| Reality
Check: Accounting Alerts for Investment Advisors
By
Robert A. Olstein
JANUARY
2006 - The 1998–2000 bubble market, followed by the
market crash with its poster child, Enron, created a political
and media frenzy relating to the accounting and reporting
games that too many companies practice. Investors must stop
accepting financial reports and questionable accounting practices
at face value. Portfolio managers, analysts, and investors
must study the numbers in financial statements and adjust
those numbers and the underlying assumptions to reflect the
economic reality of a company’s basic business. Only
the adjusted numbers should be used to value a company for
investment purposes. A keen understanding of corporate reporting
practices, combined with an investor’s ability to identify
early warning signs of future earnings disappointments or
pleasant surprises, can increase the odds of investment success.
The
Importance of Excess Cash Flow
It
is safer to buy only those companies that generate or are
about to generate excess cash flow, and value those companies
based on excess cash flow. Excess-cash-flow companies can
raise dividends, buy back shares, make strategic acquisitions
when credit is tight, ride out hard times without adopting
short-term strategies injurious to their future, and are
outstanding acquisition candidates. The challenge for investors
is to cut through any accounting and financial chicanery
and determine a company’s true ability to generate
excess cash flow. The numbers are the most important and
unbiased indicator of a company’s value. Better to
spend one night with a company’s financial statements
than two days with its management.
An
intensive inferential analysis of financial statements,
footnotes, supporting documents, and disclosure practices
is the best way to analyze the capabilities of management,
the economic reality of the financial information the company
provides, the conservatism of its accounting and disclosure
practices, its financial strength, and, ultimately, the
value of the company. An intensive inferential analysis
of financial statements also enables an investor or advisor
to determine true financial strength and to screen for potential
problems to ascertain a company’s downside risk, a
critical consideration before considering its potential
for capital appreciation.
For
an investor, an equity security is worth the discounted
value of the issuing company’s future expected excess
cash flow (including capital expenditures and working capital
needs). Thus, to value a company according to a model of
discounted excess cash flow, one must be able to adjust
reported earnings to arrive at true cash earnings (excess
cash flow).
Inferential
analysis begins with an understanding that GAAP requires
a company to report earnings on an accrual basis, which
entails two basic premises. First, because accrual accounting
states that revenue is recognized when a transaction occurs
in which value has been exchanged, this event may lead or
lag the exchange of cash. Second, because the cost of a
transaction should be recognized over the same period of
time as the revenue associated with that cost, this period
may also lead or lag the passing of cash.
In
reporting GAAP-based earnings, companies have wide discretion,
which includes many assumptions about the future. Because
management has a vested interest in putting its best foot
forward, the numbers produced under GAAP often leave room
for unrealistic assumptions and misleading numbers. Most
companies use financial accounting and reporting practices
to present themselves in the most favorable light, meaning
that many companies engage in some type of earnings management
or make assumptions that may prove to be unrealistic.
Within
limits, earnings management is neither wrong nor illegal.
However, as seen during the late 1990s, some companies far
exceeded what most would consider reasonable limits. In
cases such as Enron, Lucent Technologies, Boston Chicken,
and Sunbeam, while the financial statements may have been
in accord with GAAP, they were certainly out of touch with
economic reality. It is in management’s best interest
to report the best earnings possible to preserve financing
alternatives, keep their stock options valuable and exercisable,
and maintain shareholders through increasing stock prices.
Thus, in instances when management identifies a problem
which, due to bias or ego, it deems to be temporary, the
company can adopt optimistic assumptions or accounting alternatives
under GAAP to portray a positive picture until the problem
is resolved.
Accounting
Alerts Help Avert Trouble
An
astute investor should be aware of the types of accounting
smokescreens that companies use to disguise problems and
to misrepresent the company’s economic reality. The
following alerts are sometimes clear indicators of future
earnings surprises and have proved valuable to investors:
-
Sizable negative divergences between cash flow and net
income;
-
Questionable accounting for transactions with unconsolidated
affiliates or joint ventures;
-
Prematurely realizing revenue that may not be sustainable;
-
Reversal of past reserves to artificially inflate earnings;
-
Realizing nonrecurring gains, and netting these gains
to hide past mistakes;
-
Lowering discretionary expenditures to meet earnings targets;
-
Continual characterization of material expenses as nonrecurring;
-
Unrealistic depreciation schedules;
-
Capitalizing expenses based on unjustified optimism;
-
Serial acquisitions under purchase accounting that overstate
internal earnings growth;
-
Lower inventory turns or negative inventory divergences;
-
Accounts receivable rising faster than sales; and
-
Unrealistic pension assumptions.
Real-life
examples of these accounting alerts include the following:
-
In the early 1970s, leasing companies had four-year (or
more) depreciation schedules on equipment that turned
out to have three-year useful lives. The underdepreciation
overstated earnings by sizable amounts as the companies
grew their leasing portfolios. Eventually the write-offs
for the leasing companies were sizable, and their stocks
dropped precipitously. Comparing depreciation schedules
to economic reality is a must for any investor when analyzing
financial statements.
-
In 1997, Sunbeam reported $189 million in pretax earnings
to shareholders under accrual accounting, but paid the
IRS and foreign tax authorities only $5 million under
cash-based accounting. The footnote section of an annual
report reconciles the two set of books and should be scrutinized
carefully.
-
Premature recognition of revenue or income that may not
be sustainable is an important alert. Sunbeam’s
1997 10-K disclosed that in the fourth quarter the company
recorded $50 million in sales of cooking grills under
an “early buy” program that allowed retailers
to delay payment for as long as six months. It was later
revealed that $35 million of these “early buys”
were categorized as “bill and hold” sales
and never left Sunbeam’s warehouse. The material
increase in accounts receivable in the 1997 balance sheet
would have alerted investors to the possible “channel
stuffing” which, although it helped in the short
run, ultimately led to disastrous results. (Accounts receivable
jumped 40% and inventories rose 58%; both were well above
the increase in sales.) Another example might be accelerating
shipments to customers and realizing income immediately
even though services are recognized over an extended period
of time. During the technology boom of the late 1990s,
a handful of software companies were forced to restate
earnings due to aggressive front-end recognition of revenues
with material services still to be rendered.
-
Boston Chicken was reporting outstanding earnings growth
and sold at a very high earnings multiple. At the same
time, the company was lending money to franchisees that
were losing hundreds of millions of dollars (and were
unconsolidated). The parent company was not setting up
reserves against these potential bad debts. The franchisees
were redirecting the cash from the Boston Chicken loans
back to the parent company in the form of franchise fees,
yet the franchisees continued to lose money.
-
Between 1993 and 1996, Sears Roebuck’s allowance
for doubtful accounts dropped from 4.96% to 4.04%. Yet
delinquent accounts during the same time period increased
from 3.55% to 5.24%. Despite the increase in actual delinquencies,
Sears’ stock had risen 200% between 1995 and 1997.
A careful examination of the reserve account could have
indicated that the company’s 1993–1996 earnings
growth was being fueled by reversing earlier excess reserves
or relaxing credit standards. Sears stock tumbled in the
second half of 1997, when the company alerted the public
that earnings could be hurt by rising delinquencies and
charge-offs in its credit card business.
-
In December 1998, the SEC filed a civil complaint against
W.R. Grace, stating that the company directed its main
health-care subsidiary to release about $1.5 million from
its reserves in order to meet earnings targets. The SEC
stated that the company diverted $20 million of 1991 and
1992 earnings into reserves. Although the company stated
that the amount was immaterial, an SEC spokesman questioned
the accounting by asking, “Does anyone think that
it is acceptable for a corporation to intentionally book
an error in its financial statements just for the purpose
of making earnings targets?”
-
Under GAAP, costs should be matched against the revenues
they produce. Investors should monitor companies that
defer current expenses to later periods. The year-to-year
increases in the capitalized asset account on the balance
sheet should be tracked as a percentage of reported earnings.
In addition, footnote disclosures relating to the assumptions
behind the amortization of these expenses to income should
be scrutinized for economic reality.
America
Online, in its early stages of development, surprised
and disappointed investors when the reality of the company’s
accounting policy of deferring marketing costs came
under scrutiny. AOL’s year-to-year increases in
deferred marketing costs accounted for more than 100%
of its earnings. Subscriber cancellations were more
rapid than AOL’s two-year write-off policy. Interestingly,
during the period when the company’s marketing
expense capitalization policies deviated from economic
reality, the stock was penalized in the market. When
AOL wrote off its marketing expenses and changed its
accounting policy, recognizing marketing expenses on
a current basis, the stock rallied strongly. Investors
were enthusiastic over the company’s future once
the accounting cloud was removed.
-
Earnings-per-share increases may be a function of acquisitions.
Under purchase accounting, an acquired company is included
in the purchaser’s financial statements from the
date of acquisition forward. Through clever financing,
or the issuance of high price/earnings ratio stock to
buy a company with a lower price/earnings ratio, a company
can create an illusion of above-average growth. Maintaining
this illusion requires consummating larger and larger
acquisitions each year, increasing the chances of a mistake.
To detect a company relying on nonrecurring growth created
by acquisitions, one must examine the footnote relating
to pro forma earnings. The pro forma earnings footnote
provides earnings data as if the acquisition was made
at the beginning of the previous year to compare reported
earnings against acquisition-generated earnings.
Starting
in 1993, Cendant Corporation, through purchase-acquisition
accounting, was able to report growth rates, including acquisitions
to shareholders, in excess of 30%, far beyond its true internal
growth rate, estimated at 11% or less (excluding acquisition).
Cendant eventually paid the price for acquisition-driven
growth after its 1997 acquisition of CUC International,
a company that was cooking the books. An investor could
have reached this conclusion through careful analysis of
Cendant’s footnotes pertaining to acquisitions.
-
Inventories or receivables growing faster than sales have
been valuable alerts over the years. Comparing inventories
and receivables to sales in the aforementioned Sunbeam
example would have provided a valuable early warning alert.
-
Serial nonrecurring write-offs can disguise the trend
of operating earnings and are a valuable early warning
of future potential problems. Few investors look at so-called
nonrecurring charges as management’s admission that
past years’ earnings may not have been as good as
originally reported. Retained earnings growth (before
dividends) should be compared to reported recurring earnings
for deviations. AT&T’s earnings grew by 10%
annually, from $1.21 a share to $3.12, in the 10 years
ended 1994. During the same decade, however, $14.2 billion
of nonrecurring write-offs exceeded the $10.3 billion
in earnings that the company actually reported. The market
ignored how the so-called nonrecurring write-offs distorted
the the company’s financial results during those
years.
-
Beginning in 1989, IBM took a series of restructuring
charges. It started with $1.5 billion in 1989, followed
by $2.7 billion in 1991, $8.3 billion in 1992, and $8
billion in 1993. IBM’s stock was a market underperformer
from 1989 through 1995, after being the darling of Wall
Street for 30 years. Investors realized that the growth
rate was slowing and regarded these write-offs as recurring
in nature.
-
Costs of activities beneficial to future operations and
profitability, such as research and development, advertising,
and maintenance, may have been cut to produce short-term
benefits at the expense of future growth. Year-to-year
expenditures are critical to future growth and should
be compared for a few years to determine whether declines
are contributing to year-to-year earnings growth.
For
example, a review of Eastman Kodak’s fourth-quarter
1998 shareholder release showed that the company reduced
R&D expenditures in 1998, contributing $0.33 per share
to year-to-year earnings comparisons. Technology companies
should not derive their growth from cuts in research-and-development
expenditures. Maintenance
expenditures are important to airlines and offshore drillers
and should be monitored on a comparative basis. Marketing
expenses are important to consumer-product companies, and
reductions in such key expenses should not be the source
of year-to-year earnings growth.
-
Unrealistic pension assumptions should trigger an alert.
GM’s pension expense is based on assumed investment
returns of 9% per year. If the assumed return expectations
are deemed aggressive, the pension expense is too low
and the earnings need to be adjusted downward.
-
The most important alert is a sizable negative divergence
between free cash flow and net income. The statement of
cash flow contained in the annual report is the main source
of such information. A simple calculation can indicate
whether a company is cash-flow positive or negative:
Net
Income + Depreciation – Capital Expenditures
+/– Changes in Working Capital = Free Cash Flow
Rather
than relying on numbers for only one year, investors should
evaluate normalized levels for capital expenditures and
working capital needs over many years. A company consistently
reporting earnings that are materially higher than cash
flow from operations raises a red flag alert. Identifying
Enron’s continued reporting of negative cash flow
despite reporting sizeable earnings to shareholders could
have saved knowledgeable investors from eventual disaster.
It is very important to continually assess a company’s
ability to produce future excess cash flow, as accrual accounting
numbers under GAAP can be distorted based on unrealistic
assumptions.
Disclosed
Information May Not Tell the Whole Story
It
is also important to assess a company’s disclosure
practices and determine whether information essential to
its valuation is omitted from the financial statements and
supporting schedules. The risk of undisclosed information
must be factored into the valuation process by reducing
the multiple of cash flow (as far as zero) that an investor
is willing to pay to purchase a company. Enron had limited
disclosure as to the nature of the earnings developed by
its off–balance-sheet entities, yet these entities
were material earnings contributors to the company’s
bottom line.
The
latest bout of Wall Street’s casual acceptance of
the numbers as presented, however suspicious, is similar
to past financial and accounting crises. The current period
is reminiscent of the 1970s, when audit failures such as
Equity Funding and Stirling Homex, as well as the accounting
games played by computer lessors and land development companies,
wiped out billions of dollars of net worth while an economic
boom turned into a recession. Like today, the investing
public, the financial press, and government representatives
called for more government regulation. Despite the recent
bad news, the disclosure practices of public corporations
have greatly improved over the past 30 years. While the
financial reporting system can always be improved, and new
business practices require constant adaptation, all reporting
relies on management judgment, leaving room for unrealistic
assumptions or potential abuse.
Improvements
in disclosure practices have resulted in financial statement
analysis becoming more difficult and time-consuming. Today,
a wealth of information not available 30 years ago is found
in the footnotes and management discussions of annual reports,
for anyone with a skeptical eye. The analyst and investor
community has the responsibility to assess these new disclosures,
adjust earnings for unrealistic reporting, and expose corporations
whose disclosures are inadequate.
An
investment discipline that adjusts corporate earnings for
economic reality in both bull and bear markets provides
investors with a competitive advantage over others in seeking
long-term capital appreciation. A discipline that values
companies on the basis of their ability to create excess
cash flow in all markets gives investors an edge. GAAP and
economic reality can be worlds apart, but an inferential
analysis of financial statements will help bridge the gap
when it occurs. If the portfolio management and financial
analyst community regularly adjusted reported corporate
earnings for deviations from economic reality in all markets,
future accounting crises could be greatly diminished.
Robert
A. Olstein is chairman, CEO, and chief investment
officer of Olstein & Associates, LP (www.olsteinfunds.com).
|