First Carl Icahn, Now Former Warren Buffett Co-Manager Lou Simpson Invests in Chesapeake Energy

Corporate activist investor Carl Icahn timed his 6% investment in natural gas driller Chesapeake Energy (CHK) almost perfectly earlier in 2011, buying in the low 20's and selling in the mid 30's a few months later after extracting a publicly announced debt reduction plan out of management. Now, with the stock back down to prices even lower than where Icahn originally bought, Lou Simpson (former GEICO executive and Warren Buffett number two investment manager at Berkshire Hathaway (BRK)) has bought 200,000 shares in the energy producer.

Simpson, long considered to be a possible Buffett successor despite only a small age difference, retired from Berkshire in 2010 but remains active as a director on three public company boards of directors. Chesapeake is one of the three and the latest. Interestingly, in recent months Simpson has sunk more than $5 million of his own money into Chesapeake stock, at prices in the high 20's. This is a rare move for Simpson, who typically does not make moves in the public eye like this. As a director though, he must update his holdings in Chesapeake whenever changes are made. I find this move especially telling because in the case of the other two public companies he is involved with, he has largely been given stock options in return for his service, whereas direct open market purchases are rare for him. Often times new directors make small investments (say, a few thousand shares) to show public support, but Simpson has made two separate purchases of 100,000 shares each, for more than $5 million in total.

Now, some may point out that Simpson is worth a heck of a lot of money, so $5 million to him may be peanuts relatively speaking. And I can't argue that point, but given Simpson's investment savvy, coupled with the fact that he has not done this with the other companies he serves, I think it is worth noting and is likely due to his belief that the stock is actually quite attractive.

CHK shares, as mentioned previously, are down a lot in recent weeks, as natural gas prices have sunk to $3 and the company continues to spend more on exploration and production than it brings in (to the detriment of equity holders), but it is now even cheaper than it has been previously. And given that Icahn was very successful with his first investment in CHK, I would not be surprised if he got back in, now that the stock price has given back all of the gains he booked, and more. Chesapeake investors, myself included, have been frustrated a lot in recent years, but these recent buys by Lou Simpson strengthen the case that giving up now might be a mistake.

Full Disclosure: Long shares of CHK at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Ron Johnson's First Target at J.C. Penney: Martha Stewart

News reports are coming out this morning that J.C. Penney (JCP) is set to buy a 17% stake in Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) for $38.5 million. Not only is this Ron Johnson's first big step as CEO, it also sheds light on his strategy with the retailer now that he has moved on from Apple to a different kind of retailing operation. There is no doubt that Johnson will be focusing on brands and how to get the best assortment of products in his stores to attract more traffic. He has always said that the reason Apple stores are successful is less about the design of the store and more about the actual products they offer.

Martha Stewart is the perfect candidate for JCP given her mass following. And the fact that her company doesn't make a profit makes for a relatively cheap investment (less than $40 million is peanuts for a multi-billion dollar retailer). A stronger relationship with Martha Stewart should yield huge returns on this small monetary investment.

Ron Johnson's track record building out the Apple store concept makes JCP an interesting stock to watch. Given the current price in the low 30's and the fact that a revamp of the company's stores is likely to take a lot of time as well as a lot of money, I would not expect financial results to accelerate quickly. This is likely more of a 2013-2014 story from an earnings and sales perspective (not 2012).

In fact, hints of increased corporate expenses as Johnson implements his plan could pressure earnings short term and cause a negative reaction on the company's shares. At that point, investors might want to take a strong look at the stock if the price is right. In the mid to high 20's I would be intrigued (the stock closed yesterday at around $33).

Full Disclosure: No position in JCP at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time.

More on Netflix's Valuation and How the CEO Doesn't Own a Single Share

Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings has certainly done a wonderful job running the company if you look at his entire body of work, despite recent slip-ups, but his handling of the stock leaves much to be desired. Buying back stock over $200 per share only to raise capital at 1/3 the price a few months later shows he is losing the pulse of his business, at least temporarily.

So exactly how much stock of his own company does Hastings own? Believe it or not, none. Hastings has been cashing out Netflix stock options to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, but he does not actually own a single share. This year alone he exercised options (strike price: $1.50) to the tune of over $1 million per week, or more than $43 million. He halted those sales in early October after the stock cratered. It should be troubling to investors that the company's founder and CEO does not appear to have any real skin in the game here. He has just given himself millions of options at prices that essentially ensure he can continue to cash out at will as long as the stock stays above $1.50 per share, which is assured as long as the company remains in business.

All of that said, there does appear to be potential value here with the stock breaking $70 per share, providing Hastings can make the streaming business model work financially. Netflix's enterprise value today (about $4 billion) is attractive if the company can continue to grow and make money at their $8 per month price point. Assume for a moment that Netflix can earn a net profit of $1 per subscriber per month and maintains its current base of 25 million customers. That comes out to a profit of $300 million per year. Netflix could fetch a $4 billion valuation with its existing customer base alone. Any further subscriber growth from here would be icing on the cake for investors.

I think that is the main reason why T Rowe Price, TCV, and others find the stock attractive at current prices. There are definitely sizable risks, mostly the question of whether they can continue to grow with intense competition, and even more importantly, if the company's business model will allow it to reach something on the order of that $1 per month profit on a per-subscriber basis. Given all that we know today, Netflix is a high risk, high reward investment opportunity, but one that many people are betting on.

Full Disclosure: No position in Netflix at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Netflix Makes New Moves to Try and Regain Momentum

Shares of Netflix (NFLX) are getting slammed today (down $4 to $70) after announcing $400 million of financing transactions last night, consisting of $200 million in new equity at $70 per share to T Rowe Price and $200 million in convertible zero-coupon bonds to venture capital firm Technology Crossover Ventures. This move comes on the heels of the company's recent deal to be the exclusive home to new episodes of the comedy series Arrested Development, which was canceled after a three-year run on Fox despite a cult-like following and strong critical acclaim.

Netflix may be facing headwinds after customer backlash from their recent price increase, but CEO Reed Hastings is certainly not standing still. Getting the exclusive for Arrested Development is a smart move, as it will be harder and harder for Netflix to compete strongly without original, unique content. Amazon, which offers a similar streaming service through Amazon Prime, along with Apple, which will likely launch a TV product sometime in 2012, are serious competitors to the Netflix streaming business.

While Wall Street clearly does not like these equity and bond deals, I think it is really the best possible way for them to finance the costs of deals like Arrested Development. Selling zero-coupon bonds gives Netflix 0% financing and the bonds don't convert until 2018, which is a long time for Netflix to build up their business.

I would also point out that TCV, the investor in this bond deal, is making an interesting bet here. By taking convertible bonds that pay no interest, they are making a large bet on the direction of Netflix stock, plain and simple. TCV's break-even point on these bonds is $86 per share, 16% above the market price when the deal was announced and more than 20% above the current quote of around $70 per share. While investors are selling off the stock today, the fact that TCV is making a pure stock bet here could be viewed as quite bullish (as would the move by T Rowe to buy new stock at $70). If Netflix was really in dire need of this cash and few investors were willing to lend it to them, you can bet that TCV or any other possible financier would be demanding a bulky interest rate.

With Netflix stock down more than 75% from its high of $300+ earlier this year, this one is surely one to watch. Of course, it is very concerning that Netflix was buying back stock in the 200's earlier this year and now finds itself needing money and selling new stock at $70 per share. Investors likely won't tolerate this "buying high and selling low" set of actions again down the road. The future for Netflix really depends on whether they can continue to grow the streaming business and make money on it at $8 per month. If they can, there is plenty of upside here. If not, TCV and T Rowe are going to have some losses on their hands a year or two from now.

Full Disclosure: Long Apple and no positions in Amazon or Netflix at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Biglari Succinctly Criticizes Cracker Barrel's Strategic Plan in Pursuit of Board Seat

As an investor looking for attractive places to allocate your capital, one of the biggest things you can try to avoid are companies where the management team takes actions that do little to maximize shareholder value. Oftentimes these same managers have very little "skin the the game" (stock ownership in their own company), giving them little reason to care about the stock price.

The operating performance of restaurant chain Cracker Barrel (CBRL) over the last decade or so has been dismal, which has led Sardar Biglari, CEO of Biglari Holdings (BH) to amass a 10% stake in the company and seek a board seat at next month's annual meeting. This week Biglari wrote a letter to CBRL shareholders explaining why he wants on the board and what his ideas are for value creation. The letter is very well written and highlights issues that are all too common with public companies. Time and time again decisions seem to be made without much financial analysis. The end result is wasted shareholder capital and value destruction for equity holders.

You can read the entire letter to CBRL shareholders here, but I think it is important to cherry pick a few of Biglari's points, as they apply to many companies, not just CBRL. Below are some direct quotes from the letter (in italics), followed by some of my thoughts.

"Cracker Barrel's performance during Founder Danny Evins' era was stellar. However, since Michael Woodhouse became Chairman and CEO, the underlying store-level operating performance has been deteriorating. Instead of restoring the formerly successful store-level performance, Mr. Woodhouse has spent over $600 million in capital over the past seven years while over the same time span operating profit declined."

Biglari provides the hard data that shows 2005 revenues of $2.2 billion and operating income of $169 million, versus 2011 revenues of $2.4 billion and operating income of $167 million. Indeed, the current management team has spent $615 million on capital expenditures since 2005, which has grown revenue by 10% (entirely from new store openings) but failed to add a single dollar of profit to the company. Biglari uses this data to argue the company should not be wasting money on building new stores today (the company's current plan is to spend $50 million on them in 2012). All too often management thinks the best thing to do is to get bigger, even when doing so adds nothing to the bottom line.

"After all, it is easy to spend money to open new units. The trick and triumph are to achieve unit profit both sufficient and sustainable without a diminution of performance in existing stores. The principal reason unit-level performance has been dismal is that unit-level customer traffic has been declining. On this important measure, customer traffic has been consistently negative in each of the past seven years. There are currently about 960 customers, on average, that go through each unit per day, nearly 190 fewer than seven years ago."

Again, Biglari provides traffic data that shows a 15% decline in customer traffic per existing unit since 2005. This is yet more evidence that opening new stores is a waste of money and is destroying shareholder value. It is clear that even ignoring new store cannibalization (which certainly exists at least to some minor extent), traffic at existing stores is falling. Why then open new stores?

"Mr. Woodhouse in essence has produced the same level of profit with 603 stores that Mr. Evins did with 357 stores. If Mr. Woodhouse could have simply returned the Company to the productive level achieved in fiscal 1998, there would be an additional $110 million in operating profit, and we estimate $1 billion added in market value or the doubling of the current stock price."

Biglari shows operating profit per store of $462,000 in 1998 (357 stores), $319,000 in 2005 (529 stores), and $277,000 in 2011 (603 stores). He concludes that new store expansion should be halted and management should work on getting the existing store base back to the level of profitability that existed more than a decade ago. It seems so simple, but management is clearly clueless, which is why Biglari is seeking a board seat as the company's largest shareholder.

"When determining where to direct capital, management should evlaute all options and then place capital based on the highest return after compensating for relevant risks. The math is simple: The cost of a new unit including land, building, and pre-opening expenses is between $3.5 million to $4.7 million. Cracker Barrel's current market value is about $1 billion. With 608 units, the market value per store is $1.6 million."

This is something that I see all the time with public companies that require large upfront investments to expand their unit base (restaurants, hotels, casinos, etc). It drives me crazy. In the case of CBRL the market is valuing each store at $1.6 million but management is choosing to spend tens of millions per year on new units at a cost of no less than $3.5 million each. Opening a new unit results in an immediate loss of $1.9 million for shareholders, or 54% of the investment! No wonder the stock has been in the tank. Conversely, if the company uses their capital to repurchase stock (essentially buying back their own stores at $1.6 million each), and then improves the profitability of those stores, the stock price will go the other way. Investors should always be wary of companies that spend "X" to build a new unit when the market is valuing their company at less than "X" per unit. Getting bigger for bigger's sake without looking at the returns on invested capital is a sure-fire way to destroy shareholder value.

So why on earth does the CBRL management team seem to not care about deteriorating store-level operating performance or their poor returns from new store expansion? Well, in addition to the fact that management hardly owns any stock, Biglari points to their compensation system as a culprit:

"We believe in excellent pay for performance. But the Board has designed a flawed compensation system, one with a low bar for achievement. For 2011, executive officers were eligible to receive a bonus of up to 200% of target (target being median reflected by our peer group) if operating income met or exceeded $90 million. To put in context the absurdity of the $90 million bonus target, Cracker Barrel has not had operating income below $90 million in any year since 1994! Why would a Board set eligibility at a level unseen in nearly 20 years?"

Of course, the answer is it ensures they can collect maximum bonuses without showing any job competence. In this case operating income can decline by nearly 50% and they still collect a 200% bonus. It is not surprising then, that CBRL's operating income has actually declined over the last seven years, despite new store growth. Management has no incentive to reverse that trend because they only own a little bit of stock in the company and they get their bonus regardless of what happens.

It's not hard to see why Biglari Holdings has taken a 10% stake in CBRL and Mr. Biglari is trying to get on the board of directors. If he is successful, there is no doubt that taking even some of his advice would get the stock moving again, as corporate financial results would have no where to go but up. Also not surprising is the effort CBRL management is putting forth to defeat his election (if only they put that much time into improving the company!). To give you an idea of how much they value their shareholders, Biglari ends his letter with this final observation:

"I hope to see you at the annual meeting, a gathering for shareholders to learn more about the Company. Annual meetings represent another window into the culture of the organization shaped by top leadership. Unfortunately, even on this mark, the Board sends the wrong message: Cracker Barrel has chosen to hold its upcoming annual meeting during Christmas week on December 20, 2011. While we will attend the meeting regardless of date or time, it is not the way shareholders should be treated. It is time to change the ethos of the Company to one that cares about shareholders and respects their money and their time."

Now, as a shareholder of Biglari Holdings this letter and proxy fight is a material development in which I have a keen interest. However, even if you are not in the same boat, I think it highlights important lessons for all investors who are trying to identify superior investment opportunities. Beware of companies like CBRL whose management teams seem to make one mistake after another. They usually claim to want to maximize shareholder value, but oftentimes take actions that ensure the opposite. Be especially wary of companies that have a desire to expand their unit base, at a huge cost, even when the public markets will ensure such capital investments never return a profit to shareholders.

Full Disclosure: Long shares of Biglari Holdings at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Numbers Behind Groupon's Business Warrant Caution After First Day Pop

Daily deal leader Groupon (GRPN) is slated to go public today, selling 34.5 million shares at $20 each, which will raise $690 million in exchange for a 5.4% stake in the company. Combine a popular Internet start-up with a very low number of shares being offered (floating 5% of all shares is historically a very small IPO) and demand will far outstrip supply. We may not see a record setting first day pop, given the eleven-figure starting valuation, but the stage will be set for a solid jump at the open on Friday. And even without any first day gain, Groupon will be valued at about $12.75 billion.

As one of Groupon's 16 million repeat customers, I was interested to dig into their IPO prospectus because I have already seen my use of Groupon decline meaningfully since I signed up to receive their daily deal emails last year. To me, Groupon has several headwinds facing their core business.

First, Groupon is dealing with many small business merchants who complain that they lose money when running a Groupon campaign. If businesses really see Groupons as a way to mint money immediately, they are mistaken about what role the deal campaign should play. A Groupon deal should be viewed as a marketing expense, not a profit center. A business should use Groupons to get prospective customers in the door. After that, just like any other marketing tool, it is the business's job to treat them well and provide a good service, which should encourage repeat business. It will be those recurring customers that will grow your business long term and generate profits.

Generally speaking, profit margins for small businesses are hardly ever high enough to make a 50% discounted transaction profitable to the business. If you offer $50.00 Groupons for $25.00 each and only keep $12.50 per voucher (Groupon keeps the other half), the odds are slim you will make a profit initially. Unless it only costs you no more than $12.50 to offer $50.00 in goods or services, you are going to lose money. Let's say you lose $20.00 per Groupon in this case. The real question should be, is a new customer coming through your doors worth $20 to you? The only way to answer that is to look at other marketing options you have. Do they cost more or less than $20.00 per new customer generated? If the answer is more, then Groupon is a worthwhile way to market to prospective new customers.

Along the same lines, I think Groupon will struggle once they have exhausted most of their small business merchants in any given city. As the example above shows, Groupons themselves are not money makers, which makes it less likely that a small business is going to want to run multiple campaigns. As a result, when you run out of businesses, your deal quality declines and fewer Groupons are going to sell. Groupon is probably facing these issues today, as the business is three years old and many businesses have already used the service. It is my belief that new businesses should probably strongly consider running a Groupon campaign, given that the biggest obstacle for new businesses is lack of awareness. But honestly, there are not likely enough new businesses cropping up to support strong long-term growth of Groupon's core daily deals business. As a result, merchant growth could very well hit a wall sooner rather than later.

Groupon's IPO prospectus provided a lot of data that investors may want to use to try and value the company. For instance, as of September 30th, Groupon had 143 million email subscribers. How many of those have ever bought a Groupon? I was pretty surprised by this number actually... the answer is 30 million. Only 20% of the people getting these emails have ever bought one, and that is a cumulative figure for the last three years! Investors trying to place a value on Groupon's subscribers may want to forget the 143 million number, as only 30 million are generating revenue for the company.

The numbers get worse. Of those 30 million people who have bought at least one Groupon (Groupon calls them "customers" as opposed to the 143 million "subscribers"), only 16 million are repeat customers. So only about 10% of the people who get the emails have bought 2 or more Groupons since the company launched. This is hardly a metric that screams "loyal customers that generate strong repeat business," which is what investors would want to see.

Why is this important? I think a good way to try and value Groupon (if you even want to bother) is to place a dollar value on each paying customer. After all, Groupon is not unlike a subscription service like Netflix or Sirius XM Radio, aside from the obvious fact that a paying customer of the latter two businesses are more valuable because they generate guaranteed revenue each and every month. In fact, both Netflix and Sirius get about $11.50 per month on average from their paying customers. Interestingly, Groupon earns about $11.90 in revenue for each Groupon it sells, but they are not even close to selling every customer at least one Groupon per month on a recurring basis. As a result, it is correct to conclude that investors should value a Groupon customer far below that of a Netflix or Sirius customer.

Which brings us to the stock market's valuation of Groupon versus Netflix or Sirius. Each of Netflix's 23 million subscribers are worth about $200 based on current stock prices. Sirius XM, with 21 million subscribers, is valued at about $600 per subscriber (considerably more than Netflix because Sirius XM has higher profit margins). How much is the market paying for each Groupon customer at the $20.00 per share IPO price? Well, $12.75 billion divided by 30 million comes out to $425 each.

It is not hard to understand why skeptics do not believe Groupon is worth nearly $13 billion today. To warrant a $425 per customer valuation, Groupon would have to sell far more Groupons to its customers than it does now, or make so much profit on each one that it negates the lower sales rate. The former scenario is unlikely to materialize as merchant growth slows. The latter could improve when the company stops spending so much money on marketing (currently more than half of net revenue is allocated there), but who knows when that will happen or how the daily deal industry landscape will evolve in the meantime over the next couple of years.

"Buyer beware" seems to definitely be warranted here.

***Update Fri 11/04/11 8:55am*** Groupon has increased the number of shares it will sell in today's IPO to 40.25 million from 34.5 million. The figures in the above blog post have not been adjusted to account for this increased deal size.

Full Disclosure: No positions in any of the companies mentioned at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Sticking To Your Convictions As A Value Investor Is Hard, Just Ask Whitney Tilson About Netflix

Back in December, Whitney Tilson, a fairly well known value investor with T2 Partners, published a letter outlining a compelling bear case for Netflix (NFLX), a stock he was shorting at around $180 per share. After seeing the position go against him, Tilson was feeling pressure from his clients. After all, shorting a high-flying technology company with a cult-like following, as it is soaring in value, can be a tough psychological exercise. Tilson's argument for betting against Netflix was clear, concise, and thorough. He boiled it down to this, in his December piece entitled Why We're Short Netflix:

"We don't think there are any easy answers for Netflix. It is already having to pay much more for streaming content and may soon have to pay for bandwidth usage as well, which will result in both margin compression (Netflix's margins are currently double Amazon's) and also increased prices to its customers, which will slow growth.

Under this scenario, Netflix will continue to be a profitable and growing company, but not nearly profitable and rapidly growing enough to justify today's stock price, which is why we believe it will fall dramatically over the next year."

The main bearish argument seemed reasonable at the time; customers were moving away from DVD by mail and towards streaming content. In order to secure content for their streaming library, Netflix would have to pay more than in the past, when they could just buy a DVD once and send it out to dozens of customers. But at the time subscribers were signing up at a record pace and were highly satisfied.

In February Tilson threw in the towel. The stock had continued its ascent, rising to $220. Again, Tilson went public with his changed view, writing a letter called Why We Covered Our Netflix Short. The bulls loved the fact that Tilson was admitting defeat. The stock continued soaring and hit an all-time high of $304 in July. Tilson summed up his reasoning as follows:

Our short thesis was predicated on the following stream of logic:

1) Netflix's future depends on its streaming video business (rather than its traditional DVD-by-mail business);

2) The company's streaming library is weak, which would lead to customer dissatisfaction and declining usage;

3) This would either cause subscriber growth to wither or force Netflix to pay large amounts to license more content, which would compress margins and profits;

4) Either of these two outcomes would crush the share price.

We are no longer convinced that #2 and #3 are true.

This was interesting because very little in the way of fundamentals had changed at that time. Tilson cited three reasons why he was doubting his earlier bearish thesis:

1) The company reported a very strong quarter that weakened key pillars of our investment thesis, especially as it relates to margins;

2) We conducted a survey, completed by more than 500 Netflix subscribers, that showed significantly higher satisfaction with and usage of Netflix's streaming service than we anticipated (the results of our survey are posted; and

3) Our article generated a great deal of feedback, including an open letter from Netflix's CEO, Reed Hastings, some of which caused us to question a number of our assumptions.

In hindsight these reasons seem even more suspect than they did at the time, but it is worth pointing out the mistakes anyway so value investors can learn from each other.

First, Tilson cited that Netflix reported a strong fourth quarter. Tilson's bearish view was never predicated on Netflix blowing the next quarter. It was the longer term trend of rising content costs, which would give Netflix two choices; maintain a weak streaming library and risk losing customers, or pay up for strong content and be forced to either raise prices (which would hurt subscriber growth and reduce profitability) or keep prices steady and lose profitability that way. The fact that Netflix reported one strong quarter really didn't make a dent in the bearish thesis.

Second, Tilson surveyed 500 Netflix customers and found they were quite happy with the service. Again, his thesis didn't claim that current customers were unhappy (after all, they were signing up in droves in part because streaming was free with your subscription at the time). Rather, it was about the future and how those customers would react if Netflix had to either raise prices or offer less in the way of viewing choices.

Third, and this one was perhaps the most bizarre, Tilson was evidently persuaded by Netflix's own CEO, Reed Hastings. I find this one odd because I have never seen a CEO on TV or elsewhere who was publicly negative about their company's prospects, regardless of how good or bad things were going at the time. In fact, many investors believe it is a huge red flag when CEOs of public companies take time to personally rebuff bearish claims from short sellers. Hastings did just that, responding to Tilson's short case with a letter of his own that suggested that he cover his short immediately. Generally speaking, the fact that the CEO of a company you are short thinks you are wrong is not a good reason to cover your short.

And so we had a situation where Tilson's short thesis appeared sound, albeit unresolved, but the stock price kept soaring and he was feeling heat for the position, which was losing money. Then, just a few months later, Netflix decided to raise their prices and customers canceled in droves. Tilson's bearish thesis proved exactly correct, but he no longer had the short bet to capitalize on it.

Today in pre-market trading Netflix stock is down about 30% to $83 per share after forecasting higher than expected customer cancellations, lower than expected fourth quarter profits, and operating losses during the first half of 2012 due to higher content costs, slowing subscriber growth, and expenses for the company's expansion into the U.K. and Ireland. Analysts were expecting Netflix to earn $6 per share in 2012 and in July investors were willing to pay 50 times that figure for the stock. Now it is unclear if Netflix will even be profitable in 2012 after forecasting losses for the first "few quarters" of next year.

This is a perfect example of why value investing is a tougher investment strategy to implement than many realize, but offers tremendous opportunity to outperform. By definition you have to take a contrarian view; either going long a stock that people don't like, or shorting a stock that everyone loves. The bottom line is that your analysis is what is important. If you do your homework and get it right, the market will reward you. It may take more than a quarter or two, but you need to stick to your convictions unless there is extremely solid evidence that you are wrong. In this case, Tilson's bearish thesis was never really debunked by the CEO's defensive posture or the fact that customers were satisfied when they were getting streaming content for free. In hindsight, Tilson understood the outlook for Netflix better than the company's own CEO. However, both are likely feeling very uneasy this morning.

Interestingly, the question now may be whether there is a point at which Netflix stock becomes too cheap and warrants consideration on the long side. I suspect the answer is yes, though probably not quite yet. If the stock keeps falling and we see $60 or $70 per share, maybe the time will be right for value investors like Tilson to go against the crowd again and buy the stock when everybody hates it.

Full Disclosure: No position in Netflix at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

UPDATE: 3:00PM ET on 10/25

The WSJ is reporting that Tilson initiated a small long position in Netflix this morning:

Mr. Tilson tells us in an e-mail that he bought the stock this morning after it tumbled 35%:"It's been frustrating to see our original investment thesis validated, yet not profit from it. It certainly highlights the importance of getting the timing right and maintaining your conviction even when the market moves against you. The core of our short thesis was always Netflix's high valuation. In light of the stock's collapse, we now think it's cheap and today established a small long position. We hope it gets cheaper so we can add to it."

Should Investors Revisit Sears Holdings Now That Eddie Lampert Appears To Be Shifting Strategies?

Longtime readers of this blog are familiar with my history with Sears Holdings (SHLD) and its predecessor, Kmart. A brief summary goes something like this.

Hedge fund manager Eddie Lampert loaded up on the debt of Kmart for pennies on the dollar as it fell into bankruptcy (nobody else wanted to come anywhere near the stuff). When the struggling retailer emerged post-restructuring, Lampert owned a majority stake and began cutting costs and reduced the company's focus on competing with Wal-Mart on price (a losing proposition). The changes worked. Kmart was making money again and the stock soared from $15 to $100 before anyone really knew what had happened. Lampert merged Kmart with Sears in 2005 and investors cheered the move, imagining the magic he could work with strong brands and valuable real estate. Investors assumed he would close money-losing stores, sell off real estate to other retailers, ink deals to sell proprietary products (Kenmore appliances and Craftsman tools) in other chains, and use the cash flow to buyback stock and make acquisitions to diversify the company away from Kmart and Sears, which were clearly dying a slow death. Sears Holdings stock hit a high of $195 in 2007, for a gain of 1,200% in just four years.

Then something strange happened. Those grand ideas never materialized. People close to Lampert were convinced that was the route he would take, based on his experience and philosophy, but he never came out and said it himself. Investors had resorted to blind faith. While Lampert has closed some stores and sold off some real estate, the total store count has actually risen from 3,800 to over 4,000. Lampert cut costs and bought back stock (shares outstanding have fallen from 165 million to 107 million) but he has spent most of his time trying to turn around the retail operations. Couple that flawed strategy with an economy that went bust (the Sears deal closed in the heat of the housing bubble) and profits at Sears Holdings have plummeted. Despite the 35% reduction in shares outstanding, earnings per share dropped like a rock from $9 in 2006 to $1 in 2010. Like many others, upon realizing faith alone was not enough, I sold the last of my Sears stock in 2008 after it had dropped back down to the $100 area. Sure I had a huge profit from the early Kmart days, but the potential for Sears Holdings was just too great to be squandered.

So why rehash the past when readers could get all of that information just be reading all of the posts I penned back then about Sears Holdings? Because it appears Lampert might finally be getting his act together and not putting all of his eggs in the "make Kmart and Sears popular again" basket. It started last year with some subtle moves like splitting up the company into smaller divisions (including one for brands and one for real estate). Then the company reached a deal to sell Craftsman products in Ace Hardware stores (a much better idea than just putting them in Kmart stores). None of these moves were big but maybe they indicated a larger shift in strategy.

This year we have seen further movement in that direction. Sears has announced plans to spin off its Orchard Supply hardware store business into a separate public company. Craftsman tools can now be found in Costco stores and indications are that Kenmore appliances might be next. Diehard batteries are now going to be sold in 129 Meijer stores across the country. Floor space is now available for other retailers to lease within most of the company's existing 4,000 Kmart and Sears locations. In Greensboro, North Carolina, for instance, there is a Whole Foods Market store located inside of a Sears. For the first time since the Kmart/Sears merged closed in early 2005 we are seeing signs that Sears Holdings might finally be focused on extracting value from the company's assets in ways other than trying to turn back the retail industry's clock several decades. As a result, it makes sense to keep close eyes on the company's stock once again.

Caution should be advised here, however. Annual revenue at Sears Holdings, while down from $54 billion in 2005, is still formidable at about $43 billion. Selling a few screwdrivers here and leasing some floor space there won't have a huge impact on their financial results. However, one can certainly see the potential if these efforts prove successful and are adopted in widespread form across not only the company's 4,000 stores, but within other retailers' four walls as well. It is too early to predict a turnaround, but the stock price is not factoring in much of this strategy shift, if indeed it is real and sustainable. After dropping from $195 in 2007 to $100 in 2008, Sears Holdings stock has been cut in half again over the last 18 months and now fetches just $55 per share. If we see these moves start to bear fruit on the income statement, the bull market for the stock just may well resume after a five-year hiatus.

Full Disclosure: No position in Sears Holdings at the time of writing but positions may change at any time

Buffett, Of All People, Should Know It Hurts Shareholders to Telegraph Buybacks Ahead of Time

One of my pet peeves is how frequently public companies announce stock buyback programs before they buy a single share. If you are buying back your stock because you believe it is undervalued, and you know that announcing your intentions is going to give a boost to the stock, you are essentially screwing over your shareholders. Why pay more than you have to for the shares you want to repurchase? Today we learned that Berkshire Hathaway (BRKa /BRKb) has authorized share buybacks at prices up to 110% of book value. I am kicking myself because I took a hard look at this stock last week, concluded it was very attractive, but didn't rush in to buy any. After all, what catalyst near-term could possibly boost the stock that much in a volatile market? Well, a telegraphed buyback program is about the only thing. And today the "B" shares are up nearly $5, or 7%, to just under $71 per share. They looked good at $66, but much less so now.

Isn't Buffett smarter than this? If he could have bought the stock at $66 why put out a press release and drive your potential cost basis up so much? Skeptics will say he has no intention of actually buying the stock... that it is just a way to give the stock a boost without committing any capital. Perhaps this will prove true (Buffett thought hard about it decade ago but never actually bought any) but I hope not. The stock really is cheap, and Buffett of all people knows this. I cannot figure out why he wouldn't buy the stock first, and then announce the amount purchased and price paid. That too would give the stock a jolt to the upside, but it would actually benefit shareholders too. This announcement really seems silly. Other companies do it all the time, but I expect more from Buffett.

Some might argue that disclosing the buyback authorization is a Reg FD issue but I would respectfully disagree. Reg FD is supposed to protect certain investors from getting information earlier than others, thereby providing a level playing field for everyone. Failing to disclose the buyback plan ahead of time does nothing to give anyone a leg up on others. In fact, it treats everyone equally (nobody learns of the plan) and beneficially (all shareholders profit from the accretive nature of the repurchases, which were done at the lowest price possible).

We will see if Berkshire stock holds today's 7% gain. If it does and Buffett doesn't buy any shares, not only will this announcement have been a waste of time, but more importantly, he will have balked at a great opportunity to make money for Berkshire shareholders.

Full Disclosure: No position in BRKa or BRKb at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Dell: The Anti-Hewlett-Packard?

Following up to yesterday's post on the outright ridiculous valuation being assigned to shares of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) these days, it is worth playing devil's advocate and exploring the merits of anti-H-P plays if you believe they will have a hard time convincing its customers that it finally is on the right track. Dell (DELL) should be the primary beneficiary if enterprise customers seek out new vendors, so it would be a perfect way to play the continued demise of H-P.

How does that stock look? Very, very cheap. At $14 per share, Dell fetches about 8 times earnings. But if you dig deeper the stock is even cheaper. Dell has about $10 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, which equates to $5 per share. So investors are really only paying about $9 a share for Dell's operations, which generate north of $60 billion in annual revenue. With about $5.5 billion in trailing twelve-month EBITDA and an enterprise value of about $16.5 billion, Dell currently trades at 3 times cash flow. Heck, that is not that much more than H-P (2.5 times). Both of these stocks may make a lot of sense at current prices.

Full Disclosure: Long shares of HPQ at the time of writing but positions may change at any time