cash flow

In previous posts I described the patterns of asset value growth for Property Plant and Equipment at Apple and how that change has been thus far correlated to the production of iOS devices.

The analysis was based on looking at the declared value of the PP&E assets on Apple's balance sheet. These values include depreciation so they reflect not only the "spending" on new assets but also the value lost due to wear and tear. As such it's not a perfect measure of investment.

The better approach is to use declarations on the cash flow statement. Apple reports a specific cash flow related to PP&E: Under Investing Activities, Payments for acquisition of property, plan and equipment.

In the latest 8-K the amount for the 12 months ended September 29 the value was $8.295 billion.

Compare this with the statement in the Annual Report from one year ago:

The Company anticipates utilizing approximately $8.0 billion for capital expenditures during 2012, including approximately $900 million for retail store facilities and approximately $7.1 billion for product tooling and manufacturing process equipment, and corporate facilities and infrastructure, including information systems hardware, software and enhancements.

Compare also with the PP&E net asset value on the Balance Sheet currently at $15.452 billion but valued at $7.777 billion a year ago (an increase of $7.7 billion).

This means that Apple intended to spend $8 billion, actually spent $8.3 billion and realized a net asset gain (after depreciation) of $7.7 billion.

So there are no major surprises. The spending was only about 4% above expectations a year earlier.

The other pattern to observe is that the spending rose dramatically into the fourth quarter. The fiscal quarterly spending was:

1. $1.32 billion
2. $1.46 billion
3. $2.06 billion
4. $3.46 billion

I illustrate this pattern (and previous quarterly spending) in the following chart.

The question remains what is this $8.3 billion being spent on?

To help answer I also added the comparable spending (from cash flow statements) of a few other technology companies. Google, Amazon and Microsoft have been spending in the same range of $500 million per quarter. Over the past eight quarters the average spending of these companies has been:

• Amazon $487 million
• Microsoft $583 million
• Google $800 million

Intel is different. Its average spend level has been $2.6 billion/quarter.

But Apple has just spent about 30% more than Intel. And it spent three times in Q3 than Google, 4.8x Microsoft and 3.8x Amazon.

The level of spending and growth from a far lower level implies to me that Apple is spending primarily on process equipment (aka tooling) rather than servers. Data centers are expensive at $1 billion for a large one, but they are not being built fast enough to account for $3.5 billion in one quarter.

Note that Apple's CapEx is above that of Intel whose fab-based semiconductor production method is known as particularly capital intensive. And Intel's Capital Expenditures have been increasing to all-time highs.

If Apple spent at Google levels on server infrastructure it would only be spending a quarter of what it's actually spending. If Apple spent on production at Intel levels it would only be spending three quarters of what it's spending.

In other words, Apple is spending at the equivalent of one Intel of fabrication and one Google of server infrastructure.

In a few days we will learn what the plan for expenditure for fiscal 2013 is. Historically, the company has roughly doubled spending for each year of the iOS platform. If that continues then Apple will be spending the equivalent of several Intels and several Googles.

During the first quarter this year HTC, RIM and Nokia all surprised investors with bad news. The effect is evident in the share price of these companies which, in the case of RIM and Nokia is around book value, and in the case of HTC, neared 12 month lows and a 70% drop from peak.

These "misses" in earnings and expectations are on top of the already woeful news from Sony Ericsson and Motorola, which have not had profits for years and LG, which has been borderline since late 2009.

In combination, this seems to imply a dearth of profits in an industry that is, by all measures, booming. Units are up 7% with smartphones up 47%. Revenues are up 20% and overall profits are up 52%. This are exceptionally strong numbers. Few industries can measure growth in double digits.

So if the industry is booming but the majority of participants in the industry are loss making (and surprisingly so) then what is going on? There are two answers: new market disruption and low end disruption.

The new market disruption is the migration of a large number of demanding customers away from phones-as-voice-products to phones-as-computing-products. The low-end disruption is the migration of a large number of less demanding customers from branded phones to unbranded, commodity phones.

The New Market Disruption

The new market disruption is evidenced by the shift of fortunes to Apple and Samsung and away from every other device maker. Here is the profit picture:

Of the vendors tracked (public companies who report mobile phone divisional performance), Apple obtained 73% of operating profits, Samsung 26% and HTC 1% [1][2].

The "share of profit" picture is potentially misleading because it could imply that the profits available are a constant. They're not. The absolute profits picture below shows how the industry actually expanded available profits by quite a lot. Two years ago the vendors generated profits of $5.3 billion in the first quarter  and last quarter they generated $14.4 billion.

Seen this way, the story isn't so much that Apple "took the profits from the incumbents". Rather, it's that Apple created a vast new pool of profits. And one need not look far to find out where they came from: operators. These profits were mostly carrier premiums for the iPhone 4S.

Before shedding tears for operators, consider that although this does amount to a current transfer of profits from carriers, the decision is a popular one. Hundreds of operators have made it. It's unlikely that they all colluded to be robbed. Indeed, they willingly hand over these premiums because the iPhone ensures a competitive advantage or preserves their customer base from churning. The calculations that go into a decision to range the iPhone are compelling enough that 250 operators made the decision (though, crucially, there are still 250 who have not).

Following this value proposition to its logical conclusion would suggest that the industry is rewarding those who can supply computers-as-phones which preserve the cash flows of what is essentially a trillion dollar data services business. Vendors which cannot offer this solution saw their businesses implode. At least on the high end.

The low end disruption

Simultaneous with this shift of the high end to smartphones-as-app-and-service-platforms came an explosion of growth in unbranded phones. As Apple led and most brands followed the new market, the old market of voice-oriented phones was abandoned to new entrants offering cheap "good enough" phones. Nokia tried to preserve its volumes and margins there but it's becoming increasingly difficult.

The following chart shows how the "Other" vendors have come to make up about 44% of the market.

Note that although this "feature phone" segment is not growing, it is still a large market (250 million units a quarter). The entrants in this market are numerous (perhaps in the thousands) and they are offering white label and unlicensed knock-off products. They are also offering unregulated (i.e. without IMEI numbers) products which are technically illegal and sold mainly in underdeveloped countries which have no incentives to enforce regulations.

This is a consequence of feature phones reaching the point of being "good enough". The feature set and quality are adequate for voice, text, games and even media playback and are priced at $30 or less.

This commoditization of the low end is pressuring what would normally be the fallback cushion under an underperforming smartphone business. The crisis for the incumbents comes from not only being unable to shift to the new market as fast as needed but also from not having cash flows from a low end that was thought to be sustaining.

This combination of two disruptions is why we see an explosively large and growing market failing to reward all but two of the participants.[3]

---

Notes:

1. You can download, view and interact with a motion chart for the industry data here. All data is sourced from company filings except for some estimates where data is missing.
2. Operating profits are sales minus cost of sales minus operational expenses attributed to the business. When not available, opex is estimated as a percent of total in proportion to sales. Note that operational income excludes taxes, depreciation and other capitalized costs.
3. We cannot say that the thousands of low end entrants are unprofitable. They are probably enough profits to sustain them and even to attract more entrants, but we have to also recognize that there are likely to be very low margins.

When asked where Apple's growth will come from, most analysts or observers will cite new products. As long as there are new products, then there is growth. Conversely, if there are no new products, then there will be no growth. This is such a commonly held belief that it's axiomatic: Apple is being valued based on short-term foreseeable growth.

To be more precise, analysts value the wave of growth of every new product and heavily discount the post-growth phase assuming commoditization. There is no value assigned to Apple for extending market reach to the mass market.

Consider: Analysts currently forecast an operating income (or EBIT) of $43.3bn for 2012 and $49.7bn for 2013. That implies growth of 28% in 2012 and 15% in 2013. These growth rates are modest in light of Apple's recent historic growth and especially 84% in 2011 on EBIT level. Much of this growth has been due to iPhone which quickly captured 4% market share in four years. To suggest 15% growth in 2013 is to suggest that Apple will not increase its phone market share by an appreciable amount. The implicit assumption in that growth figure alone is that Apple will remain a niche player.

Bear in mind that 15% growth is so low as to be half the the growth in the Mac business and below the likely growth in the overall phone market. Considering the risk premium on equities, this growth forecast assumes essentially a no growth scenario. But even with no growth, Apple's cash flows are huge and thus they should add up to some significant present value. Since we know the value as reflected in the current price, we can work backwards to determine the discount rate being applied to those future flows. In other words, we can calculate how risky Apple's existing product cash flows are seen to be.

Based on  assumptions originating from analysts' consensus, we can construct a simple model that will approximate the discount the stock market puts on Apple's future cash flows. Let's have a look at an adjusted Gordon or dividend discount valuation model on EBIT basis:

Shares are valued based on the projected future cash flows of a company. Discounting EBIT with Weighted Average Cost of Capital and subtracting growth will yield enterprise value (= market capitalization - cash).

Applying analysts’ assumption of close to zero growth to Apple's post 2012 EBIT means EBIT stays constant for 2013 and beyond. Let’s solve for the implied capital costs. Right away we can eliminate growth (g) as it equals zero. EBIT reflects operating cash flow since in a zero growth scenario CapEx will equal deprecation and there are no changes in net working capital. As Apple has no debt but a cash surplus, WACC will be equal to cost of equity[1].

Solving for capital cost (WACC) with available analysts' EBIT estimates reveals a discount rate of 15%.

But let’s remember that analysts have consistently and by a large margin missed Apple's financial performance. So let’s dial in a more aggressive estimate of around $56bn of EBIT for the fiscal year 2012. The discount rate goes up to 19% and implies an EBIT multiple of 5.3x.

In other words, Apple's cash flows for a zero growth scenario are being discounted at a rate of 15% to 19%. This places the company in an extremely risky category of investment. It is certainly not something that can be categorized as a value stock.

The discussions on this blog regarding Apple’s valuation have been insightful, but only danced around the triangle of price, earnings and growth. When the growth forecasts are considered vis-a-vis current pricing, the assumptions built into 'consensus' forecasts for Apple are condemnations of the company.

They present a view of a company that is extremely vulnerable and can neither preserve its current cash flows nor find new sources of growth. It is, quite plainly, a company doomed to commoditization.

---

Notes:

1. Or one can even assume that cash has a positive effect lowering costs of equity (less indirect bankruptcy costs).

I began thinking carefully about Apple in 2005 when the stock was priced at around $55/share. I remember that the events which made me consider Apple in a different light were the launch of the iPod shuffle and the launch of the Mac mini. Both moves signaled to me that the company was serious about competing with non-consumption. At that point I thought that the company was a potential opportunity as an investment.

But I also remember that many people at the time thought that the stock price was too expensive. At $50, the company was much more expensive than the year before. The stock started 2004 at about $11/share. The reason it had climbed so much was that the iPod began to be a real world-wide growth phenomenon. Buying Apple was buying into the iPod and many said the price was unsustainable given such a strong dependency on fickle consumer tastes. It was a much riskier proposition than that of competitors like Dell and HP which made product for reliable buyers like enterprises.

Indeed, by 2006, the shine was off. In the first half of 2006 the stock collapsed from $85 a share to $50, a fall of 40%. It was becoming clear that with mobile phones taking on more music playing features, the iPod was not going to be a big story for long. What's more, Apple had just announced that they were switching to Intel for the Mac product line. Investors saw just how vulnerable the company still was and considered that the Mac brand was in jeopardy as it transitioned to becoming a Windows-friendly machine.

However, in 2007 the company's value recovered with the introduction of the iPhone. Suddenly there was a new product to drive sales. Nobody knew by how much or how but there was a sense that the iPhone was enough to keep Apple from oblivion.

Yet, again, in early 2008 the company lost 40% of its valuation. In a rather inexplicable period following the launch of the MacBook Air, the company's shares went into free fall. Inexplicable because the company continued to deliver solid growth with 2008 calendar quarters showing between 32% and 155% EPS growth.

Then the recession came. It caused another 40% share price collapse. Growth slowed to a range of 11% to 61% during 2009. As the marco "headwinds" blew over, by the end of 2009, with the help of a lukewarm response to the iPad, the company's value recovered to its 2007 level. In the mean-time its earnings more than doubled.

It may not appear to be the case, but throughout this volatile period, the investment thesis remained fairly constant: Apple is a rather small collection of product bets. Owning Apple meant riding the iPod or the iPhone or the iPad as waves of growth. As soon as one growth wave was seen to start to fade, investors would say the same thing: Apple is done.

The chart below shows just what that looks like in terms of product contribution to gross margin.

The investment thesis is the same today. I've had dozens of conversations with fund managers and if anything, it's even more about betting on products. The iPhone and the iPad make up such a large part of profits that the company seems to be nothing but those two things. So if there is any hint that those products might slow down, the stock is sold off.

What intrigues me about this investment thesis is not whether the signals of growth are interpreted correctly or not, but rather that an investor in Apple in 2006 was considered perfectly rational valuing Apple as an iPod company as much as an investor today is perfectly rational valuing Apple as an iPhone company. Why would anyone buy Apple for any other reason? There is no evidence that Apple can be anything more. Any fund manager positing a different point of view would surely be limiting her credibility.

The consensus is that the value of future, unknown products is zero. Not only that but the probability that there will be any products at all is equally zero. Not only that but whatever Apple does to create new products is not perceptibly valuable. The company is simply the sum-of-the-product-parts and nothing more. Cash flows from current products can easily be shown to be more than the current valuation so even these products are deeply discounted. If and when a new product shows up, it will be considered and maybe if it shows promise, the stock will reflect that, briefly.

A corollary to this investment thesis therefore is that the process of product development at Apple is worth nothing. It does not matter if the company has shown an ability to disrupt and to create new categories. The past is not a predictor. The value of the company is a discounted cash flow of current products--discounted for the odds of commoditization, which are seen to be quite high. A new hit product is a windfall, a winning lottery ticket. Something that you cannot count on.

Think about that in a different context. That's like valuing Pixar on the box office revenues of its current movie. If Cars 2 is not beating records, Pixar is suddenly nearly worthless. The fact that Pixar repeatably creates blockbusters would be seen as meaningless. The way they built a reliable pipeline with predictable cost structures for movie-making is not interesting.

However, the fact is that Pixar did not get acquired on the basis of the last hit it made. It was acquired for its system of production. This can be confirmed not only by the price paid but by the fact that the organization was not folded into the Disney machine. It stands alone and is given autonomy. So at least in the movie making industry, predictability is seen as valuable.

So why is Apple not valued as a process company?

I think the answer lies in the lack of understanding or belief in a theory that predictable success in product development is possible. Until and unless an explanation is available that persuades a majority that Apple is as much a hit factory as Pixar then Apple without the products will intrinsically be valued at zero.

The premise of the stock market today is therefore that being innovative in technology is meaningless. Innovations are valuable but there is no such thing as an innovation process. If there was such a thing then we could measure it and put a number of its value. Until then innovation is nothing more than a spin of the roulette wheel.

As I have tediously repeated in this blog, Apple's share price has been de-coupled from its earnings for many years. Consistent earnings growth above 70% is not seen as valuable. As the chart below shows, there is no correlation between EPS growth and value growth.

With the outlying quarter when 154% growth was matched by a negative 50% price change, the correlation does not look much better:

If we cannot correlate share price with growth then what is being valued? This has been a vexing problem because growth is the traditional, and logical, metric of valuation. Share prices, by definition (net present value of future cash flows) reflect future potential. That potential is more sensitive to growth than to anything else.

But I've been leaving one factor out of the share price definition. Share price is NPV of future cash flows plus current assets.

Since future cash flows are being thrown out of the equation, the company must be valued as a multiple of its cash. Does this relationship hold true?

In the chart below I show the weekly closing price of the shares and the corresponding value of the interpolated cash (and marketable securities) per share over the last two and a half years.

A strong correlation can be observed. The R squared value is a healthy 0.94. Of course this is not to imply causation. Correlation is not causation, but it is a hint.

Can predicting the cash per share be a strong indicator of future stock price? Perhaps. As long as this relationship holds, then having a reliable earnings model would still give us a solid predictor for the share price. Not because we can use EPS forward estimates multiplied by P/E but because we can estimate cash flows and the increase in retained earnings.

Of course, the market "is being irrational" because it values on the basis of the present only (not its future.) But who are we to argue? This valuation has held since October 2008.

As far as the market is concerned Apple's future is irrelevant. Its value is defined as a constant multiple of cash.

In a recent but recurring lament I asked why Apple shareholders are not being rewarded for the company's growth. I pointed out that there is no fundamental reason why the company should receive such a low P/E multiple (about 18 ex-cash trailing and 10x forward while maintaining 70% earnings growth for over a year).

There were many objections in the comments. Most of them dealt with recent reasons why doubts might have arisen among investors: Android hegemony or some perceived lack of competitiveness leading to margin compression or some macro hangover from the recession.

In this article I argue that none of these objections hold water. My argument hinges on the fact that there is a precise date when Apple ceased being seen as an exceptionally valuable company and that date precedes any of the causes being suggested.

The day of disillusionment was almost exactly three years ago: January 14th, 2008.

How to pin down the date of disillusionment

Consider the following chart.

The blue area represents either a premium (above 0) or a deficit (below 0) of Apple's P/E (ex-cash) relative to the S&P 500 P/E. This is a re-imaging of a chart, first introduced in June 2010 when I first pointed out that Apple was being discounted relative to the S&P 500.

By measuring P/E I am focusing not on the stock price, which has grown nicely, but the ratio of the price relative to earnings, which hasn't (see the next chart below). P/E is a fundamental measure of potential (its reciprocal is the stock's earnings yield.) It is usually highly correlated to the company's growth. If that P/E is uncorrelated to past growth, there is some significant discounting of future growth. It's the most significant (and simplest) measure of "faith" in a company.

By measuring the company's P/E relative to an index of other large companies (S&P 500 P/E) we can assess whether the company's potential is being valued as extraordinary or whether it's being valued as ordinary. In other words we are measuring whether a company is "special".

The chart shows that until January 14th, 2008 the company was valued at a significant earnings premium--a P/E consistently 50% higher than the norm.[1]

Following the collapse (about 40% drop in share price but 100% drop in P/E premium), there was a small recovery followed by a huge trough in valuation. During the recession quarters Q308 to Q309 S&P earnings fell to zero or below. As a result of S&P earnings collapse the S&P P/E shot up astronomically (as E approaches zero, P/E approaches infinity). Apple's earnings dropped as well but remained positive throughout that period bottoming at 37% growth(!) in Q408. As a consequence Apple's P/E fell as low as 11 while the market's went well above 100 (122.41 peak). The P/E deficit for Apple went 80%: Apple was valued as basically worthless (3x cash).

After the earnings recession, the S&P P/E recovered close to historic levels but Apple's P/E did not. It's in-line with the S&P but does not obtain the 50% premium preceding the recession.

So we can establish that the day that Apple's potential was discounted was nearly six months before the onset of recession.

What other discounting factors can we discard?

How about earnings growth itself? Did the collapse foretell an earnings collapse?

The chart above shows the P/E premium vs. earnings growth (in red). Although earnings growth began to slow soon after the 14th (earnings for CQ407 were not yet announced at that point), growth recovered six months later after the launch of the iPhone 3G[2]. Growth continued throughout 2009 and 2010 reaching new heights last year of 86%.

Still, the company received no premium to the S&P 500 P/E. Companies in the index averaged, at best, a quarter of Apple's growth in earnings.

What about Android? The first Android device did not ship until October 2008 (HTC Dream or T-Mobile G1). There were no appreciable Android volumes until 2009, one year after the drop in relative value and no talk of a threat until 18 months later.

The last objection to be put aside is that of margin compression.

This last chart shows how margins (in brown) behaved during the same time period. They went up. The only slight decline took place during the last few quarters, after the launch of the iPad, long after the collapse.

Regardless of the adjustments with product launches, Apple's GM is the envy of the world and is not at all correlated with the loss of faith in the company.

So What happened on January 14, 2008?

Having led you this far in the story, I'm afraid I'm going to let you down at the end: The cause for the loss of faith is a mystery to me.

There is only one noteworthy event that took place on that date: Macworld 2008 (January 14-18). During the keynote, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air (and Time Capsule and Leopard and pre-announced the iPhone SDK which, six months later led to the app supernova). I remember that day and I remember that the stock began selling off exactly at the point when the Air was mentioned. It has never been the same since.

Obviously, correlation is not causation. The Macbook Air need not be the cause for the loss of faith in Apple as an investment. Or can it? I'm hoping someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. The product was not a home run but it did not do badly either and its current incarnation seems to be a hit. Whatever sins the original Air may have had have surely been expurgated by now.

Regardless the cause, the bottom line is that, in the eyes of investors, Apple stopped being "special" that day. Its valuation dropped to in-line the S&P and, given its growth, well below what a large growth company should be worth. The company's shares went into the bargain bin and are still there today.

---

[1] I should point out that the P/E ratio is based on post 2009 re-stated earnings. The restatement changed the P/E as the "E" changed. This was based on the abolition of subscription accounting for the iPhone. Although it may seem unfair to hold the market to this standard, restatement did not actually change cash flows which were transparent and visible to all, even to amateurs such as myself and the other unaffiliated analysts that published throughout this period. Earnings may be an opinion but cash flow is a fact. Valuation on the basis of cash flow should have yielded the same results as shown above.

[2] That quarter showed a y/y growth of 150% while the stock was in freefall. In fact, it was during that earnings day that Steve Jobs came on the conference call and pointed out the astronomic iPhone cash flow to an audience of analysts more concerned about their own jobs.

On Christmas Eve 2007 to be precise. That’s when the Enterprise Value/share was $181.5. These days it’s around $150. The Enterprise Value (EV) measures the value of future cash flows excluding current assets and is a better indicator of the potential of a company than its current overall value.

As you can see in the graph above, the cash per share (in green) has grown to $43 while back in late 2007 it was less than half that. As a result, although the market value for Apple peaked at $215 on 19th January this year (the blue line), the EV/share was only about $178 (the red line), below the all-time-high in 2007.

As Apple’s cash continues to grow, the gap between EV and MV will also grow. If the MV remains low (as the P/E is indicating) then the Enterprise Value, i.e. the net present value value of future cash flows, drops.

Did Apple’s prospects peak in 2007--six months after the iPhone was first launched--or is the current valuation still a function of sentiment of the overall economy, independent of the company’s fundamentals?