Showing posts with label BEAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BEAS. Show all posts

18 November 2007

BEAS: Financial Analysis through October 2007 (Preliminary)

BEA Systems (BEAS), a developer of software that connects an enterprise's diverse information technology assets, has, at long last, produced 10-Q and 10-K financial statements for the periods that ended in July 2006, October 2006, January 2007, April 2007, and July 2007. The company also released a preliminary report on the October 2007 quarter.

The financial statements had been delayed while the company investigated its practices for granting and accounting for employee stock options. Last February, BEA announced the principal findings, which covered a period of about 10 years. The investigation determined that historical financial statements would have to be revised to include additional non-cash, pre-tax compensation expenses totaling between $340 and $390 million. The estimated charge was subsequently bumped up to $425 million. To put this charge in perspective: BEA had once reported net income totaling $441 million for the five fiscal years that ended on 31 January 2006.

NASDAQ could have suspended trading of BEA shares for failure to submit timely reports in accordance with regulatory requirements. Although the anticipated date for filing these reports repeatedly slipped, a "delisting" decision was never put into effect. This risk is now less of a concern since the 10-Q and 10-K reports identified above were filed on 15 November 2007.

The SEC has asked for, and received, information about BEA's stock option practices. SEC inquiries into these practices are on-going.

Activist investor Carl Icahn purchased shares in BEA this year, and by 3 October Mr. Icahn owned 11 percent of the company. The ownership level increased to 13 percent soon thereafter. Mr. Icahn publicly contended that the company should be put up for sale. On 12 October 2007, Oracle Corp. offered to purchase BEA for $17.00 per share in cash, but BEA rejected the overture as inadequate. Oracle set a 21 October deadline for BEA to accept the $17 offer; however, BEA refused to negotiate unless Oracle first raised its bid. The BEA board set $21 per share as price at which they would negotiate the sale of the company. Oracle refused to meet this demand and withdrew the original offer when the deadline expired.

When this saga was unfolding, BEA's non-compliance with regulatory requirements certainly didn't help the company's negotiating position. And, it complicated plans to hold an overdue annual meeting, which was demanded by Mr. Icahn in a lawsuit. Had audited financial statements remained unavailable, company management wouldn't have been able to solicit proxies for seats on the board of directors. An outside investor, not subject to this constraint, could have exploited this situation to his advantage. These factors might have given management the extra impetus needed to complete and file the delinquent financial reports, which took place on 15 November.


We have performed a financial analysis of BEA using data from BEA's new SEC filings and the preliminary report on the October 2007 quarter. There was a lot of information to examine, and we caution readers to consider the results described below as tentative and subject to change. We relied on (with one exception noted below) the data prepared in accordance with GAAP; however, comparisons of different time periods using GAAP data can sometimes be misleading. Non-GAAP comparisons might have been more valid in some cases.

In the analysis, we reluctantly made one exception to our normal rules. We excluded from the Income Statement for the 31 January 2007 quarter an asset impairment write-down of $201.615 million on land in San Jose. The magnitude of this loss is so great that it obscures our view of company's software business. However, since shareholders' money was, in fact, forfeited on this land, we did not exclude the loss from the Cash Flow Statement.

The data for the October 2007 quarter is limited in that the Balance Sheet was condensed and a Cash Flow Statement wasn't provided. We will update our evaluation after the company submits a complete report for the October 2007 quarter to the SEC in a 10-Q filing.

Using the available data, our gauges display the following scores:

Before we examine the factors that affected each gauge, let's compare Income in the last four quarters to income in the four previous quarters. Please note that the presentation format below, which we use for all analyses, may differ in material respects from company-used formats. The standardization is simply for convenience and to facilitate cross-company comparisons.


($M)
4 Quarters
Ending
October 2007
4 Quarters
Ending
October 2006
Revenue
1487 1352
Op expenses



CGS (355) (322)

R&D (241) (224)

SG&A (692) (631)

Other (2) (5)
Operating
Income

197 169
Other income



Investments 0 0

Interest, etc. 52 36
Pretax income
249 206
Income tax
(70)
(71)
Net Income
179 134


0.43/sh 0.32/sh





Year-over-year Revenue was up 10 percent. The Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) was steady at a little less than 24 percent of Revenue in both four-quarter periods. Research and Development (R&D) expenses as a percentage of Revenue declined a little from 16.6 to 16.2 percent. Sales, General, and Administrative (SG&A) expenses were trimmed from 46.7 to 46.5 percent of Revenue.

The increase in Revenue pushed up Operating Income by 16 percent.

The recent four-quarter period benefited from an increase in non-operating income of $43 million and a reduction in the effective Income Tax Rate from 34.7 to 28.2 percent. As a result, year-over-year Net Income rose by 33 percent.


Cash Management. This gauge reads 13 points.

The following measures pushed the score up the most:
The following measures held the score down:

Growth. This gauge reads an impressive 19 points.

The following measures pushed the score up the most:
  • Net Income growth = 33.2 percent year-over-year, up from -13.4 percent
  • Revenue/Assets = 64.4 percent, up from 54.6 percent in a year; sales efficiency is improving.
  • Revenue growth = 10 percent year-over-year, down from 17.6 percent.
Net income benefited from a 6.5 percent drop in the effective income tax rate.

The following measures held the score down:
  • CFO growth = -30.8 percent year-over-year, down from 20.8 percent. CFO (Oct 2007 value was estimated) was reduced by the land impairment charge mentioned above.

Profitability. This gauge reads 5 points.

The following measure pushed the score up the most:
  • ROIC = 16.5 percent, up from 14.4 percent in a year
The following measures held the score down:
The increasing Accrual Ratio tells us that less of the company's Net Income is due to CFO, and, therefore, more is due to changes in non-operational Balance Sheet accruals.


Value. BEA's stock price moved up to $16.90 on 31 October as investors waited to see if Oracle would return with a higher offer or if another potential purchaser would step forward. The share price increase pushed the valuation metrics we track into regions the Value gauge is calibrated to deem expensive.

On 15 November, BEA gave us a plethora of new and restated data to digest. Given the change in options accounting, the acquisition of companies such as Plumtree Software, and company's real estate transactions, our understanding of the company's status might be flawed. We encourage readers to check the analysis and confirm the validity of the numbers used and the assumptions made.

The solid Cash Management gauge score indicates a fairly strong and improving Balance Sheet, with debt levels that shouldn't be worrisome. The impressive Growth gauge score hints at why management has expressed confidence about the company's future. The Profitability gauge isn't that encouraging, but it seems have been depressed by the large real estate impairment charge. Current price and earnings metrics are higher than the comfort level of most value investors, but this is often the case for high-growth companies. Whether the company will be able to grow fast enough to stir the Value gauge is an open question.

01 May 2007

BEAS: The Investigation Continues and Sales Slow

BEA Systems (BEAS) develops integrated infrastructure software. Its products enable customers to implement a service-oriented architecture (SOA) for their enterprises.

Although many companies are facing investigations into their procedures for granting stock options, BEA seems to require more time than most to conduct an internal probe and take appropriate corrective action. The ongoing review is the company's rationale for not filing a 10-Q or 10-K report for the periods ending 31 July 2006, 31 October 2006, and 31 January 2007. We haven't seen a convincing explanation for why the investigation is taking so long.

Today, BEA announced that it anticipates issuing another abbreviated report, rather than complete (or even an approximation of complete) financial statements, when on 16 May it makes its results known for the April 2007 quarter.

In addition, the latest announcement re-awakened concerns that the company might be having competitive problems. Those fears were realized today with the statement that BEA faced a "difficult selling environment" in the latest quarter.

The stock price dropped considerably as a result of the news.

02 February 2007

BEAS

BEA Systems develops integrated infrastructure software for large enterprises. Its products adhere to the promising service-oriented architecture (SOA) design methodology. BEA competes against powerhouses such as IBM and Oracle.

The company is currently facing two significant challenges. The first is that BEA is one of the companies alleged to have granted stock options improperly. As a result, BEA is conducting an internal review of how options were issued and dated. The BEA situation appears to be particularly serious because the company has chosen not to submit 10-Q reports while the probe is underway.

In general, a 10-Q must be submitted to the SEC within 35 days of the quarter's end, and failure to do so makes a company ineligible for stock exchange listing. Yet, BEAS still hasn't filed 10-Q reports for the quarters that ended 31 July and 31 October 2006. NASDAQ has warned the company twice that its share could be delisted from the national market system. The current agreement is that NASDAQ will allow the company to keep its listing on the condition that all financial statements and restatements, if needed, are submitted by 28 February 2007.

The other significant challenge facing BEA is operational. The preliminary (and incomplete) financial data released for the quarter ending 31 October 2006 led industry observers to fear that the company is losing market share to its well-heeled competitors.

The technology bubble that began in the late 1990's inflated BEAS's stock price to almost $90 per share in October 2000. When bubble burst, the price fell precipitously. By August 2002, the price was down to $5. The stock price rallied back to $15 in 2003, before collapsing again to $6 in 2004. By the fall of 2006, the stock price was $16 until the aforementioned market share concerns brought the price back down to about $12.

Our evaluation of BEA is obviously hampered by the lack of audited financial statements for recent periods and the distinct possibility that previously released financial statements will be materially revised. Although the historical financial statements cannot be considered reliable, they still still tell a story if we turn the clock back to 30 April 2006 -- the end-date of the last quarter for which a 10-Q was submitted. As shown below, our Overall gauge for BEA registered scores in the 60's from July 2004 through April 2005, signaling a recovery, but the score dropped to an discouraging 29 after the April 2006 quarter.


The individual gauge scores on 30 April 2006 were:

Cash Management: 11/25
Growth: 17/25 (strong)
Profitability: 12/25
Value: 0/25 (!)

Overall: 29/100


Cash Management: The Current Ratio was a reasonable 1.8, and the Long-Term Debt/Equity ratio was a comfortable 19 percent. Accounts Receivables were 71 days of Revenue and had been decreasing at a modest rate. Inventory is not a material measure for BEAS and has been excluded from the the scoring.

Growth: Revenue growth was 13 percent year over year, and CFO growth was a healthy 18 percent. However, Net Income growth was a tepid 3 percent. Revenue/Assets was 0.53, after several years under 0.50.

Profitability: ROIC was 18 percent and had moved up from 12 percent a couple of years earlier. Free Cash Flow to Equity was 24 percent, a level at which it had stabilized after earlier dropping into the teens. Operating Expenses had moved up to 84 percent of Revenue, hurt mostly by increasing R&D costs. The Accrual Ratio had moved down nicely to -6 percent, reflecting the strong Cash Flow from Operations.

Value: This gauge read a flat zero at the end of April 2006, when the stock price was $13.25, whereas the Value score had been a terrific 24 points a mere year earlier. The stock was up almost 100 percent over that period, which put great pressure on the valuation metrics. The P/E ratio was 37, more than double the P/E of the S&P 500 at that time. With Net Income up a mere 3 percent, the PEG ratio was a depressing 12. Price/Sales was up to 4.3