Not All Earnings are Equal – Revenue Growth Matters! (Sell Microsoft)

Not All Earnings are Equal – Revenue Growth Matters! (Sell Microsoft)


For the first time in 20 years, Apple’s quarterly profit exceeded Microsoft’s (see BusinessWeek.comMicrosoft’s Net Falls Below Apple As iPad Eats Into Sales.) Thus, on the face of things, the companies should be roughly equally valued.  But they aren’t. This week Microsoft’s market capitalization is about $215B, while Apple’s is about $365B – about 70% higher.  The difference is, of course, growth – and how a lack of it changes management!

According to the Conference Board, growth stalls are deadly.

Growth Stall primary slide
When companies hit a growth stall, 93% of the time they are unable to maintain even a 2% growth rate. 75% fall into a no growth, or declining revenue environment, and 70% of them will lose at least half their market capitalization. That’s because the market has shifted, and the business is no longer selling what customers really want.

At Microsoft, we see a company that has been completely unable to deal with the market shift toward smartphones and tablets:

  • Consumer PC shipments dropped 8% last quarter
  • Netbook sales plunged 40%

Quite simply, when revenues stall earnings become meaningless. Even though Microsoft earnings were up, it wasn’t because they are selling what customers really want to buy. In stalled companies, executives cut costs in sales, marketing, new product development and outsource like crazy in order to prop up earnings.  They can outsource many functions.  And they go to the reservoir of accounting rules to restate depreciation and expenses, delaying expenses while working to accelerate revenue recognition.

Stalled company management will tout earnings growth, even though revenues are flat or declining.  But smart investors know this effort to “manufacture earnings” does not create long-term value.  They want “real” earnings created by selling products customers desire; that create incremental, new demand.  Success doesn’t come from wringing a few coins out of a declining market – but rather from being in markets where people prefer the new solutions.

Mobile phone sales increased 20% (according to IDC), and Apple achieved 14% market share – #3 – in USA (according to MediaPost.com) last quarter. And in this business, Apple is taking the lion’s share of the profits:

Apple share of phone profits 1Q 2011
Image provided by BusinessInsider.com

When companies are growing, investors like that they pump earnings (and cash) back into growth opportunities.  Investors benefit because their value compounds. In a stalled company investors would be better off if the company paid out all their earnings in dividends – so investors could invest in the growth markets.

But, of course, stalled companies like Microsoft and Research in Motion, don’t do that.  Because they spend their cash trying to defend the old business.  Trying to fight off the market shift.  At Microsoft, money is poured into trying to protect the PC business, even as the trend to new solutions is obvious. Microsoft spent 8 times as much on R&D in 2009 as Apple – and all investors received was updates to the old operating system and office automation products.  That generated almost no incremental demand.  While revenue is stalling, costs are rising.

At Gurufocus.com the argument is made “Microsoft Q3 2011: Priced for Failure“.  Author Alex Morris contends that because Microsoft is unlikely to fail this year, it is underpriced.  Actually, all we need to know is that Microsoft is unlikely to grow.  Its cost to defend the old business is too high in the face of market shifts, and the money being spent to defend Microsoft will not go to investors – will not yield a positive rate of return – so investors are smart to get out now!

Additionally, Microsoft’s cost to extend its business into other markets where it enters far too late is wildly unprofitable.  Take for example search and other on-line products: Microsoft online losses 3.2011
Chart source BusinessInsider.com

While much has been made of the ballyhooed relationship between Nokia and Microsoft to help the latter enter the smartphone and tablet businesses, it is really far too late.  Customer solutions are now in the market, and the early leaders – Apple and Google Android – are far, far in front.  The costs to “catch up” – like in on-line – are impossibly huge.  Especially since both Apple and Google are going to keep advancing their solutions and raising the competitive challenge.  What we’ll see are more huge losses, bleeding out the remaining cash from Microsoft as its “core” PC business continues declining.

Many analysts will examine a company’s earnings and make the case for a “value play” after growth slows.  Only, that’s a mythical bet.  When a leader misses a market shift, by investing too long trying to defend its historical business, the late-stage earnings often contain a goodly measure of “adjustments” and other machinations.  To the extent earnings do exist, they are wasted away in defensive efforts to pretend the market shift will not make the company obsolete.  Late investments to catch the market shift cost far too much, and are impossibly late to catch the leading new market players.  The company is well on its way to failure, even if on the surface it looks reasonably healthy.  It’s a sucker’s bet to buy these stocks.

Rarely do we see such a stark example as the shift Apple has created, and the defend & extend management that has completely obsessed Microsoft.  But it has happened several times.  Small printing press manufacturers went bankrupt as customers shifted to xerography, and Xerox waned as customers shifted on to desktop publishing.  Kodak declined as customers moved on to film-less digital photography.  CALMA and DEC disappeared as CAD/CAM customers shifted to PC-based Autocad.  Woolworths was crushed by discount retailers like KMart and WalMart.  B.Dalton and other booksellers disappeared in the market shift to Amazon.com.  And even mighty GM faltered and went bankrupt after decades of defend behavior, as customers shifted to different products from new competitors.

Not all earnings are equal.  A dollar of earnings in a growth company is worth a multiple.  Earnings in a declining company are, well, often worthless.  Those who see this early get out while they can – before the company collapses.

Update 5/10/11 – Regarding announced Skype acquisition by Microsoft

That Microsoft has apparently agreed to buy Skype does not change the above article.  It just proves Microsoft has a lot of cash, and can find places to spend it.  It doesn’t mean Microsoft is changing its business approach.

Skype provides PC-to-PC video conferencing.  In other words, a product that defends and extends the PC product.  Exactly what I predicted Microsoft would do. Spend money on outdated products and efforts to (hopefully) keep people buying PCs.

But smartphones and tablets will soon support video chat from the device; built in.  And these devices are already connected to networks – telecom and wifi – when sold.  The future for Skype does not look rosy.  To the contrary, we can expect Skype to become one of those features we recall, but don’t need, in about 24 to 36 months.  Why boot up a PC to do a video chat you can do right from your hand-held, always-on, device?

The Skype acquisition is a predictable Defend & Extend management move.  It gives the illusion of excitement and growth, when it’s really “so much ado about nothing.”  And now there are $8.5B fewer dollars to pay investors to invest in REAL growth opportunities in growth markets.  The ongoing wasting of cash resources in an effort to defend & extend, when the market trends are in another direction.

When Should Steve Ballmer Be Fired? – Microsoft


Summary:

  • Steve Ballmer received only half his maximum bonus for last year
  • But Microsoft has failed at almost every new product initiative the last several years
  • Microsoft's R&D costs are wildly out of control, and yielding little new revenue
  • Microsoft is lagging in all new growth markets – without competitive products
  • Microsoft's efforts at developing new markets have created enormous losses
  • Cloud computing could obsolete Microsoft's "core" products
  • Why didn't the Board fire Mr. Ballmer?

Reports are out, including at AppleInsider.com that "Failures in Mobile Space Cost Steve Ballmer Half his Bonus." Apparently the Board has been disappointed that under Mr. Ballmer's leadership Microsoft has missed the move to high growth markets for smartphones and tablets.  Product failures, like Kin, have not made them too happy. But the more critical question is — why didn't the Board fire Mr. Ballmer?

A decade ago Microsoft was the undisputed king of personal software. Its near monopoly on operating systems and office automation software assured it a high cash flow.  But over the last 10 years, Microsoft has done nothing for its shareholders or customers.  The XBox has been a yawn, far from breaking even on the massive investments.  All computer users have received for massive R&D investments are Vista, Windows 7 and Office 2007 followed by Office 2010 — the definition of technology "yawners."  None of the new products have created new demand for Microsoft, brought in any new customers or expanded revenue.  Meanwhile, the 45% market share Microsoft had in smartphones has shrunk to single digits, at best, as Apple and Google are cleaning up the marketplace.  Early editions of tablets were dropped, and developers such as HP have abandoned Microsoft projects. 

Yet, other tech companies have done quite well.  Even though Apple was 45 days from bankruptcy in 2000, and Google was a fledgling young company, both Apple and Google have launched new products in smartphones, mobile computing and entertainment.  And Apple has sold over 4 million tablets already in 2010 – while investors and customers wait for Microsoft to maybe get one to market in 2011.

Despite its market domination, Microsoft's revenues have gone nowhere.  And are projected to continue going relatively nowhere.  While Apple has developed new growth markets, Microsoft has invested in defending its historical revenue base. 

MSFT vs AAPL revenue forecast 4.10
Source:  SeekingAlpha.com

Yet, Microsoft spent 8 times as much on R&D in 2009 to accomplish this much lower revenue growth.  At a recent conference Mr. Ballmer admitted he thought as much as 200 man years of effort was wasted on Vista development in recent years.  That Microsoft has hit declining rates of return on its investment in "defending the base" is quite obvious.  Equally obvious is its clear willingness to throw money at projects even though it has no skill for understanding market needs sin order for development to yield anything commercially successful!

RD cost MSFT and others 2009

Source: Business Insider.com

And investments in opportunities outside the "core" business have not only failed to produce significant revenue, they've created vast losses.  Such as the horrible costs incurred in on-line markets.  Trying to launch Bing and compete with Google in ad sales far too late and with weak products has literally created losses that exceed revenues!

Microsoft-operating-income

Source: BusinessInsider.com

And the result has been a disaster for Microsoft shareholders – literally no gain the last several years.  This has allowed Apple to create a market value that actually exceeds Microsoft's.  An idea that seemed impossible during most of the decade!

Apple v msft mkt cap 05.24.10

Source: BusinessInsider.com

Under Mr. Ballmer's leadership Microsoft has done nothing more than protect market share in its original business – and at a huge cost that has not benefited shareholders with dividends or growth.  No profitable expansion into new businesses, despite several newly emerging markets.  And now late in practically every category.  Costs for business development that are wildly out of control, despite producing little incremental revenue.  And sitting on a business in operating systems and office software that is coming under more critical attack daily by the shift toward cloud computing. A shift that could make its "core" products entirely obsolete before 2020.

Given this performance, giving Mr. Ballmer his "target" bonus for last year seems ridiculous – even if half the maximum.  The proper question should be why does he still have his job? And if you still own Microsoft stock — why as well?