Back in the sexist days of yore, men had a saying: “Women –
Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.” That’s sort of the way I feel about
guidance, especially earnings guidance. Personally, I don’t like it, but I
recognize there are times when it’s necessary. It seems to me that if you give
guidance, and you hit your projected numbers, then you get no credit for it. On
the other hand, if you miss the numbers you guided to, investors really penalizes
you because they expect that you have better insight into the business than
they do. And if you beat guidance, then you were sandbagging the numbers and
analysts raise their future estimates so high that you are sure to miss in the
near future.
Yet lots of companies give guidance, so they must feel they
need to. According to a 2010 NIRI survey on guidance practices, of the 269 responding
companies, 90% provide some form of guidance, 58% provide guidance on
earnings/EPS and 62% on revenue or sales. Baruch Lev, in his book “Winning
Investors Over” uses data from First Call and comes up with around 800
companies that provided quarterly guidance and 1,400 that provided annual
guidance in 2007. Companies must feel compelled to issue guidance because no sane
businessman is going to want to make a public forecast unless he is forced to
do so.
So I went looking for some data to see if guidance was a
good thing or not. Not surprisingly, the data is mixed. In his book Baruch Lev
cites a number of academic studies in support of giving guidance. First, there
is a study that shows that companies are more accurate at quarterly guidance
than analysts. (This, of course, is not evidence that company guidance is
necessarily very accurate, just that it’s more accurate than analysts’.) Second,
he cites studies that indicate that guidance enriches the information
environment in the capital markets. By this I think he means that the very act
of giving guidance is another piece of information, which helps improve
transparency. And academic studies show that transparency leads to higher stock
prices, lower stock volatility and reduced cost of capital.
On the other hand, the consulting firm McKinsey, in a study
published in the Spring of 2006, concludes “Our analysis of the perceived
benefits of issuing frequent earnings guidance found no evidence that it
affects valuation multiples, improves shareholder returns, or reduces share
price volatility. The only significant effect we observed is an increase in
trading volumes when companies start issuing guidance…”
So there you have it: dueling experts that lead you to
exactly opposite conclusions. Given that it is not totally clear that guidance
is for every company, I thought I would try to lay out some of the thinking
that might lead a company to make an informed decision regarding guidance. My
next post will take the opposite side, citing the reasons not to issue guidance
and discuss some of the alternatives that I think are better.
You should engage in guidance if:
1. You
are a small cap company and have low sell side analyst coverage. One of the big
issues for small cap stocks is getting on the radar screen of analysts and
getting coverage. Anything a company can do to improve their chance of
coverage, including issuing guidance, should come into play in order to gain
the increased trading volumes, liquidity and visibility that come with
increased sell side coverage.
2. You
are in a predictable business with good insight into near term revenues and
profits. Companies with recurring revenue streams or large backlogs of orders
to be fulfilled in the near future are an example here. Businesses with wide
swings in revenues dependent upon one-time orders are not good candidates.
3. You
don’t want to give continuous updates on your business in between quarters. The
more transparent you can be on a continuing basis, the less you need to help
the street by giving guidance. (More on this next week.)
4. Management
has the intestinal fortitude to run the business to plan and not manage the
earning to hit guidance. Accounting is full of subjective judgments and timing
issues. It is possible to move revenues into the current quarter or fiddle with
loss reserves to make earnings look better in the quarter so you hit your
guidance. This is almost never a good thing, but the pressure to “hit the
numbers” can be overwhelming at times. Don’t issue guidance if it is going to
warp the way you run your business.
5. You
figure that the market is going to make a forecast anyway, so why not take
control of the process.
I suspect there are many companies
that give guidance that do not fit any of the above reasons, but instead do it
because all of their peer companies give guidance. This is probably the worst
reason to do it, and for support, I cite motherly wisdom about all your friends
jumping off a cliff.
1 comment:
I think the bigger issue is the question of earnings warnings; a custom, the Bard would say, more honored in the breach. Especially when a company blows through "guidance" and reports a material upside. Where is the liability? Where is the "duty to update" that NIRI used to flaunt? What is the point of issuing guidance if there is no accountability?
Post a Comment