Sex, nudity, pizza and free beer

So September 20’s post was a fun, no-pressure introduction to the three major types of financial statements and how they work. The results?

a) No one commented, and
b) No one pointed out that we promised to follow up on the details in the next post and didn’t.

Conclusion: reading financial statements is boring. Explaining how to read financial statements is boring. Even poking fun at how boring it is to read financial statements is apparently boring.

What do you want from us? No one said deciphering financial statements was interesting, except Warren Buffett, and do you want to take lifestyle advice from a polygamist who still lives in a house assessed at $700,000 despite having $36 billion to his name?

Let’s do this as pithily as possible and see where it leads:

If you’re looking to invest in a particular company, you can’t just go by word of mouth or general feeling. Worse yet, you don’t want to concern yourself with how pretty a graph the company’s stock price has been plotting recently (this is called technical analysis, and it’s the financial equivalent of phrenology.) Stupidest of all is the investment strategy that equates being a customer with being a shareholder.

You need to research, at least a little. Are you willing to spend a couple of hours to potentially earn yourself hundreds or thousands (or just as importantly, not cost yourself that much)? You should be, assuming you enjoy money and how easy it can make your life.

There are only 3 types of financial statements you need to know about. Any other ones you come across aren’t that important, at least not at this stage of the game. You find them at sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html.

Enter the company name, scroll down to the first appearance of “10-K” in the left column, click on “Interactive Data”. Among other things, you’ll find the critical financial statements:

Income statements. Balance sheets. Cash flow statements. That’s it. Describing what’s in each one in sufficient detail could give us a year’s worth of blog posts, but let’s do this in digestible chunks.

What an income statement tells you, you can hopefully deduce from its title. Income is the difference between the revenue the company generated and the expenses it incurred, over a fixed period (usually a year, occasionally a quarter.)

Income statement (actual size)

Peruse the categories if you want, but the most important number at this point is the difference between gross income and expenses: net income, or in common parlance, profit.

But you can’t just rank companies by net income and say whichever one makes the most money is thus the best investment. You have to look at the relative sizes of the companies. Everything else being equal, a company that makes $100 million on revenues of $500 million is more impressive than one that makes $110 million on revenues of $1 billion.

A balance sheet tells you how much in assets the company has on hand, and how much it has in outstanding liabilities. The difference between them is called shareholders’ equity, which is one traditionally accepted measure of the company’s value.

Columns of numbers!

Over how long a period? A year?

You don’t listen, do you?
It’s the amount of assets and liabilities the company has (present tense), not the amount it acquired (past tense). That means it counts every dollar the company has ever taken in and hasn’t yet spent, minus every obligation it’s ever had and hasn’t yet settled. So in theory, a company could have a different balance sheet every millisecond. While an income statement refers to a particular period, a balance sheet refers to One Moment In Time, just like your prom did. Only without the awkward makeout sessions and vomiting.

Since shareholders’ equity, the value of the company, is assets minus liabilities by definition, you can understand why we keep hammering you to buy assets and sell liabilities. Divide net earnings (from the income statement) into shareholders’ equity and you get return on shareholders’ equity, a number that gives you an idea of how long it takes an investment in the company to pay for itself.

Finally, a cash flow statement tells you if the company’s bringing in more than it’s spending, and how much. That sounds straightforward, but it can occasionally be complicated (a rare repudiation of the oracular pronouncements in our book, Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense. Here’s the only other one.) There are 3 ways a company can generate revenue: via operations, investments, and financing.

Sorry, ran out of jokes. Alright, maybe this stuff is a little tedious

Operations is hopefully pretty clear. For Caterpillar, it’s making and selling lift trucks. For Anheuser-Busch, it’s brewing and selling beer. For General Motors, it’s collecting undeserved money from you and tens of millions of other taxpayers.

Unless the company in question is a financial firm, Investments is probably going to be a negative number, because it includes buying expensive things that help keep the company growing – factories and stuff. The category also includes buying and selling securities that have little or nothing to do with the company’s core business. For instance, if they have cash on hand, putting it in securities (Treasury bills, currency, other companies’ stocks or bonds) on behalf of the shareholders.

Financing includes issuing and buying back the company’s own stock and bonds. That means bringing new investors on board (usually healthy, if the company isn’t growing just for the sake of growing) and borrowing money (bad if it’s done for reasons other than covering new capital expenditures, paying it back with interest, and not risking default.)

Next time, or whenever we get around to it depending on the quality and quantity of this week’s comments, we’ll explain what desirable financial statements look like.

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Wealth #7-Entrepreneurship Edition**

**This post is featured in the Festival of Stocks**

He’s not overpaid. You probably aren’t either

The labor market's biggest bargain

 

This post is written in response to a fellow financial blogger who argues that

“(Pro athletes) are all overpaid in my view… they should be paid for performance… $100K base salary… if you play well, you make more. Play bad, and we take money from you.”

She (I’m assuming it’s a lady. I hope it’s a lady) isn’t the first person to take this position, nor the first to put standard English usage through a cheese grater, just the most recent.

Jim Irsay, who owns the Indianapolis Colts, pays Peyton Manning $14 million annually. For that, Irsay gets about as indestructible a force as there is in pro football, the linchpin of an offense that’s a threat to go to the Super Bowl every year. Before Manning got to town, the Colts were the laughingstock of the league and the franchise value nowhere near what it is now.

Irsay didn’t remain rich enough to own a football team by overpaying people. If having Manning around is worth $14 million to Manning, you can be sure it’s worth more than that to Irsay.

Here at Control Your Cash, we neither idolize Manning nor disdain him (same goes for any pro athlete.)  But what good would result from paying him a base salary of <1% of what he commands on the market? Would the author have the remaining 31 NFL owners collude and refuse to pay any more than that to an athlete who could enrich their teams by tens of millions of dollars?

Begrudging athletes their salaries is nothing more than jealousy – the same activities we grew up doing for fun, these people worked so hard to get proficient at that they can command lots of money. Meanwhile, I’m punching a clock, getting yelled at by the boss and trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage. It’s so unfair.

Even years after high school is over, the star quarterback still receives a mixture of adulation and envy. Besides, how do you “pay for performance”, anyway? Say you tie LeBron James’ salary to his scoring and rebounding averages. In other words, you’d encourage him to shoot every time he touches the ball, even when the game situation calls for him to pass: or you’re giving him incentive to always play close to the basket, rather than ever defend someone on the perimeter. And yes, let’s put a coach in a position where he can draw up plays that have a direct negative financial impact on certain players. That won’t cause any resentment.

So, you argue, pay athletes for winning. Then how do you determine how much of each victory each player is responsible for? Should a player who works so hard in a game that he injures himself risk further injury by coming back earlier than he should, just so he can get paid more? Maybe you could just trust that the majority of pro sports owners know what they’re doing. And the few stupid ones (like the guy in Minnesota who just signed Darko Milicic for $20 million) are engaging in an exchange that doesn’t affect you or me in any direct way.

Instead, take this as a lesson: for the most part, how much an employee gets paid correlates to how much he’s helping his boss get paid. The salesman is the standard example, because sales is so easily quantified: bring $x to the company, keep $yx for yourself where y is a number between 0 and 1 (a lot closer to 0.)

Do you want more money? Let’s do a flowchart:

If you’re salaried, it’s a little more convoluted. Sometimes it’s a case of determining how much it would cost the company to not have you around. Even a receptionist or a custodian provides some value, in that respect. (If either of those happen to be what you do for a living, don’t let anyone tell you that it’s a “non-revenue” position. Ask how much revenue your company would be amassing if the grounds were filthy and the phones unanswered.)

If you’re a cubicle toad, it can be harder still. Your humble blogger used to work as a $45,000/year advertising copywriter. For this, the ad agency got:

-550 collateral pieces (or as normal people call them, “junk mail and flyers”)
-887 headlines
-223 radio commercials
-34 television commercials
-11 long-form presentation pieces

In other words, the agency was getting the biggest deal since the guy who bought Manhattan from Peter Minuit*. That work output was what about 2.2 ordinary writers could have done in the same period. An ordinary writer got paid around $40,000 (if you want to find out these things, it helps to make friends with the girls in the accounting department.) So in return for the $5,000 “surplus”, said writer was leaving an additional $43,000 on the table.

The agency billed its clients over $25 million that year. $45,000 was hardly a fair representation of a prodigious writer’s value. It was more fair than paying Peyton Manning “$100,000 base salary” would be, but not by much.

The point of all this? Know your worth. 99.something% of salaried employees don’t. Your employer knows exactly how expendable (or valuable) you are. If it’s the former, you’re about to get fired. If it’s the latter, he’s in no rush to share the details of that information with you.

And if you’re in business for yourself, you get to transcend this entire stupid charade.

*Minuit got the island for $24, we all know that. But his heirs don’t own it today, right? He must have unloaded it at some point.