You can't argue Jim Cramer's past success. The guy is a stock picking/gambling guru and he's hot on Research In Motion (ticker: RIMM). So much so, in fact, that he told his viewing public to buy it after Thursday night's earnings report. Why not? The stock ran up some 20% on Friday following giant earnings.
Let's take a look at RIMM's business to see if it is a wonderful company to own...or just a hot stock for now.
Wall Street is hyped up because RIMM's first quarter earnings were up 73% from a year ago, on 77% higher sales. Know what that means? The company reported $223.2 million of earnings for its tax return. That means that this Canadian Blackberry maker will be cutting Canada's Uncle Sam a fat check this year—so far at least.
High earnings are nice—but they don't pay the bills. Research In Motion's vendors and creditors won't take earnings as a form of payment. Like you, I, and all other companies, RIMM has to pay cash for the goods and services it buys or it will run into problems, supplies and services will slow down or stop, it will be forced to stop selling as much, and the tax-return-based earnings will dry up.
If RIMM can't convert its sales into cash in the bank, it can't grow, sustain operations, expand into new markets, or acquire other companies. No company can survive or sustain high earnings for long if it can't generate or otherwise acquire cash.
From 1998 through 2006, RIMM has had a total negative free cash flow of $40.5 million. On average, RIMM is burning through $4.5 million of cash a year, after all expenses are paid, supplies are purchased, etc. In essence, if RIMM had to rely on its operations alone (without being able to borrow money or sell stock), it would have to rely on its sales to cover a chunk of expenses...and then use its cash and sell assets to cover the rest.
From '98 to '06, the company has raised $1.5 billion in cash through a combination of selling stock, issuing bonds, and a few other financing deals. Surely it has been trying to use that cash to fuel growth and the company has done a good job of increasing sales during that time, but it doesn't change the fact that RIMM has been burning through cash.
To help pay its bills, RIMM appears to be relying on its ability to sell stock and borrow money—mostly selling stock, to the tune of $1.9 billion from 1998 through 2006. If it can't generate enough cash to keep things going, it has to rely on these outside sources of cash to cover its expenses.
No. Remember—earnings and expenses are accrued which means they are what the company reports to the government, regardless of when the cash actually comes into or goes out of the bank account.
Not yet. The company may have finally broken through the invisible sales barrier that was forcing it to burn through cash. After all, sales are at an all time high and may finally be at the level where RIMM can begin generating more cash that it spends—from its operations.
If RIMM can't convert its sales into cash, then it is in trouble. A company can only sell so much stock and borrow so much money before its financing resources are tapped out. Once RIMM hits that point, if it can't convert sales into positive cash to sustain or grow operations, its only option will be to shrink until its operations find a balance that will produce positive cash flow.
Mind you, this is not my opinion—it is the basics of running a business.
I'll tell you flat out—I'm not going near RIMM at this point. I like to buy wonderful businesses that can prove that they can grow on the merit of their operations alone. RIMM hasn't done that yet. Think about this: How long could you survive if you didn't generate enough cash to pay your bills and had to borrow (or charge) to make up the difference?
Am I missing out on an opportunity to make a lot of money? Maybe. If this is, in fact, the turning point for RIMM and it can begin growing based solely on the performance of its operations, then I am missing out.
But I don't like to gamble in stocks. I don't like to worry if my business is going to grow or not. I don't like to play around with my future. I'll pass on Research In Motion for now, give it ten years or so to prove that it is a wonderful business, and continue my search for another Johnson & Johnson.
I recently purchased a Blackberry and I love it—I think. I'm still getting used to it, but the company seems to make good products. Unfortunately, good products won't pay the bills in my retirement—good companies will.
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?
malcolm haynes
Dec 31st, 2007
2 comments
I am trying to figure out why there is huge discrepancy between the value I get using the DCF model and the value morningstar gets when they do the analysis. In general, it seems that there are a lot of undervalued companies on the market right now. But, I seem to think they are more undervalued than morningstar and other value based analysts.
I will use one example. I started examining MHP and it seems to be a great value at 44, because I get an intrinsic value (with 15% discount) around 77. Even changing assumptions on future growth, I stay in the 70's for intrinsic value. Morningstar says the fair value is 63 and I assume they do not factor in a discount.
How would you value the company? If it is different than morningstar, why? I think they are using DCF method to value the company also.
Malcolm
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jan 8th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
- Projections for growth might differ;
- Discount rates may vary;
- Different methods may be employed.
There are a number of different ways to value a business — even different approaches to DCF. Even two people using the same method can come up with different values.The important thing is that you are somewhat right and not totally wrong. Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Rona
Jun 13th, 2009
2 comments
1. The company has positive capex since1999 (morningstar), that is, instead of spending money on capex, they actually add capex money to the cash from operation. How can a company actually get money from capex?
2. The company has very high CROIC but very slow FCF growth rate (I used the average of 4,5,6 year average growth).
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Rona
Jun 14th, 2009
2 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Graham Jervis
Jun 15th, 2009
8 comments
does this mean the operation capex should be subtracted instead of added? i see it as a negative and the subtracted the currency adjustments and also the change in cash. i hope Morningstar does not do this for every company. i need to double check some companies i have been looking at.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Graham Jervis
Jun 15th, 2009
8 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Graham Jervis
Jun 15th, 2009
8 comments
Now, Morningstar has a fair value for this at 31.00, is it that Morningstar is taking into account the 15.9 billion in long term liabilities? even though AEP has managed to grow their FCF at an average of 10.3% since 1999 up to 6.4 billion in 2008, they have managed to also grow their debt from 6.4 billion in 1999 to 15.9 billion in 2008.
So, the question is, even though the DCF model is saying it is a screaming buy, i have my doubts due to the monumental debt this company has. infact, i am wondering if i should short this stock. How does DCF take into account debt? or it doesnt at all?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Graham Jervis
Jun 15th, 2009
8 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
BPal
Jun 16th, 2009
I would suggest digging into the filings to see what the company actually presented as capex and try to figure out what is going on.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Rona
Jun 16th, 2009
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jun 16th, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Keep in mind that Morningstar is a starting point for your research. Always go to the SEC's IDEA Database (IDEA Database | RIMM Filings) — because your valuation of the business means precisely zero without the predictability factor, which can only be measured by learning about the business and management (i.e., reading annual reports).
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jun 16th, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
By looking at capital expenditures, you get a better picture of the company's actual cash needs to run the business. Without looking at capital expenditures, you might buy the above business thinking that it could earn $1 million a year for you. In reality, it is barely breaking even which means that you — as an owner — shouldn't expect much growth or income from the company.
Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Graham Jervis
Jun 16th, 2009
8 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010