Udanchoo or Yahoo has No Value?

Key points of note re intrinsic value estimates  Udanchoo is a Hindu phrase for flyaway or disappear

Venkat Subramaniam writes: I have calculated the intrinsic value of the operating assets using a DCF method, with source information from company financials (please see at appendix for the intrinsic value calculation for Alibaba, Yahoo Japan, and Yahoo’s Core Business).

The debt, cash, and non-operating assets have been taken from the most recent earnings reports available.

I have applied a 2% discount to Alibaba and Yahoo Japan’s intrinsic value to account for the fact Yahoo Inc’s stake is trapped inside a corporate structure and cannot easily be crystallised. In the Yahoo Inc Consolidated column, I have added up the net value of equity based on Yahoo Inc’s share of equity (15.4% for Alibaba, 35.5% for Yahoo Japan, and 100% for the Core Business).

The value of employee stock options has been calculated using information available from the company financials, and using Black Scholes method.

In conclusion – my value of intrinsic value for the Alibaba and Yahoo Japan business is comparable with the Market Cap for those business; and, after adding Yahoo’s Core Business value, it appears that the market is pricing a 32% discount to intrinsic value. This discount needs to be compared with the estimated tax liability in order to identify any mispricing in the Market.  Yahoo’s Value

Yahoo! ????

Too Big to Jail? Jail the Little Guys?

Bankers too big to jail, so jail the small players?

Matt Levine writes: Richard Choo-Beng Lee, who cooperated with prosecutors in their long-running investigation of insider trading at and around SAC Capital Advisors, was sentenced to 21 days in jail, which is not a particularly long sentence as insider-trading sentences go, but which was still rather a shock to him since other insider-trading cooperators have normally avoided prison. I guess now that the Newman decision has more or less killed thehedge-fund-insider-trading crackdown, there is less reason to make cooperation appealing.

In related news, “The Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against hedge fund billionaire Steven Cohen is moving forward again, after prosecutors Monday withdrew their request for a two-year freeze imposed while they pursued criminal insider trading charges against his employees.” That case is a civil failure-to-supervise case connected with insider trading, and one fact that may be relevant to SAC’s supervisory culture is that Richard Choo-Beng Lee is one of two SAC Capital traders named Richard Lee who pled guilty to insider trading and cooperated with the government.

Meanwhile in England, poor Tom Hayes is appealing his barbaric 14-year prison sentence for Libor manipulation. “Hayes ‘Didn’t Invent’ Libor Rigging, Lawyer Says in Appeal Fight,” is the Bloomberg headline, and while I am sympathetic, no one appeals a murder sentence on the grounds that he didn’t invent murder.

In Switzerland, Hervé Falciani, a former HSBC private bank employee who leaked secret documents led to revelations “that HSBC’s Swiss banking arm turned a blind eye to illegal activities of arms dealers and helped wealthy people evade taxes,” was sentenced to five years in prison for his troubles. “He is currently living in France, where he sought refuge from Swiss justice, and did not attend the trial.”

And in Brazil, is Andre Esteves too big to jail? I mean, he’s in jail, but that is creating nervousness at his investment bank, BTG Pactual, and in the Brazilian financial system more generally.

Too Big to Jail

Chan Zuckerberg Maxing Out?

TNe consequences of the Zuckerberg birth announcement.

Matt Levine writes:  The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, to which Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have pledged to donate 99 percent of their Facebook stock, is not a charitable foundation, but just an LLC. That is, it’s just a pot into which Zuckerberg and Chan can put their money, and out of which they can give money to charities, or for-profit investments, or political advocacy, or whatever.

One upshot of this is that they won’t get a tax deduction for putting money into that pot, because it is not a charitable foundation. This is of course not at all important to them, because they don’t have that much taxable income (Zuckerberg is paid $1 a year, and most of their wealth is in unrealized capital gains). Also, they are planning to give away 99 percent of the shares that make up the bulk of their fortune, and giving away 99 percent of your money to shield yourself from income taxes on the other 1 percent is economically nonsensical.

But a surprising number of people are making a claims like this: There’s an almost overnight financial benefit, too: The Facebook founder will deduct the fair value of his gift to his foundation from his taxable income in the year he makes the donation. A donor like Zuckerberg could realize a tax benefit equal to about one-third of the value of his gift.

Nope! No foundation, no tax benefit.

Elsewhere, Dylan Matthews has some ideas for what Mark Zuckerberg should do with his money, including giving it to his college roommate or spending it on monetary policy lobbying. (These are mostly not jokes, though who’s to say what a joke is really.)

David Auerbach asks, Can We Trust the Hacker Philanthropists?
Here’s the truth: No matter how good their intentions, the net result of most such efforts has typically been neutral at best, and can sometimes be deeply destructive. The most valuable path may well be to simply invest this enormous pool of resources in the people and institutions that are already doing this work (including, yes, public institutions funded by tax dollars) and trust that they know their domains better than someone who’s already got a pretty demanding day job. That may not be as appealing to the cult of disruption within the tech echo chamber, but would be exactly the kind of brave and unexpected move that might offer Max a great example of how to engage with the real world that the rest of us live in.

stork-1

Lessons from Iceland’s Economic Recovery?

The Rocky Road to Globalization

Iceland recovered from the 2008 financial crisis by taking certain measures.  Is there anything to be learned from their example?

Karen Hammer writes:  Iceland has rebounded after the 2008/9 crisis and will soon surpass pre-crisis output levels with strong performance in tourism and fisheries. Debt ratios are on a downward path and balance sheets have broadly been restored. The financial sector is back on track though with some important items remaining on the docket.

In an interview with IMF Survey, Peter Dohlman, IMF Mission Chief for Iceland, explained what sets Iceland apart from other countries having experienced the financial crisis.

IMF Survey: Iceland was in a state of collapse in 2008 but is now back on its feet and has become a success story. Can you give us a sense of Iceland’s economic picture today?  

Dohlman: Overall, macroeconomic conditions in Iceland are now at their best since the 2008/9 crisis. Iceland has been one of the top economic performers in Europe over the past several years in terms of economic growth and has one of the lowest unemployment rates. A particular bright spot for Iceland has been the booming tourism industry, which has also contributed to a strong current account surplus.

Other indicators of Iceland’s successful trajectory are its low inflation, stable exchange rate, and ready market access. Iceland’s strong balance of payments has allowed it to repay early all of its Nordic loans and much of its IMF loans while maintaining adequate foreign exchange reserves.

There are of course some important remaining vulnerabilities and risks. Public and external debt ratios are still high, though on a downward sustainable path. The prospect of funds exiting quickly and disrupting external stability in the absence of capital controls is still a potential and important vulnerability. Downside risks emanate from significant wage pressures and an uncertain external environment, including risks of slower demand and deflationary pressures from trading partners.  IMF Survey Iceland’s Recovery

Iceland's Recvoery

 

Entrepreneur Alert: Streaming Media Content

Delivery of media content is a wide open field for entrepreneus:

Greg Miller writes: If you’re a Star Trek fan, CBS just made your day. It announced that it’s bringing back a Star Trek television series.

But there’s a catch…

In a sign of the changing times in the TV industry, the only way to see the new series will be to subscribe to CBS All Access – the company’s paid video streaming service that costs $5.99 a month.

As you may know, the video streaming market is huge – and growing. It certainly qualifies as a disruptive force, as it’s a direct threat to incumbent cable companies, with viewers increasingly “cutting the cord” on their cable programming.

At the same time, though, it’s also a huge opportunity for cable companies because many of them not only own the programming, they also provide the internet connections that enable streaming to reach homes. And nobody wants to cut that cord!

But as the streaming industry grows, it presents a challenge to other streaming companies, content producers, and consumers’ wallets.

Before blockbuster franchises like Harry Potter and TwilightStar Trek was the original franchise. Indeed, for a time in the 1990s, Star Trek was even called the franchise within Paramount Studios.

When Viacom Inc. split up its company in 2014, the franchise split. Paramount kept the movie rights and has since produced two successful Star Trek films. CBS Television kept the TV rights, and it’s getting back in the game.

But CBS’ decision to only stream the new series is a direct shot at two parties:

Cable Companies: Any high-profile programming that isn’t available on cable is a direct threat to cable. After all, if the shows you want to watch are increasingly available elsewhere, why give your money to a cable company, which you probably hate anyway.

Streaming Content

Streaming Content

Carbon Emissions in Developing Countries

The Rocky Road to Globalization

Can we make the same carbon emissions demands on developing countries that we make on mature economies?

Karl Ritter and Seth Borenstein write:  Attempts to inscribe a long-term goal to phase out carbon emissions in an envisioned global climate pact are facing pushback at U.N. talks from big developing countries including India and Brazil.

Negotiators from both countries said Wednesday they favor sticking to the already established goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial times — a level that scientists say could avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The United States and other members of the Group of Seven wealthy countries earlier this year endorsed a “decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century.”
Brazil’s lead negotiator Antonio Marcondes told The Associated Press that there was no need to come up with a new joint climate goal.

A joint Brazilian-German declaration in August that backed a “decarbonization of the global economy” while noting that some countries will need financial and technological help to make the transition to cleaner energy.

The long-term goal is one of the issues that split the larger group of developing countries in the climate talks. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia opposes wording calling for a phase-out of carbon emissions, while small island nations that face an existential risk from rising seas are among the strongest advocates. China has largely stayed silent..

Speaking at a NATO conference in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he thought the climate talks “got off to an encouraging start” with 150 world leaders — the biggest ever gathering of heads of state and government — attending the opening day. Kerry is expected to join the meeting next week.

However, the talks have made little progress after the leaders left.

Carbon Footprint

Response to Terrorism in the US

Terrorism in the US.  Reports that San Bernadino shootings involved people with terrorist contacts.  Here is a letter from an agency in Northern California which has a similar mission to the San Bernadino agency:

It is with a very heavy heart I reach out to all of you in response to the horrific events that have unfolded and continue to unfold around the senseless shootings that happened today at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, CA.

At this very early stage of this awful news we don’t know much more than what we see on television news and on the Internet.

But what we do know is hard to imagine and very hard to understand.

By 3 p.m., police were reporting that three armed men attacked the facility earlier today and killed at least 14 people and injured another 17. How many more people may have been hurt we do not know. At the time of this posting, the situation in San Bernardino was fluid. News reports said police located the suspect vehicle and a gun battle ensued. One suspect was reported shot and killed, another was wounded and the third escaped and remained at large. A police officer also was injured in the shooting but his injuries were reported not life threatening.

As we hold those directly impacted by this tragedy in our thoughts and prayers, we all know that there is a larger and deeper ripple effect then what could ever be conveyed in news coverage.

The Board of Directors and your Leadership team are committed to providing the safest environment possible for each of you and the individuals we serve.  If you have questions or find yourself or those individuals we serve in need of extra support during this time, please contact myself or your direct supervisor.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of today’s tragedy and their families and all of our colleagues in San Bernardino with whom we share a commitment to helping people with disabilities live rewarding and independent lives.

Bank Equity Requirements Up. Size of Banks May Be Up Too

Equity requirements upped for banks and questions about the size of banks subject to US Fed regulation.

The largest U.S. banks would face a $120 billion total shortfall of long-term debt under a Federal Reserve proposal aimed at ensuring their failure wouldn’t hurt the broader financial system.

Banks such as Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. will be required to hold enough debt that could be converted into equity if they were to falter, according to a Fed rule that was approved by a unanimous vote on Friday. The Fed’s proposal, which applies to eight of the biggest U.S. banks, requires debt and a capital cushion equal to at least 16 percent of risk-weighted assets by 2019 and 18 percent by 2022.

Ian Katz writes: The broad strokes of the proposal, including the lengthy phase-in period and the 18 percent target instead of what some bankers thought could be as high as 20 percent, are easier than many in the industry expected.

The proposal, along with other measures regulators have taken to avoid chaotic bank failures, “would substantially reduce the risk to taxpayers and the threat to financial stability stemming from the failure of these firms,” Fed Chair Janet Yellen said in a statement. The plan “is another important step in addressing the ‘too big to fail’ problem,” she said.

The rule on total loss-absorbing capacity, or TLAC, is a key part of regulators’ efforts to avoid another financial crisis. If U.S. banks were to fail, investors in their stock would lose everything, but the debt would be converted into equity in a new, reconstituted bank under the plan. It’s an element of the so-called living wills banks must submit to the Fed and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. each year to map out their hypothetical demise.

The reason for the provision: When a bank fails, regulators want it to have a war chest to fund a new, healthy version of the company — hopefully without a dime from taxpayers.

Wells Fargo had been perceived as facing the toughest road under the rule because of its reliance on deposits rather than debt.

Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities LLC, said in a research note that the Fed “passed up several opportunities to be even more onerous.”

The Financial Stability Board, a group of global regulators that makes recommendations to the Group of 20 nations, plans to phase in a TLAC rule requiring long-term debt of at least 16 percent of risk-weighted assets starting in 2019 and 18 percent by 2022.

The Fed also approved mandatory levels of minimum long-term debt, which vary depending on how large and complex the banks are.

Since the financial crisis, the Fed has consistently written rules that have been more stringent than global regulatory accords on capital and liquidity.

Banks are now subject to regulation if they have $50 billion in assets.  Banks have asked to up this to $500 billion.  The Fed set new requirements to help protect against bank failures;  “The final rule establishes a number of enhanced prudential standards for large U.S. bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations to help increase the resiliency of their operations. These standards include liquidity, risk management, and capital. It also requires a foreign banking organization with a significant U.S. presence to establish an intermediate holding company over its U.S. subsidiaries, which will facilitate consistent supervision and regulation of the U.S. operations of the foreign bank. The final rule was required by section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”  from the US Fed.

Bank Regulation?

 

On the Oil Cliff?

Who is on the Oil Cliff?

The Saudi economy is short of cash, prompting both the public and the private sector to cut their expenditures; meanwhile, bank clients are withdrawing their deposits and taking new loans, meaning the economic outlook for the oil-reliant nation is rather gloomy.  Although the Saudi economy hasn’t been badly shaken yet by the decline in oil prices, it has by now lost its development momentum, meaning the nation’s capability to expand oil production is limited. As most Saudi energy projects are bound to falter amid the mounting disinvestment, crude prices will settle at a more stable foundation and the Kingdom will lose some of its historic pricing power.

For Russia, $30 is the number to watch.  Crude prices at that level will push the economy to depths that would threaten the nation’s financial system, according to 15 of 27 respondents in a Bloomberg survey. Lower prices for the fuel are next year’s biggest risk for Russia, which is unprepared to ride out another shock on the oil market, most economists said. Other dangers for 2016 include geopolitics, strains in the banking industry and the ruble, according to the poll of 27 analysts.

On the Cliff

 

 

India and China Enveloped in Smog as Leaders Tackle Climate Change in Paris

The Rocky Road to Globalization

The capitals of the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, were blanketed in hazardous, choking smog on Monday as climate change talks began in Paris, where leaders of both countries are among the participants.

China’s capital Beijing maintained an “orange” pollution alert, the second-highest level, on Monday, closing highways, halting or suspending construction and prompting a warning to residents to stay indoors.

The choking pollution was caused by the “unfavorable weather.”

In New Delhi, the U.S. embassy’s monitoring station recorded an air quality index of 372, which puts air pollution levels well into “hazardous” territory. A thick smog blanketed the city and visibility was down to about 200 yards (metres). Air quality in the city of 16 million is usually bad in winter, when coal fires are lit by the poor to ward off the cold. Traffic fumes, too, are trapped over the city by a temperature inversion and the lack of wind. However, the government has not raised any alarm over the current air quality and no advisories have been issued to the public. Thirty thousand runners took part in a half marathon at the weekend, when pollution levels were just as high.

In Beijing, a city of 22.5 million, the air quality index in some parts of the city soared to 500, its highest possible level. At levels higher than 300, residents are encouraged to remain indoors, according to government guidelines. The hazardous air underscores the challenge facing the government as it battles pollution caused by the coal­burning power industry and will raise questions about its ability to clean up its economy at the talks in Paris. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are both in Paris and both were scheduled to meet U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday to give momentum to the two­week negotiations. ”

Modi sought to highlight India’s green credentials writing: “The instinct of our culture is to take a sustainable path to development. When a child is born, we plant a tree.” But at Connaught Place, a city centre landmark in New Delhi, people chided the government for failing to minimize the risks to their health from air pollution. “The pollution level is so high it’s just unbelievable,” said Aisha, a 19­year­old student. For Beijing’s residents, the poor air makes breathing hard. This sort of weather, you can see that all of Beijing has been completely enveloped in smog.

Image by Susan Rennie

Image by Susan Rennie