Earnings. The Golden Child of Wall Street. You can't talk about a "growing" company unless you qualify your rant with a discussion of earnings. In fact, earnings are the basis of nearly every one of Wall Street's tests to determine whether a company is healthy and whether or not it belongs in your portfolio.
F Wall Street...and their earnings.
Go ahead—ask Google for a definition of "earnings". As you look through the definitions, you'll notice that earnings are, in the business world, the amount of profit a company generates after all costs, expenses, and taxes have been paid. Seems pretty straightforward, no? Or, is it?
Let's put this into Plain English:
If you were a publicly traded company, your earnings would be the amount of after-tax income stated on your tax return. Think about that for a second. Now think about this: What does your tax return tell you about your financial health? What does it tell you about your credit card debt? Do you sweat about money some times, and then check last year's tax return to find comfort in the numbers?
If you are like most people, you likely file your taxes every year, check to see how much your return is (or how much you owe), and then shove that return into a file folder. Like most people, you probably understand that your tax return is a formality, and that you can only judge whether or not you are financially growing by looking at how much money you are saving each month, above and beyond the checks you have to write and the cash you have to spend. And if you don't have the cash to pay your bills, you know that you have to whip out the credit card...and take a leap backwards financially.
Where's that on the tax return?
Wrong. A company's earnings is that company's after-tax income as stated on its tax return. Earnings, for the most part, tell the IRS how much in taxes they should be expecting from the company.
You know what? Companies have to pay bills too. If the company isn't generating enough cash to pay those bills, it has to start racking up debt or selling more stock to get the cash it needs to pay bills. Sure, the company can sit on its bills for a few months—we shareholders would never know the difference. But in the end, its suppliers won't take "earnings" as a form of payment. If there isn't enough cash to clear the checks, our high-tax-paying business with stellar, increasing earnings will have to start finding other ways to keep the doors open.
Not quite. Again, turn to your personal finances. The amount of money you spend on your credit card payments, car loan, or daily coffee doesn't show up anywhere on your tax return. You can blow cash on a lot of things and never see it in your "earnings".
On the other hand, you can have millions of dollars in earnings each year, and be living paycheck-to-paycheck. What good is a $200,000 a month paycheck if you're spending $220,000 to pay your bills?
In business, earnings follow cash. To increase earnings, businesses must generate enough cash to put the people and systems in place to generate and handle increased sales, and hence increased earnings. On the other side of the spectrum, businesses that can't generate enough cash have to start raising money elsewhere—selling stock, borrowing money, or shedding assets—or else sales and earnings will fall.
You need not look further than the Worldcom example, though you can pick your own analysis from the hundreds of companies that never stood a chance at growth. Sure, Worldcom was wrought with accounting frauds which ultimately helped lead to its legal problems.
What, you say, were those accounting frauds? Worldcom wasn't generating excess cash from its operations. Rather than admit that it was having problems and that its earnings would follow its free cash flow down the tubes, Worldcom and its accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, played Wall Street's favorite game—look at our earnings, not at our business.
What other companies ran into "earnings" problems and precipitous stock drops? Lucent. Enron. Perhaps you've heard of them? Take a look at the tricks their accountants pulled to fake the IRS and Wall Street into believing they were growing. Then, look at their businesses and their inabilities to generate excess cash, say, "Oh, wow! I could have seen it coming from a mile away," and stop playing Wall Street's accounting games.
Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!
Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.
| Excel 2007 | | | Excel 2003 |
| (ZIP, 168kb) | (ZIP, 138kb) |
Mon @ 12:45PM | View comment
g said,
good timing!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Sun @ 1:14AM | View comment
mike said,
ROIC is not based on earnings. it's just EBIT * (1-t) / invested capital. The flaw with ROIC...
What The Heck Is CROIC?
Thu @ 8:00AM | View comment
Cale Smith said,
New Ponzio Capital site looks great, Joe, and good to see you back posting!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Wed @ 5:50PM | View comment
kalidasa said,
in correction to an earlier post, it is Sham Gad(www.gadcapital.com) or www.shamgad.blogspot.com
Hedge Funds and the Early Buffett Partnership
Tue @ 3:29PM | View comment
Joe Ponzio said,
I think it got overheated. I still feel like it's a good long-term holding (if the buy price is right)....
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
Tue @ 2:48PM | View comment
Nutrisystem Coupon said,
Dude, what happened to this stock? You would think in January this stock would be jumping through the roof...
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
Tiago
Jul 16th, 2007
8 comments
So, where should we look instead of earnings?
Thank You
Tiago
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jul 16th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Rather than looking at an accounting figure to figure out the health of a business, go straight to the source - the lifeblood of every business: Cash.
Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Justino
Oct 23rd, 2007
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Oct 25th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
mm
Oct 25th, 2007
for example i look at RDN.
Average earnings for 10 years=363
growth rate =0%
discount rate=20%(because of subprime crisis)
present value=1.8B
Market value=927mil
Huge margin of safty!!!
For more safty,Martin Whitman bought around 56$,a 77% loss(current price 13)
The problem is buying a stock that is declining(now -9%)
What is stronger geed or fear$
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Glenn
Oct 30th, 2007
13 comments
Can an ongoing stock buy back program create the illusion of free market investment when in fact the buy back program is actually the force that is supporting the stock price?
Glenn
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Nov 2nd, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Absolutely — and that is not a bad thing. The more your company buys back stock, the more free cash flow and business you own.
Ideally, the buybacks are being done at a discount to the business' true value; however, that is not always the case. Still, buybacks can have the "support" or "catalyst" affect. It's not really an "illusion" when you are investing in anything but extremely thinly traded securities.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010