Transworld Entertainment Corporation operates a chain of retail stores selling CDs, DVDs, video games and the like. As of January 2010, the company operates over 550 stores (mostly located in malls) totaling over 3.75 million square feet of retail space. The company acquired it’s biggest competitor Musicland in 2006, spending most of the next 4 years closing poorly performing stores and not making any money. Why would I even be looking at this company, considering it’s in a dying business and isn’t making money? We’ll get to that.

Why Is It Cheap?

I barely know even where to begin. As mentioned above, the specialty CD store is a a dying industry. They’re fighting a losing battle against 3 opponents- Amazon, Walmart and downloading (both legal and illegal). The company responded to this change by diversifying into DVDs and video games, with some degree of success, but the company still is bleeding cash. The company has been doing the right thing by closing poorly performing stores, yet every store closure means less revenue.

Industry Outlook

Uhh, were you paying attention above? If you weren’t, let me summarize: crap.

The industry outlook is tricky. Obviously it isn’t that good. Saying that, is there a bottom somewhere? Do CDs eventually go away forever? When is a realistic timetable for that happening? I know people who are in their 20s who still buy CDs and don’t have an Ipod. Sure, those people are in the minority, but there is still a market for CDs. It’s just a matter of figuring out where the bottom is in that market.

Dividend

Non existent. This company is either a turnaround or takeover play, therefore no dividend is expected at any point in the future.

Balance Sheet

Basically the pristine balance sheet is the only reason why the company is being discussed on this blog. The company has a market cap of a hair over 58 million, while the book value checks in at 193 million. That means the company is trading at 30% of book value. The company qualifies as one of Benjamin Graham’s Net-Nets, since current assets minus total liabilities is more than book value.

Considering how anemic earnings have been over the last few years, debt is basically non-existent. Actual debt is just around 2 million, as well as some lease obligations, which is to be expected considering the industry they’re in.

Earnings

2010- (1.28)

2009- (1.89)

2008- (2.56)

2007- 0.03

Yikes. That’s ugly. At least the trend is in the right direction.

According to Yahoo, there are no analysts that cover the stock. My extensive research (read: a 2 minutes Google search) couldn’t find any credible earnings estimates for fiscal 2011.

Insider Activity

I’ve decided to add a new category, focusing on insider buying and selling. For Transworld, the CEO has been buying, however other directors have been selling.

Price Appreciation

Check out this chart from the last 10 years:

As you can see, the company is trading at some pretty low levels. If the company finds a way to turn things around, a recovery to $5-$7 is quite obtainable. I’d set a target price of $6.

Summary

Transworld is an interesting company with a pristine balance sheet that needs a turnaround. While I’m attracted to the balance sheet, I’m not sure how the company is going to improve things. I think the chance of the company getting bought out is virtually none. While I’d put the chances of the company being taken private higher, that’s the only potential catalyst I can see that can really improve the price. I’m going to keep researching this one, but will probably take a pass.

 

Rather than the usual short Sunday post, I’m just going to do a quick link to the two blog carnivals I was in/hosted this week.

I was in the Carnival of Personal Finance over at The Canadian Finance Blog.

I was also rejected to like 3 carnivals. Hmm…

I also hosted the Festival of Stocks. It looks like they need hosts, so what are you waiting for?

 

I’m currently doing an experiment/fun activity with a buddy. We each have an imaginary $100 to bet on whatever combination of sports games we want. Currently I’m up a whole dollar, while he has me beat by about 50 cents. We’re high rollers, can’t you tell?

While I was in Vegas, I bet on 4 baseball games. I went 3-0-1. While I’m the first to admit that my success could be solely attributed to luck, I’m curious to whether I can actually make money consistently betting on sports. Being the analytical guy I am, I plan to experiment on this for 3 months before dropping a dime of my money. And even then, I plan to use the money I currently have in my Paypal account as seed capital for my new venture.

There are a lot of parallels between sports betting and stock market investing. At their core, they are both essentially educated guesses of future events. Each discloses certain information to the investor/bettor, while keeping some information secret. While sports betting is a bit riskier proposition than stock market investing, (after all, you lose your whole bet if you lose) there’s no waiting for the market to value a company higher than you paid.

Yeah, there’s a stigma attached to gambling. My American readers shouldn’t even think about trying to deposit money in one of the online sportsbooks, as your government doesn’t look fondly on those who do. For some people, gambling on sports can lead to an unhealthy obsession. This is an activity that shouldn’t be entered into lightly. This is an activity that you shouldn’t even try without an extended trial period.

I know a lot about sports; I think I may even know more about sports than I do investing. I have the advantage of knowing my stuff when it comes to the sports betting “market”. I’m going to give this a good effort over the next few months (not using any actual money) and see if I can be a profitable sports bettor. I’ll keep you guys updated with bi-weekly update posts on Saturdays.

 

It’s a pretty simple theory, actually. It isn’t some complicated theory that involves a formula, or letters that represent things, or something that requires twin degrees in economics and math to figure out. You may read about it around the blogosphere, but if you do, it definitely won’t be a theory shared by the majority of bloggers. Basically, it goes like this:

If everybody is bullish on something, chances are it’s a good time to sell. Reverse the rules for something that’s not getting any love.

Now this theory isn’t foolproof. For instance, I think the idea of the Canadian real estate market being overvalued is starting to gain traction. The whole theory about the market being primed for a correction here isn’t totally insane either. I hardly think we’re going back to the lows of last year or anything, but perhaps now is a time to just take small positions.

I’m more thinking about the direction of gold. I’m not even sure where gold is going to go. You’re not sure where gold is going to go either. I do know one thing though- generally when something is hitting a record high, it’s a pretty good time to sell. I’m not going out and recommending one of those inverse gold ETFs yet, but you need to really take a good long look if you’re buying something at a record high.

Contrarian investing isn’t just simply going against the grain. Contrarians don’t zig when others zag just for the sake of being different. No, rather we pick our moments to go against the crowd, picking select issues to be contrarian about. And typically, when something is at a record high, we know the future price is more likely to go down. Yes gold bugs, that includes your most precious metal.

In the next couple of weeks, I’ll be launching the Uproar Fund. If you’re looking for things like pair trades, or put options, or market neutral long/short combinations, then you might as well hit the back button on your browser. The Uproar Fund is going to buy beaten up stocks, stocks with the potential for either great price gains or complete price collapse. Rather than looking at things that are hitting record highs, I’ll be checking out the stocks that are hitting new lows.

Stay tuned folks, and together we’ll see just how well my theory works.

 

While watching Mad Money today, everybody’s favorite loudmouth took a call on Nokia. The question was about whether Nokia was an “accidental dividend stock” because it had sold off so much. Jimmy Creamer didn’t like it much, mostly because it had just cut it’s dividend. (More on that later) When CNBC put up the chart, I was absolutely shocked at how cheap Nokia had gotten. Check out this 5 year chart:

The stock is flirting with the lows of 2009. Is it a buy at these levels?

Why Is It Cheap?

Operations have been tough over the past year. Earnings for fiscal 2009 dropped to a fraction of what they were in past years. The market for handsets was weak, upgrading their cell phone is one thing people can wait to do most of the time. They are also getting their butts kicked in the smartphone market in North America by RIM and Apple, among others.

Industry Outlook

Wireless is hardly going away, with the industry returning to an annualized growth rate of 10% by the end of 2009. Nokia led the way with a market share of 39.1%, down a bit from their usual spot at 40-41%. That decline can be attested to the lack of smartphone sales.

Dividend

This is the reason why I hate Jim Cramer. Dividends get treated a little differently in Finland as they do in North America. What Nokia’s board does is looks at results for the year, then declares an annual dividend. They pay once a year, unlike most North American companies. 2009′s dividend was 0.40 Euros.

Balance Sheet

Market cap checks in at a hair over 37 billion. Nokia’s book value is $3.77 per share, which means the company trades for 2.63 times book value. The average for the sector is 1.63, however this includes all sorts of other communications stocks. From a quick glance at their direct competitor’s balance sheets, (excluding Apple)  Nokia does trade at a discount to its peers.

Debt is a bit of an issue for Nokia, currently it sits at a hair above 4 billion. Most of the debt was taken on to finance the acquisition of Siemens last year. Debt is hardly excessive for a company this size.

Earnings (in Euros)

2006-1.05

2007-1.83

2008-1.05

2009-0.24

Earnings are not heading in a positive direction. Analysts are expecting earnings of around 90 cents for 2010, putting the company at 11 times forward earnings.

Price Appreciation

As mentioned earlier, the stock is close to levels last seen during the market collapse of 2009. This is easily a 10 year low. An increase in price to the low 20s wouldn’t be out of the question, considering the stock spent considerable time at that level over the 2005-08 period, before shooting up to a high of around $40. Upside is a little more than 100%.

Summary

Nokia is a dominant player in the global handset market, especially in the fast growing areas of China and India. They are a world class company that stumbled as the handset market slowed. They are getting hammered in the smartphone market by competitors who do an awful good job of making good phones. If they come out with a smartphone that actually catches on in North America, this stock could end up looking like a fantastic bargain at these levels. I put the chances of that pretty low though.

If you’re a believer in the Euro continuing to sell off, this will act as an additional lift on the company’s bottom line. Every cent the Euro falls against the other currencies, the better it is for Nokia’s bottom line. I’m not smart enough to make that call, perhaps you’d like to make a prediction for me.

Nokia may be added to the Uproar Fund when it launches in a couple of weeks. Or it may not. Stay tuned.

© 2012 Financial Uproar Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site