3 Penny Stocks To Avoid

Why would anyone buy shares of Fannie Mae (FNM)? The stock currently trades for just over $1 a share. I have no idea where that value comes from because Fannie has a $1 billion dollar market cap and an enterprise value over $620 billion dollars. The “good news” for Fannie Mae is that the troubled government sponsored enterprise (GSE) lost only $13.1 billion dollars last quarter. The $13.1 billion dollar loss was below the $16.3 billion dollar loss in the first quarter of 2009. The bad news is the Fannie Mae needs an additional $8.4 billion in government aid. If approved the government will have pumped $84.6 billion into Fannie Mae. Some analysts estimate that Fannie Mae will need an additional $50 billion dollars over the next few years. There is no way that Fannie Mae will ever be profitable enough to repay all of these loans.

Not to be outdone last week Freddie Mac (FRE) asked the government for an additional $10.6 billion dollars in cash. This was on the heels of the GSE reporting a first quarter loss of $6.7 billion dollars. If Freddie’s request is approved, they will have received $61.3 billion dollars in government aid. The government owns 79.9% of both GSE’s in the form of Treasury senior preferred stock and common stock warrants. So, investors are buying stock in 2 government owned entities that are hemorrhaging money and whose CEO’s don’t see them repaying any of their massive debt loads for the indefinite future. Somehow a company with a negative earnings, negative book value, and negative cash flow is trading for $1.37 per share.

The third penny stock is AIG (AIG). You might think that AIG is not a penny stock because it trades for $42.89 per share. That is only after its 1 for 20 reverse split. Without the reverse split, AIG is a $2.14 stock. AIG is the mother of all government subsidies with over $182.3 billion dollars in bailout funds. AIG does deserve credit for being the one government owned firm that has been able to produce positive earnings. AIG earned $1.5 billion dollars in the first quarter of the year. AIG also deserves credit for selling off assets to try and repay government loans. AIG has raised roughly $50 billion dollars through asset sales such as its recent sale of AIA to Prudential. The question for investors is how much equity will be left for shareholders with the government owning 79.9% of the insurance giant and AIG selling off its most valuable businesses?

Disclosure: I do not own shares of any of these companies.

 

Photo by: futureatlas.com

Should You Invest In AIG?

After losing $8.9 billion in the last quarter of 2009, AIG is finally selling off major assets and attempting to pay back the government’s huge investment in the insurance giant. AIG which lost $61.7 billion in one quarter last year and has received over $182.5 billion in government financing is selling AIA Group to British insurance company Prudential for $35.5 billion dollars. AIG will receive $25 billion in cash and $10.5 billion in securities.

AIA Group is an Asian insurance company whose services include life insurance, retirement planning, wealth management, accident, and health insurance. The federal government currently owns 80% of AIG and large stakes in AIA. AIG is attempting to unwind its businesses by selling off its most valuable non-core assets and repay the government’s loans. Despite AIG’s stock currently trading at $25.82, it is impossible to determine the value of AIG shares because there are too many unknowns. What is the value of AIG’s non-core assets? How much earning power will the company’s core assets have going forward? What are the derivatives in the Financial Units portfolio worth? How long before the firm returns to profitability? Will the government be able to unload its 80% stake without causing the stock to plummet? Until these questions are answered AIG is a stock that you should avoid.

Bleak News

AIG announced the biggest quarterly loss in the history of the US. AIG lost nearly 62 billion last quarter.

Citigroup looks like it is going to break below $1 per share. It’s time for Citigroup to be nationalized. it’s not Pandit’s fault but I don’t see how he can keep his job with the stock in free fall. Can Citi lure any other highly successful competent executive to take this job right now?

General Electric shares dropped below $8 for the first time since 1993.

Dow Chemical dropped to $7 and Dow is trying to sell off its agribusiness to stay afloat. Dow may be the first company to go belly up after completing a merger. The Rohm & Haas purchase is forcing Dow to sell its most valuable assets just to complete the deal.

Morningstar’s 2008 CEO of the Year

Morninstar names Warren Buffett its CEO of the Year for 2008

Morningstar has named Warren Buffett its 2008 CEO of the Year. Listed below are excerpts from the article.

Beyond creating a company that treats common shareholders with the utmost fairness and respect, one needs only to look at the long-term value created at Berkshire Hathaway to see why Buffett deserves the award. Since taking the helm of the sleepy textile business 44 years ago and turning it into arguably the strongest conglomerate on the planet, Buffett and his managers have grown the book value per A share from $19 to just over $77,500, as of Sept. 30. This translates to a 20.7% annualized increase in book value since 1965, versus a mere 9.6% annualized return in the S&P 500 (including dividends) over the same time period.

Investors can learn a lot from studying Buffett’s actions, but his decisions to stay on the sidelines are also notable. Indeed, he steered Berkshire Hathaway from many of the temptations that have caused competitors to crash and burn this past year. For instance, Buffett warned back in 2003 that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction” that are “time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system.” Given all that has transpired in 2008, these statements–and Berkshire’s actions–look especially prescient. While AIG and other competitors now wallow in bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy, Berkshire is as financially healthy as ever.

Beyond derivatives, Berkshire also avoided excessive leverage back when credit was flowing a little too easy and asset prices were too high. In mid-2007, the opening salvos of the credit crisis were being shot across the subprime mortgage market, and many financial firms were levered to the hilt. Yet Berkshire had $47 billion–over one third of its equity at the time–in cash and cash equivalents, most of it unencumbered. By practicing prudence and patience earlier in the decade, Berkshire was in a position to put large amounts of capital to work in 2008. In other words, rather than blowing its ammunition hunting squirrels a few years ago, Berkshire has been able to shoot the proverbial elephants now walking by.

Of course, we’ve always preferred managers who do not view the companies they run as their personal piggy banks.  I think we as owners are getting one heck of a deal by paying Buffett a $100,000 salary. (He earns less than $200,000 in total compensation annually.) Buffett allows his significant ownership stake in Berkshire to act as motivation enough to perform well as a manager, which nearly perfectly aligns his interests with those of common shareholders.

While many corporate managers may say they are positive and careful stewards of owner capital, few overtly view common shareholders for what they really are–partners. For being a successful managing partner, both in principle as well as in practice, Warren Buffett is our 2008 CEO of the Year.