Dear Fellow Technophiles,
Some issues in events in popular society are simply too big to be missed. The OJ trial. A "Royal Wedding." Facebook's IPO. In all the aforementioned cases, I did my own personal best to be as far from the action as possible when the fateful day came. It's not a lack of interest, but just a time-tested life lesson that the real opportunities in life are where the circus has yet to land.
Still, at Casey Research we're not content to simply write off a profit-making opportunity to "carnie wisdom." And thus, we took a hard and close look at the Facebook IPO for Casey Extraordinary Technology subscribers. The result of that detailed analysis? Stay as far out of the way as you can. We made sure that subscribers understood that given the "muppet demand" on one side, the insiders cashing out on the other, and the banks taking billion-dollar paydays for nothing other than their government-mandated oligopolic postions in the middle, there was no play for a smart individual investor, long or short.
Yet even we didn't see the Nasdaq's side. So, despite our desire to turn our attention back to the companies still creating value for individual investors, we felt little choice but to delve one last time into the IPO waters to try to explain why, only six days later, we find accusations of malfeasance being thrown around like confetti, lawsuits mounting, and big questions now being asked. So, our own Adam Crawford tries to break down one of the most complex financial events of the decade in 1,000 words or so of as plain an English as can be done.
Chief Technology Investment Strategist, Casey Research
By Adam J. Crawford, Junior Analyst
In less than a week's time, the Facebook IPO has gone from the most-hyped technology event since Google went public into "blame-storming" mode. Details concerning the stock's sudden drop, the market's inability to process orders, and the (mis)behavior of insiders are starting to emerge. And it doesn't look good.
When any stock drops as much out of the gate as Facebook has – down as much as 25% peak to trough in the days since the public premier of the stock – people start asking big questions... even more so when that stock carries a $50-billion-plus market cap, meaning the loss triggered billions in paper losses. Add on the fact that the Nasdaq market computers crumbled under the activity, and the scrutiny is intense.
What's been uncovered so far is painting a picture of poorly managed expectations and questionable ethics. The key event behind the drop appears to be a massive shift in expectations from institutional investors at the last minute.
Evidently, a Facebook executive – at this stage we can only guess who – alerted analysts that previously issued revenue estimates were a bit optimistic. Shortly thereafter, the analysts took the unusual step of slashing revenue estimates during Facebook's IPO roadshow. The information was then relayed to a select few potential institutional buyers. The financial community calls this "selective disclosure." I call it BS.
To make matters worse, Morgan Stanley (the lead underwriter and one of a select group of banks privy to the lower estimates) actually raised the offering price and issued more shares publicly, despite cutting the revenue estimate behind closed doors. Initially, Facebook shares surged due in large part to robust retail demand. However, once gravity took hold, Morgan Stanley chose to step in and provide some temporary support at the original offering price of $38 a share. The bank stepped into the market and bought millions of shares back from the public. It was able to do so without risking much capital thanks to the massive "greenshoe" allotment it took at the IPO – a gift of nonexistent shares the bank can sell risk free to the public if they have the demand. Stock goes up, and Morgan Stanley can force Facebook to cough up more shares, diluting investors and pocketing the profit. Stock goes down, and Morgan Stanley can buy them back below the IPO price, wiping out the excess volume and pocketing the price difference. Not bad deal, eh? Thankfully, most banks do exercise some level of ethical caution with those overallotment shares and use the process to instead stabilize the market, as happened with the over 60 million shares Morgan Stanley bought back from investors.
Consequently, Facebook shares stabilized and ended the trading day flat.
Facebook's humdrum opening-day performance was a minor disappointment for speculative investors hoping to flip shares for a quick profit. The minor disappointment soon morphed into a major disappointment for all shareholders, once rumors spread about the behind-the-scene shenanigans mentioned above. One look at the stock chart will show you the unpleasant Monday-morning surprise shareholders arose to the next trading day.
(Click on image to enlarge)
Facebook shares have since settled near $32 a share but remain exceedingly temperamental. A skilled trader could probably make a few bucks off this volatility (but a day trader I am not, so I can't help you there). As far as Facebook's long-term potential goes, I can offer a quick analysis.
The Future Outlook
Despite our decrying of the trading practices of Wall-Street banks, when dealing with a company of this size and whose relationships with the banks run this deep, one of the best sources of data on the company will remain the consensus opinion of their research arms. Below are their earnings-per-share growth estimates for the next three years:
As you can see, earnings growth is projected to slow to 21% by 2014. That's exactly the growth rate Google – a company with nearly 10 times the annual revenue of Facebook – is estimating for 2012. And for that kind of projected growth, the market places a value of 18.5 earnings on Google's stock. Let's be generous and award Facebook a 25 multiple for 21% growth. A little back-of-the-envelope math suggests that would place its value at about $20/share ($.80 EPS x 25) three years from now!
Coming at this from another direction, let's assume that cash flow and net income will be the same in the years ahead. Let's further assume the same growth rates shown above for 2012-2014 and add these rates for subsequent years:
When we apply a 10% discount rate to these data, we come up with a discounted cash flow valuation of $27.
With either approach, Facebook appears to be overvalued based on the ultimate arbiter of value, profitability. But the picture may be even worse than we've painted. Every assumption depends on tremendous – yes, slowing, but still on the "billions of dollars per year" scale – growth; and there are red flags popping up all over the place in that regard. Here are a few:
The Winners and Losers
With the company's stock dropping, retail investors getting the hose, and profit opportunities coming, did any of the stakeholders win in the IPO process?
The primary loser in Facebook's market debut appears to be the retail investors, because they were sold shares at an inflated price, based on inflated estimates that the investment banks making them knew to be wrong. However, it's possible that Facebook will turn out to be a profitable investment still; and if it is, my hat's off to you for taking the leap – we were busy focusing on opportunities with the odds more in our favor.
A close second in the loser category is Nasdaq. The exchange lacked the technology to properly handle the massive order flow, an ironic twist for the de facto "technology exchange," and the original electronic trading platform that once decried the failures of the NYSE to meet customer demand. As a result, many orders were either delayed or altogether failed to process. Obviously, the botched job could cost the exchange future business.
The primary winner is Mr. Zuckerberg for numerous reasons… 19.1 billion or so little green ones.
His cohorts also did fairly well, too. Here are just a few examples:
Facebook employees made out well on the deal, too… at least the ones there early enough to get sizable grants. We'll know pretty soon just how many millionaires the event created, we're sure – but it's safe to assume quite a few. Let's just hope for their sakes that the reality of earnings potential doesn't hit too hard before their lockout periods expire.
In addition, some savvy traders apparently got in near the offering price and jumped ship in the $40s – probably a high-frequency trading firm or two.
The underwriters (e.g., Morgan Stanley) go into the "yet to be determined" category. Sure, they made a mint on the deal, but they also have drawn the attention of the busybodies in Washington, D.C. And any time Washington busts out the red tape, we all lose.
We also like to believe that Casey Extraordinary Technology investors were also winners in the process. They had straightforward advice to avoid what has proven to be a disaster of an IPO for both buyers and short sellers alike. But being successful at choosing what not to invest in is generally a much simpler task than finding the opportunities that do legitimately contain a solid chance of producing outsize returns.
We believe, though, that we have proven ourselves there as well, which is why we publish a full track record of all of our picks in each and every issue. In fact, we have a handful of promising biotechnology companies in particular which we think are excellent buys right now.
So I encourage you to take CET for a spin for 90 days. If you don't think you'll make your money back and then some after seeing what we have in store, then just hit reply and tell us so – we'll refund every dime you paid. But – surer than betting on the Facebook face-plant, I'm willing to bet that you will stick around once you see what we can do for your portfolio.
At about 4 a.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, Elon Musk's company Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket along with the unmanned Dragon capsule toward the International Space Station. The historic event marks the first time a private company has sent a spacecraft to the space station. But it's not a complete success just yet. The capsule will attempt to dock with the outpost Friday morning and is currently partaking in flyby tests before arriving at the station. Dragon is due to deliver food, supplies, and science experiments to the orbiting laboratory as a test mission for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.
Introducing the Leap (The Week)
You will soon be able to control your computer with Minority Report-style gestures thanks to a Lego-sized motion sensor from startup company Leap Motion. Yes, this sounds like Microsoft's Kinect device, but the Leap goes even further because it "can sense motion down to the most subtle movements of a finger." The company reports that the device is 200 times more sensitive than anything else on the market. Scheduled to ship this winter, the Leap plugs right into your computer's USB port and will be priced at a very affordable $69.99.
Anticancer Protein Easily Extracted from Soybeans (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry)
It's been well documented for some time that the incidence of certain common cancers of the alimentary system (i.e., the body structures involved in preparing food for absorption into the body and excretion of waste products) is much lower in people from Japan than those from North America and Western Europe. And it turns out that the importance of the humble soybean to Japanese diets may be the reason for the lower rates of these cancers. Now, a group of plant scientists at the University of Missouri has demonstrated that copious amounts of the natural anticancer drug known as the Bowman-Birk Protease Inhibitor (BBI) can be obtained simply by soaking soybeans in warm water. While there's more testing to be done, the scientists think this method could be exploited as a simplified alternative for the preparation of BBI concentrate, which is being used as a cancer chemoprotective agent.