04 August 2008

COP: Financial Analysis through June 2008 (Update)

The preliminary second-quarter financial statements of integrated oil and gas behemoth ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) included a plethora of data about the company's businesses, but (as usual) it did not include a current Balance Sheet.   When we analyzed these results, we assumed that the Balance Sheet did not change between 31 March 2008 and 30 June 2008. 

We now have the latest Balance Sheet, and much other useful information, in the 10-Q report ConocoPhillips submitted to the SEC.  We updated our analysis to address the data in the 10-Q.

The GCFR gauge scores only changed slightly from the pre-10-Q analysis, as can be seen below:

  • Overall: 26 of 100 (down from 27)

The data in the 10-Q did not change the result of our examination of ConocoPhillips's second-quarter Income Statement.

The updated Balance Sheet did change the values for some of the Cash Management metrics.  The latest figures are listed below:

June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Current Ratio1.00.91.0
LTD/Equity 23.3%23.6%25.6%
Debt/CFO 0.9 yrs0.9 yrs1.0 yrs
Inventory/CGS N/A N/A N/A
Finished Goods/Inventory N/A N/A N/A
Days of Sales Outstanding (DSO)28.2 days28.2 days27.5 days
Working Capital/Market Capitalization  -0.8%-1.8%0.3%
Cash Conversion Cycle Time-1.6 days-2.5 days-0.9 days


The GCFR standard practice is to compute the Value gauge metrics and score using the share price at the end of the quarter.  On 30 June, the closing price of Conoco shares was $94.39.  However, the share price subsequently slid dramatically, ending July at $81.62.

The following table shows how the big drop in the price per share affected the Value metrics:

31 July
2008
30 June
2008
31 March
2008
30 June
2007
P/E 7.28.39.711.9
P/E to S&P 500 average P/E 41%47%56%72%
Price/Revenue 0.60.70.60.7
Enterprise Value/Cash Flow (EV/CFO)5.96.75.86.4
Value gauge score4010

Conoco's valuation ratios can be compared with other companies in the Major Integrated Oil & Gas industry.

03 August 2008

NT: Financial Analysis through June 2008

We have analyzed Nortel's 10-Q financial statements for the quarter that ended on 30 June 2008. These statements of this company based in Canada are prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and are expressed in U.S. dollars.

Nortel Networks Corp. (NT) is a supplier of products and services to telecom carriers, other networking enterprises, and businesses. Nortel has defied the worst-case predictions and managed to stay in business and even independent, unlike fellow fallen telecom Lucent Technologies. Losses have been the norm at Nortel for most of this decade, resulting in an unfathomable accumulated deficit (i.e., negative retained earnings) of $36.8 billion (U.S.).

Tougher times also revealed shortfalls in the company's internal financial controls, resulting in numerous restatements, and, sadly, allegations of misdeeds. The RCMP has charged a former Nortel CEO and two other executives with fraud for errors for errors in the company's financial statements.

When we analyzed Nortel's first quarter financial statements, the GCFR Overall Gauge rose to 37, of 100 possible, from 32 points three months earlier. However, we were concerned that the particulars of our analytical methodology might have produced over-optimistic results for a company in Nortel's circumstances. Reductions in Assets and Market Value -- the latter caused by a plunging stock price -- had perversely improved some of the ratios we use to track Growth and Profitability. Of the four individual gauges that fed into the composite result, the Cash Management gauge was weakest at 7 (of 25) points. The three other gauges were tied at 10 points.

Now, with the available data from the March 2008 quarter, our gauges display the following scores:

Before we examine the factors that affected each gauge, we will compare the latest quarterly Income Statement to our previously communicated expectations.

Please note that the tabular format below, which we use for all analyses, can and often does differ in material respects from company-used formats. A common difference is the classification of income and expenses as Operating and Non-Operating. The standardization is simply for convenience and to facilitate cross-company comparisons.

($M)

June 2008
(actual)
June 2008
(predicted)
June 2007
(actual)
Revenue (1)

2622
2800
2562
Operating expenses





CGS (1492)
(1596)
(1510)

R&D (441)
(434)
(423)

SG&A (575)
(630)
(595)

Other (2) (71)
(60)
(84)
Operating
Income

43
80 (50)
Other income





Investments (3)
(54)
(30)
(10)

Asset sales
2
8
10

Interest, etc. (4)
(43)
(16) 24
Pretax income

(52)
42 (26)
Income tax

(61)
(17)
(11)
Net Income
(113)
25 (37)


($0.23)/sh
$0.05/sh
$(0.08)/sh
Shares outstanding

498
498
440
1. Total revenues includes products and services.
2. Amortization of intangible assets + Special charges + In-process R&D
3. Minority interests + Equity in net income of associated companies. Both figures are net of tax.
4. Other income - Interest expense



Revenue was 2.3 percent more than in the June 2007 quarter, but it was also 4.9 percent below that in the March 2008 quarter. Since we anticipated sequential growth, Revenue in the recent quarter also fell short of our projection by 6.4 percent.

Nortel had indicated in their guidance for 2008 that they expected to achieve a Gross Margin of about 43 percent. We assumed, with some doubt, that management would be proven correct. In the second quarter, the guidance was quite accurate since the actual Gross Margin was 43.1 percent. The Cost of Goods Sold was 56.9 percent of Revenue.

Research and Development (R&D) expenses were 16.8 percent of Revenue, compared to our forecast of 15.5 percent of Revenue. This result is more a consequence of declining Revenue than a sign of growing R&D expenses.

On the other hand, we expected that Sales, General, and Administrative expenses would be 22.5 percent of Revenue, and the actual figure was 21.9 percent. Perhaps some overhead expenses have been scaled back to fit a smaller company.

Nortel's quarterly results always include other operating expenses such as Amortization of intangibles, In-process R&D, and "Special charges." Special charges are related to workforce reductions, consolidation of real estate, and other restructuring actions. There were $71 million of these other operating expenses in the recent quarter, which surpassed our $60 million estimate.

Lower-than-expected Revenue was the main reason Operating Income, as we define it, fell short of our prediction. However, it was nonetheless positive, which cannot be said about the year-earlier quarter.

Alas, net Non-Operating expenses of $95 million exceeded the Operating Income by a wide margin. The non-operating factors include Interest Expenses and Minority Interests.

Negative pre-tax income didn't preclude a $61 million provision for Income Taxes, which exacerbated the loss. Net Income was substantially in the red. [In the last 10 quarters, provisions for Income Taxes totaled $1.27 billion, and Pre-tax Income totaled a loss of $137 million. This is, to say the least, puzzling.]


Cash Management. This gauge increased from 7 points in March to 12 points now.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Current Ratio1.5
1.4
1.7
LTD/Equity
179%
148%199%
Debt/CFO
N/A
N/AN/A
Inventory/CGS
112
109121
Finished Goods/Inventory
45.2%
42.8%34.7%
Days of Sales Outstanding (DSO)73.7 days
76.4 days
83.9 days
Working Capital/Market Capitalization 33.2%
28.4%
26.3%
Cash Conversion Cycle Time (CCCT)
122 days
123 days
146 days

The rise in the gauge score is a result of several of the metrics in the table above showing some improvement from either the previous quarter or the previous year. It may be a greater concern that there is no Cash Flow from Operations to cover the rather high level of Long-Term Debt, and that Inventory levels are so high in an industry where frequent innovation necessitates short product cycle times. The high ratio of Working Capital to Market Capitalization is surprising for a company that has been bleeding cash for years. However, Nortel's rapidly diminishing Market Value, not a significant improvement in Liquidity, is the reason the ratio increased.


Growth. This gauge didn't change from 10 points in March.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Revenue growth-0.1%
-2.5%
5.7%
Revenue/Assets 71%
69%
60%
CFO growth
N/A
N/A
N/A
Net Income growth N/AN/AN/A
Growth rates are trailing four quarters compared to four previous quarters.

The Cash Flow and Net Income growth rates are incalculable since the values were negative in the current and previous periods.

Revenue is declining, but not as fast as Assets. This explains the Revenue/Assets increase. We consider Revenue/Assets to be an important metric, and we weight it more than the other ratios when computing the Growth score.


Profitability. This gauge decreased from 10 points in March to 9 points now.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Operating Expenses/Revenue 94.5%
95.2%98.0%
ROIC 9.5%
8.3%3.5%
FCF/Equity
-10.8%
-12.8%-14.6%
Accrual Ratio
-5.1%
-4.6%-4.1%

In the Operating Expense ratio, we exclude the special and non-recurring expenses discussed above. On this basis, Nortel's progress in cutting costs is encouraging.

The ROIC results also appear encouraging, but this could be misleading. The numerator doesn't include the crushing Income Taxes Nortel shows on its Income Statement, and the denominator includes Stockholders Equity, which has been diminishing.


Value. Nortel's stock price increased during the June quarter from $6.69 to $8.22, although the gain has already been erased. The Value gauge, based on the quarter-end closing price, stayed at 10 points.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
P/E N/AN/AN/A
P/E to S&P 500 average P/E N/AN/AN/A
Price/Revenue 0.4
0.3
0.9
Enterprise Value/Cash Flow (EV/CFO)
N/A
N/AN/A
Nortel's valuation ratios can be compared with other companies in the Technology Processing Systems & Products industry. (It's not pretty.)

The Value gauge score is driven entirely by the Price/Revenue ratio.


Nortel Networks Corp. is both an interesting and frustrating company to follow. In an era when the weak dollar is boosting reported Revenues for multinational companies, Nortel's Revenue in the last four quarters is almost exactly identical to Revenue in the four earlier quarters. The company has made progress cutting its core operating expenses (CGS, R&D, and SG&A) as a percentage of Revenue, and it even makes money on an operating basis from time to time. However, debt, taxes, and other expenses outweigh any Operating Income, often by a wide margin.

The 10-Q provides details on restructuring plans dated 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

As best we can tell, Cash Flow from Operations has been positive in exactly two four-quarter periods (sliding window) since the high-tech boom came to end at the decade's beginning.

02 August 2008

TDW: Financial Analysis through June 2008

We have analyzed Tidewater's 10-Q financial statements for the quarter that ended on 30 June 2008, which was the first quarter of the company's 2009 fiscal year.

Tidewater Inc. (TDW) owns "the world’s largest fleet of vessels serving the global offshore energy industry." Headquartered in New Orleans, the company has grown far beyond the Gulf of Mexico. International operations contributed 84 percent of Tidewater's Revenue in fiscal 2008. To continue this growth, Tidewater is substantially expanding and modernizing its fleet with annual investments between $300 million and $500 million.

High prices for crude oil and natural gas leads to more offshore production, which increases the need for maritime services. This demand allows Tidewater to lease more of its vessels and at higher rates. If the economy slows substantially in industrial nations, the demand for energy products would abate, prices would decline, and offshore production would become relatively less attractive. In this scenario, Tidewater would probably have to cut lease rates to keep its vessels active.

When we analyzed Tidewater's financial statements for the March 2008 quarter, the GCFR Overall Gauge edged up to 43, of the 100 possible, points, from 41 points three months previously. However, the score was down from 58 points one year earlier. Of the four individual gauges that fed into March's composite result, Value was the strongest at 16 of 25 points, and Profitability was weakest at 4 points. Revenue in the March quarter exceeded our expectations, but operating costs were also higher. Crew costs, insurance and loss reserves, leases, and the ubiquitous "other" were all up substantially. Fewer shares outstanding helped lift earnings per share.

Now, with the available data from the June 2008 quarter, our gauges display the following scores:

Before we examine the factors that affected each gauge, we will compare the latest quarterly Income Statement to our previously communicated expectations. We're pleased at how close our model of the company's performance was to the actual results, but there were some deviations worth noting.

Please note that the tabular format below, which we use for all analyses, can and often does differ in material respects from company-used formats. A common difference is the classification of income and expenses as Operating and Non-Operating. The standardization is simply for convenience and to facilitate cross-company comparisons.

($M)

June 2008
(actual)
June 2008
(predicted)
June 2007
(actual)
Revenue
340
338
305
Op expenses





CGS(1) (187)
(179)
(150)

Depreciation (31)
(34)
(28)

SG&A (35)
(34)
(32)
Operating Income
87
92
95
Other income





Asset sales (2)
10
3
7

Interest, etc.
5
6
6
Pretax income

102
101
108
Income tax

(17)
(18)
(21)
Net Income
85
83
88


$1.64
$1.58/sh
$1.55/sh
Shares outstanding

51.8
52.3
56.5
1. CGS=Vessel operating costs + Costs of other marine revenues
2. Tidewater considers gains on asset sales to be an operating item.



We estimated Revenue would be 10.8 percent greater than in the year-earlier quarter, and it exceeded expectations with an increase of 11.3 percent. Revenue was down in the U.S., but international revenues rose a substantial 15.4 percent.

We thought Tidewater would achieve a Gross Margin in the quarter of 47.2 percent, and the actual margin fell short at 45.0 percent. This translates into a Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) of 55.0 percent of Revenue.

Depreciation expenses were 9.0 percent of Revenue, which was less than our 10 percent estimate. Sales, General, and Administrative (SG&A) expenses were 10.3 percent of Revenue, just slightly exceeding our prediction of 10.0 percent.

The lower-than-expected Gross Margin was the main reason Operating Income, as we define it, fell short of our forecast by 5.4 percent.

Income from Asset Sales was $7 million more than our estimate, and miscelleneous non-operating income was $1 million less than we forecast. These two figures pushed pre-tax income just slightly over our expectation.

The Income Tax Rate in the quarter was 17.0 percent, which was below our 18 percent projection. As a result, Net Income exceeded our prediction, but only by $2 million. The difference was more significant on a per-share basis because Tidewater repurchased more its common shares than expected.


Cash Management. This gauge decreased from 11 points in March to 8 points now.


June
2008
3 months
ago
12 months
ago
Current Ratio2.7
3.2
3.6
LTD/Equity
15.3%
15.5%15.9%
Debt/CFO
0.7 yrs
0.6 yrs
0.7 yrs
Inventory/CGS
N/A
N/AN/A
Finished Goods/Inventory
N/A
N/AN/A
Days of Sales Outstanding (DSO)85.6 days
85.6 days
84.5 days
Working Capital/Market Capitalization 9.8%
13.5%
11.4%
Cash Conversion Cycle Time (CCCT)
64.1 days
63.4 days
54.7 days

Tidewater's cash levels have been trimmed somewhat as it buys new vessels ($115 million in the latest quarter), performs major repairs ($15 miilion), and repurchases its own shares ($54 million). However, the Balance Sheet remains very strong. Management is so confident in its financial position that it has increased its dividend by 67 percent and has authorized another $200 million in share repurchases.

Growth. This gauge decreased from 10 points in March to 8 points now.


June
2008
3 months
ago
12 months
ago
Revenue growth12.4%
12.9%
21.5%
Revenue/Assets 46.6%
46.2%
42.9%
CFO growth
0.5%
12.5%
27.4%
Net Income growth -7.2%
-2.2%
33.9%
Growth rates are trailing four quarters compared to four previous quarters.

While we can't take declining Net Income lightly, decelerating Cash Flow from Operations concerns us more.


Profitability. This gauge decreased from 4 points in March to 3 points now.


June
2008
3 months
ago
12 months
ago
Operating Expenses/Revenue 70.7%
69.3%66.0%
ROIC 15.1%16.2%17.1%
FCF/Equity
4.5%7.0%8.1%
Accrual Ratio
6.7%4.8%4.8%

The increase in Operating Expenses is a significant challenge for Tidewater. Crew and repair/maintenance costs are up substantially. In addition, Free Cash Flow is negatively affected by the high capital expenditures associated with the fleet expansion and modernization. We're also concerned that the increasing Accrual Ratio is indicating 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. Tidewater's stock price increased substantially during the quarter from $55.11 to $65.03. However, it has since given back nearly the entire gain. The Value gauge, based on the quarter-end price, slipped from the 16 points achieved three months ago to only 9 points. [If we use the current share price, the Value gauge reads a much more attractive 15 points.]


June
2008
3 months
ago
12 months
ago
P/E 9.7
8.3
10.7
P/E to S&P 500 average P/E 55%
48%65%
Price/Revenue 2.6
2.3
3.5
Enterprise Value/Cash Flow (EV/CFO)
7.6
6.08.7
Tidewater's valuation ratios can be compared with other companies in the Shipping industry.


The weak Overall gauge score of 27 points reflects the company's slowing Growth and the effect of higher costs on Profitability. It is also a manifestation of share price gains that proved to be transitory. At current levels, the score would be about 9 points higher.

Activity in the Gulf Coast is especially weak. Fortunately, the Tidewater's management has diversified the business into various international markets. Management also deserves credit for in investing in the future by acquiring more modern, efficient vessels without harming the company's financial strength. If the pace of the economy picks up, Tidewater will be ready.

ADP: Financial Analysis through June 2008

We have analyzed ADP's preliminary financial results for the three months that ended on 30 June 2008, which was the fourth quarter of the company's fiscal 2008. For our purposes, the financial statements had two shortfalls: the Balance Sheet was abbreviated, and the Cash Flow Statement was omitted. These limitations are not unusual in an ADP preliminary report, and they will certainly be rectified in the 10-K the company will submit to the SEC. Since a GCFR evaluation requires some data that hasn't yet been made available, we have made some assumptions based on the historical record.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) is a top provider to corporations of payroll and other personnel-related information technology services. ADP, which is one of a mere handful of U.S. companies with a AAA bond rating, publishes the monthly ADP National Employment Report (SM) on non-farm private employment. Last year, ADP divested its Brokerage Services Group business, which became Broadridge Financial Solutions (BR).

Our earlier analysis of ADP's March 2008 quarter determined that the GCFR Overall gauge score had risen to 56 points, which was the highest score we had computed for ADP in more than 4 years. The Cash Management, Growth, and Profitability, and Value gauges displayed double-digit scores on a scale of 0 to 25. The Overall score had been 52, of 100 possible, points after the December 2007 quarter.

Now, with the available data from the June 2008 quarter, our gauges display the following scores:

These scores are tentative because they were computed without needed Balance Sheet and Cash Flow data.

Before we examine the factors that affected each gauge, we will compare the latest quarterly Income Statement to our previously communicated expectations.

Please note that the tabular format below, which we use for all analyses, can and often does differ in material respects from company-used formats. A common difference is the classification of income and expenses as Operating and Non-Operating. The standardization is simply for convenience and to facilitate cross-company comparisons.

($ M)

June 2008
(actual)
June 2008
(predicted)
June 2007
(actual)
Revenue (1)

2207
2200
2000
Operating
expenses





CGS (2) (994)
(975)
(876)

Depreciation (3)
(61)
(59)
(55)

R&D (4) (141)
(134)
(130)

SG&A (697)
(660)
(649)

Other
(0)
0
(0)
Operating
Income

315
372
290
Other income





Investments
0
0
0

Interest, etc.
40
15
18
Pretax income

354
387
307
Income tax

(128)
(141)
(114)
Net Income from continuing operations

226
$0.435
246
$0.47/sh
194
$0.35/sh
Income from discontinued operations (5)

8
-
1
Shares used in per-share calculations

520
520
552
1. Total revenues includes interest on funds held for clients and Professional Employer Organization revenues.
2. Operating expenses
3. Depreciation and amortization.
4. System development and programming
5. Net of tax


Revenue in the quarter almost exactly matched our target, which was the mid-point of the guidance range identified in ADP's report on the third fiscal quarter. The actual number was 10.4 percent more than in the year-earlier period. Year-over-year Revenue Growth was 12.5 percent.

The Gross Margin of 55.0 percent in the June quarter was a little less than our 55.7 percent expectation. The realized margin translates into a Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) -- what ADP calls "Operating Expenses" -- of 45.0 percent of Revenue.

Depreciation was 2.7 percent of Revenue, which matched 2.7 percent forecast. Research and Development (R&D) expenses ("Systems Development and Programming Costs") were 6.4 percent of Revenue, which slightly exceeded our prediction of 6.1 percent.

More significantly, Sales, General, and Administrative (SG&A) expenses were 31.6 percent of Revenue. The amount by which these expenses surpassed our 30 percent estimate is wide enough to make us take notice.

Because the expenses were so much more than we anticipated, Operating Income lagged our forecast by 15.3 percent. Operating Income in the quarter was 8.6 percent greater than the amount attained in June 2007.

Non-operating income made up some of the operating shortfall, since it was $35 million above our target value. The Income Tax Rate in the recent quarter was 36.2 percent, compared to the predicted 36.5 percent.

Net Income from continuing operations, therefore, was only 8.1 percent below the predicted value. Net Income exceeded the level attained a year ago by 16.6 percent. The growth rate was even higher, about 24 percent, on a per-share basis because the company repurchased enough of its common stock to reduce the number of shares outstanding, on a diluted basis, by 5.8 percent.


Cash Management. This gauge decreased from 18 points in March to 8 points now. However, the recent score is suspect because we had to substitute estimates for missing Balance Sheet data.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Current Ratio1.7
1.8
1.9
LTD/Equity
1.0%
1.0%0.8%
Debt/CFO
0.0 yrs
0.0 yrs
0.0 yrs
Inventory/CGS
N/A
N/AN/A
Finished Goods/Inventory
N/A
N/AN/A
Days of Sales Outstanding (DSO)46.7 days
44.6 days
42.3 days
Working Capital/Market Capitalization 6.2%
6.9%
5.9%
Cash Conversion Cycle Time (CCCT)
35.8 days
34.7 days
28.7 days

Debt is a non-factor for this AAA company, but cash management efficiency has slipped when judged by DSO and CCCT.


Growth. This gauge increased from 18 points in March to 20 points now.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Revenue growth12.5%
13.3%
13.2%
Revenue/Assets 104%
97%
98%
CFO growth
22% (est.)
2.4%
-28.4%
Net Income growth 13.8%
16.6%
19.1%
Growth rates are trailing four quarters compared to four previous quarters.

Most of the Growth metrics improved, but there are hints of some deceleration in the last quarter. We anxiously await the Cash Flow statement to see whether it fit the pattern. Net income for the trailing four quarters benefited from a decrease in the effective income tax rate from 37.1 to 35.9 percent.


Profitability. This gauge didn't change from 15 points in March.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
Operating Expenses/Revenue 80.3%
80.1%80.7%
ROIC 31.1%
27.9%27.5%
FCF/Equity
27.8% (est)
23.8%21.9%
Accrual Ratio
-3.6% (est)
-3.8%-8.9%

Although fourth-quarter Operating Expenses were higher than we anticipated, on a trailing four quarters basis they were remarkably stable. The growth in ROIC is comforting. We don't have the Cash Flow data needed to determine the exact values for two of the key Profitability metrics.


Value. ADP's stock price slipped from $42.39 to $41.90 during the June quarter -- it has since reversed decline. The Value gauge, based on the quarter-end closing price, moved up from 13 to 15 points.


June
2008
3 mos.
ago
12 mos.
ago
P/E 18.7
19.6
26.2
P/E to S&P 500 average P/E 106%
114%160%
Price/Revenue 2.5
2.6
3.4
Enterprise Value/Cash Flow (EV/CFO)
12.8 (est)
13.819.2

ADP's valuation ratios can be compared with other companies in the Business Software and Services industry.

ADP shares have become less expensive by the metrics we follow most closesly.


If it holds up once we get the 10-K data, 56 out of 100 possible points for the Overall gauge is a relatively good score for ADP.