Tag Archives: most-popular

Let’s Talk About Corporate Fraud

Summary A study predicts that 14.5% of firms, or one in seven, has insiders engaging in fraudulent behavior. They estimated a median loss of 20.4% of the enterprise value. The math of loss works harshly against investors. Rule #1 is to never lose money; Rule #2 is to refer back to Rule #1. We are all here “Seeking Alpha”, but we also want to avoid mistakes and catastrophe. One of the worst ways to lose money is due to corporate fraud. Some companies die a slow death, which you can argue is somewhat predictable, but what about getting Enron-ed? Isn’t that one of your worst fears as an investor that your stock goes to $0 overnight? When reading Intelligent Investor , one of the main concepts that jumped out to me was that numbers are highly subjective! How are you going to count depreciation, how are revenues going to be recognized, what goes off balance sheet… It depends; do you want earnings to be $900 million, $1.1 billion, or $1.3 billion? There are legal ways of playing the accounting game and illegal ways. One dangerous situation is when the executive team has compensation and bonuses tied to earnings which can be very subjective. Earnings can legally be recorded as $900 million, $1.1 billion or $1.3 billion, but if earnings come in at $1.2 billion or higher, then our CEO and the executive team get a big, fat bonus. Given the three choices, guess which earnings the company will have? That’s totally legal, but let’s take it a step further. What if the board members postulate that earnings of $1.5 billion earns our CEO a bonus? Think some creative accounting teams will take the board’s challenge and make it happen? My argument is that corporate fraud is real and that with the market hitting all-time highs – one or more big corporations are destined to go down. The market is “high”, and when the tide comes down, we will see who was swimming naked. The incentives to cheat are enhanced now, and I’d argue that it’s logical to presume that more fraud is occurring. I also seem to remember a fast-talking President make promises about cleaning up Wall Street, yet I missed the follow through part about anybody actually going to jail. Data It is very difficult to determine how rampant fraud is. How do you even quantify it? The data is not easy to find. I read an interesting study, How Pervasive is Corporate Fraud? by Dyck, Morse, and Zingales. Here are some key takeaways from their excellent study: – Over their time period studied, 4% of large publicly traded firms were eventually revealed to be engaged in fraud. They estimate that only 27.5% of fraud is detected, leading to an estimate that 14.5% of firms, or one in seven, has insiders engaging in fraudulent behavior. – They estimated a median loss of 20.4% of the enterprise value of the fraud companies was lost – measured by the firms’ enterprise value before the fraud took place as a benchmark. This puts a 3% price tag on all the value of all large corporations. – Their study found that on average 14.8% of MBA students were asked to do something illegal in their previous employment. Surprisingly, the incidence of illegal behavior did NOT vary among different industries. The only exception was a lower incidence among consumer goods, only 7% or 1/2 the fraud levels. Contrary to expectations, the financial services industry did NOT experience higher levels of illegal activity. A Forbes article echoed similar findings. “The 347 companies that were prosecuted in the decade that ended in 2007 represent a small fraction of the fraud cases that occurred.” Very few fraud cases resulted in SEC enforcement action; a lot of times the fraud resulted in shareholder disappointment, price drops, bond defaults and insolvency. Here is a top 10 list of the worst corporate accounting fraud. So why do it? The Forbes article cited the most common reasons for fraud being: – Desire to meet earnings expectations. – Hide the company’s deteriorating financial condition. – Bolster performance for pending equity or debt financing. – Increase management compensation. Clues – Frequent amendments to financial filings. – Boards chaired by the CEO. – Discrepancy between annual pay and bonus pay for CEO/CFO. – Large insider selling by top executives. – Frequent legal and regulatory issues. – Frequent turnover for officers. Among firms involved in fraud, 26% changed auditors, between the filing of their final clean financial statement and their final fraudulent financial statement. Sixty percent of the firms involved in fraud that changed auditors did so while the fraud was taking place, the other 40% changed auditors right before the fraud began. Conclusion The math of loss really works against you, the investor. If your company’s stock goes down 50% due to fraud or really any other reason, then you need a 100% return to get back to even. You could do all the due diligence in the world and still get wiped out. If auditors, regulators, insiders, board members and key employees can get duped, then so can John Q. Public the retail investor that doesn’t have access to the same information. There are certain industries that I don’t want to invest in due to their sheer complexity – financials. I like being in control, and corporate fraud takes an element of control away from you. In a ZIRP world, with top-line revenues hurting, companies cut costs down to the bone, what’s fueling earnings, buybacks? Nobody was punished during the last go around for fraudulent behavior. Big companies will go down. If anything, corporate fraud just increases the argument for diversification and never buying company stock in your 401(k) because you can never be sure. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Sky High Valuations? Lusterless Economy? It Just Doesn’t Matter!

Sky high stock valuations do not matter in an era of worldwide central bank rate manipulation. And yet, there are a few things that may still carry weight with the global investing community as we move forward in 2015. The way that I view it, the appeal of all risk assets in the large-cap universe had shot out of a cannon in the first half of 2013. In 2015, however, the S&P 500 A/D line has flattened out. Several years ago, Rolling Stone ranked the 10 best movies by former cast members of Saturday Night Live. Bill Murray barely made the list with Rushmore – an offbeat comedy from the late 90s. I remember thinking that Murray had been cheated in the editorial; he should have received additional nods for Caddyshack, Stripes, Lost In Translation as well as What About Bob. In that vein, how on earth did they miss the quintessential camper experience from my youth, Meatballs? Granted, Meatballs did not have the critical acclaim of Lost in Translation or the monumental influence of Caddyshack; the writer may not have been alive in the 70s. Nevertheless, Meatballs had one of the most iconic quasi-motivational speeches ever. Murray’s character, head counselor Tripper Harrison, persuades a band of misfit teens to take on the elite athletes from another camp by celebrating nonconformity. Here’s a snippet from the inspirational talk: Murray (Tripper Harrison): Even if every man, woman and child held hands together and prayed for us to win, it just wouldn’t matter, because all the really good looking girls would still go out with the guys from Mohawk ’cause they’ve got all the money! It just doesn’t matter if we win or we lose. Campers and Counselors: IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER! IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER! IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER! Thirty six years since the release of Meatballs, I find my mind drifting back to Bill Murray’s humorous exchange with his dejected campers. (In some ways, he may have been speaking directly to movie-goers.) I address legitimate concerns about risk assets regularly. And yet, sky high stock valuations do not matter in an era of worldwide central bank rate manipulation. I chronicle the good, the bad and the ugly about the economy daily. And still, it just doesn’t matter to the risk-on herd. For example, it has been well-documented that the price-to-book (P/B), price-to-sales (P/S) and P/E) of the median stock on U.S. exchanges have never been higher. Not even during the dot-com craziness in March of 2000. Similarly, U.S. stock market value as a percentage of gross national product is at 150%; that represents the second highest level in U.S. history. Warren Buffett wrote in 2001 that when one buys stocks in the 70%-80% range, the decision is likely to work out well. At present, the “Buffett Indicator” is 2x preferred levels. Does it matter? Not in the immediate term. What about the economy that has been lumbering along at a 2% clip for six-and-a-half years? Those sub-par growth results in the recovery required extraordinary emergency measures of $3.75 trillion in asset purchases by the Federal Reserve System; it also required federal government excess spending of $7.5 trillion. More recently, industrial production – a measure of output for manufacturers, miners and utilities – dropped 0.2% in May and has not increased since November of last year. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Empire State manufacturing survey registered a negative reading (-2.0) in June – its second negative report in the last three months. Does it matter? Not particularly. In contrast, there are a few things that may still carry weight with the global investing community as we move forward in 2015. For instance, the evidence surrounding the potential for a disorderly exit by Greece from the euro suggests that markets may struggle a bit more than most media pundits are willing to acknowledge. More importantly, recent downshifts in market breadth have convinced me that a defensive allocation is warranted. Keep in mind, when investors are gaga for risky assets, they often acquire them across the board. Yet both the NYSE and the S&P 500 have seen a definitive breakdown in the number of advancers compared with the number decliners. The NYSE Advance Decline Line (A/D) has not been this far below its near-term 50-day moving average since the October swoon and the November “Bullard Bounce.” The S&P 500 is also losing some if its participants in the rally. Throughout May and June, less and less of component companies are moving higher in established uptrends. During highs that were established over the last six months, bullish breadth readings clocked in near 75%. Bullishness via the Bullish Percentage Index (BPI) for the S&P 500 is about as weak as it was in February. We can even take a look at the slope of the advance/decline line for the S&P 500. The way that I view it, the appeal of all risk assets in the large-cap universe had shot out of a cannon in the first half of 2013. And while the desire tapered off a bit between the 2nd half of 2013 and the end of 2014, the passion was still there. In 2015, however, the S&P 500 A/D line has flattened out. Granted, the benchmark can still move higher with less and less corporate shares participating; market-cap weighted indexes concentrated in the “Apples” will do that. On the flip side, weakening breadth can also mark a turning point such that stocks will move dramatically higher or dramatically lower. Indeed, we have been approaching a critical crossroads. The Federal Reserve is deciding whether to begin a campaign of tightening borrowing costs slightly or to wait for definitive data that is unlikely to ever confirm genuine economic strength. More importantly, what the Fed actually does will be far less important than the interpretation by the global investing community. The Fed might raise rates 0.125% at a 2015 meeting that is so slow, risk-takers would likely celebrate; the Fed might raise overnight lending rates 0.25% while simultaneously expressing that they won’t do so again until three months of upbeat data. Conversely, the Fed could misread the signals by simply hiking borrowing costs on the belief that the economy is healthy enough to withstand the heat, spiking volatility in treasuries as well as equities. Or, they might sound so downbeat in their assessment, stocks could flounder on recessionary fears. In other words, different things matter at different times. Keep an eye on the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ). If the price of IEF climbs above and stays above its 200-day moving average, it may suggest that fears of Fed rate hikes were overblown. Stocks would likely benefit from contained borrowing costs. In contrast, if IEF stays below its 200-day and drops significantly below its June low near 104, expect corrective activity for riskier stock assets. Click here for Gary’s latest podcast. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

3 Incredible Value ETFs For Outperformance

While the U.S. stock market has shown strong resilience this year overcoming a mountain of woes, it might be on a tough ride in the months ahead. This is because rate hike now seems much closer given the robust job market and a slew of better-than-expected economic data. Inflation – an important factor in raising rates – has also started picking up slowly. In addition, lofty stock valuations, a strong U.S. dollar, an aging bull market, fading consumer confidence, slowdown in China, sluggish growth in emerging markets and Greece failure to reach a debt deal with its international creditors are weighing on investors’ sentiments, keeping the stock prices at check. Further, a sharp rise in Treasury yields in recent weeks has tempered the appeal for riskier investments as a higher borrowing cost would eat away corporate profits and hurt economic recovery. Apart from these, last week, the World Bank lowered the global growth forecast from 3% to 2.8% for this year, citing that lower commodity prices and interest rate hike risk would severely crimp growth in developing markets. The bank also downgraded its growth outlook for the world’s largest economy to 2.7% from 3.2%. Amid these uncertainties, value investing appears safe and appealing to investors. The strategy includes stocks with strong fundamentals – earnings, dividends, book value and cash flow – that trade below their intrinsic value and are undervalued by the market. Why Value Investing A Better Play? Value stocks often overreact to both positive and negative news, resulting in share price movement that does not reflect the company’s true long-term fundamentals. This creates buying opportunities in such stocks at depressed prices and provides potential for capital appreciation when the stock finally reflects its true market price. As a result, value stocks have the potential to deliver higher returns and exhibit lower volatility compared to growth and blend counterparts. In fact, these stocks outperform the growth ones across all asset classes when considered on a long-term investment horizon and are less susceptible to trending markets. Given this, investors may want to consider a nice value play in the current volatile market environment. While looking at individual companies is certainly an option, a focus on cheap value ETFs could be a less risky way to tap into the same broad trends. Below we have highlighted three ETFs with favorable Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) with a Medium risk outlook that look most attractive in terms of valuation (P/E) compared to the P/E 17.09 for the broader iShares S&P 500 Value ETF (NYSEARCA: IVE ). Any of these could make for a compelling choice for a long-term portfolio. Guggenheim S&P 500 Pure Value ETF (NYSEARCA: RPV ) This ETF offers pure exposure to the large-cap value segment of the U.S. equity market by tracking the S&P 500 Pure Value Index. The fund is widely diversified across 119 securities as none of these make up for more than 2.18% of total assets. From a sector look, the ETF is heavily concentrated on financials at 34.7% while energy and consumer discretionary round off the top three spots with double-digit allocation each. The product has accumulated around $1 billion in AUM and trades in volumes of around 190,000 shares per day on average. Expense ratio came in at 0.35%. The fund has a P/E ratio of 14.73 and has added about 1% in the year-to-date time frame. It has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3. First Trust Mid Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (NYSEARCA: FNK ) This product offers exposure to the mid-cap value sector of the U.S. equity market and employs the AlphaDEX stock selection methodology to select stocks from the S&P MidCap 400 Value Index. Holding 180 stocks in its basket, the fund provides a nice balance across each sector and securities, preventing heavy concentration. Financials make up for the top sector at roughly 17.2% share while none of the securities hold more than 1.32% share in the basket. The ETF is unpopular and illiquid in the mid-cap space with AUM of $81.8 million and average daily volume of 18,000 shares. It charges 73 bps in annual fees and expenses and has a P/E ratio of 14.51. FNK has gained 3.3% so far in the year and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3. PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (NYSEARCA: PWV ) This fund tracks the Dynamic Large Cap Value Intellidex Index, which seeks to provide capital appreciation while maintaining value exposure. The index applies a 10-factor style isolation process and then evaluates stocks on price momentum, earnings momentum, quality and management action. This approach results in a basket of 50 securities with none holding more than 3.50% of total assets. About one-fourth of the portfolio is allotted to financials, followed by 15.9% to information technology, 10.9% to energy, and 10.2% to industrials. The fund has amassed $1.1 billion in its asset base while sees solid volume of 142,000 shares a day on average. It charges 57 bps in annual fees and has P/E ratio of 13.48. PWV is up 0.64% in the year-to-date time frame and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3. Bottom Line Investors should note that growth stocks are currently leading the way higher in the current market. While this is true, value stocks generally outperform during periods of muted market performance, which are likely in the coming weeks especially with the collapse of the Greece deal and uncertainty surrounding the rate hike. As such, investors shouldn’t forget the value space and should take a closer look at a few of the attractive value ETFs in this segment for excellent exposure and some outperformance in the months ahead. Original Post