I know—Enron is old news. If you don't remember the scandal, Enron was an energy and commodities trading company that went from massive to bankrupt in just 16 months. Once the largest marketer of natural gas in North America and the United Kingdom and the largest marketer of electricity in the United States, Enron was wrought with scandal and deception which resulted in a total loss to many investors.
Could investors have avoided the loss altogether? Can we protect ourselves from accounting scandals?
By the end of 2000, Enron was on top of the world. Its stock had hit all-time highs and revenues topped $100 billion. Everything seemed hunky dory so long as Enron and their accountants at Arthur Anderson kept cooking the books.
Throughout 2001, the stock began falling from its $90+ highs, all the way down to $1 a share. On December 2, 2001, Enron declared bankruptcy. Soon after, the SEC uncovered accounting scandals and flat out lies from both Enron and accounting firm Arthur Anderson. Investors lost billions...but it could have been avoided.
If you had looked at Enron's owner earnings from 1994 to 2000, you would have never been burned. In fact, you would have never invested in the first place. (Unless you were an Enron employee who had no choice but to own Enron stock in your 401k)
Even using Enron's cooked income, you could have spotted the Enron problems long before they happened. After all, it is fairly easy to manipulate net income for Wall Street and the IRS. But, cash is cash, and it is hard to say that your bank account has an extra $1 million when the statements clearly show that it doesn't.
Take a look at Enron's owner earnings from 1994 to 2000:
| in $Mil | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 |
| Net Income | $ 453 | $ 520 | $ 584 | $ 105 | $ 703 | $ 893 | $ 979 |
| Depreciation & Amortization |
441 | 432 | 474 | 600 | 827 | 870 | 855 |
| Changes In Balance Sheet |
-142 | -834 | 142 | -65 | -233 | -1,000 | 1,769 |
| Capital Expenditures |
-661 | -731 | -855 | -1,413 | -1,905 | -2,363 | -2,381 |
| Owner Earnings | 91 | -613 | 345 | -773 | -608 | -1,600 | 1,222 |
Not only did Enron burn through $1.9 billion of cash, they had just three positive years out of seven. Even if you thought that 2000 was the turnaround and that Enron was on track to rapid growth, you still couldn't buy.
In 2000, Enron produced $1.22 billion of owner earnings—the first positive year in four. Using pure speculation (I hate to do it, but I will), let's assume that Enron would have grown 15% a year for the next ten years, and then slowed to 5%. Sure, there's no basis for our reasoning, but let's forge ahead.
Using the above assumptions, Enron would have been worth $60 a share using a 9% discount rate. With a 50% margin of safety, we couldn't buy Enron for more than $30 a share, and certainly not at $90.
By the time Enron dropped below $30, the reports of scandal were coming in. If you can't trust the financial statements, you can't own the business—and you would have gotten out as fast as you had jumped in.
Allow me to steal a quote from this Forbes article:
Major Wall Street analysts listened intently to the story and few questioned it. As of [October, 2001], 13 analysts covered the company. Eleven recommended it as a "buy" or "strong buy." Just one said "sell" and the other said "hold." This was just one week before the roof fell in, and Enron announced it would sell itself to Dynegy, its crosstown rival.
And those are the firms and people overseeing the financial futures of millions of Americans.
If you played Wall Street's game, you would have been surprised, and outraged, by Enron's accounting scandal that wiped the company off the face of the earth. If you invested like a business owner and used data and reasoning to calculate an intrinsic value, you never would have bought it in the first place.
Can we protect ourselves from accounting scandals? Not entirely. But I'm a gambling man (in Vegas at least) and I'd be willing to bet that we could avoid 99% of all scandals long before they shock Wall Street and crush the mutual funds. Why? They trade stocks; we own businesses.
And that will forever give us the edge in the long-term.
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) |
Thu @ 3:33PM | View comment
MinorityStakes said,
A couple comments regarding BBEP's latest communication with shareholders:* 2009 production just about equaled 2008 production even though capex was...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Sun @ 11:09AM | View comment
Eric T said,
Instead of inventory turnover, I use the cash conversion cycle, or CCC.It is more accurate for companies that manufacture and...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sun @ 5:48AM | View comment
Diversification said,
well it all depends on the correlation between the stocks you have choosen many big mutual funds are having the...
The Dangers Of Overdiversification
Sun @ 4:46AM | View comment
sandesh trivedi said,
Very well explained joe. i believe one must also take into account the nature of the product being manufactured while...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sat @ 10:19AM | View comment
Ron said,
Hi Joe,Is there a rule of thumb of percentage of net shares sold by insiders where we should start to...
When To Watch Out For Insider Selling
Sat @ 10:18AM | View comment
jan said,
joe, any thoughts on jackson hewitt? what were the risks that played out in your mind when you decided...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Nick
Aug 29th, 2007
3 comments
I assume that changes to the balance sheet simply means an addition or subtraction from shareholder equity. Is that right?
While we're on the subject, up to this point, we've just been subtracting CapEx from operating cash. Now you mention adding back d/a to net income instead of cash from operations and any changes in the balance sheet. Which one's best? Are their different situations that call for each?
Thanks
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Aug 29th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
There are two ways to calculate owner earnings. The "easy" way is to subtract capital expenditures from Net Cash From Operations. The difficult way (I call it the "raw owner earnings") is to calculate Net Income + Depreciation & Amortization + Changes in balance sheet items (non-cash charges) - Capital Expenditures. In a wonderful company, the two will be extremely close - so close, in fact, that using either one will give you a similar enough valuation and confidence.
Which one is best? It depends on what you want to project for your business. If you want to know the raw earning potential of the operations, you would find the raw owner earnings. If you want to figure out the value of the business including the effect future stock options, tax benefits, etc. would have on your business, you would use the "easy" formula.
As far as changes in the balance sheet, the Cash Flow from Operations has a section that reconciles the balance sheet based on cash. That allows us to turn accrued revenues or expenses into actual cash charges. It doesn't necessarily show changes in shareholder equity because loans taken out by the company which might affect shareholder equity aren't included in owner earnings.
There are a number of different ways to value a business. So long as they use the proper data, are rational, and come to relatively the same conclusion, no one is better than the other. Where you get burned is when you rely on a system that works on some businesses or in some markets, but not others.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dave Miller
Oct 24th, 2007
7 comments
Could you please review in more detail how you derived the "changes in the balance sheet" number in your Enron example. Are you summing the increase/decrease in receivables, inventories, prepaid taxes, etc.
Thanks,
Dave Miller
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Oct 25th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
When a company spends cash, it first uses the cash generated by operations. Once that cash is gone, it has to start burning through its reserves/bank accounts. That cash comes off the balance sheet and needs to be included in (or reduce) owner earnings.
If you don't account for that cash reduction, the shareholder equity and assets will slip away and you'll never notice it - until it is too late. If the company can't generate enough cash from operations, it will literally eat itself away into nothing.
So, to answer your question: Yes, I include (sum) the changes in cash, receivables, inventories, etc. to reconcile the cash generated with the balance sheet.
Hope that helps!
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dave Miller
Oct 25th, 2007
7 comments
I assumed that is what you were doing but it wasn't clear to me from your description.
dave
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dave Miller
Oct 25th, 2007
7 comments
How is a companies FCF impacted when a company grants its employees stock or options to be vested over a period of time. Shouldn't these grants and impact the FCF numbers? What if the company repurchases stock to cover the grants?
Thanks,
dave miller
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Nelson
Oct 26th, 2007
6 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Nov 2nd, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
If a company is widly issuing grants without repurchasing stock, dilution can get out of hand. If the company matches that with open market share repurchases, it is somewhat of a wash because the company could have just cut a check to the employees.
Because stock options are now expensed (reflected in net income), that will appear in your owner earnings. Before June 2005, that was not the case as GAAP didn't require options to be expensed.
Nelson: In the case of outright fraud, nothing can be trusted. Fortunately, owner earnings usually detect fraud before it gets to the point of fraud. That is, when a company can't generate enough cash to keeps its operations going, it may turn to fraud. But, when a company is operating successfully, it has no reason to operate or report fraudulently. Any such fraud is usually minor as opposed to Enron-style, major fraud.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Russell
Feb 9th, 2008
1 comment
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Feb 11th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Net income is an accounting standard; cash flows track the actual flow of cash through a business. Think of it in terms of your personal finances. More likely than not, your annual tax return does not take into account all of your daily spending and is not an accurate reflection of your personal wealth and financial well being.
On your tax return, for example, you may be able to deduct mortgage interest on your home, but not your principal payments. Though your tax return might show a relatively high (or pretty) net income (net of mortgage interest), if you aren't generating enough cash to pay your mortgage, you'll be out on your ear in no time.
Tax returns and net income are for accountants and the IRS; cash flow is for investors. Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit D.
Sep 30th, 2008
Another example of Bad business.
See what happened to the stock price after years of negative FCF and bad management.
a)there's actually A POST ON GOOGLE FINANCE FROM SENIOR MANAGEMENT trying to defend its bad business practices saying it is "the economy's fault completely".
b)Somehow those 18 acquisitions in 12 months had nothing to do with it and they were successful making those acquisitions.
c) they are selling those acquisitions now because they have too much debt and their interest costs went up(debt they got for acquiring those companies). Classic example that fits analogy on Citigroup.
d)In the beginning of the year, one of senior management of its Security Division quit because he said that the CEO is hiding the reality of the numbers presented through GAAP.(Accounting Scandal)
e)To give you a picture: Insiders have even been selling ALOT when the stock was 20$ and it is now 1.40$. (how can he be true partners with shareholders if he's selling??)
You were so right about the CRONIES on Wall-Street but they are also there in TSX.
What's alarming is that you can clearly see that the senior manager has no clue what the hell is going on! (he actually took the time to tell the poster that he's heavily invested in the company because recent troubles are SOLELY the economy's fault. Isn't that troubling that HE'S MANAGING OUR MONEY?)
My neighbor follows Buffet's teachings(he likes your blog), TYLER let me know and I was just BLOWN away when I read the lively discussion but everything the other posters have said seems true.
I wonder what you all think
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
jhon
Feb 16th, 2009
1 comment
http://www.avicennaaccoun...
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Mar 12th, 2010