John P Gavin CFA's blog

John P Gavin CFA's picture

FCPA Probes - Why Investors Should Care

This video takes you through why investors should care a lot more about FCPA probes than many do now.  

Public company disclosures of investigations pertaining to potential violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) are widely perceived as without consequence, and therefore typically ignored by many investors.   That thinking is misguided for the following reasons:

  1. A disclosed FCPA probe represents a judgment on the part of management that the company has a risk that is material to the investment decision making process. 
  2. It can indicate accounting fraud.
  3. It can hurt operations.

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

Jefferies Group - New Data Point Reaffirms Risk of Undisclosed SEC Probe (Video 2012-01)

A new data point we received from the SEC reaffirms risk of an undisclosed SEC probe for Jefferies Group (JEF).  This has not gone away despite a cleverly worded press release put out by Jefferies the last time we raised this issue in November that temporarily succeeded in taking the pressure off the company to explain itself to investors. The video walks you through how they did it.

The following is from an update we originally published for subscribers on 12-Jan-2012 --

Jefferies Group Inc. (JEF- $14.62 Mkt. Cap.- $2.9 B) New SEC Data Point Re-affirms Risk of Involvement in an Undisclosed SEC Investigation. In a letter dated 28-Sep-11, the SEC confirmed that this company was somehow involved in an active and ongoing investigation that appeared undisclosed at the time. In a letter dated 11-Jan-12, we received new information from the SEC suggesting, again, this company was involved in unspecified SEC investigative activity. We continue to find no disclosure of the same as of this date.

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

SEC Challenges to Major Banks Largely Absent from the Analytical Discourse

Our research found that the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has engaged in a series of aggressive, and in some cases protracted, comment letter exchanges with many of the largest (read: too big to fail) U.S. banks over the past five years.  Though a wide array of substantive accounting and disclosure concerns were raised in some of these exchanges, their existence and potential lasting negative impact remains largely absent from the analytical discourse on these banks:

  • Bank of America (BAC)
  • Citigroup (C)
  • Wells Fargo (WFC)
  • Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB)
  • Bank of New York Mellon (BK)
  • Regions Financial (RF)
  • SunTrust Banks (STI)
  • Huntington Bancshares (HBAN)
  • M&T Bank (MTB)
  • State Street (STT)
shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

Qualcomm: A Poster Child for Accounting Risk Hiding in Plain Sight

There is a strong case to be made that Qualcomm has a material accounting risk that remains largely undiscounted despite the company having first disclosed elements of it over a year ago in November 2010. This could put investors at risk for a negative surprise in 2012.

According to Qualcomm filings, whistleblower allegations made to its audit committee in December 2009 triggered a formal SEC investigation in September 2010. The SEC investigation appears active-and-ongoing as of QCOM’s most recent disclosures. Amazingly, not one person has bothered to ask a single question about this exposure in any of the conference calls that took place since the matter was first disclosed.

In the balance of this note, I explain why Qualcomm’s accounting exposure should be viewed as a material risk. I also review the 6 most common disclosure tactics that we see public companies use, typically with the effect of minimizing bad news or throwing investors off the scent. To date, Qualcomm has used 5 of them, making the risk impossible to assess and discount, even for seasoned investment professionals.

The bottom line is this. Qualcomm is a public company that has disclosed a material risk factor investors cannot analyze. To our view, that means management trust has been compromised as they could give investors what’s needed to analyze this exposure, but chose not to. Investors will have to decide on their own if that is the kind of risk that lets them sleep at night.

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

Is One of Scott Thompson's First Duties at Yahoo to Deal with its Undisclosed SEC Probe?

With Yahoo's announcement today that it appointed Scott Thompson as its new CEO, we thought it timely to remind those with an interest that Yahoo carries the risk of recently confirmed yet undisclosed SEC investigative activity. Based on our having filed 5 separate Freedom of Information Act requests on Yahoo in the period July 2006 through October 2010, we know that SEC investigative activity involving Yahoo began sometime after October 2010.

The following was originally published for our subscribers on 16-Dec-2011 --

  • Yahoo Inc. (YHOO- $15.16 Mkt. Cap.- $18.8 B) Confirmed, Undisclosed SEC Investigation. In a letter dated 14-Nov-11, we received information from the SEC suggesting this company was involved in unspecified SEC investigative activity. We found no disclosure of the same as of that date. In a letter dated 8-Dec-11, the SEC confirmed that this company was somehow involved in a recently active and ongoing investigation that remains undisclosed as of this date.

Whether this remains an ongoing exposure since we first reported on it is unknown.  It is also impossible to know if this will have any impact on new strategy options Mr. Thomson and the Yahoo board may seek to pursue. 

Yahoo will know answers to both.  Given the prominence of today's announcement in the market today, we think it timely for Yahoo to come forth with them.  

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

3 New Questions for Diamond Foods now that the SEC Probe is formal

In an 8-K filed this morning, Diamond Foods (DMND) disclosed that it received a formal order of investigation from the SEC. To our view, this is not a good development for DMND, as it appears to be an escalation of the situation.

An SEC investigation moving from informal to formal allows the SEC to issue subpoenas. In general, this is only done when some entity in the mix is failing to voluntarily provide SEC investigators with the information, records, or testimony deemed necessary to conducting their investigation.

With this in mind, we have 3 questions DMND investors need answered.

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

Netflix Carries Risk of an Undisclosed SEC Investigation

Whether or not you think Netflix is in play, those with an interest in the name will surely want to take note of this data point we published for clients on 5-Dec-2011.  It is based on data we acquired from the SEC under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Division of Enforcement investigative activity --

  • "Netflix Inc. (NFLX- $66.37 Mkt. Cap.- $3.7 B) Possible, Undisclosed SEC Investigation. In a letter dated 1-Dec-11, we received information from the SEC suggesting this company was involved in unspecified SEC investigative activity. We found no disclosure of the same as of this date."
shadow

Applied Industrial Technologies Inc. (AIT) appears poised to improve its governance efforts by potentially separating the current position of Chairman & CEO into two positions.  This is a result of the incumbent departing in October. The splitting of the positions hasn't happened yet.

So far, a new CEO was appointed and the board announced its plan to reevaluate its leadership structure.  While the DI Guy applauds this development, investors could still be stuck with a Chairman & CEO if the AIT board fails to follow through by separating the roles.

In our experience of having prepared in-depth risk profiles on over 1,500 public companies, cases like what could happen at AIT are uncommon, if not rare.  All too often we see the opposite; that is, the Chairman retires, the CEO assumes both roles, leaving shareholders on the losing end of that governance shift.

We hope the board of AIT does not squander this rare opportunity to improve its overall corporate governance by separating the roles and duties of Chairman from those of CEO.  Now is the time for those with an interest in the company to let their wishes be known.

The following is excerpted from today's DI Report on AIT:  "In Apr-11, David Pugh (Chairman & CEO since Jan-00) announced his intent to retire by the Oct-11 annual meeting. Neil Schrimsher was appointed CEO in Oct-11. Pugh also stepped down from the board. Following Pugh’s departure as Chairman, AIT disclosed that the board intends to reevaluate its leadership structure."

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

Three Cheers for Judge Rakoff from Someone Who Sued the SEC Over FOIA

Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff did investors a great service today by rejecting the $285 million settlement announced between the SEC and Citigroup a month ago.  Without his intervention, there's about zero chance investors and the public at large will ever find out what really took place in the horse-trading between Citigroup and the SEC. I know this from having been in the unique and unusual position of having sued the SEC for failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (See Gavin vs SEC, Civil No. 04-4522 PAM/RLE). 

The SEC's public statements today on the Citigroup case are valid, but only to a point.  Like any law enforcement entity, the SEC has to play the prosecutorial hand the best that it can. I get that part.  The SEC's claims fail, however, when contrasted against an agency that otherwise fought vigorously against us regarding what really takes place in its investigations (even well after they are finished).

When it comes to transparency, in my experience the SEC fights dirty, the SEC fights unfair. Even after repeated written scoldings of the SEC by Federal Judge Paul Magnuson in his rulings on the case, we are still unable to obtain meaningful documents on what really takes place in SEC investigations.

Now don't get me wrong, as I'm generally a big defender of the SEC.  I believe investors - and politician toadies looking for a free swipe at someone - are too quick to bash the hard working people of the SEC.  The SEC doesn't always get it right, for sure.  In the main, I've found the SEC does far more to protect investors that most people realize or give credit for. It's just that they are a bit ... well, let's just say the SEC (like most government agencies) is "transparency challenged."

That's why I was so thrilled to see Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff reject the latest in a series of bogus settlements where someone coughs up a bunch of money ($285 million in this case) while neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing.  If this settlement went though, all hope of investors ever knowing what really happened would be gone.

So the DI Guy sings out a big fat "Three cheers for Judge Rakoff!"  His efforts may go far in bringing greater transparency to capital markets.  Investors should be grateful.

shadow
John P Gavin CFA's picture

What You Can Learn from AT&T's T-Mobile Troubles

Perhaps it's the nature of the beast, but there's typically a lot of happy talk on Wall Street anytime deals are announced, as was the case with AT&T's T-Mobile deal. Maybe that explains why investors appear surprised this deal is now bogged down in regulatory problems.  They shouldn't be. 

The company disclosed back in August that the Justice Department had filed a complaint against AT&T alleging that the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition and likely raise prices.  This is what we call a risk that hides in plain sight.  These are the risks frequently blown-off by investors, often to their chagrin later.  But this stuff matters. 

We took that August disclosure to be of sufficient concern that it contributed to our changing the risk rating on AT&T from Medium Risk - Positive Bias to Medium Risk - Negative Bias on 27-Sep-2011. Our rationale on this is simple: 

  • Management will always know more than you. 
  • Management also hates saying anything bad. 
  • When management does disclose something bad, as happened here, a safe default is to assume it's material.
  • Material events that cannot be analyzed, or are glossed over with happy talk, are risks that can come back to bite you later.

For more on this take a look at the nice write-up by John Dvorak at Marketwatch.

Like they say, talk is cheap.  Happy talk even cheaper.  But when it comes to investing in public companies, what management and their lawyers deem necessary to put in writing carries the day for the prudent investor.

shadow