There are 31 companies in the S&P 500 that had an average net income loss over the last three fiscal years.

Of those, 12 were profitable over the last 12 months, while 19 were not profitable.

Of the 19 companies that were unprofitable over the last 12 months, 4 (JDSU, UIS, THC and GM) had losses over the last 12 months and each of the last 3 fiscal years.

Of those 4 companies, 3 seem to be working their way out of the problem in terms of reported income, but 1 (GM) is severely worsening.

(income denominated in millions)

Securities listed in table image are: EK, CBS, NEM, JAVA, JNPR, IPG, WPI, CMS, CIEN, DYN, NYT, AMT, JDSU, UIS, THC, HRB, BSX, ERTS, SOV, MYL, ETFC, MTG, SGP, F, LSI, PHM, CTX, AMD, MBI, S, GM.

An Excel spreadsheet containing this data for all members of the S&P 500 is available upon email request.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

Post Script:

We received a request to clarify the meaning of FY1, FY2 and FY3; and a suggestion that it may refer to history and could alternatively be labeled 2007, 2006 and 2005.

FY 1 is the first prior fiscal year.
FY 2 is the second prior fiscal year.
FY 3 is the third prior fiscal year.

It would be inappropriate to use 2007, 2006 and 2005, because that would tend to suggest a calendar year basis for the data versus a fiscal year basis. Additionally, different companies have different fiscal years.

For example, if one company has a fiscal year ending December 31 and other has a fiscal year ending June 30, then as of July 2008, the first company is in fiscal 2008 and the second company is in fiscal 2009.

Note that for GAAP purposes the “year” number (e.g. 2007 versus 2006) is based on the date on which the fiscal year ends, whereas for tax purposes the year number is based on the date on which the year begins.

For these reasons first, second and third prior fiscal years as FY1, FY2 and FY3 is more accurate, and is the convention for stock data reporting.

In this time of difficult credit conditions, it could make sense to evaluate companies with plenty of cash.  One way to measure cash is to subtract all liabilities and see if there is any cash left (Net Cash).

If a company has Net Cash, they could pay off any and all debts and other reported liabilities, and have money left over.

We looked at all the companies traded in the US with a market capitalization of $1 billion or more.  From those, we identified all that had Net Cash as of the most recent quarterly report, and that also had a positive EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization).

The table below shows the 30 non-US companies from the list that passed the filter criteria.

The companies in the list are not purchase recommendations, and the table does not address issues of valuation or prospects for the companies.  However, if cash-rich non-US companies are of interest, this list may be an interesting pool of research prospects.

Note that the list is highly concentrated in a limited range of sectors and industries, which limits the value of this particular screen for developing a diversified portfolio.  Nonetheless, within the scope of business types covered, the list could be useful.

Another approach would be to segment the list by sector or industry and find the most cash-rich companies in each.  That method would be more useful for building a diversified stock portfolio.

We included the web address of each company from which you can download their annual reports and learn how they depict themselves and describe their business and operational issues.

Don’t rely entirely on data services and other people’s opinions.  Be sure to review a company’s website and read their annual report to get a good feel for the company before you form an opinion or take any action.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

[securitess mentioned in this article: ATE, GA, HTX, VISN, UEPS, PWRD, NNDS, JASO, SINA, SNDA, EDU, SPIL, TKC, GMKT, INFY, NTES, TSM, GOLD, MR, CHT, CTCM, CHKP, SOHU, CTRP, VPRT, FMCN, BIDU, RUK, LIHR, LULU]

Conservative investors may wish to evaluate public stocks in terms of values as they might be viewed for a private acquisition.

That would minimize the risk of buying into a bubble and the “greater fool” approach to investing, which assumes that someone will pay you more for something you paid too much for in the first place.

Of course, conservative investing based on takeover value also greatly reduces the universe of eligible stocks, because by far most stocks are priced beyond private takeover value.

While one overvalued, high multiple public company can use its inflated stock as currency to buy another overvalued company sporting a lower multiple, a cash buyer or a leverage buyer must look at affordability and cash-on-cash return, or debt service capacity of the target.

One of the measures that private acquirers look at is Enterprise Value to Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EV / EBITDA).

Private buyers (those playing with their own money) prefer to buy at an EV / EBITDA of 4 or less, and may go to 6 (maybe 7). Those multiples are based substantially on the ability of the acquired company to generate cash to pay purchase debt or to provide an attractive cash return on debt-free cash used to make the purchase.

There are other issues to consider beyond EV / EBITDA, but it is a good starting place to begin to identify companies valued such that they could make sense if purchased for money instead of stock.

Definition:

EV is the market capitalization of the company plus its long-term debt. EBITDA is similar to “cash flow”. It is operating earnings before interest on and amortization of long-term debt, and before depreciation and taxes.

What We Did:

We did a screen of approximately 9,000 stocks (including ADRs) available in the US markets, to see what kind of EV / EBITDA opportunities are out there today. We used continuing earnings in our calculation of EBITDA.

We also excluded those companies priced below $5 and excluded those that did not have a positive EBITDA in the preceding 12 months. Those two criteria reduced the universe to 4,243 stocks (more than 1/2 of stocks were eliminated.

We did not require a minimum market-cap.  If we had put a $100 million market-cap minimum into the screen, we would have excluded another 636 stocks.

The table above shows the percentage of stocks in each EV / EBITDA range along with the cumulative percentage of stocks included as the EV / EBITDA increases.

The Screen Results:

The table shows that the great middle (aproximately the 80% middle) of stocks with positive EBITDA are currently priced at an EV / EBITDA between 8 and 21.  About 16% are priced at 7 or below and less than 3% are priced at 4 or less.

Looking at quartiles, the break point multiple between the 1st and 2nd quartile was 8.2.  The median multiple was 11.8.  The break point betwen the 3rd and 4th quartile was 18.3.

Example Stocks:

Not as recommendation, but simply as markers, two stocks at each of the quartile break points were:

• EV / EBITDA 8.2  — CNOOC (CEO) and Oppenheimer Holdings (OPY)
• EV / EBITDA 11.8 — Mattel (MAT) and Diamond Offshore Drilling (DO)
• EV / EBITDA 18.3 — Smith & Nephew (SNN) and Yingli Green Energy (YGE)

Other Factors:

Of course, you will want to examine why a company carries a low multiple.  Surely, it will tend to be that way due to low expectations or some perceived flaw.

Low expectations can be a good thing, because the probability of positive surprises may be greater than for companies priced to perfection.

Perceived flaws are OK, if you know what they are and believe they are curable.  Incurable flaws are potentially fatal, but curable flaws can lead to good long term value.

Remember that great companies are not always great investments (because they may be overpriced), and mediocre companies are not always bad investments (because they may be substantially underpriced).

Moral — do your homework.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

We selected the single country funds available in the Index Universe database for calendar year return analysis. Cumulative and annualized returns are important, but so too are discreet calendar years.

While statistical tools may theoretically, adequately describe variation or consistency of returns, a visual impression can be helpful too. This analysis is primarily visual.

Within the list we used a traffic metaphor with colored backgrounds of red, yellow and green for each year for each fund as follows:

• red for returns < -5%
• yellow for returns between 5% and -5% (or no data)
• green for returns > 5%

Funds with no data, were not in operation for those full years.

If you are interested in those country index funds with missing data, you may benefit by researching the index on which the fund is based to estimate how the fund might have done had it been in operation during the missing years. Don’t forget to subtract the fund expense ratio from the index return if you are estimating how the fund might have done in the years before its inception.

Click image to enlarge (dimensions 12.7 X 8.6 inches)

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

We selected 70+ stock, bond and other indices for calendar year return analysis. Cumulative and annualized returns are important, but so too are discreet calendar years.

While statistical tools may theoretically, adequately describe variation or consistency of returns, a visual impression can be quite helpful too. This analysis is primarily visual.

Within the list we used a traffic metaphor with colored backgrounds of red, yellow and green for each year for each index as follows:

• red for returns < -5%
• yellow for returns between 5% and -5%
• green for returns > 5%

The file is physically large at 1104 X 1075 pixels (399 Kb data size). Depending on your screen resolution you may have to scroll around the image to see all of it.

Click image to enlarge.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC