Wall Street Journal Cover Story: One Year Later

Many of you may recall that I was featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal last year for a story discussing the investment merits of Internet search giant Google (GOOG). In fact, some of you may have even discovered this blog directly as a result of that article. At the time I was writing a lot about the company and fortunately some Wall Street reporters took notice.

Whenever the article gets brought up to me, the most common question I get, perhaps quite predictably, is "Well, who was right?" Here we are one year since that article ran, so let's reflect on how things have taken shape for the stock since then and see exactly who was right.

To summarize, the article was called "As Google Matures, Investors Take Closer Look at Its Risks." In addition to myself, the other investor interviewed for the story was David Gordon, who also happens to be an avid stock market blogger (The Deipnosophist). Both of us were early investors in Google, but I decided to take my profits and move on to other stocks, whereas David was buying on dips and holding for the long term.

I had sold one chunk of Google at $467 in January of 2006, and followed that up by selling the rest of it in February around $400 per share. My logic was that I had a huge gain (after paying around $180 originally) and felt that many of the positive surprises surrounding Google's search business had already been reflected in the stock. To diversify, the company began spending lots of money hiring people, investing in new services, as well as overseas expansion. To me, the easy money had been made and there was less certainty that the company's other ventures would be as successful.

On the other hand, Mr. Gordon was confident that Google would be successful growing their model across other segments of the market. Despite the short term fluctuations in the stock, he did not sell any of his shares. Instead, he was quoted as saying "months from now, it will be at $600 to $800 a share and people will say, 'My God, why didn't I buy it back then?' "

As you can see from the chart below, Google has been very volatile over the last year. The shares dropped from $376 to $330, hit $450, dropped to $350, soared to more than $500, and now trade at $448 each.

So, who was right about Google? It really depends on how you define "right." If you just look at the stock price since the article came out, Google is up 19% since then, giving David the nod. However, if you look at his prediction of $600 to $800 per share in a matter of months, though, he wasn't. It's been a year and the stock traded over $500 but only for a brief time.

From my perspective, I sold some stock at $467 and some at $400, for an average sale price of $417 per share. More than a year later the stock still only trades at $448 per share. It has only risen about 7 percent from my average sale price, during a time when the S&P 500 has risen by about 10 percent. For me, selling Google when I did paid off, as the stock has underperformed the market since then.

From David's prospective, Google might not have hit $600 or $800 like he had hoped for, but he did not sell it, and the stock has risen nearly 20% in a year. In hindsight, it is true that his optimism was excessive, but the stock has gone up. We can hardly call that being wrong.

So, as much as some might want to crown a winner in what the Wall Street Journal called "A Tale of Two Shareholders," we might just have to conclude that given our personal objectives, we were both right. To support that claim, I'd be willing to bet that having it to do all over again, we both would have done the exact same thing.

Microsoft's Stock Drop After Vista Release Was Very Predictable

Investors may have heard at one point or another that by the time news hits the papers, it's too late to make money in the stock based on those events. Too often someone reads about a positive development for a certain company and rushes out to buy the stock, only to get stuck with a losing investment. This happens time and time again because Wall Street is a discounting mechanism. If something is going to happen in the future, but we know exactly what it is and when it will occur, stock prices have already taken the news into account before it actually happens.

Microsoft (MSFT) stock is the perfect example of this. Some investors may have bought MSFT shares recentlybecause their new operating system, Windows Vista, hit store shelves on January 30th. With a new revenue stream finally in the market, investors might postulate that Microsoft sales will accelerate dramatically, and with that will come appreciation in the stock price.

However, Microsoft stock actually peaked less than a week before the Vista release, and subsequently dropped about 10 percent in less than a month. In fact, this is not the first time Microsoft has dropped shortly after a major product release. Since I knew from past experience that Microsoft shares tended to sell off shortly after new product offerings hit stores, I decided to look back and see just how similar the stock's patterns have been around the time of each of their last four Windows upgrades (Windows 95, 98, XP, and Vista). While I figured the data would be fairly similar, it was really striking.

As you can see from the chart below, Microsoft stock always peaks very close to the official Windows release date. In fact, for 3 of the last 4 upgrades MSFT peaked within 1 week of release. Amazingly, the shares have dropped by around 10 percent within 1 month of peaking in each of the company's Windows upgrades.

These results are really fascinating, not only for the trend that they confirm, but the specific magnitude especially. So, remember this the next time Microsoft releases a major new product.

Full Disclosure: No position in MSFT at time of writing

Busted Dot-com Ideas Breathe New Life

If you remember the dot-com bust pretty well you may recall a company called AllAdvantage. Back in the 1990's this Internet start-up was one of the first to recognize that online advertising really was the wave of the future. AllAdvantage paid you to surf the web. The idea behind it was simply to install a toolbar on the screen, fill it with advertisements, and the company could pay you to surf the Internet with money it got from the advertisers, and still have some leftover for itself.

AllAdvantage caught on with web users quite easily, as one could imagine. Just install this bar on your screen, ignore it when browsing online, and get paid. Since AllAdvantage didn't require you to click on anything, it was quite easy to take advantage of the system. College students would leave their Internet Explorer browsers open on their computers when they left for the day, allowing them to collect money for "surfing" when they were really all the way across campus attending class.

Not surprisingly, AllAdvantage went under along with thousands of other web start-ups, mainly because it paid out more than it collected from advertisers. There was no safeguard to assure that would not happen. However, it appears the business model is making a comeback.

A new company called Agloco has improved upon the model. Again, you install a toolbar and get paid for surfing the web just as you do now. However, web surfers get paid a cut of any ad revenue that is generated, thereby ensuring that Agloco doesn't paid out more than it collects. So, users will need to use the toolbar's search engine or click on ads in order for the model to generate revenue to distribute to users.

Whether or not the idea will work remains to be seen. However, the service is set to go live shortly, and those who made a killing off of AllAdvantage before it went belly-up, or anyone else who is interested, can sign up at Agloco's web site and they will email you when the service goes live.

Can Dell's Founder Bring the PC Giant Back from the Dead?

The news that founder Michael Dell is coming back to lead his company again is quite interesting. Normally, a CEO change alone wouldn't totally alter an investment thesis for a stock such as Dell (DELL), but in a commodity business like tech hardware sometimes a new face can really rally the troops.

We all know what Mark Hurd has done for Hewlett Packard (HPQ) and it's interesting that HP has really been the thorn in Dell's side during the Kevin Rollins era. Bringing back Michael Dell to lead the company might not seem like a big deal, but he is the company. He started it out of his dorm room before dropping out of college and his name is on these computers. Dell isn't getting his corner office back for the money or anything like that. HP has been kicking their butts lately, after they did the same thing to HP in the 1990's, and Mr. Dell has likely had just about enough.

Could this move signal the top of HP's comeback? That would be a bold statement to make, but I think it could. Check out this two-year chart of DELL vs HPQ:

dellhpq.jpg

I doubt Michael Dell would come back if he didn't have a plan to regain the market share his company has lost to HP. Any success in doing so would likely alter the trend that the above chart shows, which has really gotten embarrassing for the former PC leader.

Does this mean DELL shares are a buy? Well, the stock isn't that cheap, and even if the company can take back some market share, it will be tough to get margins back to where they were in 2005 and also gain ground on Hewlett Packard. Dell stock has likely put in a bottom, but I wouldn't expect a turnaround overnight.

If you have been fortunate enough to own HPQ lately, however, I would consider taking some profits. While Dell might not regain its former glory quickly, it could certainly halt Hewlett's momentum at the very least.

Full Disclosure: No positions in DELL or HPQ

Despite Strong Results, Amazon Shares Sink

If you are long Amazon.com (AMZN) shares you are probably pretty disappointed by today's price action in your stock. The online retailing giant reported a very strong fourth quarter last night and predicted first quarter sales above estimates. And for that you get a stock dropping 4 percent in pre-market trading.

The Amazon story isn't always about financial results. It reminds us that investing isn't about picking stocks that will beat their numbers, but rather about picking stocks that are undervalued relative to what their results will be. With shares of Amazon trading at 57 times 2007 profit estimates, even a strong earnings report is already priced into the company's shares.

Until the multiple comes down, or Amazon's margins expand like the bulls on the stock think they eventually can, the shares as an investment are going to be disappointing. Strong sales are one thing, but on Wall Street it's all about earnings and multiples of those earnings.

Full Disclosure: Short shares of AMZN at time of writing

With AMD Reeling, Intel Shares Look Attractive

Since I already shared my thoughts on Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), it seems logical to take a look at Intel (INTC) as well. I was pretty neutral on this stock but after thinking about it some more, I think large cap investors might see some things they like in INTC shares.

For large cap growth investors who are looking for nice combination of dividends and decent upside price appreciation potential, Intel stock might be worth a close look.

If the company really is able to take it to AMD during 2007 and regain lost market share, there seems to be upside to the stock. Current 2007 estimates are around $1.10 per share, so investors are dealing with a 19x P/E ratio and a dividend yield of more than 2%. Profits are expected to jump more than 20% in 2008, to $1.35 per share.

Obviously the microprocessor landscape shifts quickly, and predicting margins right now for calendar 2007, let alone 2008, is tricky. That said, if we assume current projections for Intel will likely prove inaccurate, would you feel better taking the "over" or the "under" relative to today's expectations?

I would think the odds are better than Intel can beat these numbers, given that AMD is on the ropes and Intel is closing the gap technology-wise. Intel was lagging behind for a long time, but now they seem to have turned the corner. As you can see from the chart below, the stock has done nothing for a year.

intc.png

Full Disclosure: Long INTC Jan '09 $10 LEAPs

AMD, Intel Price War Revisited

I wrote about the battle in the microprocessor market between Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and market leader Intel (INTC) twice during 2006 (link: "semiconductors" category archive) and in light of the recently announced earnings miss at AMD, it seems like a good time to revisit the situation.

In March, I suggested that AMD's lead over Intel, and the corresponding bullishness on Wall Street over the company's prospects would likely be temporary, as has been the case numerous times over the years. Intel's size gives them much more financial flexibility to initiate price wars and squeeze their smaller competitor. AMD had smooth sailing for a while because their chips were better than Intel's. Better performance coupled with lower price points resulted in market share gains at Intel's expense.

However, Intel is the market leader for a reason, and although they were slightly behind AMD, new chips have finally been released. The result has been a free fall in shares of AMD. As you can see from the chart below, since I mentioned this topic back in March, Intel stock is relatively flat at $20 and change, whereas AMD shares have plummeted about 60%, from $39 to $16 each.

While a turnaround at AMD is still several quarters away at least, value investors likely won't be able to help themselves by taking a closer look at AMD stock. As I have said before, I do not have a technical background, so you won't find discussion of specific chip specifications on this site. I simply look at the company's valuation and decide if, at some level, shares of AMD would be an attractive contrarian investment, despite the fact that the company has gone from being very profitable to now posting losses.

Wall Street analysts have been pummeling the stock in recent days ever since AMD's warning. We have reached the point now where, thanks to recent downgrades (thanks guys, after a 60% tumble) there are more "sell" recommendations than "buy" recommendations within the sell-side community. Even though the stock is trading at $16, down from $42, analysts have put new price targets as low as $10-$13 per share. As is usually the case, I would expect AMD stock to bottom out before the overall business does.

So, at what level does AMD become a buy? I haven't purchased shares yet, but it looks to me like with a little more selling pressure, the stock could become pretty darn cheap. Looking at other semiconductor companies and taking into consideration their full menu of issues right now, I think a reasonable price to pay for AMD stock is 1.0x revenue. Even with red ink flowing from their income statement, it would be difficult to argue, based on comparable companies and on historical measures, that AMD should trade below that level.

Surprisingly, AMD stock isn't trading that far away from 1.0x revenue. With a $16 stock price, the company's current market cap is about $8.5 billion. Sales estimates for 2007 are now around $7.3 billion, including results from newly acquired ATI Technologies. Obviously we will have to monitor how sales expectations progress throughout 2007, but if the stock hits the $13 to $14 range we will likely be close to 1x revenue, and I would strongly consider making a contrarian bet at that point, when most analysts will still have "sell" ratings on the stock.

Full Disclosure: No position in AMD or INTC at time of writing.

Yahoo! Investors Pin Hopes on Early Panama Release

I'm a little surprised that Yahoo! (YHOO) stock is jumping more than $1 today after it reported fourth quarter numbers last night. If you look at the company's 2007 guidance, most metrics are below current consensus forecasts. Revenue growth for the fourth quarter was 15% and 2007 growth will fall between 9% and 20%, according to the company. Yahoo! hardly appears to be a high growth Internet leader anymore.

That said, the stock is rallying as investors hope that an early release of their new ad system, Panama, will boost the bottom line of their network's online advertisements. Without actual evidence that Panama will boost Yahoo!'s ad margins (the program launches in February) and help it regain market share lost to Google (GOOG), I'd be cautious going forward. If Panama stops the bleeding, YHOO shares will likely trade well into the thirties, but if the platform's bark is stronger than its bite, investors might be let down.

Full Disclosure: Long GOOG and short YHOO at time of writing

Yahoo! Report Tonight Likely Won't Overly Impress

Ever since I suggested a long Google (GOOG), short Yahoo! (YHOO) paired trade here back in July of 2006, it's been very interesting to compare the earnings reports of both companies to see exactly how the search market is playing out on the web. Yahoo! leads off by reporting its fourth quarter tonight (Google is slated to release results next Wednesday) and I doubt their results will be overly impressive.

The argument for the paired trade, in my mind, is twofold. I believe Yahoo! is becoming less and less relevant on the web, as Google takes market share in search and other competitors eat into their other businesses. In addition, there is a valuation gap that has Yahoo! trading at a premium to Google, despite its slower growth rate. Currently, Google trades at 35 times 2007 earnings estimates, versus Yahoo! at 46 times.

The two most common arguments for why Yahoo! trades at a premium are its more diverse product line (Google gets nearly all of its profit from search, whereas Yahoo! is less concentrated there), and its equity investment in publicly traded Yahoo! Japan (Yahoo! owns 34%, worth approximately $8 billion). I feel these two arguments are lacking in two respects.

First, Yahoo!'s more diverse product line, while evident, will not necessarily translate into better operating performance. Since the bottom line is the most important driver of shareholder value over the long term, I don't think it warrants a huge valuation gap with the likes of Google.

Second, investors who merely subtract $8 billion from Yahoo!'s market cap to account for their stake in the Japanese company and recalculate the stock's P/E ratio are being too simplistic. This action does reduce the company's valuation (YHOO's 2007 forward P/E would drop from 46x to about 36x if you subtract $6 from YHOO's share price) but such an adjustment is not enough. The reason is because Yahoo! includes its share of Yahoo! Japan's operations in its own income statement.

If their 34% share of the Japanese company wasn't accounted for at all by Yahoo when it reports earnings, then investors would be right in simply adding $8 billion to their valuation models. However, investors in Yahoo! are indeed already paying for Japan's business. If people want to add the equity value of the Yahoo! Japan stake to Yahoo's overall valuation, they must also subtract its contribution to Yahoo!'s reported earnings so nothing is double counted.

We'll see what tonight's report from Yahoo! brings. Since I put on the paired trade about six months ago, Google shares have risen by 19%, while Yahoo! has dropped 15%. So far, so good.

Full Disclosure: Long GOOG and short YHOO at time of writing