While there are sound reasons for some companies to issue
earnings guidance, some of which I discussed last week, I want to go on record
as stating that I don’t like companies giving guidance. Part of this is that I
don’t like the gamesmanship that goes into the guidance number. (In business
school, game theory was a continuous source of puzzlement to me – I never did
figure out who was wearing the red hat.)
Because the market tends to penalize you heavily if you miss
your guidance number, most companies sandbag the number to a certain degree. So
after a few quarters where the company beats its guidance, analysts &
investors have yet another reason to question the credibility of management.
Then they start to raise their estimates because they are convinced that
management’s estimates are too low, and management starts to get into the whole
business of trying to keep analyst estimates in line. The end result is that it
becomes a vicious cycle consuming a lot of investor relations time and effort that
does little to help investors understand the intrinsic worth of the company.
So now that you know my bias, here are a number of reasons
not to give guidance:
1. Don’t
give guidance if you are in an unpredictable business. This should be obvious,
but you see it all the time. For example, insurance companies are in the
business of underwriting uncertain risks. They don’t know when the next natural
disaster will wreak havoc with their earnings, so it makes no sense for them to
be giving guidance on earnings.
2. Don’t
give guidance if you are not very good at it. If your company has given
guidance in the past, but you find that you have to constantly revise the
numbers downward, guidance is more trouble than it’s worth. Find a better
solution. (More about this later.)
3. Don’t
give guidance if it will cause management to engage is short-term practices
that are not in the best long-term interests of the company. Jiggling things
around to “hit the numbers” is a slippery slope at best and the road to
perdition at worst.
Because the market is focused on future cash flows as a
means of valuing your company, it will make an estimate of your revenues and
earnings whether you help them or not. And if you don’t help them in some
fashion, the dispersion of estimates will be wider than if they received some
input from the company. But the input doesn’t have to be guidance.
If you feel that your company needs to give out guidance,
then your company is not giving out enough interim information to let analysts
and investors come to a reasoned estimate on their own. Many companies tend to
be “black boxes” in between quarterly reporting periods. This is unfortunate, because the ideal of a
good corporate disclosure program should be to dispense enough information, and
update the information frequently enough, so that investors are able to
reasonably reach informed decisions about how you are performing.
For example, many retailers put out monthly sales numbers.
By the time quarterly earnings come around, everyone knows the sales number for
the quarter. For many companies, this eliminates guessing around one of the
more uncertain numbers on the quarterly income statement and reduces the need
for guidance.
Or consider Progressive Insurance, a company in an industry
that is notoriously difficult to predict. Progressive doesn’t give out guidance.
Instead, every month Progressive puts out a monthly income statement and
balance sheet. And as a result, they are well followed and their stock trades
with less volatility than many of its peers.
Alternatively, if your management really means it when they
say they are running the company for the long-term, tell the market what your
long-term goals are, and how you’ve performed against them. This is known as
putting your money where your mouth is…
2 comments:
Fully agree that not all companies should issue guidance. Dilemma is that for those companies with analyst coverage, the Street will publish estimates anyway. So the company is held hostage to Street expectations even if there is no official guidance. Might be better for all if analysts simply didn't publish estimates . . . and if companies reported on an annual basis, instead of quarterly.
Interesting article! especially the part about how insurance company should not give out guidance, it is a volatile industry especially given the current instability in the macro environment.
Post a Comment