Can you trust the Stocklemon? Part 1

After my last post regarding Home Solutions (HSOA) and Andrew Left’s (of Stocklemon.com) accusations against the company, I received the following comment:


August 3, 2007 at 4:46 pm || Crazy Bob said: So what you are saying is that Andrew Left contacted you and asked you to post this withouut doing any homework on his actual attacks of HSOA.Can you tell me why he changes his accusations, or why HSOA has not been targeted by SEC as a fraud?Was this hedge manager by chance also a contact of Andrew Left, who has managed to skirt the law but was stripped of his securities license for fraud, bankrupted the company he was CEO of prior to starting blogging and stole checks to begin Stock Lemon according to court filings.Just checking to see if you did your homework or if you are getting suckered in to make Andrew Left look good.


I have to say that I can’t imagine someone attacking me like this for pumping up a company and talking about how wonderful it is (by the way, Berkshire Hathaway is wonderful!). But if I bash a company that someone is in love with, well, that’s a different matter. All the great (Jim Chanos, Jesse Livermore) and not so great (Manuel P. Asensio, Andrew Left) short sellers get attacked and pilloried. Yet their job is one of the most important in a capitalist economy. They are the realists, the cynics, the skeptics that help to keep frauds from remaining in business and help to destroy companies that produce nothing but press releases.Andrew Left of StockLemon may or may not be a great guy. He may or may not embellish his reports. He may or not always be truthful. I am not one to know. But the man has successfully spotted and publicized many fraudulent companies. So if you are an investor in HSOA or any of the companies he has profiled, you should at least carefully examine his arguments.Below is my reply to the above comment on my previous post:

This is the type of comment that makes me tend to believe Andrew Left. It is the same type of comment that people made all these years against Manuel P. Asensio (an outspoken shorter of stocks). It involves hyperbole and innuendo and unproven assumptions.

I’ll address your comments:

1. Andrew Left has never contacted me. I contacted him because I wanted him to disclose his exact stake in HSOA. I believe that he should disclose more clearly when he is short a stock.

2. I have no opinion of whether HSOA is a fraud or not. Frankly, the only reason I am involved is because it is entertaining. If you rely upon the SEC to find fraud, then you, sir, are a fool. The SEC generally does not investigate until after fraudulent companies implode (cf. Enron, Xybernaut, etc.).

3. The hedge fund manager I mentioned is LONG the stock. She hates Stocklemon.

4. As far as homework, I did enough homework to find out that Left has prevailed in two libel lawsuits filed by companies he targeted. The outcome of one of those lawsuits (by Imergent) was not freely available and I paid the L.A. Superior Court to get a copy of the decision. Numerous companies he has targeted have deserved his ire and have since de-listed or gone bankrupt.

5. I have not seen any solid evidence that Left did anything besides run a company that failed (and that may be a different Andrew Left). Searching the SEC brings up no evidence of any actions against him or the StockLemon website. Searching the web likewise brings up no credible evidence for him losing his securities license.

Disclosure: I am long Berkshire Hathaway. I have no position in HSOA. My disclosure policy is rock solid.

Home Solutions of America (HSOA) v. Stock Lemon

Home Solutions of America, Inc. [[hsoa]] is a big target of numerous short sellers who allege that the company is almost entirely fraudulent. Management of course insists that this is not true. Perhaps the biggest critic of HSOA is StockLemon, a website run by Andrew Left, a short seller. He is holding a conference call to discuss his newest accusations of fraud against Home Solutions. While Left has been criticized for his tactics, I should note that he has won multiple defamation and libel lawsuits brought by previous corporate targets (to my knowledge he has never lost such a lawsuit). In other words, he tends to speak the truth (or at least does not outright lie). With regards to HSOA’s honesty, even one hedge fund manager I know who is long HSOA admits that there is a possibility that the company is fraudulent.

For my part, I asked Andrew Left to disclose during his conference call exactly how much he is short HSOA. He said that he would. One problem I have with him is that he does not normally disclose which of the stocks he mentions on his website he is or is not short. I always do that.

Reprinted below is his press release regarding his conference call:


Citron Research to Hold Conference Call on Home Solutions of America
August 2, 2007
Los Angeles, CA.- Citron Research, a leading provider of information on the small
cap markets, will hold its first ever conference call to discuss the current state of
affairs at Home Solutions of America (Nasdaq:HSOA) on Monday August 6 at 11:00
am (Eastern). Editor of Citron Research, Andrew Left, will host the conference call. Left states,
“It is important for all investors, whether long, short, or curious, to listen to this
conference call as it should give them a deeper understanding of the company.
Furthermore, it will bring up some interesting questions that require substantive
answers from management on their investors’ call on August 8th.
Among some of the topics addressed in the conference call will be:
The August 2nd ruling regarding responsibility of insurance companies in NO.
The effect of the recent housing market/credit crunch on Home Solutions
The many accusations of fraud against the company
Transparency of receivables status and collect ability
Analyst coverage of the stock
Corporate Credibility at Home Solutions of America
A formal invitation to the call will be sent to: Securities and Exchange Commission,
NASD, and NASDAQ.
Citron will also hold a Q&A period. Citron will answer all substantive question.
All questions must be emailed beforehand to questions@citronresearch.com
Dial in instructions for the call are
US and Canada Dial-in: 1-800-391-1709
International Dial-in: 001-310-539-2229
Conference Bridge#: 768274
Contact:
Info@citronresearch.com
(213) 596-0492


Disclosure: I hold no interest (long or short) in HSOA. My disclosure policy has never been accused of fraud, although it did once steal a cookie from the cookie jar.

Dilbert’s 9-point secret to financial happiness

Article at Marketwatch. Here are Dilbert’s 9 secrets to financial happiness

  1. Make a will
  2. Pay off your credit cards
  3. Get term life insurance if you have a family to support
  4. Fund your 401k to the maximum
  5. Fund your IRA to the maximum
  6. Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it
  7. Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market account
  8. Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement
  9. If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio

here are my comments on each of the points:

  1. Very important — it is also important to have a living will, and if you have significant assets (particularly real estate), a revocable living trust with most of your assets in that living trust. This avoids probate if you die.
  2. Duh. But most people don’t.
  3. Duh. It is cheap.
  4. Especially if you have a company match.
  5. And fund your IRA at the beginning of each year rather than at the end.
  6. Houses are great forced-savings devices. They are also great to live in.
  7. Most bankruptcies are from unforeseen medical or other temporary emergencies. A rainy day fund is very useful.
  8. Unless you are 100% sure you know what you are doing, this is great advice. My advice to go with a target-date index fund from Vanguard is even better, though.
  9. Excellent advice

I would also add to buy a cheap car, either used or new, take care of it, and use it until it dies. Many monthly expenses are unnecessary and do not add to happiness–is Applebee’s really that much better than what you can do yourself?

The worst mutual fund ever

You have to see it to believe it. The Ameritor Investment Fund (AIVTX) has lost 99.5% (see Yahoo for the fund price) of its value over the last 6 years. In other words, a $10,000 investment six years ago would be worth $48 today. NAV has fallen to 1 cent, assets are way below $100,000. This could be the first fund to lose all its investors’ money.

For more investing losers, see Chuck Jaffe’s ‘Lump of Coal Awards. ‘

REFR madness!

Research Frontiers (REFR) is, if not a fraudulent company, certainly a failed company. Forty years since it was founded it has no product, 14 employees, revenues below $300k per year, and yet it has a market cap of $200 million. Of the company’s 14 employees, 4 are technical/research employees. Only one of those employees has a PhD (in chemistry). (See the company’s 10k for details; this information is around page 10, after the list of licensees). This is not what you want to see in a technology start-up.

Research Frontiers owns the technology to tint glass and plastic by running an electric current through the material. One problem with the technology: the electricity is required to keep the glass clear. This minimizes the possible uses for Research Frontier’s tinting solution for safety reasons: it would be unfortunate for a car’s engine and battery to die, causing the windows to all go dark. Also, this makes it harder to use the technology in highly portable applications such as glasses (0.6 watts per square foot are required to keep the glass clear). The glass has also been derided as not becoming clear enough when the tinting is off. Research Frontier’s R&D spending is minuscule and it competes with companies much larger than itself that already have products on the market (such as the tinting solution in Transitions(TM) glasses, which is a passive system that darkens in response to UV light).

I recommend pursuing the archives at Asensio.com, detailing Manuel Asensio’s battle against REFR (he was/is a well-known short-seller, although I should note that he has his own detractors). To see the bull argument, see Gene Marcial’s short column at BusinessWeek. For a more nuanced view, take a look at this Forbes column from 2003.

If you value your money, stay away from Research Frontiers. Also, note that while I often profile bad investments, I do not recommend engaging in short selling; it is very risky.

Disclosure: I am not short REFR. I have never smoked REFR either. My disclosure policy once smoked a chocolate cigar but it did not inhale.

What everyone needs to know about shorting stocks

The great stock speculator, Jesse Livermore, was known primarily as a short seller of stocks. He was even blamed by some for the stock market crash of 1929. While he made money shorting stocks (thus profiting when their prices decreased), he also speculated on the long side as well. His story is a great story, and he has many tips that are useful even for people who do not share his extreme risk-seeking behavior.

I highly recommend Edwin Lefevre’s fictionalized account of Livermore’s first two decades in the market, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. Of course, we would all be wise to remember that there is much more to life than the market. Livermore committed suicide in 1940; his suicide note read: “My whole life has been a failure.”

I do not think shorting stocks is a good idea for most people. It is very easy to quickly lose a lot of money shorting stocks. However, shorts can tell us a lot, and it behooves us to understand and pay attention to stock shorting.

First, let’s start with a simple definition: shorting a stock involves borrowing that stock from someone who owns it and immediately selling it, with the promise to buy back that stock in the future. Someone who is short a stock makes money if the stock decreases in price.

Why would anyone go short? If a stock is highly overvalued, or a company is run by complete idiots or a kleptomaniacal management, it would be wise to go short and benefit from the stock eventually falling. However, shorting a stock exposes you to infinite risk–if the stock more than doubles, you will lose more money than you invested. Going long, on the other hand, is much less risky, since you can only lose the money that you originally invested. Another problem with shorting is timing: for example, look at the chart for Cheniere Energy (LNG). Cheniere has not yet made any money from its main business, liquefied natural gas receiving terminals, and there is a significant risk of the company going bankrupt before it ever makes money. But with the increase in natural gas prices, the stock price shot up drastically in 2004. This led to a number of people shorting the stock, and they made plenty of money as the stock fell below $28 (from a high of $40).

Since that time, however, Cheniere’s stock has gradually bounced around, bringing it back up to its previous highs (and back below again). All that happened despite no fundamental changes in Cheniere’s outlook. Another interesting company has been Overstock.com (OSTK). While shorts have made money in this stock over the last year, and the company still looks overvalued, there is no reason the stock price could not shoot up again, giving the shorts some huge losses.

One last problem with shorting is that it requires betting against the long-term trend of the market. Over time, most companies become more profitable, and the U.S. economy as a whole grows at about the rate of 3.5% each year if we subtract inflation. If we figure in an average inflation rate of about 4% per year, then we add those two rates together with the average dividend rate (historically) of about 2.5% to get the average growth in stock prices per year: about 10%. In the long run, shorts will lose. In the short run, however, the market is far from perfect, and a savvy short can profit.

Just for your information, there is another way to profit via a stock’s declining price. That is via the use of put options. They have the benefit of reducing risk to the amount used to purchase the put, while also increasing leverage. On the other hand, options have a limited lifespan, so if you buy an October put and the stock doesn’t decline until November, then your put will expire worthless.

So why do people short sell? There are several different strategies to short selling. The classic hedging or market-neutral strategy involves buying the stocks of good companies in an industry and then selling short the bad companies. This same strategy can be used with all stocks in the market–buying the best and selling the worst. This way, a money manager can make profits even if the market as a whole does not go up. An astute manager would be net short (have more short than long positions) if he thought that the market should decline, and be net long if he though the market should go up.

Others, who sell options, may wish to short a stock so that their market risk is neutralized. A seller of call options would short the underlying stock to remain market-neutral, whereas a seller of puts would buy the stock. Other investors (including hedge funds and mutual funds) may choose to short sell some stocks as a kind of insurance for their (much larger) long positions.

So, anyway, to the main point of this article: why should everyone know about shorting? Simply put, short sellers tend to be the most sophisticated investors and speculators; many hedge funds use short-selling strategies. The short interest ratio is easily available for most stocks, and we can find it for free at Yahoo Finance. For example, see the short ratio of XJT (it is under share statistics). It is currently at 29%. For most companies, the short percentage will be well under 1% (such as for GE). Besides using Yahoo Finance, you can also find short interest from E*Trade (even if you are not a customer); they report the last four months of short interest. For Nasdaq stocks, visit the Nasdaq website to find the number of shares short for a given stock.

For comparison, check out the short ratios of GM (11%) and British Petroleum (BP) (.1%). So how reliable and how useful are short ratios? For any one stock, they are not a very reliable indicator of how the company is doing or where the stock will go. In general, however, stocks of companies with high short ratios (over 2.5%) tend to do worse than stocks of companies with low short ratios. If you wish to read further, I suggest the following article: Short-sellers, Fundamental Analysis and Stock Returns, by Dechow, Hutton Meulbroek, and Sloan.

A stock will tend to do poorly if it is overpriced or if the underlying company is doing poorly. Thus, short ratios will tell us whether some sophisticated investors think a company is doing poorly or if its stock is overvalued. If we are buying too many stocks with high short ratios, we are probably doing things wrong. It is important to remember that as value investors, we will often buy stocks selling at lows. These stocks may have been overpriced or fairly priced, but they would by definition be great candidates for shorting. Therefore, it does not surprise me if a stock I find attractive has a high short ratio.

What is important is that as the stock decreases in price and becomes a better value, the short ratio should decrease. So if I am tracking a stock that goes from having a 15% short ratio to a 5% short ratio, then there are a number of sophisticated investors who believe that the stock is no longer overvalued. Conversely, if a stock has a short ratio that is increasing considerably, we should be wary about any problems that the company may be having.

If you are interested in how short interest relates to the market as a whole, I suggest the academic paper by Lamont and Stein: Aggregate Short Interest and Market Valuations. The punchline is shown by the figure at the end of the paper: short interest does not really tell us that much. If anything, a low overall short interest level indicates stock market losses and a high level predicts stock market gains!

Disclosure: I hold no shares (long or short) of any of the companies mentioned in this article. See the disclosure policy.

Is it time to invest in large cap stocks?

Chet Currier wrote a worthwhile article on bloomberg.com about how large-cap stocks, despite low valuations, still have not turned around and performed well, whereas small stocks continue to outpace the market. This is the kind of thinking that indicates to me that it is time to buy large cap value stocks. In the long run, what drives stock returns is valuations. If you take a look at Vanguard’s various index funds, you will see that the large cap value fund has an average P/E of 14, versus average P/Es above 19 for mid- and small-cap value funds. In a perfectly efficient market, large cap stocks should have somewhat higher valuations than small stocks because they tend to be less risky.

So if you want an easy investment right now, invest in Vanguard’s VIVAX (large-cap value) fund, or the equivalent ETF, VTV. Then just hold on to that for the next 5 years and watch as you outperform the market.

I do not discuss growth index funds, because value is always going to be a better bet over the long term.

Large-Cap Index Funds and their P/E ratios

  • S&P 500 index fund (VFINX) – 17.0
  • Dividend Appreciation index fund (VDAIX) – 17.7
  • FTSE Social index fund (VFTSX) – 18.5
  • Growth index fund (VIGRX) – 21.2
  • Large-Cap index fund (VLACX) – 17.3
  • Total Stock Market index fund (VTSMX) – 17.9
  • Value index fund (VIVAX) – 14.7

Mid/Small Cap Index Funds and their P/E ratios

  • Extended Market index fund (VEXMX) – 23.2
  • Mid-Cap index fund (VIMSX) – 19.5
  • Small-Cap Growth index fund (VISGX) – 26.5
  • Small-Cap index fund (NAESX) – 22.5
  • Small-Cap Value index fund (VISVX) – 19.7

Disclosure: I own shares of VIVAX, I love Vanguard, and my disclosure policy has a P/E of 8.

Wine as a long term investment

Buying high-quality wine actually can be a very good long-term investment. See the article at Bloomberg.com. An academic paper discussing this (serving as the basis of the above article) is available for free download through SSRN. High-grade wines have a great return with relatively low volatility. The returns are also not very correlated with the stock market, so wine would be a great way to diversify.

The problem? Storing the wines requires good conditions (such as a good, cool, dry cellar or a wine cooler). Also, selling the wines would rack up huge commissions when they are auctioned off. And if you do not have a large collection it would be hard to sell the wine.

This is a perfect type of investment for a mutual fund or ETF. There is one hedge fund that deals with wines, but its minimum investment is high (100k euros) and its fees are steep as well.

Of course, the other way to invest in wines is to buy them and drink them and consider that in an investment in happiness! Yesterday I opened up a bottle of 2005 Morgon (a good, fruity red Beaujolais with some complexity and terroir).  My return on investment was immeasurably large.

Disclosure: I like wine and I make it as well. My disclosure policy likes wine as well.