Posts Tagged ‘options’

A Cheap Strategy to Play Microsoft

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

Bill Gates is super rich but his once high-flying software company has been in the doldrums since mid-2002 after falling from the $35 level. The problem with Microsoft (MSFT) has been its failure to grow both its revenues and earnings at the superlative rates the company once enjoyed.

Any company the size of Microsoft, with a market-cap of $242 billion, will find growth an issue because of its size. But this is not to say the stock is dead. Far from it, Microsoft remains a viable long-term software company and is cash rich with $34 billion or $3.28 per share in cash. This gives the stock plenty of financial flexibility to develop or buy growth technologies. Microsoft just announced it would spend $1.1 billion in R&D at its MSN Internet unit in the FY07. And according to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft is exploring the possibility of taking a stake in Internet media company Yahoo (YHOO) to take on Internet advertising behemoth Google (GOOG).

But with an estimated five-year earnings growth rate of a pitiful 12%, the company has its work cut out for it. Trading at 16.30x its estimated FY07 EPS of $1.44, the stock is not expensive but appears to be priced not as a growth stock.

Its PEG on the surface of 1.51 is not cheap, but if you discount in the cash of $3.28 per share, the estimated PEG falls to around 1,0, a decent valuation. Also, if Microsoft can improve on its estimated 12% growth rate, the PEG would decline further.
(more…)

Forex Trading Demystified

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Forex involves the trading of currencies. It is the largest financial market in the world and has an estimated daily turnover of 1.9 trillion dollars. This turnover is larger than all the worlds’ stock market on any given day.

The forex market does not have a fixed exchange. The forex market is considered an over-the-counter (OTC) market. The forex market is completely electronic and trades are executed over the phone or on the Internet. Until 10 years ago the forex market was the preserve of large financial institutions. Now an ever-increasing amount of individual traders thanks to the advent of the Internet and an increasing amount of online forex brokers are trading forex.

Currencies are always traded in pairs. A typical pair would be EUR/USD (Euro over US dollars). The first currency is the base. The second currency is the counter currency. The pair can be viewed, as the amount of the secondary currency that is needed to buy 1 unit of the first currency. If you were to buy the above pair you would buy Euro and simultaneously selling US dollars. If the pair were sold the reverse would happen you would sell the Euro and buy the US dollar. This might sound confusing but simply think of the pair as one item and you are buying or selling one item. If you think the Euro will go up against the US dollar you buy the EUR/USD pair. If you think the EUR will decrease against the US dollar you sell the EUR/USD pair.

When you see forex quotes you will see two numbers. If we use the EUR/USD as an example you might see 1.2350/1.2355 the first number 1.2350 is the bid price and is the price traders are prepared to buy euros against the US dollar. The second number 1.2355 is the offer price and is the price traders are prepared to sell the EURO against the US dollar. The difference between the bid and the offer price is the called the spread. The spread for the major currencies is usually 3 to 5 pips (explained later).

The most common increment of currencies is the pip. If the EUR/USD moves from 1.2350 to 1.2351 that is one pip. A pip is the last decimal point of quotation. Most currencies quoted to 4 decimal points. The exception is the Yen, which is quoted to 2 decimal points eg 139.41. The term pip is just forex lingo so if a forex trader says the EURO has gone up 20 pips against the US dollar add 20 points to decimal part of EUR/USD pair.
(more…)

Do You Have A Back Up Plan?

Friday, November 20th, 2009

I know a woman in her sixties. She worked for a company for a little more than a decade as an administration and office assistant for a staff of one hundred sales people, who loved her dearly. She always made sure all the faxes got to their desks; the stationery stock was full and each staff member had what he needed.

Beyond her job description, she was like a mother to all of them: making sure the toilets got cleaned, old food was removed from the fridge and decorating the entire floor which the department occupied. She worked hard and never complained. She was always smiling, friendly and polite.

She felt good about being a ‘mother’ to all the people who entered and left that department. She was comfortable with her position. No-one else could do the things she did. And she did them better than anyone else in the building.

One day, she went to work as usual. After doing her morning chores, she was invited to the office, where she was told her services were no longer needed. The company was undergoing certain cost-cutting measures in every department and unfortunately, her role would have to be sacrificed. She was then asked to leave the building as soon as possible. She was assured, however, that before having made the decision, every attempt had been made to find a position for her somewhere within the company.

She has financial obligations to fulfil and she still hasn’t saved enough for her retirement. She still has credit to pay off and she was saving for a trip overseas, something she never got around to doing in her younger years. She wanted to save up to establish a book-selling business. Suddenly, she would have to re-evaluate her plans. Losing a job and nearing retirement age, she will have to relinquish some of the things she had dreamt for herself.

I am sure you have heard hundreds of similar stories like these. Just five months before writing this article, I had already read about companies cutting costs by laying off jobs. Their main reason is to remain competitive, so they would not have to raise the prices they charge to their customers. Companies are outsourcing jobs overseas because the labour costs in other countries are relatively cheap compared to the local currency and sometimes because of significant skills or technological advantages. Other businesses lessen staff when sales drop and they can no longer sustain to pay the same number of people they have on their payroll. No organisation – not even a big, established business – is immune from the need to become leaner in an ever-increasingly competitive market environment.

In the past, most people believed the companies or the governments – whom they work for – could guarantee them a job for life. Nowadays, I think more and more people are becoming increasingly aware that expecting to have a job-for-life is unrealistic. It is a dire predicament to be working everyday, taking care of someone else’s business and realising that at the end of one’s career, years of service do not guarantee one’s well-being. Because of this, I believe that people are now looking to improve their chances of having enough funds to meet their needs and wants after retirement.

I think there is a dawning awareness that the ultimate responsibility for one’s own well-being lies within each individual. People are beginning to understand that their boss or the company they work for does not have an obligation nor the ability to ensure that they are taken care of when they finish working for them.

According to an article written by John Roskam*, based on a forthcoming Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) Backgrounder on self-employment and the self-reliant society, the trend to self-employment will speed up in coming decades. Five reasons explain this change:

1. Our societies will continue to develop knowledge-intensive and service industries.
2. Jobs of the future need more education; however, better educated workers might opt to work for themselves instead.
3. Older workers are more comfortable with being self-employed than the younger workers, which might indicate individuals would prefer to work for themselves as they grow older.
4. Individuals want more control and flexibility over their working arrangements and self-employment allows for this.
5. Individuals are more willing to assume responsibility for the decisions that affect their lives and their families.

In addition to this trend, more and more people are now seeking to gain greater control over their financial assets.

What we can all learn from this article is the idea that we do not have to rely on our employers to be there for us when we desperately need them to pay us our periodic paycheques at the end of our working days. There are alternatives and, while we still can, I believe we owe it to ourselves and our families to have a back-up plan and look at every single opportunity available. The question for you is this: Do you have a back-up plan?

Blockbuster Miscalculated

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Blockbuster (BBI) is a perfect example of what can go wrong when you misread the industry trends and then realizing it, try desperately to catch up. In the period from late 2001 to 2002, Blockbuster was the leader in the video rental business. Its shares were trading at nearly $30 a share and its market-cap was at around $5.75 billion.

But there was a trend developing towards movie rentals via the Internet. Blockbuster failed to recognize the growing significance of Internet video rentals, a very poor miscalculation on its part. The shares have steadily declined to the current $3.80 to $4.20 channel. Once a large-cap, Blockbuster is now a small-cap and struggling to regain any sense of direction. The company has entered into the Internet DVD rental business but it has a lot of catching up to do.

Fundamentally, Blockbuster has lost money in the last three straight quarters and struggling to grow its revenues, which are forecasted to increase a mere 1.1% in fiscal 2006. Its estimated five-year earnings growth rate is a mere 2.5% per annum, which is pitiful.

Blockbuster also has to deal with its massive debt load of $1.27 billion or a debt-to-equity of 2.73:1, which suggests a weak balance sheet. Couple this with poor working capital and you understand the high financial risk. Faced with stagnant revenue growth and losses, Blockbuster faces a difficult upside battle to regain its lost glory. The odds are stacked against it.

In the face of Blockbuster is online DVD rental company Netflix (NFLX), which debuted in May 200, trading at close to $40 in 2004 before sinking to the $10 level in 2005 before the rally.

Netflix saw the future for DVD rentals and it was online and not via the “brick and mortal” route that Blockbuster decided to maintain. In direct opposite to Blockbuster, Netflix is profitable and has been for the last three straight quarters. It has 4.2 million subscribers and growing. Its revenues are growing and expected to surge 32.5% in fiscal 2007 whereas Blockbuster is seeing non-existent revenue growth.

Blockbuster has entered into the online DVD rental arena but it is well behind Netflix. Moreover, Netflix also operates the online DVD rental business for Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), after the retail giant decided to shut down its own online DVD rental unit and instead let Netflix run it.

Trading at 36.73x its estimated FY06 EPS, Netflix is not cheap. But if it can continue its strong growth and earn the estimated $1.11 per share for the FY07, the valuation becomes more reasonable. The pressure is clearly on Netflix to deliver but it is on the correct path.

Note: you are welcome to post this article on your site if it is financial related. You must cut and paste the bio and make sure the web site link is live. Also please e-mail me to let me know.