Posts filed under “Technology”
There is an old market saw about how the leaders from one bull market are not the leaders in the next bull market.
That’s true for a number of tech stocks: Dell, EMC, Cisco, Sun — and its especially true about Microsoft:
I have never been a big fan of the Mister Softee. From a tech standpoint, their products are kludgy and unimpressive; Their strong suit is not Innovation — it is relentless, incremental improvement, eventually leading to a decent if underwhelming product. What they end up producing are the lowest common denominator bloatware that can be easily managed by a corporate IT staff.
It is a great cash flow machine. Its the monopoloy, stupid.
From an investment perspective, there are 2 key issues to observe: first, they are a mature company whose fast growth days are well behind them. They are too big to be responsive, too expensive to be a value stock, too slow growing to be a growth stock. In short, they are in the process of morphing from the software PC leadership company to nice, quiet, money machine. I would expect a good entry purchase (i.e., from lower levels) could throw off gains of 10-15% a year, including dividend.
The second thing to observe — and all too many investors overlook this — is that the money is in the monopoly products. Except for Windows and Office, pretty much everything else is 3rd rate money-loser, with SQL as the exception. They have a few products that have slowly began to move up the scale, and their hardware products aren’t bad, but note where the lion’s share of their revenue, and nearly all of their profits come from: the Monopoly.
They continue to lose market share to Google in search (Don’t believe the vaporware hype); Their blogging product is a 4th rate ghetto; MSN continues to lag, losing share and money; X-box is a multi-billion dollar loser (no one else would have/could have thrown so much cash at merely hurting Sony); They keep pushing back Vista — thats a function of how sprawlingly large and apparently disorganized they have become as an institution; Oh, and I am still awaiting their iPod killer, first mentioned by them about 30 months ago.
I remember the days when the mere mention of Microsoft moving into a product area would disrupt the competition, force delays in other company’s purchases, and crush competitor’s stock prices. The vapor announcements have lost their punch; that strategy is no more.
Outside of the monopolies of Windows and Office, there is SQL Server database software — which has been garnering more share — and not a whole lot more. Lest you think I exaggerate, go read their quarterly statement.
While I have no faith that management can aggressively boost future sales outside of their monopoly products, it almost doesn’t matter. If you buy it now, your biggest risk may be death by boredom. This will eventually become cheap enough to buy where it will be reliable if boring old money machine; I just don’t think we are there yet . . .
Update: April 28, 2006 9:33am
I wrote this up yesterday while awaiting Microsoft’s earnings; MSFT opened down 11% to make a new low $23.60; I would be a buyer in the high teens/low 20s (technically, $22- $22.50) — so we are not quite there yet . . .
Also, see David Pogue’s NYT column on the new Internet Explorer, who notes that the product hasn’t been upgraded in over 5 years!
Update 2: May 5, 2006 12:38pm
John Dvorak discusses 8 signs that the software giant is dead in the water in The Microsoft malaise
Update: April 28, 2006 11:38am
Cramer joins the Microsoft skeptics . . .
Microsoft 5 year chart
Back in December 2004, I wrote a column titled "Five Under-the-Radar Trends for 2005". One of the below radar trends I predicted was the acceleration of intellectual property lawsuits. That turned out to be rather prescient.
There are actually two different issues here: The first is, should the USPO
be issuing so many patents, especially those for business methods? Amazon’s One-click buying, and MercExchange’s Buy it now auction are certainly questionable "inventions." That’s an issue for Congress, who needs to adequately fund the Patent Office so they can hire many more patent examiners, rather than merely have an under staffed patent office rubber stamp applications.
The second issue is that once a patent becomes issued, who gets to use it and how? Very often, we see the first issue inappropriately raised as a PR defense in the second. I don’t get the sense that all of the financial media really has a firm grasp on this. There is an entire world of patents, innovation, USPO issues, and large corporate litigants that have not been adequately discussed. Some get it, some don’t. Compare this story: "eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls" with this one "In Patent Case, EBay Tries To Fight Its Way Out of Paper Bag." (For some intercorporate litigation, see Apple against Apple Corps. Ltd., and TiVo’s against EchoStar’s Dish Network).
Incidentally, the term "Patent Troll" was invented by Peter Detkin when he was defending a patent case against Intel. Ironically, Detkin is now managing director with Intellectual Ventures, an intellectual property firm suing patent infringers.
If you recognize the property right inherent in patents, then the term "Patent Troll" is quite meaningless, meant to stir up political opposition to patents. How you use your property is irrelevant to the property right attached to it. What does it matter if you choose to manufacture widgets — or merely license the patent to thos ethat do?
What is actually going on now is a massive land grab underway by large corporations, looking to keep the fruits of entrepreneurs and innovators labor for themselves. These are not meek and vulnerable entities at the mercy of lawyers; rather, these are very astute players seeking to use the patent to further their own goals — often at the expense of innovation.
Take Intel, where Detkin was vice president and assistant general counsel, for example. They are certainly no stranger to patent litigation. As the book Inside Intel makes clear, INTC used its patents as a club to thwart competition in the CPU market for decades. That’s why its taken AMD so long to become a legitimate competitor to the chip giant.
The stealing of entrepreneurial innovation by large firms is fairly common place. My own experience with patent enforcement is that it is an enormously expensive, difficult, time consuming venture, fraught with peril. Consider the case of Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittant windshield wiper. In 1967, he received several patents on his design, which he tried to license to the Big 3 in Detroit. They sent him
packing, but later the intermittant windshield wiper somehow found its
way into autos. Long story short, he ended up in litigation for decades before finally winning. Thats decades later.