During my undergraduate studies I had a professor that asked us to find a company on a large stock exchange that had posted a loss in the previous fiscal year and give a mock presentation about selling the shareholders on not dumping the stock or to even to buy more. By the end of my presentation I had students telling me they actually planned to purchase the stock I mentioned, which was smart. So what did I look for when choosing a company that had posted a loss?
The number one thing I was looking for was a company that had expended a large amount of funding in research and development in a thriving industry. There can be a lot of candidates for this, but I had one in mind, pharmaceuticals. There are plenty other analogs for this as well, it doesn’t have to be research and development, for example mining companies that have recently purchased large swaths of land and equipment, developers purchasing land, and building on that land. Basically I was looking for an activity that caused the loss in the current year that would produce revenue in the future.
The truth is, investors, creditors, and management see a loss of this type as the halo effect. This is because it is driving future business. Most R&D can take years before it develops into a market-ready product, especially in the pharmaceutical industry where costs to bring a drug to market are extremely expensive but also heavily protected by bureaucratic red tape and huge barriers to entry in the market, not to mention patent rights. The same can be said about a mining company that has purchased a mineral rich plot of land and the equipment to develop it, despite the fact that depletion and depreciation expenses may not occur in the current year, they may not have a product ready for sale for a number of years, as is the case in most diamond mines.
This doesn’t mean we should always look at a company that posts losses or marginally small profits as a good company, but there is a silver lining when certain companies post a loss, and if you understand financial statements enough you should be able to decipher when the loss is probably a good thing for the future of that company.
I’m sure you’re wondering what company it was that I had chosen. It was Seattle Genetics, a pharmaceutical company that solely makes gene targeting cancer treatment drugs, who in 2014 (the year prior to the presentation) had posted a $77 million loss, and had posted a loss every year since inception. What I saw was that their R&D costs were $230 million versus $286 million in sales revenue. At the time of the presentation their stock price was around $37.00 per share, today their stock price is $67.96 per share, despite posting another $120 million loss in 2015.
Please take the opportunity to follow my blog or leave a comment as I am always happy to engage with my readers.