The company provides services to a broad range of commercial, industrial, utility and institutional customers. They report operations in six market segments: (a) electrical construction and facility services within the U.S.; (b) mechanical construction and facilities services with the U.S.; (c) U.S. facilities services; (d) Canada construction services; (e) United Kingdom construction and facilities services; and, (f) Other international services. The electrical construction and facilities segment involves systems for electrical power transmission; premises electrical and lighting systems; low-voltage systems, such as alarm, security and process control; voice and data communication; roadway and transit lighting; and fiber optic lines. Mechanical construction and facilities services include systems for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration and clean-room process ventilation, fire protection; plumbing, process and high purity piping; water and waste-water treatment and central plan heating and cooling.

Consensus estimates for sales ending 12/09 are projected to be $7,246.88 million. Consensus EPS estimates for the same period range from $2.28 to $2.65.

Sales growth is 24.8% YOY and EPS growth is 45.1% YOY. The historical five year growth rate for sales is 8.4% and for EPS it is 13.2%. The company reported positive earnings surprises for the quarters ending 10/08 and 07/08.

At its recent price of $20.72, EME is selling at 7.9X next year’s estimated earnings. Operating margins have steadily expanded from 0.9% in 2004 to 4.2% currently. Similarly, net margins have grown to 2.5% from 0.7% in 2004. The company does not pay a dividend.

Our estimate of fair value is $29.97 to $48.96 with a mean value of $41.97. Using consensus EPS of $2.58, EME is valued at 11.6X to 18.9X earnings; the average fair value multiple is 16.27X earnings. The low end of our estimate provides a PRG ratio of 0.88, based on historical growth rate.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
EMCOR GROUP, INC. The Rebuilding Of America

For over a year I have been arguing that more attention needs to be given to the supply side of the equation. Yes, the growth rate of real GDP has been going down and the rate of employment has been going up. But, the rate of inflation, as measured by the rate of increase of the GDP price deflator has not declined since the fourth quarter of 2007. If it were just a demand side problem, this would not be the case.

I focus on the rate of increase in the GDP implicit deflator because of some of the measurement problems associated with the Consumer Price Index, such as the treatment of housing expenses and energy. Certainly, the CPI should be watched, but in dealing with economic aggregates, I prefer the former.

My point has been that if the problems in the economy were all tied to a substantial fall in aggregate demand, then there should have been a more substantial lessening in the rate of price increases. Consequently, my argument has been that something has happened on the supply side of the economy for the numbers to have been reported as they have been.

I would like to point to two areas of the United States economy that indicates that the problems of recovery may be more difficult to overcome than if the dislocation in the economy were just one of inadequate aggregate demand. The first area is that of industrial output; the second area is the labor market.

In terms of the industrial base of the economy I would like to focus upon industrial production and the industrial utilization of capacity. Industrial production has been declining steadily since the start of the recession in December 2007. At that time, industrial production was growing at about a 2.0% year-over-year rate of growth. By April 2008 the year-over-year rate of growth had become negative. The figures for 2009 are
January -10.8
February -11.3
March -12.6
April -12.7
May -13.4

This certainly shows a continuing weakening in the economy. However, taken by itself I don’t think that it carries more meaning than does the decline in the rate of growth of real GDP which has been declining as well.

Combine this performance with the figures on capacity utilization and one gets a different picture. As expected, total industry capacity utilization has dropped substantially in this recession. In December 2007, the figure stood at a little over 80.0%. In May 2009, capacity utilization had fallen to about 68.0%. This is the largest 18 month decline in the post-World War II period.

But, this is not all. The peak in capacity utilization in the past ten years was only slightly more than the December 2007 figure. But, this peak of the last ten years was substantially below the level of capacity utilization for most of the 1990s which was below the peak utilization in the 1970s which was below the peak utilization in the 1960s. That is, it appears as if we have been using less and less of our capacity on a regular basis since the 1960s.

The structure of our industrial base is changing. We can see that in autos, in steel, and in many other parts of our manufacturing base. It appears as if the weakness in our economy is composed of two things: first the cyclical swing in business; but this weakness is on top of a secular decline in our productive ability. The economy is in the process of restructuring!

This shift is also showing up in labor markets. The civilian participation rate in the labor force for the United States rose from the late 1960s into the 1990s when it peaked a little above 67.0%. The civilian participation rate has declined since late 2000 and has remained below 66.2% since 2004. In terms of the number of people who are not participating in the labor market any more, this represents a large number. People have left the labor force in the last five or six years and this trend has, of course, been exacerbated by the recession. Over the past forty years the rise in the participation rate has slowed down or stopped during recessions, but at no time did it decline as it did in the in the past six years.

Of further interest, the Labor Department reported that separations from jobs in April remained relatively constant as they have for the past two years, but the rate of hiring continued to be quite low. In early 2008 the percentage of the labor force that were separated from their jobs was about equal to the percentage that were being hired. Since then separations have exceeded hirings, as might be expected, causing the unemployment rate to rise.

In terms of those that were separated from their jobs, there was a dramatic shift between those that quit their jobs and those that were laid off or discharged from their jobs. The percentage of layoffs and discharges rose dramatically from April 2008 to April 2009 whereas quit levels dropped substantially. That is, although separation rates did not change much at all during this time, the composition of those being separated from their positions experienced a tremendous shift. This is an indication that there is a structural shift in what is happening in the labor markets.

This information leads me to believe that there is a substantial restructuring taking place in the United States economy. And, a structural shift is a supply side issue and not a demand side issue. In fact, demand side responses can just make a bad situation worse by trying to force people back into positions that companies and industries are attempting to eliminate because the world has changed.

The figures on industrial production and capacity utilization seem to indicate that industry is changing and the numbers from the labor market reinforce that conclusion. Pumping up aggregate demand is an attempt to stop this restructuring or, at least, slow it down.

The problem that policymakers’ face is that they, or we, do not know what the new industrial structure is going to look like. It is impossible for anyone to know. People can make guesses, but that is all they are—guesses. And, in situations like this, it is more likely that the guesses will be wrong rather than being right. It’s just that the future is unknown. The need for the United States economy to restructure just adds another “unknown, unknown” to our list of “known unknowns” and “unknown, unknowns.” My guess is that this restructuring is going to take some time and could be sidetracked by huge government deficits and a supportive monetary policy.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
A Walk on the Supply Side

The high volatility in the financial markets has resulted from the high degree of uncertainty that plagues the market with regards to what is going to happen to the economy, the financial system and whether or not the programs initiated by the Obama administration will work. The stocks that have been moving the most have been those that have gotten a lot of publicity over the last six months or so and in which there is a lot of uncertainty connected with the unknown future of the companies they are associated with.

Niederauer goes on to say “large institutions and other long-term investors” have basically sat on the sidelines during this little run-up. The short-term traders do not need to take an extended view of prospects and therefore attempt to make money on the ups and downs of the market. Thus, it is hard to use the recent uptick in the stock market as a longer-term indicator of the economy with a lot of confidence at this point. He adds that when the large institutions and other long-term investors come back into the market the trading volumes will become larger and will be more consistently there.

And, why should the longer-term investors come back into the market at the present time. A piece of evidence against jumping in right now is the bankruptcy of mall owner General Growth Properties, Inc., which is recorded as one of the largest real-estate failures in the history of the United States. The cloud over the commercial real estate sector of the economy has been approaching for some time now and this news seems to be just the first of many that will follow.

Also, Capital One Financial, one of the largest issuers of credit cards in the United States, just announced writedowns that have exceeded the unemployment rate, an interesting relationship if you ask me. It seems like this is an indicator of how bad things are when credit card charge offs exceed the unemployment rate but I don’t see any necessary correlation between the two. Anyhow, the expectation is for credit charge write offs to continue to rise as home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies continue to rise indicating more pain in the future. Personal bankruptcies have risen almost to the pre-2005 level, the time when the bankruptcy laws changed.

In addition, although people keep contending that the housing market is getting firmer, housing starts continue to show a substantial weakness. Housing construction in March fell to an annual rate of 510,000 units, the second lowest level on record. This total was almost 50% below the level of starts attained in the same month last year.

Building permits also fell 9 percent from February to an annual rate of 513,000, which is down from 932,000 last year. This number provides some indication of the amount of future construction that will take place.

And, the amount of foreclosures on personal property continues to rise. It has been reported that foreclosure filings increased 9 percent in the first quarter of the year with filings rising 17 percent from February to March. The area of personal finance continues to be unsettled. And, this is not even considering the rising level of small business foreclosures that seem to be rising monthly.

There is little good news to encourage the large or longer-term investor coming from other areas in the financial sector. We still have to see the results of the “stress test” on the banking system. It seems that Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner has messed up another public relations opportunity, this time over the announcement of the results of the stress test or the fact that there will be no announcement of the results or that there will be a limited release of information. For an administration that supposedly was going to see to it that the government operated with more transparency and openness, the Treasury Department and its leader have certainly not contributed to the confidence that it is on top of the situation.

Then there is the concern that the banks have not reported accurately the value of their assets in order to obtain TARP funds. (See my post http://seekingalpha.com/article/130712-are-the-banks-telling-us-the-truth.) There is seemingly no reason why we, or anybody, should take seriously the financial reports coming out of the banking system, including the quarterly reports being released this week by major financial institutions!

We further read that “Fitch Ratings is warning investors in complex loan investment funds about the practice by their managers of accounting for loans at par, regardless of market value of the loan.” (See “Fitch alert on accounting for CLOs”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb8f70ac-29e7-11de-9e56-00144feabdc0.html.) Fitch is concerned that managers are attempting to get around rules on how they account for collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) by encouraging investors to consent on having certain restrictions removed so that they can mark assets up to par. In early March, Moody’s warned the market that there would be a review of ratings in response to changes in its rating assumption, including an increase in expectations of the default rate among leveraged loans. In February, Standard & Poor’s warned investors that the debt issued by CLOs could be at greater risk of losses than they realize if only a few companies default.

And, there is more!

The problem is that there is too much debt around. Debt loads have to be worked off and in some way reduced. Of course, one way to reduce debt loads is to inflate away the real value of the debt which is what Bernanke and the Obama administration are trying to do. Otherwise, debt has to either be paid down or written down as Capital One is doing.

A helpful suggestion for government action is to provide money to write down the principal of mortgage loans rather than help troubled mortgagees to get interest rates on the loans reduced. This would have a more stunning effect on home owner performance than would trying to put people to work or to reduce interest rates or to inflate away the debt. It would also probably be cheaper. Pouring money into the banks has not worked! Why not try something else to reduce the debt problem?

Whatever is done, time is going to have to pass. Large investors and longer-term investors will not come back into the stock market until they see that the debt issue is passing and that people, consumers, have their balance sheets more in control. Until then, the stock market will just be a traders’ market. So don’t trust market swings one way or another. Focus on what the real problem is.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Be Careful What Bandwagon You Jump Onto

The game—“institutions applying for TARP money had to show they were fundamentally sound, potentially prompting them to misstate assets and liabilities.” Barofsky is quoted as saying, “I hope we don’t find a single bank that’s cooked its books to try to get money but I don’t think that’s going to be the case.”

Mr. Barofsky also said the Treasury’s expanded Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) was ripe for fraud.

The potential—fraudsters would be receiving indictments!

Two thoughts cross my mind when reading this. First, bankers in deteriorating situations tend to hide their heads in the sand when it comes to bad assets because they keep hoping that things will get better and the assets will recover their value. Having (successfully) completed several bank turnarounds I have found that this is one of the first things that becomes obvious when you initially investigate the loans and other assets of a troubled institution. Bankers, lenders, or portfolio managers continually think that ‘the economy will turn around’ or that ‘the company is getting its act in order’ or that some other event will come along that will result in the ‘asset gone bad’ becoming the ‘asset has become good again.’ And, so the asset is carried along but never comes back to life.

The problem with this is that these bad assets continually undermine the ability of the financial institution to right itself and become profitable again. The example is always there on the books of the banks and whether the executives or officers admit the fact, internally they know that things are not right and this drains efforts to instill a healthy culture to “do the right thing.” Managements that allow this unhealthy culture to continue are just perpetrating a bad situation, one that very rarely ever turns itself around.

The managements that participate in such a charade tend to be desperate and susceptible to moving to the next step when they are thrown a life boat like many financial institutions received in the past nine months or so.

Before following up on this point, let me just say that, historically, the bank either brings in someone to turn the institution around, or, a regulatory agency steps in and dissolves the organization. The American banking system has worked very well in the past with respect to “sick” banks. Contagion has been avoided through quick action connected with the swift resolution of problem assets. Financial institutions that were in trouble were taken care of—period!

But, that is not the case in the current situation. We have had a bailout. The banks have been tossed a life boat. However, financial institutions were supposed to be “fundamentally sound” in order to obtain TARP money. Here we get into the muddy waters of conducting a “general” bailout.

Let me just say that I have been suspicious from the start when government officials claimed that the need for the TARP funds was because the banks were facing “a liquidity problem” with respect to their troubled assets.
Again, my experience in doing bank turnaround’s is that the officers of the bank that claimed their assets were in trouble because of liquidity problems were attempting to cover up the real difficulties connected with the assets which were almost always associated with the issue of solvency.

It would not be much of a surprise to me to hear that the banks justified to the government that they were “fundamentally sound” because their asset problems were associated with liquidity issues rather than ones of solvency. This assessment could perhaps be supported if government officials only took a cursory glance at the assets. But, one could argue that this is the conclusion that government officials wanted to hear at that time.

Is this fraud? That is what Mr. Barofsky is going to have to find out.

Other than outright “cooking of the books”, in many cases the distinction between liquidity and solvency may fall back on an argument about “judgment”, about the “eye of the beholder.” Thus, Mr. Barofsky is going to have his problems proving his case.

In my opinion, many of the banks that received bailout relief had and still have a solvency problem and until the situation is handled that way the dislocations associated with the banking industry and the financial markets are going to continue. Consequently, I believe that Mr. Barofsky and others are going to find evidence that all along the issue has been solvency and not liquidity. If so, then there is a real issue of whether or not that these institutions that received TARP money were “fundamentally sound.”

My second thought on this issue is a very simple one. If people inside the banks covered up the real issues related to solvency heads should roll. Those that committed fraud should be indicted! Those that knowingly misled should be dismissed!

And, top executives, even though they were not directly involved in fraud or in a cover up, should be removed from their positions as well. They have proven that they cannot manage their institutions with sufficient control to justify their ability to move those institutions on into the future. The “buck stops with the top position” and the argument that they didn’t know what was going on is insufficient. It was their responsibility to know what was going on!

Risk management, the other “bug-in-the-coffee”, and financial control are not glamorous pursuits, especially when compared with the “jet pilots” of finance that were tossing around all sorts of money chasing narrow spreads with lots and lots of leverage. Performance over time, however, is closely related to an institution’s ability to successfully exert risk management and financial control.

We have to know what is going on in the banks and other financial institutions. The pressure needs to be stepped up to find out where things are. And, the sooner this pressure is exerted the sooner we will be able to find ways out of the mess we are in.

And this brings me to one final point. The Financial Times also had another headline on its front page that I found disturbing. The article cried out “AIG in derivatives spotlight.” (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb2ddafc-278c-11de-9b77-00144feabdc0.html.) “The unit that all but destroyed AIG has failed to sign up for the overhaul of the global derivatives market, which was given added impetus by the troubles at the US insurance group.” The government is involved with AIG—the government owns most of AIG. It is mind boggling to me that a government that supposedly wants to bring greater openness and transparency to the financial markets allowed this to happen!

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Are Banks Telling the Truth?

“The hope is that as the banking system works through its problems, TARP funds will be returned and the mortgage-backed securities will mature or be sold back into the market allowing the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve to contract back to where it was in the summer of 2008. The banking system is apparently holding onto reserves to protect itself and that is why they are really not lending. The idea is that if they don’t need these excess reserves they will return them. This is what the Federal Reserve is planning to happen. Let’s hope that they are correct!”

On this issue, let me point out the post by Jonathan Weil on Bloomberg this morning, “Crisis Won’t End Until Balance Sheets Get Real” (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=azsX7o.atu7U). After presenting interesting data on the state of commercial bank balance sheets he argues the following:

“Banks and insurers got Congress to browbeat the Financial Accounting Standards Board into making rule changes that will let them plump earnings and regulatory capital. There also was Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s line in March about “green shoots,” which sparked a media epidemic of alleged sightings.

For all this, we still have hundreds of financial companies trading as though the worst of their losses are still to come. Just imagine what their prognosis might be if the government hadn’t pulled out all the stops.”

And, then Weil closes:

“Truth is, there’s no way to know if the economy has turned the corner, or if last quarter’s market rally will prove sustainable. Yet when this many banks still have balance sheets that defy belief, it means the industry probably hasn’t re- established trust with the investing public.

Trust, you may recall, is the financial system’s most precious asset. On that score, we still have a long way to go before we can say this banking crisis is over.”

This is the short run problem and it is the one that is going to determine whether or not the Federal Reserve is going to be able to shrink its balance sheet. This has been the point of my last two posts. And why are we facing such uncertainty at this point? Because the Mark-to-Market rule was pulled and because there is not enough openness and transparency in the public financial reporting of financial institutions. If there are going to be regulatory changes in the future, a lot is going to have to be changed as far as the reporting requirements for financial institutions is concerned.

But, this is just the short run problem.

The longer run problem is the projected budget deficits of the Federal government. Even if things work out as the Federal Reserve has planned as far as bank reserves are concerned and Federal Reserve credit retreats back to where it was in August 2008, there is the massive problem facing the country about how prospective government deficits are going to be financed. The bet is that the Fed will finance a substantial portion of the deficits to come. Let the printing presses roll!

The fear? Inflation.

But many say, we are in a severe economic contraction now. The fear should be deflation and not inflation.

The only response to this counter argument is that in the latter half of the 20th century, any nation that has run substantial deficits has, sooner or later, run into problems related to inflation. Monetary authorities are never so independent of their central governments that imprudent fiscal policies are not in one way or another underwritten through some form of monetization. And, since this happens time after time, how can the international investing community sit on the sidelines and do nothing? Yes, the United States is in a severe recession right now, but what are your odds for the monetization of a lot of the Federal debt over the next three years? Over the next five years? Over the next ten years?

Where do you look for such for an indication of market sentiment on this? Look at the value of the United States dollar. The dollar fell by about 15% against major currencies in the latter part of the 1970s as the Carter budget deficits seemed to get out-of-hand. As we know, Paul Volker played the savior there by conducting a very restrictive monetary policy to bring the value of the dollar back in line. However, the Reagan budgets became so severe by 1985 that the value of the dollar began to plummet. In the face of continuing deficits and the realization that this would continue to result in a weak dollar, Volker gave up the reins of the Federal Reserve in August 1987. The dollar did not pick up strength again until fiscal restraint was returned to Washington with the Clinton administration as the value of the dollar rose over 25% from April 1995 until the end of 2000. The massive budget deficits of Bush 43 were translated into another precipitous decline in the value of the dollar which fell by almost 40% between the middle of 2002 to March 2008.

The fiscal policy of a nation does matter to the international investment community!

But, you say, look at all the other major countries having economic problems and their budgets are out of balance as well. Look at England, Germany, Italy, France, and others.

The response to this? This is not the case for many of the major emerging countries of the world, specifically the BRIC countries. Perhaps one leaves Russia out of this, but China, India, and Brazil are going to emerge from this period much stronger relative to the United States than could have been thought even a year ago or so. So is Canada and several other important countries. This world crisis is going to shift world economic power in a way that has not been seen since the shifts in world power that took place in the 1920s and 1930s. And, international investors are realizing this!

Yes, the dollar will still be used as the reserve currency of the world…for a while longer. The Chinese, and the Russians, and the Brazilians, and the Indians all realize this. And, even though they keep talking about establishing a new reserve currency, they seem to back off and say that the dollar cannot be replaced right now. Yet, the Chinese have called for the Group of 8 to talk about a new reserve currency at its upcoming meeting. The issue IS on the table and my guess is that it is not going to go away.

Which brings me back to the deficits. In my mind, the budget deficits of the United States government are out-of-control right now and there is great concern that this administration will not be able to regain control of them in the near future. There is no “reversal” mechanism that is built into these budgets as the Fed has attempted to build in a “reversal” mechanism in its efforts. As a consequence, great pressure will be put on the monetary authorities over the next several years to monetize a substantial portion of the debt that will be created. The history of the past fifty years or so is that the Fed will not be able to avoid the pressure. This is perception that the international investing community will be bringing to the market when it place its bets. This can be translated into higher long term interest rates in the United States and a continuation in the decline in the value of the United States dollar.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Is Treasury’s TARP Debt Already Monetized? Part III

Debt is the problem and it currently continues to haunt most businesses, governments, and individuals in the economy. It is a problem because this debt load has to work itself out. But, in working out the debt problem, the economy suffers and will continue to suffer.

The current debt crisis is so severe because of the credit inflation created by the U. S. Government over the last eight years of so. During expansions, credit inflations take place. This is what happens as the economy is stimulated and confidence in the private sector builds and things appear to be good and getting better. Credit inflations don’t have to directly result in general price inflation, although they can end up with this result.

In the 1990s as well as the 2000s we have had credit inflations where price increases have been relatively mild. In the 1990s we saw the stock market bubble and the credit inflation with respect to new ventures. However, during that decade we saw the federal government turn a deficit budget into a surplus budget by the end of the century. In the 2000s, we saw the housing bubble and the general credit inflation, but we also experienced a huge increase in government debt on top of everything else. Debt was good and most partook of it!

If the credit inflation during a period of economic expansion is not too excessive then the following correction that must take place can be relatively mild and reasonable and the government can come in and re-flate the economy so that the financial dislocation can be righted in a reasonable amount of time without too much “hurt” in the economy in general. Moral hazard is created, but what’s the problem with a little moral hazard? Right?

This is what happens in most minor recessions.

An exception occurred in the credit inflation of the 1970s. President Nixon was so paranoid about getting re-elected that he set about inflating the economy and connected this with taking the United States off the gold standard, floating the dollar, and freezing wages and prices. This philosophy was not abandoned by President Ford. Jimmy Carter just inflated, period. And, by the end of the decade, serious work had to be done to bring general inflation under control.

What happened in the decade of the 2000s was of a totally different nature. The debt structure that was created through this decade’s credit inflation could not be sustained. Debt was growing way more rapidly than the economy could support and the resulting imbalance was greater than at any time since the Second World War. Almost everyone was excessively over leveraged. The headlines focused first upon the subprime market and then upon Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) and the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). And, then it became apparent that this excessive leveraging had been going on everywhere in the economy. And, the federal government was right up there with everyone else.

There is too much debt out there! Yes, there is deficient aggregate demand, but that is not going to be corrected until the debt situation is corrected…no matter how much Paul Krugman and the Keynesian wing of the world cry out! People and businesses are going to have to get their balance sheets in order before private spending will really pick up. Unless, of course, the government is able to get a hyper inflation going again which is the classic solution for an economy with too much debt.

There are three ways for economic units to reduce debt. The first is to sell assets and pay off the debt. However, if people are uncertain about asset values this solution to the debt problem is not going to work. Second, economic units can save out of income and revenues and pay down their debt. This, of course, is the soundest way to de-leverage, but it is also the slowest way to reduce the debt on a balance sheet. The third way to reduce debt is to renounce the debt: that is, declare bankruptcy. This solution does have repercussions, however, on the value of the assets of other people and other businesses.

A firm with too much debt can face another problem. Debt matures and sometimes has to be refinanced. The problem here is that a company may not be able to refinance the debt that is coming due. In such cases, these firms will either be forced into the first way of reducing debt, selling assets and perhaps taking a loss on the sale of the assets, or it will have to renounce the debt by declaring bankruptcy.

One sees CIT examining its resources to decide what is its best option. The second option does not seem to be a viable option because CIT doesn’t have sufficient time to generate enough revenues so that it can pay down its debt. So, it is looking at a situation where it has a substantial amount of debt maturing in the next six months or so. Refinancing is an option, but with its bond ratings reduced to the ‘junk’ category, this could be quite expensive and could produce negative cash flows so that earnings could not provide revenues to pay down debt. Thus, CIT could reduce sell off assets to generate cash to pay off the maturing debt. But, how much does CIT stand to lose if it sells off assets?

If these are the scenarios, then it is good that CIT is getting advice on declaring bankruptcy. This still presents a problem. As people see this possibility facing the company, why should short term lenders continue to help finance the company and why should borrowers continue to borrow from CIT, a company that may not be there tomorrow. Also, on Monday morning investors dumped the company’s stock.

The fact of the matter is that there are many companies, governments, and individuals (and their families) that face this situation right now. And it is very, very scary.

The question is, given these problems, why should these economic units spend? They have a debt problem. And, with rising unemployment and more and more debt coming due in various sectors of the economy, like commercial real estate, why should we expect people to pick up their spending in the near term. There are other, more pressing issues to deal with. This is why the economy is not going to start to pick up much speed soon.

Almost every week there is a new “CIT” that we read about. These companies are too big to ignore. And, that is what is so worrisome. How many more of them are there?

Something else that is worrisome as well. When banks are closed by the FDIC, the general operating procedure is to place the deposits and good assets of the closed bank with a healthy bank. Word is that there are not that many healthy banks around. Thus, the deposits and good assets of banks that are closed are not being placed with healthy banks (See “FDIC’s Challenge with Busted Banks,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124744606526030587.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing.) So, we now have more banks that have been focused on their own problems taking on the problem of integrating the deposits and good assets of closed banks which can’t help but divert their attention from their own problems. As of last Friday, 53 banks have been closed this year and the expected total of bank closings for the year is over 100. If we don’t have a lot of healthy banks around now to take care of the current crop of banks that are closing, what are we going to do for the rest of the year?

Good Article? Pull it from here:
CIT and Getting Out Of This Mess

‘The global semiconductor industry is going through one of the steepest corrections in its history,’ said SIA President George Scalise. ‘While it would be premature to conclude that the sales have hit bottom, there are some indications that the rate of decline has moderated from the final quarter of 2008.’

‘Demand for semiconductors is likely to continue well below 2008 levels for the next few quarters with a gradual recovery to follow as the global economy recovers,’ Scalise concluded.’

There are similar problems within the semiconductor materials market. The materials market was flat in 2008 as compared to 2007. Semiconductor materials market sales reached $42.7 billion globally in 2008. The industry group for the semiconductor materials market, SEMI, reports that “the wafer fabrication materials and packaging materials $24.1 billion and $18.8 billion, respectively.” These sales figures represent a decline from 2007.

“The global wafer processing equipment market segment decreased 31%; the assembly and packaging segment decreased 28%; the total test equipment sales decreased 32 percent. Other front end equipment sales declined by 32 percent”

We believe the market is discounting the recovery somewhat ahead of itself. It remains to be seen if the global economy will pick-up before 2010. Even if it does, the semiconductor market may lag the recovery. The companies we have on our watch list, Altera Corporation (ALTR), Analog Devices (ADI), Intel (INTC), QLogic Corporation (QLGC), Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), Texas Instruments (TXN), and Xilinx (XLNX), are priced as though the recovery is already here. Sales and earnings will continue to decline through 2010. We would wait until there are signs of recovery before being buyers of semiconductor stocks.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
This is not time to own semiconductor stocks

There is no doubt in my mind that the Federal Reserve has “printed” a lot of money since early September 2008, most of it before January 2009. The Monetary Base (Non-seasonally adjusted, NSA) rose from $847 billion in August 2008 to $1,712 billion in January 2009, an increase of $865 billion. Between January and May 2009, the Monetary Base only rose $63 billion.

Total Reserves (NSA) in the banking system increased by $817 billion from September 2008 to January 2009, but only increased by $42 billion since January. The most interesting thing is that Excess Reserves (NSA) in the banking system rose by almost $800 billion in the earlier period and increased by $46 billion in the January to May period.

The Federal Reserve put a lot on money into the banking system over the last nine months and the VAST MAJORITY of the funds went into Excess Reserves. The Fed “printed” a lot of money (or, created a lot of deposits at the Fed) but these monies did not find their way into the economy!

These two periods need to be separated in order to get a better picture of what the Fed has done and for some implications about what might occur in the future. My basic argument is that the Fed has put a tremendous amount of money into the world banking system and has ultimately underwritten the Treasury’s TARP program and provided much more money to the banking system than Congress authorized.

The underlying effort has two goals: first, to keep financial markets liquid; and second, to protect against the insolvency of the banking system. The first goal has basically been accomplished. The second is still playing itself out. The crucial thing to understand is that the way the Fed has acted has given the system a chance to get healthy and yet provide a net to catch insolvent banks so as to avoid a precipitous collapse of the banking system.

In the September 2008 to January 2009, the crisis period, the Fed basically ceased using the normal tools of monetary policy: open market operations consisting of outright purchases of government securities and repurchase agreements. In the fall, the Federal Reserve basically picked and choose what parts of the financial markets needed liquidity and created facilities to support these ill-liquid sub-markets. The major ways that it supplied funds or saw funds withdrawn in the September 2008 through January 2009 period and in the January 2009 through May 2009 period.

Change (billions) from Sept/08 to Jan/09: Term Auction Credit $257; Other Loans $166; Commercial Paper LLC $334; Other Fed Reserve Assets $506; for a total of $1,263. The change (billions) from Jan/09 through May 2009: Term Auction Credit (-$124); Other Loans (-$62); Commercial Paper LLC (-$206); Other Fed Reserve Assets (-$411); for a total of minus $803.

The Term Auction Credit Facility (TAF) helped to get reserves to the commercial banks that needed reserves, an effort the Fed believed was more efficient than open market operations. TAF peaked at $300 billion increase on 12/31/08. Other loans include increased borrowings from the Fed’s discount window, a facility for asset-backed commercial paper (which reached a peak increase of $152 billion on 10/8/08), a facility for primary government security dealers (which reached a peak increase of $147 billion on 10/1/08), and a facility for AIG. The commercial paper LLC was a limited liability facility that bought 3-month paper from eligible issuers (which reached its peak of $334 billion on 12/31/08). The increase in Other Fed Reserve assets was primarily Central Bank Liquidity swaps (which reached a peak of $682 billion on 12/17/08).

However, the Fed’s efforts reported here resulted in almost a $1.3 trillion increase in its assets and an $865 billion increase in the Monetary Base. Thus, almost the entire monetization ended up as excess reserves held at Federal Reserve Banks. Bank reserves at Federal Reserve Banks increased steadily throughout the fall, peaking at $856 million on December 31, 2008. Whew! The Federal Reserve had made it through this period of financial market illiquidity which accompanied the entire Thanksgiving/Christmas seasonal need for cash.

What happened in 2009? As mentioned above, the needs of specific market makers retreated, but now the solvency of the banking system came to the fore. In terms of the special facilities, as can be seen from the figures given above, a total of $803 billion was removed during the first five months of the year. Then the Fed began to conduct open market operations again. Throughout this time, securities bought outright by the Fed increased by $712 bullion. This included a program to buy government securities on a regular basis which contributed $177 billion to the Fed’s portfolio. It also added $70 billion of Federal Agency issues. Furthermore, the Fed initiated a very important program in 2009 and bought $465 billion of Mortgage-backed securities.

In essence, Total Federal Reserve Bank credit declined by about $200 billion during the first five months of the year but, as was reported earlier, the monetary base increased by $63 billion and total reserves and excess reserves in the banking system increase by more than $40 billion. In essence, the Fed operated in 2009 to keep the banking system very liquid and replaced the reserves that had been supplied to different parts of the financial markets in 2008 by interjecting funds directly into the banking system. The new twist? Directly helping banks sell their mortgage-backed securities, thereby reducing pressure on the banks to clean up their balance sheets. This was the original purpose of the Treasury’s TARP program.

The banking system faces three problems going forward: existing bad assets; bad assets that will appear over the next 18 months or so; and refinancing needs as the banks may not always be able to roll over existing liabilities.(See my post of June 15, “What Banks Aren’t Telling Us”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/143276-what-aren-t-banks-telling-us, for more on these factors.) The huge amount of excess reserves will help the banks face these problems. In terms of financing needs, the banks have the cash to pay off maturing liabilities without needing to roll the debt over. In terms of bad debts, this is where the TARP program comes in because the Treasury has provided preferred stock to banks with warrants attached. Charge offs can go against existing capital and the preferred stock and warrants can be transformed into new capital owned by the government to keep these banks afloat until something can be done with them.

Some banks have repaid the TARP funds that they had received. Several well-known large banks returned $68.25 billion this month to reduce Federal Government oversight. Still there have been 633 banks that have directly received about $200 billion in TARP funds and a total of 32 banks have now repaid about $70 billion. (On this see “Small Banks Not Shying From TARP” in June 27 Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124606040026463617.html.) So, of the roughly $800 billion that banks are now holding in excess reserves, one could argue that approximately $130 billion of them have been supplied through the Treasury program and are held, mostly, by smaller banks and $670 billion of them has been supplied by the Federal Reserve, the total of the two being the money “printed “ to get us out of the current financial crisis.

The hope is that as the banking system works through its problems, TARP funds will be returned and the mortgage-backed securities will mature or be sold back into the market allowing the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve to contract back to where it was in the summer of 2008. The banking system is apparently holding onto reserves to protect itself and that is why they are really not lending. The idea is that if they don’t need these excess reserves they will return them. This is what the Federal Reserve is planning to happen. Let’s hope that they are correct!

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Is Treasury’s TARP Debt Already Monetized?–Part Two

First, as I have written many times, the liquidity problem is behind us. Liquidity problems are of short term nature and require immediate action. The difficulties we now face are related to solvency and the ability to work things through. This takes time and it takes persistence, things that Americans are often impatient with.

My argument here is that many of the problems we face are known. In the words of the world famous philosopher Donald Rumsfeld, in dealing with a “solvency problem” we are dealing with “known unknowns.” (To clarify my argument, I would argue that a “liquidity crisis” is related to “unknown unknowns.”) Banks and other financial institutions, along with non-financial organizations, unless they are just blinding themselves to the truth of the situation, know what they need to watch out for. That is one reason why banks are not lending much these days. (See my post “The Clogged Banking System” http://seekingalpha.com/article/129838-the-clogged-banking-system.)

The “solvency problems” has to do with assets whose value is less than that recorded on the balance sheet of an organization. This “solvency problem” has been exacerbated by the large amounts of debt financial institutions and others have used to acquire these assets thereby leaving the problem of whether or not the equity base of the company exceeds the “hole” that exists between the “real” value of the assets and the value recorded on the financial statements.

The “unknown” here is exactly how much the organizations will eventually get from the “known” questionable assets. The answer to this hinges upon the issue of whether or not the value of the asset will improve if these organizations work with the asset, especially if the asset is a loan that the borrower has some chance of repaying in large part. The alternative, of course is that the value of the asset will never increase and needs to be “charged off” right now.

There is no question that banks and other financial institutions tend to be overly optimistic about their ability to “work things out”, but this is a time when they need to be as realistic as possible about the condition their assets are in. This is a turnaround environment and having led three (successful) bank turnarounds I know how important it is to be realistic about asset values at a time like this. Good leaders, good executives, are ones that face the problem head on and do not try and postpone the inevitable.

But, there is a second issue here. The government help that has been provided to the private sector has not always been helpful. If fact, some of the actions of our leaders have created an environment of greater uncertainty, something that an uncertain economy and financial system does not really need. For example, those of you that have read my posts over time know that I am very skeptical of the actions taken last fall by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. (See my post on “The Bailout Plan: Did Bernanke Panic?” http://seekingalpha.com/article/106186-the-bailout-plan-did-bernanke-panic.)

The follow up to this was the execution of the bailout plan, fondly labeled TARP. It was obvious that our leaders were making up the plan as they administered it which led to several changes in direction that totally confused participants and the market. Plus there was never any oversight administered to the program so the money went out and no one knew where it went.

Now we have a “recovery package” that has been approved by Congress. Again, there is great uncertainty about what the “package” is and what will it do. (See my posts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117878-the-obama-stimulus-plan-why-i-m-concerned and
http://seekingalpha.com/article/116414-what-will-be-the-impact-of-obama-s-stimulus-plan.)

Then, following this package we had the “summary” of a bank toxic asset program presented by Secretary Geithner that bombed and then the presentation of the P-PIP (See my post http://seekingalpha.com/article/127639-public-private-investment-program-liquidity-or-solvency.) which Nobel prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz and others have torn into as providing a fantastic “real option” that provides tremendous upside for private investors and horrendous potential downsides for tax payers. Furthermore, in response to criticisms that this opportunity was just for “big” players, the Treasury responded that, well, smaller organizations would be let into the game—and, well, we may let the individual investor get into the scheme just like the patriotic program that allowed individuals to buy Treasury bonds during World War II.

The third issue centers on the amount of debt outstanding in the world. We write about the plight of the United States consumer and all the debt that he/she accumulated during the credit bubble of the early 2000s. This is a problem and will take a long time to work itself out with layoffs and unemployment increasing and bankruptcies, both individual and small business, on the upswing, along with rising delinquencies on credit cards and other consumer loans and with the overhang of large amounts of residential mortgages repricing over the next 15 months or so. This will be a drag on the United States economy for a while.

Real investment in the economy will not begin to rise until consumers get their balance sheets in order and feel confident enough to spend once again. However, many analysts are arguing that the economy is in for a structural shift, returning the United States consumer to a more fiscally conservative balance sheet with more of their disposable incomes going toward saving. This will require businesses to be smaller and more conservative in their operations. Both will retard recovery.

In addition, there is the problem of debt in the world. There are huge amounts of debt outstanding in the world that are going to have to be dealt with over then next three years of so. (An example of this looming problem is discussed in the Financial Times this morning, “Eastern Eggshells,” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f00a48-249c-11de-9a01-00144feabdc0.html.) This just points to the fact that this recession is world wide in nature and the fate of the United States is going to be tied up with what goes on in Eastern Europe, in Japan, in China, in Russia, in Western Europe, and so on and so on.

This is why a growing number of people, like Niall Ferguson, author of “The Ascent of Money” is concerned that the United States—and others—are trying to resolve the problems created by too much debt and financial leverage by increasing the amount of debt and financial leverage that is in the world. These people are contending that we are all in this together and we must fight extreme national self-interest and protectionism.

The state of the nation is precarious—there is no doubt about that. However, I believe that we have progressed to the point that we are dealing with “known unknowns” rather than “unknown unknowns”. There is still much uncertainty in the economy, in the world, and people are attempting to work through the problems they face. But, because there are many people feeling a lot of pain right now and there will be more joining their ranks in the near future, there is a great deal of pressure to do a lot of “something” about it. And, in the minds of many, the effort must err on the side of doing too much rather than in doing too little. The potential downside to all these efforts is that much of what will be done may actually create more difficulties than they solve. Impatience is not always a virtue.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
The State of the Recession–a long way to go

The company is beginning to see the effects of massive layoffs throughout the economy. While they are suffering from fewer payroll transactions and being challenged with customer retention issues which will only accelerate as unemployment ratchets up from 8% to a projected 10% level, we feel these challenges are temporary. When the economy recovers and employment returns to more normal levels, ADP will see sales and earnings growth return to higher levels. While we wait for the economy to turn around, ADP retains some pricing power and is able to increase its pricing.

Dylan Cathers, the analyst at Standard & Poor’s projects FY 09 earnings at $2.41, two cents more than the consensus forecast of $2.39. Cathers also sees sales growth continuing at the 3.5% rate in FY 09.

Valuation
Historically, ADP has traded at a richer multiple than it does now. Regardless of which metric you favor, the company sells at a premium to its industry.

TTM 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 7 Year
Price/Earnings 14.30 20.20 23.80 25.40 24.10
Industry P/E 10.10 16.80 22.20 24.20 23.60

Price/Book 3.46 4.04 4.28 4.21 4.20
Industry P/B 0.90 1.80 2.40 2.50 2.30

Price/Sales 1.86 2.51 3.01 3.19 3.16
Industry P/S 0.50 0.90 1.30 1.40 1.20

Price/Cash Flow 9.60 16.60 19.80 20.90 19.60
Industry P/CF 7.40 14.60 17.70 18.50 18.50

Price/FCF 17.40 36.00 31.60 30.70 28.50

Growth

The company has a history of consistent growth for sales, earnings and free cash flow.

TTM 3 Year 5 Year
Sales 8.80 12.70 4.20
Gross Income 6.00 11.10 3.70
Net Income 29.30 5.40 3.90
Dividends 22.40 21.70 18.00
Cash Flow 43.80 19.00 4.50
Free Cash Flow 72.10 7.80 2.90

Ratios

The company has a strong balance sheet with little long term debt even though ADP repurchased 33 million shares in 2008.

Current Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 5 Yr Avg.
Gross Margin (%) 54.70% 55.40% 56.50% 56.50% 57.80% 54.50% 56.14%
Operating Margin (%) 0.20% 20.60% 20.80% 19.90% 20.20% 19.70% 20.24%
Net Margin (%) 16.80% 14.10% 14.60% 22.70% 17.20% 12.90% 16.30%
ROE (%) 29.90% 24.10% 20.40% 26.30% 18.80% 17.30% 21.38%
ROA (%) 5.30% 4.90% 4.20% 5.60% 4.30% 4.60% 4.72%
Current Ratio 1.10 1.10 1.10 2.10 1.70 1.60 1.52
Payout Ratio (%) 41.00% 46.40% 42.50% 26.30% 33.70% 34.20% 36.62%
Liabilities/Assets (%) 85.50% 78.60% 80.70% 78.10% 79.10% 74.30% 78.16%
Asset Turnover (X) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.30

Conclusions
We see the company as having a strong balance sheet capable of sustaining ADP through the next year or two. ADP’s prospects are bolstered by strong and steady free cash flow and a recurring revenue stream. Competition is stiff in this industry but ADP is the leader and, we expect, will remain so.

Our fair value estimate for ADP is $72.50. This is based on our estimate of free cash flows over the next twelve months of $1.82, the expectation of continued growth in sales and earnings and our assessment of the balance sheet.

Disclosure: At the time of writing, author has no position in ADP.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
ADP: The Single Source Solution