Archive for February, 2007

• Buffett Buys 1 Million Shares of UnitedHealth
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

  From Reuters:

  Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc bought 1 million shares of insurer UnitedHealth Group in the fourth quarter of 2006, according to a regulatory filing.
  Berkshire detailed its holdings for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2006 in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission late on Wednesday.
  In the third quarter, Berkshire did not own any shares of UnitedHealth, the largest U.S. health insurer by market value. The company has overhauled corporate governance procedures and changed its management structure, but still faces a federal investigation into its dating of stock options.

  Shares of UNH are up over 4% today.

• Laugh & Learn Bunny: Harmless Children’s Toy or Rampaging Drug-Addled Psychopath?
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  
  J’accuse.

  Fisher-Price recalls Laugh & Learn Bunny toys
  Some half million “Laugh and Learn” Learning Bunny Toys are being recalled because of a potential choking danger.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the pink pom-pom nose (Alcohol? Coke??) on the toys can come off, posing a danger to young children. The recall does not cover Learning Bunny Toys with noses that are flat or embroidered.
  The yellow toy bunny is ten inches high. One ear’s green, the other orange, and it has musical and counting sound effects.

  Fisher-Price is owned by Mattel (MAT), which is a stock that’s been catching my eye lately.
  First, some background. Shares of Mattel plunged over 80% in 1998 and 1999. The company was nearly ruined by its former CEO, Jill Barad, who led Mattel through the horrible idea of acquiring The Learning Company. Barad finally resigned (not without a very large severance package), and the new CEO, Robert Eckert, has engineered an impressive turnaround.
  Despite this little rabbit-killing-kids issue, it’s actually Barbie that’s responsible for 30% of Mattel’s profits. That probably led the company to get a female CEO in the first place. When Barad was first hired, I’ve rarely seen a CEO get better press. Fortunately, female CEOs are more common now than when she got the top job.
  In the past year, the stock has nearly doubled. In November, the company raised its dividend by 30% (50 cents a share to 65 cents a share). For the fourth-quarter, the company earned 75 cents a share, eight cents more than expectations. I am concerned about the high level of debt, though. Mattel’s long-term debt is more than twice last year’s profit. I’d like to see that come down some. But there is value here. Shares of MAT now go for about 16 times 2008’s earnings.

• Buy What You Hate
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 15th, 2007 at 11:41 am

  Peter Lynch used to advise investors to “buy what you know.” Several months ago, Daniel Gross wrote an article called “Buy What You Hate.” He noticed how many highly-profitable companies did poorly in a poll on corporate reputation.
  The head of the poll said, “When we do detailed analysis of public perception, we find that a significant portion of the ranking is negatively affected when companies do too well.” I guess the public is pro-profits, but anti-profiteering. But I’m not sure where the line is drawn.
  A new study pushes this idea further. It finds that stocks of admired companies haven’t fared as well as the less-admired. “Stocks of Admired Companies and Despised Ones” by Deniz Anginer, Kenneth Fisher and Meir Statman looks at the stock performance of companies in Fortune Magazines poll of most admired companies (BTW, UnitedHealth was ranked #1 in the 2006 survey).
  The researchers found that over a 23-year stretch, the stocks of companies in the lower half of reputation (the despised companies) outperformed the admired half, 17.50% to 15.68%.
  Before you go out and load up on shares of Initech (BOBS) or Tyrell Corp. (REPL), making money with this type of strategy isn’t so easy. CXO Advisory writes:

  Relative returns of the stocks of admired and despised companies vary considerably from year to year and even from decade to decade. During 1983–1995, the mean annualized return of the most admired (top 10%) is 9.9% higher than that of the most despised (bottom 10%). But during 1996–2006, the mean annualized return of the most despised is 9.2% higher than that of the most admired. Overall, during 1983-2006, the mean annualized return of the most despised is 4.0% higher than that of the most admired. Moreover, the effect is not reliably consistent across the spectrum from most admired to most despised.

• Financial Times Has Attitude Problem Says Blogger
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 15th, 2007 at 7:16 am

  Let’s say that you interviewing Joe Peralla, the investment banker, for a news story. During the interview, Mr. Peralla makes some fairly standard comments about France’s well-known hostility to free enterprise. So, what do you use for a title? If you write for the Financial Times, the answer is easy: “French have an attitude problem says New Yorker.”
  New Yorker? Oh dear lord. Apparently, this attitude problem is spreading. Just for the record, the body of the article doesn’t once mention the fact that Peralla is from New York (he’s from Bensonhurst) or even that he’s American. The “New Yorker” tag adds nothing to the article. In fact, Peralla says that it’s the French people he’s encountered who feel that way.
  This reminds me of the famous British headline: “Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off.”

• Live from the Senate Banking Committee
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  I’m here LIVE at the Senate Banking Committee ready to watch Benny B. testify. OK, I’m not LIVE live—I’m actually at a nearby Starbucks, but my scone and I are about to step inside. I probably won’t be able to get a good connection this morning, but don’t despair. I’ll have a complete report later today.

  Here’s the deal: In 1978, Congress passed the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act which requires the Fed chairman to climb out of his cave twice a year, bang his club and appear before Congress. Much jargon follows. The first day is before the Senate Banking Committee, and the following day is in front of the House Financial Services Committee. That’s right, two committees, same job, different names.

  I live blogged the hearings from this past summer. It got up to 89 degrees that day. Last night, we got a dusting of snow, and the city is totally paralyzed. If America’s enemies only knew how easily D.C. could fall. The Red Army, that we can handle. Three-quarters of an inch of snow, not so much.

  Today is kind of a big deal because the Congressional Democrats are probably under Wall Street’s spotlight more than Big Ben. The current monetary policy seems pretty well understood on Planet Wall Street. But now Congress is being run by these hippy freak liberals, and they’re probably eager to show that they’re not so hippy or freaky.

  The hearing begins with senators giving their opening remarks. The chairman is Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who’s also running for president. I’m guessing he’ll drone on. There aren’t a lot of Big Name senators on this committee. I guess Liddy Dole, maybe Chuck Schumer. But it’s mostly the Tim Johnsons, Robert Bennetts and Evan Bayhs-types. If you kinda recognize their name, but you couldn’t place the face, they’re probably on Senate Banking.

  The one guy I’m excited to see is Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky. He’s a retired baseball pitcher, and Hall of Famer. Bunning hates Bernanke. I mean, he HATES him. It’s not personal. He hates all monetary policy that’s not giving away free money. He’s also – how should I say — not the brightest member of the committee. Bernanke, by contrast, has some sort of super-atomic computer brain. Anyway, it makes for great TV.

  After the senators give their opening statements, then it’s Bernanke’s turn. His speech is usually posted beforehand on the Fed’s Web site so Wall Street already has an idea what he’s going to say. This speech gets a lot of attention. When Bernanke spoke in July, the market jumped 212 points. After Ben is through, the senators get to ask questions.

  If you’re watching on TV, I’ll try to get a seat right behind Benny. The first few rows are reserved, but I’ll do what I can. I’m wearing a blue shirt with a gold tie. (And the gold tie isn’t a political statement, it’s just one of my few clean ones.) Here’s a clue to my vast readership. Whenever Ben says “net capital inflows,” I’ll cough really loud. So listen for me, ok. Ben is probably good for three or four of those. That cough is me (or maybe Bunning).

  Here’s my take on how this will play out. I think the big story will be, “Barnanke Warns Inflation Threat Remains.” That’s an easy story, and it almost writes itself. (Update: Score one for CWS! FT: Battle against inflation not quite won, warns Bernanke.) In July, he stunned me, and everybody else, by saying that the Fed’s model sees core inflation cooling off later this year. That was a darn good call, and I think Bernanke tremendously increased his cred. The Fed had raised rates for the 17th straight time only three weeks before he spoke, plus oil prices peaked just five days before, but we didn’t know that at the time.

  The 12-month rolling rate of core inflation peaked in September, and has gradually ticked down since. I think it will be natural for Bernanke to say that the war isn’t over just yet.
  Also, if you see any other “Bernanke Warns” headlines, please send them my way.
  Here’s how I see it:

  #1

  Barnanke Warns Inflation Threat Remains

  High Probability:

  Bernanke Warns on Deficits
  Bernanke Warns on Economy

  Could Happen:

  Bernanke Warns on Trade
  Bernanke Warns on Income Gap

  Long Shot:

  Bernanke Warns on Raven-Haired Reporters
  Bernanke Warns on Spiders

  9:42: OK, I made it. Great seats, right behind Ben. It’s interesting how few people are actually here. All I see are a few aides mingling around, and a TV crew. That’s it. Here’s a picture.

  

  So Bernanke drinks Deer Park. Another scoop for blogs! Greenspan used to do shots of Jagermeister. God, I miss him.

  9:51: No senators are here yet. I dunno…last-minute make-up? By the way, I think the real fireworks will be tomorrow when Barney Frank takes the stage.

  10:08: Bernanke just walked in. Geez, the photographers are going crazy. Here’s another shot:

  
  Sorry for the blurriness, but this is how close I am. I could touch his beard. (I won’t.) But still!

  10:12: Dodd is speaking. He’s being very generous to Ben. Right now, he’s going on about health care costs, real median family income, blah, blah, blah.

  10:20: Senator Bayh said that he’s not going to have an opening statement. Well, that’s one way not to stick your foot in your mouth.

  10:27: Bunning is being surprisingly nice to Bernanke. He said that he was afraid that Bernanke was going to be a “carbon copy” of his predecessor. Although he said that he wasn’t going to let him off that easy, “even though it’s Valentine’s Day.” Thankfully, most of the senators’ statements are fairly brief.

  10:34: Now Bernanke is speaking. Here’s his statement from the Fed’s Web site. This is the money paragraph:

  The projections of the members of the Board of Governors and the presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks are for inflation to continue to ebb over this year and next. In particular, the central tendency of those forecasts is for core inflation–as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy–to be 2 to 2-1/4 percent this year and to edge lower, to 1-3/4 to 2 percent, next year. But as I noted earlier, the FOMC has continued to view the risk that inflation will not moderate as expected as the predominant policy concern.

  That’s good news. I see that the market has a nice bump up this morning. Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) is up to a new high. So is FactSet Research Systems (FDS).

  I count twelve senators; Tester, Casey, Brown, Menendez, Bayh, Reed, Shelby, Bennett, Hagel, Bunning, Sununu and Martinez. No Dole or Schumer, although the latter was around earlier.

  Here a few quick comments on Bernanke’s statement. Most of his comments are descriptive, not projections, but he did give some very general forecasts. I’m glad to see that the Fed sees inflation continuing to ebb this year and next. That’s the big news of the day. I also thought it was interesting that the Fed is slightly lowering its GDP growth expectations for this year (2.5% to 3%, down from 2.75% to 3%).

  Something that caught my ear was Bernanke’s emphasis on inflationary expectations. Here’s what he said:

  Another significant factor influencing medium-term trends in inflation is the public’s expectations of inflation. These expectations have an important bearing on whether transitory influences on prices, such as those created by changes in energy costs, become embedded in wage and price decisions and so leave a lasting imprint on the rate of inflation. It is encouraging that inflation expectations appear to have remained contained.

• Leo Signs on to Enron Film
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

  
  Leonardo DiCaprio will produce and star in the film adaption of Kurt Eichenwald’s Conspiracy of Fools.

  It will follow DiCaprio as a newcomer to the Houston-based energy company who slowly peels back the layers to expose the campaign of greed and fraudulent accounting that drove Enron into bankruptcy in 2001.

  To save money, couldn’t they just redub Titanic?

• BW: A Dynamo Called Danaher
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

  BusinessWeek shows some love for Danaher (DHR):

  Danaher Corp. (DHR) is not nearly as big, famous, or influential as conglomerates such as General Electric (GE ), Berkshire Hathaway (BRK ), or 3M (MMM ). It owns such a mundane and sprawling portfolio of sleepy, underloved industrial businesses–companies that make dental surgery implements, multimeters, drill chucks, servomotors, and wrenches, just to name a few–that it seems deliberately assembled to be as unsexy as possible.
  But despite its low profile, Danaher is probably the best-run conglomerate in America. It’s clearly the best performing: Over 20 years, it has returned a remarkable 25% to shareholders annually, far better than GE (16%), Berkshire Hathaway (21%), or the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index (12%).
  The Washington (D.C.) company is the brainchild of the obsessively private brothers Steven M. and Mitchell P. Rales. The onetime corporate raiders, who have not spoken to the media in more than two decades, have pulled off an unusual corporate metamorphosis. They have turned Danaher from a mere acquisition vehicle into a true-blue, cash-producing, publicly owned industrial manufacturer. In the process, the Rales brothers have become two of the richest people in the U.S., worth more than $2 billion apiece.
  Unlike most other ’80s-era raiders, Steven, 55, and Mitchell, 50, are so publicity-shy that it’s almost impossible to find a photograph of them, alone or together. Many businesspeople have never even heard of them. But among both industrial and private-equity cognoscenti, their reputations are as big as their fortunes. “These guys are really good. There is no luck involved,” says Mark D. Ein, a private equity investor at Washington’s Venturehouse Group, who has known the Raleses for many years.
  Steven and Mitchell Rales, who now serve as chairman of Danaher’s board and chairman of its executive committee, respectively, declined comment. But in a rare interview, Danaher Chief Executive H. Lawrence Culp Jr. described the hard-charging business culture that has produced such remarkable results. In 2006, Danaher posted revenues of nearly $10 billion and net profit margins of 16%, truly astounding for a company still in such Old Economy businesses as heavy-truck braking systems and hand tools. Its return on invested capital is 15%, way ahead of its industrial peer group, which is near 9%.
  THE ANTI-BUFFETTS
  Sitting in Danaher’s unassuming headquarters on the top floor of a glass office building (there’s no sign announcing the company’s presence), six blocks northwest of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, Culp sounded like a man who is hard to please. “There are a lot of companies where if you win 10-9, nobody wants to talk about the nine runs [they] just gave up,” Culp says. “We’ll celebrate the win, but we’ll talk about ‘How did we give up nine runs? Why didn’t we score 12?'”
  Think of Danaher as the anti-Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett runs his empire like a benevolent curator. The Rales and their management team are “the polar opposites” of that model, says Ann Duignan, an analyst at Bear, Stearns & Co. (BSC ). These conglomerateurs have built their portfolio not by buying undervalued companies and holding them but by imposing on them the “Danaher Business System.”
  DBS, as it’s called, is a set of management tools borrowed liberally from the famed Toyota (TM ) Production System. In essence, it requires every employee, from the janitor to the president, to find ways every day to improve the way work gets done. Such quality-improvement programs and lean manufacturing methods have been de rigueur for manufacturers for years. The difference at Danaher: The company started lean in 1987, one of the earliest U.S. companies to do so, and it has maintained a cultish devotion to making it pay off.
  Even before a deal is done, the DBS team, made up of managers throughout the company steeped in training, works with the acquisition target to inject a heavy dose of Danaher DNA. For employees at the newly acquired companies, it can be a jarring experience. It wouldn’t be at all unusual for a Danaher manager clutching a clipboard, a tape measure, and a stopwatch, in a search for wasted motion, to tick off how many steps a data analyst has to take to get to the copier. Danaher also isn’t afraid to swing the ax; it has, at times, bought certain product lines and shuttered the rest of a company. “Those guys have a very well-defined model of how to do M&A,” says Jim McTaggart, founder of strategy consulting firm Marakon Associates, now part of Trinsum Group. “They do the strategy well, they price [deals] in a disciplined manner, and they integrate these things superbly.”
  Danaher’s portfolio–with more than 600 subsidiary companies–reflects a move away from its hand-tool legacy to more technologically advanced products. The newest of its four units, accounting for 23% of sales, specializes in medical technologies. It includes Sybron, a dental-equipment maker, and Leica Microsystems (DHR ), which makes high-end microscopes for pathology labs. Its most profitable division, professional instrumentation, includes Fluke (DHR ), known to engineers for products such as multimeters. The company’s industrial-tools division, though it only accounts for about 14% of sales, houses Danaher’s most well-known brand, Craftsman hand tools. The rest of Danaher’s business comes from industrial technologies, including machinery components and product-id devices, such as Accu-Sort package scanners.
  The Raleses didn’t set out to build an empire. In the early 1980s they took a former real estate investment trust, turned it into a leveraged-buyout vehicle, and swashbuckled through the next few years, tacking assets on to their shell company through hostile bids, greenmail, and junk-bond financing, with Michael R. Milken’s Drexel Burnham Lambert and First Boston as their bankers. They even crossed swords with Buffett, who swooped in as the white knight buyer of ailing consumer-products company Scott Fetzer Co. after Danaher tried to snatch it.
  GOOD COP/BAD COP
  Although they were never flamboyant, their brash dealmaking rubbed some people the wrong way. A 1985 Forbes article headlined “Raiders in Short Pants” suggested the Raleses were “callow youths,” “more like real estate speculators than industrialists,” and “cocky to the point of foolishness.” Neither Mitchell nor Steven has spoken to the media since.
  Around 1988, with the leveraged buyout market tanking and their fledgling company struggling under a heavy debt load, the brothers changed course. After a group of managers in one of their divisions, Jacobs Vehicle Systems, found early success by mimicking Toyota Motor Corp.’s (TM ) lean manufacturing, the brothers decided to implement the Toyota system companywide.
  Within a year, Danaher was reborn as a bona fide operating company. Soon after, in 1990, the Raleses ceded daily control to a chief executive, George M. Sherman, whom they hired away from Black & Decker Corp. (BDK ). Danaher, then and now, makes plenty of acquisitions, but it barely uses any debt to do so, even as the LBO market has swung back into favor. It’s not that the company is debt-averse all of a sudden. It’s the luxury of $1.4 billion in free cash flow.
  Although they have long worked in tandem, Steven and Mitchell have distinct managerial personalities. “Steve is more strategy-oriented,” says Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc. (FBR ) analyst Ned Armstrong. “Mitch is more operations-oriented.” In practical terms, says ex-Danaher executive John A. Cosentino Jr., that meant “Steve was sort of the good cop and Mitch was the bad cop. If someone needed a course correction, Mitch might do that talking.”
  Despite their lack of industrial background, the Raleses had a near-instinctive affinity for lean manufacturing, say ex-managers. The process breaks from the traditional “batch-and-queue” manufacturing system, in which big lots of product are assembled in discrete steps. In a lean environment, a company moves a smaller flow of items through production. Wasteful steps are easier to spot. And if a mistake creeps into the process, it won’t affect a huge amount of inventory and can be fixed quickly.
  In a typical Danaher factory, floors are covered with strips of tape indicating where everything should be, from the biggest machine to the humblest trash can. Managers determine the most efficient place for everything, so a worker won’t have to walk an extra few yards to pick up a tool, for instance. The lean attitude permeates the culture at Danaher–only 40 people work in the Washington corporate headquarters, at a company of 40,000.
  Danaher takes great pains to instill its values in new employees. New managers are often sent to Japan, where they soak up the attitude of kaizen, or continuous improvement. In fact, Culp himself, fresh from Harvard Business School, started his tenure in 1990 at Danaher’s Veeder-Root Co. (DHR ) unit by spending a week in Japan building air conditioners in a lean manufacturing plant.
  Despite the company’s early success at mimicking Toyota’s operational acuity, the Raleses didn’t seek distinctions like the Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing or the Baldrige Quality Award. “There was an active strategy of keeping it under the radar,” says former Jacobs Vehicle president George Koenigsaecker, who now runs a private-equity firm, Lean Investment, in Muscatine, Iowa. They had two good reasons. First, according to former managers, the Raleses worried others would notice their results and copy the strategy. Second, they didn’t want to be raided for talent.
  Former Danaher executives credit the Rales brothers for having the smarts and self-confidence to cede daily company responsibility. Still, the two have influence over Danaher’s direction and hold about 20% of the shares. Culp and his directors talk about strategy regularly, although the Raleses don’t come into the office often. Nor do they sweat the day-to-day minutiae.
  Steven and Mitchell have turned to other pursuits. In addition to Danaher, the brothers also control Colfax Corp., a smaller, privately held conglomerate that hasn’t shied away from using debt to pursue growth. Equity Group Holdings, the Raleses’ private equity arm, shares space with Danaher on Pennsylvania Avenue. Both brothers are art enthusiasts and philanthropists. Mitchell, who was named a top 10 collector by ArtNews in 2003, recently turned his Potomac (Md.) estate, which housed a number of animals, including alpacas, into Glenstone Museum, a private art sanctuary. Steven has recently begun financing movies.
  OPENING UMBRELLAS
  Danaher has reached a crucial point in its short history. As revenue creeps toward $10 billion, its market cap has moved past $20 billion. The outfit’s goal, set by Culp in the 2002 annual report, is to hit $25 billion in sales by 2012. At current growth rates, it’s on track. But of Danaher’s average annual 20% sales growth in the past five years, about 14% has come through acquisitions. As M&A gets more expensive, Danaher must either increase the pace of its deals or swallow bigger fish. And it may be more difficult to convert bigger companies with established traditions, entrenched cultures, and larger workforces to its fervent brand of lean manufacturing.
  Danaher is a prolific acquirer, averaging about a deal per month. Most are small to midsize and supplement existing businesses. Danaher considers bigger deals, but only if they create new umbrellas under which more deals will fall. Fluke, for one, was a $625 million foray into more tech-intensive instruments.
  Some analysts have raised eyebrows at the sizable goodwill on Danaher’s balance sheet–$6 billion worth. But there haven’t been any writedowns that would call into question the price paid for an acquisition. Part of the reason, perhaps, is the company’s exacting, unsentimental M&A process. Before a deal, Danaher executives tour plants and search for ways to improve performance. They estimate how wide an acquisition target’s profit margins could get, given the Danaher treatment. “That allowed us sometimes to bid more on an acquisition because we knew we’d get that value back,” says Mark C. DeLuzio, president of Lean Horizons Consulting, who used to spearhead Danaher’s DBS team.
  When it bought Fluke in 1998, margins were 8%, much too thin for Danaher. As part of the team that managed the acquisition, Culp sought to boost that number to 20%. Many employees at Fluke, which had an engineer-centric culture where most good ideas got funding, said that couldn’t be done without hurting quality and innovation. But under Culp, Fluke narrowed its product focus, sped up inventory turns, and reduced floor space. Now, margins in that segment are 21.5%.
  In recent years, Culp has tried, with limited success, to stress organic growth to investors. Internal, as opposed to acquired, growth has been chugging along at a respectable 6% a year or so for the past few years. But that’s not why the company has such a high price-earnings ratio: 23 times trailing earnings, vs. 18 for ge and 17 for 3M. One of the few Danaher bears, Prudential Equity Group (PRU ) analyst Nicholas Heymann, cites concerns over organic growth as a reason for his “underweight” rating. As Duignan of Bear Stearns puts it: “I think the biggest risk is that the acquisition pace slows because of competition.”
  So far, that hasn’t happened. The company’s pipeline is well-stocked; Danaher walks away from more deals than it consummates. Its managers are determined not to lose their reputation for price discipline and rigorous execution. Of course, a continued ascent into the rarefied air of large conglomerates carries one big risk: It makes publicity-shy Danaher and the Raleses all the more conspicuous for their success.

  Just three weeks ago, DHR reaffirmed its 2007 forecast of $3.68 per share to $3.78 per share.

• Expeditors Gets Taken Down
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

  At the end of last year, I decided to remove Expeditors International of Washington (EXPD) from my Buy List. The stock gained 20% for us last year. It’s a great company, but I felt that the shares were getting a bit too pricey. Through yesterday, the stock was up another 8% for the year. But that came to a halt today.
  The company reported earnings of 28 cents a share, three cents below expectations. The stock opened down 10% this morning, although it has rallied some throughout the day.
  Update: That was some rally. EXPD closed just nine cents lower.

• Take Alcoa Out of the Dow
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  Shares of Alcoa (AA) are up big today on news that the company may be the target of a takeover. The Times of London is reporting that Australia’s BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are both considering bidding $40 billion for Alcoa.
  Personally, I’d like to see this happen. Not so much for the shareholders. Although, they deserve some reward for suffering through Paul O’Neill for twelve years. No, I simply want to see Alcoa thrown out of the Dow. If the custodians of the index won’t do it, let’s have the market do it. I can’t remember the last time a Dow stock was bought out. But that’s my point right there. Shouldn’t the Dow stock be the one doing the buying?
  Alcoa is currently the smallest stock in the Dow by market cap. (Except for GM, which — as far as I’m concerned — is no longer a stock, but an benefits management company that sells crappy cars on the side for below cost.)
  Alcoa joined the Dow in 1959. Today, the company’s market cap is roughly 0.7% of the entire Dow. But since the index is weighted by price, not market value, shares of Alcoa really make up 2.2% of the index. Alcoa has a greater weighting in the Dow than Microsoft, even though the software giant has nearly ten times the market value. In fact, Microsoft’s bank account is worth $27 billion. They could nearly buy Alcoa without breaking a sweat.
  This list shows all the changes to the Dow over the past 75 years.
  If Alcoa goes away, expect to hear a lobby for Google (GOOG) to replace it, but my vote would be for Bank of America (BAC). That’s the largest S&P 500 stock not currently in the Dow. BAC is followed by Cisco (CSCO), then Chevron (CVX), then Google.
  Here’s an interesting tidbit on the Dow. The editors of the Wall Street Journal changed the index in 1939 by tossing out IBM (IBM). They added it back in 1979. In those 40 years, IBM gained 22,000% If the editors had left the index alone, the Dow would now be about 35% higher than where it is.
  All the historical benchmarks would be different. The Dow would have cracked 1,000 in 1961 instead of twelve years later. Behold the power of one really good stock.

• “I’m Huge!”
  Eddy Elfenbein, February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am

  Michael Lewis deconstructs Todd Thomson:

  The obvious question — “What was the man thinking?” — Thomson hasn’t addressed, at least not publicly. But that shouldn’t stop the rest of us from guessing, and my guess is that the soundtrack in the back of Todd Thomson’s mind played the golden oldie from the glory days of the Wall Street alpha male:
  “Look at me: I’m huge! Because I’m huge I have special needs. Because I make this place hundreds of millions a year, I can do whatever the hell I want. Technically, Prince may be my boss but I don’t really have a boss, because without me he’s not just short and tubby but toast. I make the money. The petty rules are for the people who don’t make the money.”