Passa ai contenuti principali

Beware The Balance Sheet Evolution After A Decade Of Reckless Financial Engineering

Last week, we got news that Carnival became the first of many large corporations to aggressively dilute shareholders after a decade of reckless financial engineering.

Visual Representation of the CCL Cap Structure...

Coronavirus Financial Struggle Hits U.S. Churches

Before discussing this malfeasance of capital structure management, let's rewind three decades.

Excluding brief periods of exuberance at the end of the 1920s and 1960s most public companies historically were staid organizations - they grew a few percent a year and paid out some of their profits in dividends. Boards of directors were mainly recruited from large shareholders who were more focused on sustainability than quarterly numbers or pushing the share price. Sure, there were outliers, there were guys doing crazy things, but a large portion of corporate America was focused on building long-term wealth for the large shareholders (often the families who controlled these businesses).

Then came Mike Milken and his cohort of extortioners and restructuring artists.

Don't get me wrong, by the 1980s, many US corporations had grown fat and a bit lazy—a good shake-up was needed, but the following generation of financial engineers took things too far. I'm all about improving returns on assets (ROA)—my gripe is that the focus then shifted to returns on equity (ROE).

Here's a simple exercise, take a mediocre business, add ten turns of leverage and then marvel at how amazing the returns to equity are. For the past generation, every corporate executive has undertaken a similar exercise and congratulated themselves on the results. For the holdouts who refused to lever up, there was a wolf-pack of hedge funds ready to pounce and educate them on why returning too much capital to shareholders was necessary. Is it any wonder that corporate balance sheets are such a mess today? Like a wounded gazelle, if your leverage ratios were low, you were pounced upon and told to lever up.

Coming out of the GFC, Boards of Directors tasked every CFO with a simple mission; figure out how much excess liquidity they'll need if there's another GFC that is 50% worse.

What does 50% worse mean? Who cares - CFOs built models and created numbers that were agreed upon. The models mostly looked at how deeply earnings could decline.

Not a single model looked at what would happen if revenue stopped. As a result, there was no rainy-day fund. There was no excess capital beyond a revolver that lasts only a few weeks at best.

What should have been excess cash reserves were squandered long ago on buybacks at all-time high multiples.

As we come out of this COVID-19 crisis, I suspect that Directors will demand larger liquidity buffers.


How much of a buffer? What if you need six months of op-ex in cash on the balance sheet? What if Directors demand Japan style balance sheets? What happens when you take leverage down at most corporations? You end up with middling ROEs and reduced valuations (like in Japan). I suspect that ROEs across corporate America are going to converge towards a new and much lower level. Think of the lesson from Carnival; if you spent a decade buying back stock and then dilute down 80%, have you created any value for anyone?

You think the Carnival execs will want to see their cost of capital do this again anytime soon? (note The Fed's HY bond rescue)

I think a lot of corporations are about to have some real soul searching after they undertake similar exercises. If you're a shareholder in an industry with terrible asset-level returns (think of your typical property REIT or pipeline MLP for instance), made palatable by high leverage, you may want to stop and think a bit about how the economics will look when leverage drops precipitously. You may be surprised at just how dramatically the ROE also declines. Conversely, industries that have been plagued by oversupply may now have a moment with reduced competition as companies focus on balance sheet repair instead of growth at any cost.

As the balance sheets of the world are reshaped, there will be winners and losers. You'd be foolish if you aren't thinking about how capital structure evolution will impact your portfolio. I guarantee you, as you are reading this, Boards of Directors are re-reading their D&O policies and then thinking deeply about the balance sheet...

Commenti

Post popolari in questo blog

Charting the World Economy: The U.S. Jobs Market Is On Fire - Bloomberg

Charting the World Economy: The U.S. Jobs Market Is On Fire - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/charting-the-world-economy-the-u-s-jobs-market-is-on-fire Charting the World Economy: The U.S. Jobs Market Is On Fire Zoe Schneeweiss Explore what's moving the global economy in the new season of the Stephanomics podcast. Subscribe via  Apple Podcast , Spotify or  Pocket Cast . The last U.S. payrolls report of the decade was a doozy, beating expectations and doing its bit to keep the consumer in good health heading into 2020. That's good news given the various pressures still weighing on global growth. Here's some of the charts that appeared on Bloomberg this week, offering a pictorial insight into the latest developments in the global economy. U.S. Advertisement Scroll to continue with content ...

Fwd: The Looming Bank Collapse The U.S. financial system could be on the cusp of calamity. This time, we might not be able to save it.

After months  of living with the coronavirus pandemic, American citizens are well aware of the toll it has taken on the economy: broken supply chains, record unemployment, failing small businesses. All of these factors are serious and could mire the United States in a deep, prolonged recession. But there's another threat to the economy, too. It lurks on the balance sheets of the big banks, and it could be cataclysmic. Imagine if, in addition to all the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic, you woke up one morning to find that the financial sector had collapsed. You may think that such a crisis is unlikely, with memories of the 2008 crash still so fresh. But banks learned few lessons from that calamity, and new laws intended to keep them from taking on too much risk have failed to do so. As a result, we could be on the precipice of another crash, one different from 2008 less in kind than in degree. This one could be worse. John Lawrence: Inside the 2008 financial crash The financial...

The repo market is ‘broken’ and Fed injections are not a lasting solution, market pros warn

By Joy Wiltermuth Published: Dec 7, 2019 9:35 a.m. ET Banks prefer to keep money at Fed instead of lending to other banks Getty Images Examining $100 bills. Getty Images By Joy Wiltermuth Markets reporter The Federal Reserve's ongoing efforts to shore up the short-term "repo" lending markets have begun to rattle some market experts. The New York Federal Reserve has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to keep credit flowing through short term money markets since mid-September when a shortage of liquidity caused a spike in overnight borrowing rates. But as the Fed's interventions have entered a third month, concerns about the market's dependence on its daily doses of liquidity have grown. "The big picture answer is that the repo market is broken," said James Bianco, founder of Bianco R...