars to receive the stipulated amount of local currency had it not entered into those forward contracts. In other words, starting in July 1997 (the start of its 1998 fiscal year), SEG contracted to deliver a little over $1.0 billion on dates specified in the contracts over a period of one year in exchange for the contracted equivalent in local currency (baht, S$, ringgit) which they then use to fund their local operations. As those local currency are expensed as operating expenses (current year) or depreciation and amortization, these are then converted to SEG's functional currency, the US dollar, at the prevailing market rates. To provide just one reference point as to how the currency contracts figure in SEG's overseas manufacturing and assembly lines, SEG's Thailand operations annually "import" $1.0 billion worth of raw materials and semi-finished goods from other SEG units and "export" roughly $2.0 billion of semi-finished goods to other SEG units. US dollars generated by "exports" are used to pay for "imports" The easy argument to make is that since SEG could have used fewer dollars to generate the same amount of local currencies, they should include the mark to market losses under operating expenses instead of other expenses especially since the local currency equivalent of those contracted dollars are booked as expenses (read: impact on operating earnings) using the presumably higher currency rates. But what about those expenses that get depreciated or amortized over a number of years? Obviously, you distort the accounting when you immediately expense those items that should be depreciated or amortized. Derivatives accounting is undergoing a major revision. The consensus is that companies should do more to make their derivatives exposure more visible to their publics (stockholders, lenders, customers, etc). The last time I checked, there was no consensus yet on how to do this. I believe the accounting community and the business community are still at loggerheads on how to modernize derivatives accounting. I think the current battleground is Congress and there is a major bill containing the GAAP's proposal which making its way through the legislative maze. Anybody care to check the current status? But, to answer the second part of your question directly, even if SEG's puts its currency woes behind it, the bigger question is how is this industry realignment going to play out? Currently, the Big 3 -- SEG, QNTM, and WDC -- are losing market share to the Up and Coming 3 -- IBM, Fujitsu and Maxtor. I seriously doubt that the Big 3 can continue to cut capacity while the Up and Coming 3 are continuing to add capacity especially since the cheap PCs have made scale even more important. Does it not make sense that at some painful point, the Big 3 will just have to kill off its rivals' momentum even if it means sacrificing profitability even more than they are doing now? I don't think I want to have any money in this sector when that starts to happen. But, that's just me. What do you think? Regards, Gus