Tag Archives: oud

FireEye CEO Steps Down As Outlook Lags; Kevin Mandia Takes Over

FireEye ( FEYE ) CEO David DeWalt is stepping down, replaced by Mandiant founder Kevin Mandia, the cybersecurity firm announced late Thursday as it reported Q1 sales that missed Wall Street views and gave consensus-lagging Q2 guidance. Mandiant President Travis Reese will take up that mantle at FireEye, and FireEye CFO Mike Berry was named chief operating officer in addition to his current role. DeWalt will become executive chairman of the FireEye board. “With these leadership announcements, FireEye has moved to solidify our position in the market today and more importantly, prepare us for growth opportunities going forward,” DeWalt said in a statement. FireEye acquired incident-response company Mandiant in 2014, and its founder was groomed inside FireEye. Mandia has served as FireEye senior vice president and COO, and was named to the board in 2015. In after-hours trading, after FireEye posted earnings and announced the CEO change, FireEye stock was down 8%. Shares fell 1.3% in the regular session. Shares are down 23% this year, following the recent acquisitions of iSight Partners and Invotas. For Q1, FireEye reported $168 million in sales, up 34% year over year, and a 47-cent per-share loss minus items, shrinking by a penny vs. last year’s losses. Analysts had modeled a 50-cent per-share loss, so the bottom line beat, but they expected sales of $171.8 million. Billings ex items of $186 million topped the high end of FireEye’s three-months-ago guidance for $163 million to $183 million. Current-quarter guidance for $178 million to $185 million in sales and a 38-cent to 40-cent per-share loss ex items missed the consensus of 35 analysts polled by Thomson Reuters for $192.8 million and 36 cents losses. Sales would rise 23% at the midpoint. For Q2, FireEye expects $200 million to $215 million billings minus items, up 16% year over year.

Medivation Misses Q1 Estimates As Sanofi Turns Up The Buyout Heat

Drugmaker Medivation ( MDVN ) missed Wall Street’s Q1 estimates and affirmed guidance late Thursday, as it fended off the increasingly hostile attentions of big pharma Sanofi ( SNY ). Medivation’s revenue rose 41% over the year-earlier quarter to $182.5 million, missing analysts’ consensus by $14 million, according to Thomson Reuters. Net income climbed 35% to 11 cents a share, badly missing consensus of 23 cents. Medivation nonetheless affirmed its full-year guidance, calling for $900 million to $970 million in revenue and $1.30 to $1.40 in EPS. Last year, it made $1.01 a share on $943 million in revenue. The company’s revenue comes from royalties on its prostate-cancer drug Xtandi from Japan’s Astellas, which markets the treatment. Medivation said that Xtandi brought in a total of $547 million in the quarter and should sell $1.425 billion to $1.525 billion in the full year. “Consistent with the first quarter of 2015, our first-quarter 2016 non-GAAP net income was impacted by several seasonal items, including the lower royalty rate on ex-U.S. Xtandi sales, the higher gross-to-net (i.e. rebating) accrual by Astellas on U.S. net sales, inventory drawdowns and the previously mentioned SG&A (sales, general & administrative) expenses related to our Astellas collaboration,” Medivation said in its earnings release. Medivation stock was down a fraction in after-hours trading, following its earnings release. Shares had risen a fraction in Thursday’s regular session to 59.22. Earlier Thursday, Medivation rejected a renewed $9.3 billion buyout offer from Sanofi, which Sanofi first made last week, and which Medivation rejected as undervalued. Sanofi CEO Olivier Brandicourt said in a letter to Medivation’s directors that “there is overwhelming support by your shareholders for a transaction.” He said he preferred to engage with Medivation’s management rather than go hostile, but “if you are not prepared to engage with us, we have no choice but to go directly to your shareholders. As you know, your shareholders have the ability to act at any time by written consent to remove and replace the board.” Medivation responded with a press release saying that there was nothing new in the letter and that the offer was still inadequate. Meanwhile, rumors continued to fly about other interested parties. AstraZeneca ( AZN ), Novartis ( NVS ) and Pfizer ( PFE ) had already been named by anonymous sources in previous weeks, but on Thursday Bloomberg reported that big biotech Amgen ( AMGN ) was also pondering a bid as it seeks a major acquisition to fill out its aging drug portfolio. Weeks of buyout speculation have driven the stock up more than 120% since its 30-month low, hit on Feb. 9, helping it to a strong IBD Composite Rating of 97 and the No. 50 spot on the IBD 50 list of top-performing stocks over the past 12 months.

When Is A "7% Return" Not A 7% Return? Answer: Most Of The Time

By Gregg S. Fisher Let’s say you make a $100,000 investment in stocks that compounds at 7% per year (which is not far from what US equities have historically returned), and you hold onto that portfolio for 25 years without adding or withdrawing funds. For the sake of argument, let’s assume the return is constant, never deviating from 7% every year. As the Constant 7% line in Exhibit 1 demonstrates, at the end of a quarter-century holding period, the value of that $100,000 sum would have more than quintupled to $542,700. For most investors, this would be a very satisfying outcome. Click to enlarge The catch, of course, is that the assumptions we have made above are unrealistic. Aside from certain cash equivalents, no investment will grow at exactly the same rate every year, and the riskier the asset (e.g., stocks), the greater the volatility. To simulate the real world, we ran five randomized trials (all depicted in Exhibit 1), all with an “average return” of 7% a year, but now adding the additional element of 14% per year volatility, or standard deviation, which is also close to the historical experience for a stock proxy such as the S&P 500 Index. Since 14% volatility, or risk, can manifest itself in many different patterns, that “average 7% return” can take vastly different paths with entirely different outcomes. Allow me to explain what I mean. Terminal Value of $900,000, $500,000, or $200,000? How can the ending portfolio value after 25 years vary from a little more than $200,000 to almost $900,000? It’s because volatility can be the investor’s friend or foe, depending on when , and how many , losses and gains occur. For instance, if large losses are encountered early in an investment’s lifecycle (as in Trial 1, where the ending value is just $228,000), they pull down the amount of funds available for growth in later years. This scenario reminds me, in a slightly different context, of a retiree led to believe that there’s little risk in the sustainability of a 4% portfolio withdrawal rate in retirement. If the investment portfolio suffers significant losses in his first few years of retirement, then he’s behind the eight ball if he intends to keep pulling out 4% of initial portfolio value (adjusted for inflation) each year to meet his cost of living. On the other hand, if large gains build up early on, there’s that much more money to compound and to absorb future losses. Trial 2 shows such a case, with a final portfolio value of $869,000 that significantly outperforms the 7% compound return. In the three other trials, two outcomes significantly underperformed the 7% compound return (Trials 3 and 4), and one (Trial 5), despite some wicked cycles, ended with almost identical wealth. The point is that the total amount of an investor’s gains and losses can vary widely since that 14% volatility, which can dramatically affect the compounding rate, can move returns either up or down (remember, in theory volatility can work in an investor’s favor every year, just as it can also work against you). Thus, a “7% average annual return” doesn’t mean much when it comes to measuring actual long-term investment returns. Harry Markowitz, a Nobel Prize winner who’s considered the father of modern portfolio theory, suggested a rule-of-thumb method to evaluate the relationship between average performance and compound return: compound returns equal the average return minus half of the variance, and that increasing the variance of returns without increasing the average return will hurt investment performance. How Much Risk Can You Tolerate? Let’s shift gears now and apply the implications of the math that I’ve just described to real-life investment portfolios. I have worked with investors now for nearly a quarter of a century. From that vantage point, I can say that there are some investors out there who would be comfortable with a portfolio comprised entirely of high-risk assets, hoping for that $900,000 outcome described in Trial 2. But I can also state that such intrepid investors are relatively few. For the great majority of our clients at Gerstein Fisher, fear of a dismal outcome overwhelms the hope for a spectacular one. Most would be content with a smooth ride that achieves the constant 7% result, rather than reaching for the $900,000 outcome fraught with risk. We understand and respect this mindset, which is why we make risk mitigation front and center for most of the portfolios that we manage. Probably the most important such strategy-a classic-is diversification . Since many different asset classes tend to move up and down at different times, holding a collection of them tends to smooth the ride for a portfolio (i.e., reduces volatility). That’s why for most investors it’s an advantage to own both stocks and bonds, both US and international stocks, both bargain-priced “value” stocks and high-flying “growth” stocks, as well as some alternative asset classes such as REITs (we prefer both domestic and foreign ones), and perhaps some gold and commodity futures. The market movements in 2016 are a case in point. For example, year-to-date through May 2, while both domestic and international large growth stocks were down nearly 1%, value stocks and bonds were up, and global REITs and gold jumped 8% and 21%, respectively. Of course, there’s a limit to how far you should take diversification, since if you owned every investable asset on earth, the returns would probably cancel one another out and you’d be left with zero. But few investors have to worry about excessive diversification; in our experience, most are not diversified enough . How much diversification you should strive for, and with what assets, very much depends on your individual financial goals (both long- and short-term), time horizon, and ability to live through trying investment times without being tempted to bail out of the markets. If you work with an investment advisor such as Gerstein Fisher, we can help you construct such an individually tailored, diversified portfolio, and coach you through the inevitable market cycles. Conclusion Long-term portfolios with the same average annual return can produce astonishingly different final wealth sums due to volatility and differing patterns of gains and losses along the way. A well-diversified global portfolio can help to reduce volatility levels and make for a smoother ride for investors. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Gerstein, Fisher & Associates, Inc.), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful. Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from Gerstein, Fisher & Associates, Inc. To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing. Gerstein, Fisher & Associates, Inc. is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice. A copy of the Gerstein, Fisher & Associates, Inc.’s current written disclosure statement discussing our advisory services and fees is available for review upon request.