Liberty Ventures: not that interesting at $40

Now that Ventures (see old writeup) is trading, it seems that its price is fair and not particularly undervalued.  (I don’t know if I made a mistake as to Venture’s cash balance and how the cash payment on the Motorola debt was handled.  Ventures may have ended up with more cash than I thought it would.)

So last time I checked, Ventures had a liquidation value of around $643M.  There are roughly 28.6M shares out Ventures outstanding (both A and B, pre-rights offering; the number may be a little off due to buybacks).  Ventures at $44.85 gives a market cap of $1.56B.  You can divide by 0.9375 to account for the dilution from the rights offering… this gives an adjusted market cap of $1.664B.

The difference between $1.664B and $0.643B can be thought of as the discount on Ventures’ various deferred tax liabilities.  That’s a $1021M discount on $2,435M of total deferred tax liabilities.  To put it another way, the market is saying that the $2,435M Ventures will have to pay in tax is worth about $1,414M right now.  (Or you can say that it is similar to $1,414M in debt with a 8% interest rate due in 7.06 years.  Or 6% interest rate debt due in 9.3 years.)

At $20-30 I will probably get interested in Ventures.  I guess I am disappointed that it is trading so high.  This memo to Liberty Interactive employees suggested a trading price of $20 for LVNTA shares (“20.0  LVNTA Market Price post-distribution”).  Damn you efficient markets.

Advertisements

Imax: short thesis

The main reasons to short Imax (in my opinion):

  1. Overvalued.  The P/E ratio is roughly 50 (higher if you ignore profits from tax-related reasons).
  2. They are close to saturating their markets and therefore Imax’s profits will start dropping in the future.
  3. Historically, the company has not made money and still has negative retained earnings.  The economics of its niche is not good.
  4. Slightly aggressive accounting that inflates profits.

I don’t think that I am the only person with this idea as Google Finance shows that Imax has 65.89M shares outstanding and the short interest has shot up to 12.2M shares short (see NASDAQ site).  That’s roughly 18.5% of outstanding shares short.  The borrow is very cheap. Continue reading

Iron ore miners (mainly in the Labrador trough)

So right now I am going through the miners in the Labrador trough area:

  • Alderon (Altius Minerals owns a large stake in Alderon)
  • MFC Industrial (MIL) owns a royalty on Cliffs’ Wabush mine
  • Cliffs (CLF)
  • Champion Minerals (CHM.TO)
  • Labrador Iron Ore Royalty Corporation (LIF.UN)
  • New Millennium Iron Corp (NML)
  • Adriana Resources
  • Zone Resources
  • Oceanic Iron Ore Corp.

(I am obsessed with Altius Minerals ok?  See somebody else’s writeup on VIC.) Continue reading

The Shill Report

I guess I learn something new every day.  Even the senior miners will pay money to shill companies to promote their stock.  A site called The Gold Report has a list of the companies that they cover on their front page (scroll down if you don’t see it).  There are some big names on there like Goldcorp and Nova Gold.

Disclosure: I own a lot of companies that ‘sponsor’ The Gold Report.  Northfield Capital owns Goldcorp, Premier Gold, Queenston, etc.  Altius owns Alderon and Millrock.  I own Pinetree as well (they own a few hundred stocks; chances are, many of them sponsor The Gold Report).  Sigh…

Canadian Orebodies (CVE:CO)

Some notes…

They paid $20k to eResearch to say good things about them

To have eResearch conduct research on the Company on an Annual Continuous Basis, Canadian Orebodies Inc. paid eResearch a fee of $20,000 + HST.
http://www.eresearch.ca/_report/CO_061412-B.pdf

What a waste of money.  These shills generate no value for society.  (If there is a polite way of saying this, I clearly haven’t thought of it.)  Here is Canadian Orebodies’ press release regarding eResearch.

Short version of the rest of this post

I don’t think that this is a good long or a good short.  This is a sketchy junior (which makes it a bad long) that has found something vaguely promising (which makes it a bad short). Continue reading

Thoughts of mining and exploration stocks #3

To be fair to the mining sector, there are some parts which are (in my humble opinion) suitable for public markets.  A good example would be the potash and iron ore miners that are producing (e.g. Potash, Mosaic, Cliff’s).  They generally do not exaggerate the size of their reserves.  Many of them have mines with very long lives (e.g. many have been in operation for decades) so their future cash flows are easier to analyze than other mines/commodities that deplete faster.  There isn’t a lot of geological uncertainty about their reserves so it is very hard to make promotional claims about them. Continue reading

Rick Rule on mining

I used to think that it was odd that I thought that most mining companies were overvalued.  There are very few prominent investors who voice that viewpoint.  Some like Seth Klarman, David Einhorn, George Soros, and John Paulson have been getting into gold stocks.  I personally think that most of the sector is awful (*though I own gold stocks).  One of the few exceptions is Jim Rogers, who points to this study which found that commodities futures outperform commodity stocks by a large margin (futures did three times as well).  I’ve read Pierre Lassonde and Seymour Schulich’s books (they made their fortunes in mining royalties) and they aren’t that critical of the junior sector.

So then I discovered Rick Rule.  In my opinion, he is not a well-known investor like Jim Rogers or George Soros.  But what he is saying makes a lot of sense.

On junior miners:

It is critical for gold stock speculators to remember that the junior market, in aggregate, is always overvalued. If we were to merge every gold junior in the world into one entity (let’s call it Junior Goldco), that company would lose (profits and corporate acquisitions less industry expenditures) somewhere between two billion and eight billion dollars per year.
Why I’m Excited About This Market

On senior miners:

Between 2000 and 2010, the price of gold advanced from $250/oz to $1,200+/oz. One would have expected a meteoric rise in the free cash generation of the gold companies, but the industry’s cash-generating and earnings response was pathetic. Worse, while cash didn’t explode, equity issuances did, so they diluted the cash they already had. That led to disgust with the gold companies, which carried over into their stock valuations.
Casey Research Summit Special Report: Reality Check or Checkmate?

My comments: Gold miners should have done a lot better given that the gold price skyrocketed.  In theory, gold miners are leveraged to the price of gold since minor increases in gold price should cause a much larger jump in profits.  At a 33% profit margin, a 1% increase in gold price should cause a 3% increase in profits.  Of course gold miners are also leveraged to their operating costs.  But the big picture is that while operating costs have seen significant inflation the price of gold has gone up even more.

As far as Rick Rule’s comment on “cash generation” and “free cash” generation goes, he is saying that you should take a better look at the accounting profits of these companies.  One way to inflate reported earnings is to aggressively capitalize expenses, e.g. capitalize exploration expenses even if the exploration failed.  Another way is to lower D&A by claiming higher asset lives to spread out the expense over a longer period of time and into the future, lowering the annual reported expense.  If you look at free cash flow (e.g. profits – D&A + capital expenditures) and similar measures, you will see through these earnings-manipulating techniques.  Free cash flow arguably gives a better picture of a company’s profitability since the usual accounting games don’t affect free cash flow.

Currently, Rick Rule is excited about markets since many mining stocks aren’t so overvalued anymore.  The TSX Venture exchange for example has fallen around 40% in the past year… the last time markets did something like that was in 2008.  (Personally I still think that there are a lot of overpriced companies out there and I don’t know of any seniors buying back shares.)