Bookmark Me!

Bookmark Future Money

Sponsored Links

Principles of Stock and Bond Investment

Get Chitika Premium

Investors typically have an inclination to buy either stocks or bonds, but rarely make a choice between the two. After finding a company that looks like a good investment candidate and getting to know the business and the financials, investors should make a choice about which type of investment to make. Stocks are investments in which the investor takes an ownership interest in the corporation. Bonds allow investors to lend money to the corporation and receive interest. Let’s take a look at how these very different investments are affected by corporate events.

Stocks

Stockholders own a share of the company in which they are invested. Stocks are traded on an exchange and prices are set by the market. Stock prices are typically driven by financial results, company news and industry fundamentals. They are usually valued on a “multiple” basis. Stock investors generally invest in companies that they feel have superior growth prospects and are undervalued by the market. While the market sets the prices and no one shareholder should be able to influence prices, stockholders have a way of influencing management and company decisions via proxy voting. Stockholders only receive “payment” for their investment when the stock price increases or dividends are paid.

Bonds

Bondholders differ from stockholders because they do not have any ownership stake in the company. Instead, bondholders essentially lend a corporation money under a set of rules/objectives (covenants) the company needs to follow to maintain good standing with the bondholder. Once the bond matures, bondholders receive the principal investment back from the company. In the meantime, they receive coupon, or interest, payments on the bond (usually semiannually).

Bonds are traded in the bond market and prices are set by the market based on the financial fundamentals of the company issuing the bonds (most notably the strength of a company’s balance sheet and the ability of the company to pay its obligations). Bonds have an inverse price and yield relationship, such that bonds sell at a premium when they are less risky (meaning the coupon is low) and at a discount when the risk is higher. The principal does not deviate and is therefore called the face value, but the coupon and price do change based on perceived financial strength and investors expectations about the company.

Bonds are rated by rating agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, Fitch) based on their characteristics. When any of these agencies changes its rating, market prices fluctuate. Therefore, bonds are also subject to market speculation of rating changes. Investment grade bonds are generally considered safe from financial failure, while high-yield bonds are much riskier.

Stock or Bond Investment?

Companies face many decisions that affect investors. One of the greatest conflicts between investors and companies is that what is good for one stakeholder may not be good for the other. Let’s take a look at some situations that may benefit or hurt stock and bondholders’ positions.

Situation 1: A Company Borrows Money to Expand When a company borrows money, stockholders’ earnings per share (EPS) is negatively affected by the interest the company will have to pay on the borrowed funds. However, borrowed funds do not dilute stockholders’ holdings by increasing shares outstanding and may benefit from increased sales revenue from the expansion. Bondholders, on the other hand, may face a decline in the value of their investment as the company’s perceived risk increases as a result of its increased debt load. Risk increases, in part, because the debt could make it harder for the company to pay its obligation to bondholders. Therefore, under a typical scenario, stock prices will be less affected than bonds when a company borrows money.

Situation 2: A Company Buys Back Stocks When a company announces a stock buyback, stockholders are generally pleased by this announcement. That is because stock buybacks reduce shares outstanding so the profit is spread among fewer shares resulting in higher EPS for each share and, in general, a higher stock price. On the other hand, bondholders are usually not happy with this type of announcement as it cuts the company’s cash on hand and reduces the attractiveness of the balance sheet. Therefore, under a typical scenario, stock prices will generally react more positively than bond prices.

Situation 3: A Company Files For Bankruptcy When a company files for bankruptcy, the stock usually falls precipitously. The company’s bonds are also faced with a sell-off, although the degree to which this occurs depends on the situation. The difference in the degree of negative reaction between stocks and bonds is that stockholders are the lowest priority in the list of stakeholders in a company. Bondholders have a higher priority and, depending on the class of bond investment (secured to junior subordinated), receive a higher percentage of invested funds. Therefore in this situation, bond prices will typically hold up better than stock prices.

Situation 4: A Company Increases Its Dividend When a company increases its dividend, stockholders receive a higher payout. Bonds, on the other hand, face pressure as the company reduces its cash on hand because this could interfere with its ability to pay bondholders. As a result, stocks generally react favorably to this announcement while bonds may react negatively.

Situation 5: A Company Increases Its Credit Line When a company increases its credit line, stocks are generally unaffected. At best, stocks may react positively because the company will not try to issue new shares and dilute current shareholders. Bonds, however, may react negatively because it could be a sign that a company is increasing its borrowed funds. However, if there is a cash squeeze in the short term, it may mean the company can meet short-term obligations, which is positive for the bondholders.

Conclusion

Any potential investment should be based on a company’s fundamentals while considering the potential likelihood of various situations or scenarios that may impact the investor. After finding a company that meets your investing criteria, a decision on whether to invest in the bond or stock needs to be made. Continually reviewing the investment in light of changes based on company decisions is a necessary component of any investment strategy.

Real EPS vs. Artificial EPS

EPS, also known as earning per share, is one way to measure how much earning from company is attributable to a unit of share. The formula is to divide the total net earning or “earning attributed to shareholders” by number of share issued in the market. Many stock investors use EPS as criteria of investment mainly because it is the easiest method, however, it also opens for manipulation.

1. Real EPS – earning that is organic. Meaning the numbers shown in the income statement are the result of business performance or better market environment. Good business performance such as improving and growing of sales and revenue as a result of widening market share. Better market environment such as high employment rate nation wide and people are willing to spend. In short, real EPS is base on natural financial ecosystem.

2. Artificial EPS – earning that is manufactured. Meaning the number shown in the bottom line of an income statement (net earning) is deliberately adjusted to look good. This can be done through cost cutting, tax deferring or manipulative accounting. For example, if there is dropping/flat revenue or sales, smart management can adjust the middle line number to make the bottom line looks good. With artificial EPS, even though a dropping revenue and sales can be made to look like growing net earning by drastically cutting cost across the board.

As a conclusion, there are many things we can’t see by only looking at EPS. In order to have a clearer picture we also need to look at their sales revenue, and how they arrive at the net profit.

What Malaysia Government has been spending on

As Malaysian, have you ever wondered how much government earns and how much they spend and in what? Here it is, i recently downloaded the country’s latest economy report, on the right side is an excerpt from the report showing the revenue and expenditures.

From 2006 to 2009, Malaysia’s revenue is growing at average rate of 7%, probably due to raising income level of general population, in similar trend, government operating expense increase steadily from 2006 to 2009 as well, an average rate of 10.4%! 3.4% faster than increment rate of revenue.

Due to higher rate of increase of operating expenditure against the revenue from 2006 to 2009, the current account surplus decreases over the 4 years periods.

From 2006 to 2009, government’s development expenditure has been increasing at the rate of almost 11%.  Development expenditures such as government construction projects, road, bridges, etc.

With the increasing of operating and development expenditure at 10.4 and 11% respectively vs. 7% revenue growth, no wonder the overall deficit for the 4 years have been increasing as well. A whopping average rate of 27.8% each year! The biggest budget deficit was incurred at 2009, probably due to the economic stimulus. Of course this also doesn’t mean government should raise taxes to offset the higher deficit, but expenses should be looked at more closely.

Now let’s look at chart-6 showing various allocation of expenses in general. The major expenses are emolument (e.g.: government employees salaries), pension (also government employees), debt service (government borrowing or bond?), supplies, transfers to state governments, subsidize and others.

One interesting thing to note is the expense allocation  in others is relatively high. In 2009, other expenditure consists of 27.7% of total expenditure. Out of total operating expenditure of 160 billion other expense amounted to 44 billions! And then it’s unclear what exactly are included in other expenses. Even in 2010, other unexplained expense consist of 16.5% at 22.8 billions, the second largest expense of that year.

Here comes the controversial part – subsidies. It is known that government spend a fortune in various subsidies such as gasoline. In 2008, government spent 22.9% of total expenses in subsidy, amounting to 35 billions, increased from 8.5% of 2007, 10.5 billions. The higher subsidy is year 2008 was probably due to crude oil price peak before the financial melt down? For year 2009 and 2010, the subsidies expenses back lower at 15.3% and 15.1%.

OK, just for fun. Assuming government can take off the subsidy of 2010, 20.9 billions is free up and left only 19.6 billions in budget deficit, almost equivalent to the level of deficit in 2006. But then that also means higher gasoline price because of free float price according to world market and some other consumer items will become much more expensive.