Blog

Archive for January, 2010

TZOO: TravelZoo – Divestiture Sets Up Investment Opportunity

TravelZoo (TZOO) is interesting at current prices ($10.75). With the company’s divestiture of its money-losing Asian operations late last year, and the strong growth in subscribers in the remaining US and Europe operations, the company’s bottom-line could see a surge in 2010. The improving year-over-year comparisons, coupled with the low float on the stock, should benefit current shareholders. On the risk side, the company has no debt, a highly defensible business model (I view high traffic websites, with long histories, and a large email list, as some of the most defensible businesses around, despite some people’s belief that these businesses are easily replicated – they are not), and though the stock price has rebounded sharply from the financial crisis, as many other stocks, the price has still basically gone nowhere for years.

Disclosure: Affiliates of Envoy Global Research, and its principals, own shares in TZOO. All ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to invest, trade, and/or speculate in the markets. Any investments, trades, and/or speculations made in light of the ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise.

OSTE: Osteotech Shares Could Benefit from Improving Results and Shareholder Activism

Osteotech (OSTE – current price $3.50) is an interesting investment at current levels. The company fits all my normal criteria, namely, that recent results have been abysmal and the business is losing money. Plus the stock trades near all-time lows. On the positive side, however, OSTE has a cash-rich balance sheet with no debt, sports an EV/Sales of about 0.75, has a large revenue base, and operates in what I consider an attractive long-term market, biologic solutions for regenerative medicine. Additionally, recent communications from the company suggest that new products are gaining a bit of traction in the marketplace, revenues have stabilized, and cash losses have been eliminated (at least in the 4th quarter). Finally, recent buying of shares by activist funds and the company’s adoption of a shareholder rights plan, indicate that some sort of shareholder battle is brewing. My feeling is that if new product revenues continue to accelerate and management comes under pressure from activist investors, the shares could rise nicely this year as speculation surfaces about some sort of M&A transaction involving OSTE. Even without the M&A speculation, the shares could rise as financial results improve throughout 2010, when compared to a horrendous 2009. Solid year-over-year comps could bring in quant funds, and other mindless computer-based investment funds, into the stock.

Disclosure: Affiliates of Envoy Global Research, and its principals, own shares in OSTE. All ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to invest, trade, and/or speculate in the markets. Any investments, trades, and/or speculations made in light of the ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise.

The Economics of Nihilism

The incredible thing about the financial crisis appears to be that whenever some hard evidence of fraud surfaces, financial stocks soar higher. Of course most intelligent people realized quite awhile ago that the crisis was simply an impetus for the largest fraudulent “transfer” of wealth in human economic history. One accepts that fact, and moves on, hoping at least to garner some wealth for oneself. Nevertheless, one would still expect that as details emerge of the fraud, and the continued printing of money for purchase of totally worthless securities becomes more transparent, stocks should drop dramatically. However, that has not been the case.

For example, when it was finally disclosed that GS got paid 100% on their worthless CDS via the bailout of AIG, GS stock proceeded to triple. Then, when the government mandated accounting fraud at the banks and reported meaningless stress tests, the banks stocks started a massive rally. And then just yesterday, as it came to light that Geithner instructed AIG to withhold critical information from public filings, once again financial stocks, like GS took off.

I’m not sure what to make of this action, other than to call attention to a new principle, I call, the economics of nihilism. Though I’m not exactly certain yet how the principle functions, it seems clear that as financial assets become divorced from any rational measures of value, and they are proven to be of worthless value, the prices of financial assets soar. It’s as if investors are relieved to have finally shaken off the shackles of rationality from the pricing of financial assets. Without the burden of rationality, or risk/reward, prices of infinity can be easily justified.

As to why nihilism doesn’t move prices towards zero, as opposed to infinity, that is a topic for another post. However, I suspect that since economic nihilism provides no justification for either price extreme, it is in the interest of the financial players to moves prices in a direction that provides the greatest profit. But, I also believe that there must be some psychological mechanism at work, where things of proven worthless value, actually become the highest valued objects in society. Incidentally, the price of gold throughout history seems to prove the existence of this mechanism, given the fact that gold has little practical value other than as a means of financial speculation.

The US Financial Shell Game, Where Will It End

The Mortgage Shell Game
Today, I received a letter in the mail that told me that my home mortgage loan was sold to Fannie Mae. Just last month, I received a letter that my loan was sold to Bank of America. The month before that another mortgage bank originated my loan. I was wondering, who will buy the loan from Fannie Mae? Probably the Federal Reserve, who will then proceed to sell it back to the banks, and then buy it back at a profit. Will I get a letter from the Federal Reserve soon saying, your loan was sold to Fannie Mae, using your taxes?

Sounds like a classic shell game, no? In fact, there’s no difference between the mortgage industry and the classic pump and dump scandals that so often happen with bulletin board stocks. It’s difficult to understand how the mortgage shell game is legal, while other ponzi schemes are illegal.

Why Doesn’t The Fed Just Lend Directly
The basic issue, of course, is that if the Fed is the ultimate buyer of the mortgage, why aren’t they just originating the mortgage outright in the first place, without bothering to go thru all these hoops of having banks sell the mortgage to each other?

Do We Need to Maintain an Illusion of Capitalism?
For one thing, I guess if the Fed originates the mortgage first, then our economy is suddenly Socialist, and heaven forbid we should become socialists. Presumably, this shell game of selling the mortgage back and forth a few times, maintains the illusion that we exist in capitalistic society, where a honest day of hard work, some assessment of risk/reward, and some luck, pays the bills. However, since the mortgage shell game is so transparent, it seems ridiculous that anyone truly believes that some of the largest and most important parts of the economy are in any way capitalistic anymore. Of course, it’s not socialist either, with the heads of FNM and the other banks skimming off trillions in bonuses for just flipping assets around and back to the Fed.

Get Rid of the Middlemen
Which of course, brings me to what is apparently the true reason for this continuing fraud. It’s seemingly important to pay trillions in bonuses to all these banks who flip mortgages, because if we don’t pay them, as Paulson, Geithner, and others (including Obama), constantly remind us, then the economy will collapse. But wouldn’t it be more efficient to just eliminate all these middleman and use the excess capital to say do something totally crazy, like ensure the health of society or drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? We can even continue to pay huge bonuses to the banks if they go out and treat a few cancer patients, or simply install a few solar panels. Will our economy then collapse because we have less worthless paper to shuffle around? Is our world truly built on a house of cards?

Surprise, Surprise: PTEC Decides to Focus on the BIOS Business

As we suspected, big changes are afoot at PTEC. Yesterday, the company announced strategic alternatives for the foolish investments made during the last two years, and intends to focus its business strategy on the core systems software (BIOS) markets in which Phoenix has a long-established leadership position.

Does this “new” strategy sound familiar? One only needs to look at the cash-flow statements and stock price of PTEC from back in 2007, to see how these changes could positively help shareholders. I believe the outcome this time around should be similar.

Disclosure: Affiliates of Envoy Global Research, and its principals, own shares in PTEC. All ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to invest, trade, and/or speculate in the markets. Any investments, trades, and/or speculations made in light of the ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise.

More on the Health Insurance Misnomer Topic

It always pleasing to find others who share ones point of view, particularly when its an eminent economist.

I was therefore thrilled to find this healthcare insurance post and this follow up post from L. Randall Wray, that agrees with my prior thesis that healthcare insurance is really a misnomer, and that it is precisely this misnomer that has led to our dysfunctional healthcare system.

Some good quotes (though I highly encourage you to read the entire posts here and here):

“Healthcare is not a service that should be funded by insurance companies. An individual should insure against expensive and undesirable calamities: tornadoes, fires, auto accidents. This means the events need to be reasonably random and relatively rare, with calculable probabilities that do not change much over time.”

Of course, the standards of reasonably random and relatively rare, do not apply to 99% of the services that healthcare insurance supposedly funds.

For example, as Wray explains:

“Another significant health care cost results from provision of what could be seen as public health services—vaccinations, mother and infant care, and so on. And a large part of that has nothing to do with calamity but rather with normal life processes: pregnancy, birth, well child care, school physicals, and certification of death at the other end of life. Treating a pregnancy as an insurable loss seems silly—even if it is unplanned.”

I recently ran into just the problem Wray described, and I found it ludicrous that I had to pay 30% more in premiums per month to insure my wife’s pregnancy. Plus insurance companies won’t cover the pregnancy unless you are under the policy for nearly a year. So now insurance companies are financing what amounts to the most important, vital, and near certain decision of people’s lives? Having Children. As we all know, for mature adults, there is nothing random, calamitous, or rare about having a child. It is the height of absurdity that society allows insurance companies to collect premiums to “protect” against the cost of pregnancy.

Anyway, here are some more great tibits (emphasis mine):

“We currently pay most health care expenses through health insurance. But people need health care services on a routine basis—and not simply for unexpected calamities. We have become so accustomed to health insurance that we cannot understand how absurd it is to finance health care services in this manner. Our automobiles need routine maintenance, including oil changes. Imagine if we expected our auto insurer to cover such expected costs. ”

But health care “reform” proposes to force us to turn over a larger portion of our income to insurance companies—who will then do their best to ensure that any health care services we need will not be covered by the plan we are forced to buy.

The solution, of course, is to downsize insurance and return it to its rightful place, insuring random and rare events. Payment for regular healthcare costs can be met with a much better system, namely a government/non-private entity that prints (yes you read that correctly, prints) money to pay for healthcare. Better to print $5 trillion to keep our nation healthy, so we can all become productive members of society, than to print $5 trillion to bail out a bunch of gamblers on Wall Street that provide no services to society.

As Wray concludes:

“Finally, there may still be a role for private insurers, albeit a substantially downsized one. Private insurance can be reserved for accidents, with individuals grouped according to similar risks: hang-gliders, smokers, and texting drivers can all be sorted into risk classes for insurance purposes. If it is any consolation to the downsized insurers, we also need to downsize the role played by the whole financial sector. Finance won’t like that because it has become accustomed to its outsized role. In recent years it has been taking 40% of corporate profits. It takes most of its share off the top—fees and premiums that it receives before anyone else gets paid. Rather than playing an auxiliary role, helping to ensure that goods and services get produced and distributed to those who need them, Wall Street has come to see its role as primary, with all aspects of our economy run by the Masters of the Universe.”

In conclusion, I repeat my thesis that if we were to shrink the insurance companies, healthcare costs would drop dramatically, and we could afford these costs and would have no need for healthcare “insurance” companies to pay for regular life events and standard care (except for rare events). The reason why healthcare costs have skyrocketed, however, is precisely because healthcare insurance companies are allowed to insure risks that have no business being insured. The expansion of this fraudulent financing causes costs to rise, while enriching the executives of the healthcare insurance companies. Obamacare is a ridiculous reform bill because it greatly increases the premiums sent to private insurers in our healthcare system (in fact they are subsidized by the government, aka taxpayers), which will guarantee that health care costs will increase dramatically, as will the premiums of everyone in society. Truly an absurd notion of reform, and sad commentary on the moral compass of the US.