Hollow Talk From PotashCorp Management

Do as we say, not as we do. That's the feeling I get from PotashCorp (NYSE: POT  ) management.

PotashCorp, as you know, was just offered a $130-per-share buyout from BHP Billiton (NYSE: BHP  ) . Although 50% higher than what shares traded for in early July, PotashCorp has so far balked at the offer, calling it "grossly inadequate." CEO Bill Doyle gave an even more colorful elaboration: "I am not saying that we are opposed to a sale, but what I am saying is we are opposed to a steal of the company."

That's understandable and laudable. Management doesn't want to let go of the company for anything less than they think it's worth. Good for them! Let's have a round of applause for the fiduciary duty!

But I'm having trouble digesting these comments. This is hollow talk, if not a swift kick in the face for shareholders. If management truly feels PotashCorp is grossly undervalued at $130 a share, they have some explaining to do.

Remembering the past
This story starts in 2008, when PotashCorp spent $3.4 billion buying back its own stock at an average price of $147 a share. Late that year, with shares trading at around $160 a share, Doyle struck a tone similar to today, opining that, "We believe our shares are significantly undervalued versus our long-term potential." Bullish as ever, Potash fired up its buyback campaign, authorizing the repurchase of another 10% of shares outstanding.

And then everything stopped.

Since early 2009, PotashCorp has spent exactly zero dollars repurchasing shares, even while they traded as low as $64, and at an average of less than $100.

I think you see where this is going. If $130 a share is "grossly inadequate," and $147 was so cheap that spending a bloody fortune on repurchases was a wise use of capital, then why did management sit on its hands and refuse to repurchase a single share when they traded at a fraction of those values?

In a way, I get it: 2009 was a horrendously uncertain time for all companies. Hoarding cash was a universal response to net income plunging, as it did for PotashCorp. Fair enough.

But what little leeway we can give on this front is thoroughly overridden by the $8.9 million in option grants PotashCorp management received in 2009. Is there any sane defense for a company compensating managmenent with a currency trading far below the level management itself calls "grossly undervalued?"

Or, let me ask it this way: If accepting a buyout offer at $130 a share constitutes "stealing the company," then what is compensating management with option grants at prices far below that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thievery everywhere
If I'm being unfair to PotashCorp, it's only because this kind of capital misallocation is standard practice today.

Among all S&P 500 companies, share repurchases peaked in the third quarter of 2007, just as their share prices were topping, and bottomed 73% below peak levels in the second quarter of 2009, just as prices were hitting decade lows. I've shown that in the three years prior to the 2008 bailout, the seven largest banks, including Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) , JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) , and American Express (NYSE: AXP  ) , repurchased shares worth almost 60% of what they received in Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout money from taxpayers.

With almost perfect accuracy, companies have mastered the art of buying high and selling low.

Holding 'em accountable
It's only worth pointing out examples like PotashCorp because it's time investors start holding management accountable for their capital decisions. An appropriate way to think of this is treating CEOs like money managers when it comes to share buybacks. If a hedge fund manger were to habitually spend piles of money buying shares at market tops, and then hunker down during market bottoms while compensating himself by selling shares he publically proclaimed undervalued (the equivalent of PotashCorp's option grants), he would be out of business in seconds. Yet investors accept this behavior from CEOs as a given. Why?

If CEOs don't like the responsibility of being judged against the market's instability, maybe they should avoid the practice of buybacks and options grants altogether. Sticking with what they know -- which isn't forecasting the stock market -- is their real fiduciary duty to shareholders.                                                                         

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares of any of the companies mentioned in this article. American Express is a Motley Fool Inside Value selection. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (8)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 20, 2010, at 4:33 PM, sl7vk wrote:

    You're missing the point. You can't look at the share buyback history of a company before and after the worst economic recession in 80 years. That simply isn't fair.

    130 clearly is undervaluing Potash, and the market has spoken pushing shares to near 150. 180 per share is a fair valuation for a hostile take over.

  • Report this Comment On August 20, 2010, at 5:09 PM, dontthinkso2012 wrote:

    "BHP is using the current market down turn and favorable stimulis as a oppotunistic take over in order to monopolize the food and construction sectors. I believe in competition and antiltrust legislation. Bigger is not better in the long run for anyone. There offer is way foo low and I hope stock holders realize that this intrinsic value of this company going foreward is way more than 225 per share. I agree with the POT position that this is a steal. We will see what the media smoke and mirrors propaganda show can accomplish. In the end I think BHP is wasting the shareholders cash in this unlikely effort.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1276658, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/27/2014 5:45:14 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement