IPOs for Beginners

 

You mean a site where people give their opinions about restaurants is worth billions? Sure, sounds good to me.

This article appears in drastically different form on Investopedia.  

“IPOs for beginners”. As a concept, that’s similar to “International Space Station repair for beginners.” No less an authority than Benjamin Graham, author of the definitive investing guide The Intelligent Investor and mentor of Warren Buffett, believed that initial public offerings were way beyond the neophyte investor’s level. He was largely right, but why?

Who wouldn’t want to be among the first to enjoy a promising new stock, one that no one else at the cocktail party had the privilege of investing in as early as you did? IPOs are tempting, if you’re the kind of person who loves shiny new toys and the general feeling of exclusivity that accompanies them. But at least you can physically show off your iPad 3 or PlayStation Vita and receive tangible oohs and aahs. That’s considerably different than telling everyone you meet that you hopped aboard the Groupon bandwagon when the rest of the world was still showing their IDs at the ticket counter. There’s little that’s conspicuous about a particular new entry in an online brokerage account.

Graham thought IPOs were only for seasoned investors for several reasons, one of them being that the previous private owners are often looking to cash out much of their holdings. The underwriters set the price of the typical IPO at a premium specifically to take advantage of a seller’s market. With limited supply, and highly publicized if not unlimited demand, what would you expect to happen to the price of a stock when it’s first offered to the public? (It’s a rhetorical question, and if you really need the answer, you shouldn’t even be considering investing in an IPO.)

Graham died a quarter-century before the original dot-com bust, and everything that’s happened since would only reinforce his position regarding who should invest in an IPO. Almost by definition, most initial public offerings are of companies that haven’t been around a long time. Lately, the companies haven’t even needed healthy records of revenue growth and profit, either. But with a proliferation of aggressive venture capital firms looking to back winners, and the financial media having ever more reach among amateurs looking for an exciting place to put their money, one thing is certain: the next Pets.com or eToys won’t be hurting for investors on its opening trading day.

Last November, Groupon “finally” went public after endless rumors. (“Finally” is in quotes because while most of Groupon’s existence as a private company was spent anticipating the IPO, that existence was only three years. The company was founded in November of 2008.) The company was on top of the collective consciousness as the hottest of all possible IPOs, at least until the day that Facebook goes public. Groupon acknowledged in SEC documents that it was on pace to lose half a billion dollars a year, and investors still kept coming. Once the institutional investors got paid, and GRPN finally became available to the ordinary public, the stock had fallen from its introductory price. A scant 4 months later, Groupon stock has lost almost a third of its value, which is fairly impressive seeing as earnings are about a negative dollar per share. Groupon’s never reached its IPO level after a couple of weeks of trading, and might never again.

Of course, all IPOs aren’t Groupon. VISA went public after decades of renown and profit, but even its IPO wasn’t available to anyone but institutional investors at the start. The same will go for Facebook. The company’s primary stockholders will profit the most – the very day it goes public, in fact. The initial lenders will get on their knees and thank the God of their parents’ choice. After a few more iterations, the most anticipated stock in recent history will trickle down to average investors at a price that could be a bargain, or could be a local maximum. There are more prudent ways to invest.

Take an example of a company whose stock is about as far removed from an IPO as possible – United Technologies. The Hartford-based aircraft engine and elevator conglomerate has been a component of the Dow since before World War II, and probably hasn’t been above the fold in any story in The Wall Street Journal since then. Most people have never heard of United Technologies, and the company brass prefers it that way, thank you very much. Nothing, not even a fire alarm, will clear out a room faster than telling people you recently went long on UTX stock. But an interesting thing about United Technologies’ performance is that you can examine its price movement over almost any arbitrary period,  and the graph will consistently move up and to the right.

Investing should have one solitary, overarching objective – to make money. Getting excited about an IPO for its own sake isn’t investing so much as it is flamboyance. The people who got in on Google’s ground floor, you can count on both hands. It’s tempting to think that you could have been one of them, or that you could be in a similar position when the next IPO comes available, but building wealth doesn’t have to be that capricious. Find an established, undervalued, temporarily wounded stock, and you’re far more likely to turn a long-term profit than someone starry-eyed over the latest company to be listed publicly.

This article is featured in:

**The Carnival of Personal Finance-Invest in Yourself Edition (Editor’s pick)**

**Totally Money Blog Carnival #60**

Real Answers To Largely Real Questions

 

Male bag. Thank God Dwight Eisenhower and Ted Williams aren't alive to see this.

 

 

Dear Control Your Cash:

We came into an inheritance of about $130,000. We paid off all our credit cards and deposited $100,000 in two credit union accounts that each pay 3% on deposits. The balance sits in a non-interest-bearing regular deposit account. Our income takes care of all bills, with a modest margin for savings and/or the occasional repair, travel, etc., without requiring commission income from my job. That situation should be stable for the next 5-10 years (famous last words). In this economic environment, where would you put the cash sitting in the credit union account?

Abigail
Phenix City, Alabama

 

Dear Abigail:

How much is sitting in the regular deposit account?

Control Your Cash

 

 

(no response)

 

Dear Abigail (continued):

Okay, fine. Can’t be more than $30,000.

Put 3-6 months of expenses in the best savings account you can find. Try ING. You can buy a CD, but you can probably get an interest-bearing account that pays a similar rate without locking up the money.

Let’s take a look at Bankrate. Right now, the best 3-month CD rate we can find on there, among banks that don’t require a minimum, is Ally’s .39%. Ally’s own money market and savings accounts go as high as .84%, again with no balance required.

Put the rest in TIPS – treasury inflation-protected securities – and index funds. Vanguard is great for index funds because they keep their fees low and have lots of choices. Here are a few that might work, in descending order of how highly we regard them:

REIT index fund
Total stock market index fund
Total bond market index fund

The REIT fund invests in real estate investment trusts only. Buy in, and you’re holding pieces of companies that own pieces of buildings. $3000 gets you into this fund that has a low expense ratio and that pays quarterly dividends (which totaled 44¢ a share over the past year.)

One positive to the REIT fund – or negative, if you have different objectives – is that it’s got far fewer components than your standard stock fund. The REIT fund has only 112 components, a dozen of which comprise half its value. You’d expect this fund to have relatively few components, since there are far fewer REITs for a REIT fund to be composed of than there are stocks that could make up a stock fund.

The stock fund, on the other hand, has a little of everything. 3319 components, to be precise. When Vanguard says the fund tracks the entire market, they mean it. The fund’s top 10 holdings make up only ⅙ of its value, and those holdings are as big relative to the fund as they are to American commerce itself: in order, those stocks are:

Exxon Mobil Corp.58,095,543$4,924,178,225
Apple Inc.11,077,447$4,486,366,035
International Business Machines Corp.14,269,978$2,623,963,555
Chevron Corp.23,932,734$2,546,442,898
Microsoft Corp.90,097,291$2,338,925,674
General Electric Co.126,658,602$2,268,455,562
Procter & Gamble Co.32,835,015$2,190,423,851
Johnson & Johnson32,743,485$2,147,317,746
AT&T Inc.70,807,116$2,141,207,188
Pfizer Inc.93,224,076$2,017,369,005
Google Inc. Class A3,037,566$1,961,963,879
Coca-Cola Co.24,691,491$1,727,663,625
Wells Fargo & Co.59,932,087$1,651,728,318
Philip Morris International Inc.20,987,803$1,647,122,779
JPMorgan Chase & Co.46,588,007$1,549,051,233
Intel Corp.62,741,843$1,521,489,693
Merck & Co. Inc.36,811,418$1,387,790,459
Verizon Communications Inc.33,826,667$1,357,125,880

 

Finally, the bond fund. It deals exclusively in “investment-grade” bonds, 70% government, the rest corporate. It holds pieces of 4,301 bonds, most of it Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Which, curiously, Vanguard regards as government bonds. Even though Fannie and Freddie are officially private enterprises. We’ve talked about this before. Last month in, fact.)

Either way, you’re doing fine. Look at the returns on even the most conservative choice here, and compare it to what you were making in credit card interest payments.

We’ll say it again – a huge part of building wealth is not destroying wealth. There are a million places to make the analogy, but constructing a skyscraper is a hell of a lot easier if you aren’t setting fire to the building’s foundation every night.

Dear Control Your Cash:

Tax time is coming up. I get my taxes done at Jackson Hewitt, in the mall, because addition and subtraction are hard. And don’t get me started on multiplication and division. Besides, I’m more of a left-brainer. Numbers are soulless and have no place in a creative person’s life. Did I mention that I’m an artist?

Anyhow, I’m expecting about a $500 refund this year. (Yes!!)

So should I get a refund anticipation loan? The tax preparer told me that I’d get the money immediately, instead of having to wait a few weeks for my refund like I normally do. It’s my money, I shouldn’t have to wait for it, right? So unfair! What do you think?

Erika
Scottsdale, Arizona

 

 

Dear Erika:

Thanks. A little comedy always livens up the mailbag. Of course you shouldn’t have to wait for your money, which makes us wonder why you authorized the federal government to confiscate it from you in the first place, only to return it to you with zero interest months later. What Jackson Hewitt squeezes out of you is yours and their business, however. Read this, if you can do it without drooling on your keyboard.

 

Got a question for the CYC mailbag? Email info@ our URL.

Size Matters. But Define “Size”.

The logo of the former largest company in the world, the East India Company. Graphic design was not a priority in the 18th century.

 

Quick, what’s the biggest company in the world?

If you’re a casual reader of the business news, or were last summer, you might say “Apple”. It was something of a noteworthy deal when Apple moved into the top spot, but what does that top spot signify? Does it mean that Apple sold its products for more money than anyone else did? That its owners got richer than anyone else did? That its owners would get richer than anyone else, if they liquidated their interest? Or something else? Are we thinking too hard about this?

Yes. The biggest company in the world is the one that generates the most revenue.
Isn’t it?

Sure, but what if there’s another company that generates slightly less revenue, but has significantly smaller expenses and thus keeps more of the revenue as profit?

Uh…yeah, you’re right. That’d make more sense. 

But isn’t value in the eye of the beholder? Say there was a company that took in even less revenue, and didn’t necessarily turn a stupendous profit. But, investors loved the company so much that they valued its stock highly. And if you wanted to buy this entire company, share by share, you’d have to spend more than you would to buy any other company.

Okay, you sold me. That should be the definition of the world’s largest company. There can’t be any other ways to interpret this, can there? 

CAN THERE? 

Well, how do you determine your own net worth? You add the assets and subtract the liabilities. Do the same thing on a macro scale and you have a company’s shareholders’ equity, which should be the definitive, absolute, certain way to determine a company’s magnitude. Aside from the other ways we just mentioned.

Okay, time for the real-world results.

REVENUE: The company that takes in the most money is Walmart. Last year, that meant $421 billion.

Walmart makes money on volume, not margins. Anything you buy at Walmart, Walmart bought for only a little bit less. Walmart doesn’t turn big profits on any individual item – the Birkin bag that the retailer buys for $45 and then turns around and sells to you for $20,000 isn’t on the shelves at Walmart. But the nickels and dimes that Walmart makes on every grocery item and article of inexpensive clothing keep its profits huge and its shareholders happy.

Which means Walmart spends tons on what it buys. It turns a profit, and a substantial one, but not as big as at least one other company’s.

PROFIT: Apple made $26 billion last year, despite selling a lot less than Walmart. How? Because while Apple sells less than Walmart, the profit on each item Apple sells is far, far greater than on what Walmart sells.

Last year somebody estimated that it costs Apple about $180 to make each iPhone. Meanwhile, new unlocked 4S models with 64GB of storage sell for over $800 on eBay. It’s hard to imagine a single product that Walmart makes a $620 profit on. Except the iPhones.

For the record, when Apple was announced as the largest company in the world in the summer of 2011 (or more to the point, when news of its financials trickled down from the business news departments to their knuckle-dragging counterparts on the general news desk), it wasn’t because of Apple’s profits. It was because of another metric.

MARKET CAP(ITALIZATION): Apple had the largest market cap in the world for a few weeks earlier this year, but ExxonMobil then caught up and regained its place on top. As of this writing, Apple has wrested the title away yet again. Right now, if you wanted to buy every share of AAPL it’d cost you $480 billion. That’s about ⅙ more than ExxonMobil.

Which leaves one remaining measure.

EQUITY: The company with the biggest difference between its assets and its liabilities is Bank of America, whose shareholders’ equity sits at around $228 billion.

Most of the top companies in shareholders’ equity are banks (both commercial and investment) and insurance companies. A major chunk of their assets come in the form of loans. What you and we sweat over, banks get excited by. Loans are their stock in trade, which sounds like an obvious point but is easy to forget sometimes.

How does this apply to your daily life? Well, to the extent that it forces you to think of multiple valid ways to look at the same problem. Who’s in a better place – the person who makes $150,000 a year, or the one who makes $120,000 and clears $60,000 after expenses while the first person spends every penny and then some? It’s a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. And once you’ve determined an answer, how does that person stack up against someone who makes $70,000, but has a net worth of $5 million?

More money is better than less: if you don’t agree with that, you probably shouldn’t be reading our blog. But there are multiple ways to determine who’s in the most enviable financial position.

This article is featured in:

**Carnival of Financial Camaraderie #26**