Comparing Valuations: Yahoo vs Google

Comparing price-earnings multiples and expected growth rates of Yahoo and Google several items become apparent. Yahoo is extremely overvalued as an independent company with its current share price reflecting the likelihood of a buy-out. Google is the better value of the two, but Google alone is fairly valued.

First, let’s run through the numbers I gleaned from Yahoo Finance and Nasdaq.com

Yahoo Valuation:
Yahoo shares currently trade 57.7x FY07 EPS of 47 cents. Looking forward, Yahoo trades 59x FY08 EPS estimate of 46 cents and 48.5x FY09 estimate of 56 cents. These EPS estimates translate into Yr/Yr growth of -2.1% (FY08) and 21.7% (FY09). Yahoo’s annual growth rate has averaged 23.3% the last 5 years.

Taking a slightly different perspective, Yahoo’s combined EPS for the last 4 quarters is 48 cents, and consensus estimates for the next 4 quarters total 52 cents. This represents 7.3% growth. The P/E multiple using EPS for the next 4 quarters is 52.7x. Using a PEG ratio to standardize value with respect to forecasted growth (Multiple/Growth), Yahoo has a PEG of 7.23.

Google Valuation:
Google shares currently trade 37x reported FY07 EPS of $15.59. Looking forward, Google trades 28.6x FY08 EPS estimate of $20.14, and 23.3x FY09 estimate of $24.74 . These EPS estimates translate into Yr/Yr growth of 29.2% (FY08) and 22.8% (FY09). Google’s annual growth rate has averaged 75.4% the last 5 years.

Taking a perspective of last 4 quarters versus upcoming 4 quarters, Google’s combined EPS in the trailing 4 quarters is $16.74, and consensus estimates for the next 4 quarters total $21.23. This represents 26.8% growth. The P/E multiple using EPS forecasts in the next 4 quarters is 27.2x. Using a PEG ratio to standardize value with respect to forecasted growth (Multiple/Growth), Google has a PEG of 1.01.


The difference in the two’s valuation is stark and quite apparent. Google’s forecasted growth is higher than Yahoo’s, yet it trades at lower multiples. That suggests Yahoo is overvalued relative to Google. But, does that mean Google is undervalued and should be bought? And that Yahoo is overvalued and should be sold?

Yahoo Analysis:
In my opinion, Yahoo is certainly overvalued as the company exists today. Its current valuation hinges on a business combination, most likely with Microsoft. Of course, this is the reason that Yahoo shares are trading at such high levels. It’s not a surprise why Ballmer balked at Yahoo’s $37 asking price since colossal synergies would have to be extracted from a combination to justify that high valuation.

Even at $33, $31, or Yahoo’s current share price, a suitor would really have to leverage Yahoo’s assets to unlock value. Now, common thinking concedes the value in Yahoo’s assets already exists, yet management and its strategy have been poor- leading to weak performance. Hence, strategic synergies and proper management may quickly boost Yahoo’s cash flow to a level that would justify such valuations.

The fact that Yahoo shareholders are irate that the board was holding out for $37 shows that they believe that valuation to be unreasonable. $31-33 is better than $27. If it weren’t for the possibility of a deal, the share price would be much lower, perhaps a teenager. However, Carl Icahn reportedly will launch a proxy battle to replace Yahoo’s current board. Such attempts are generally difficult to execute since ownership is fragmented and diffuse, however shareholders are angered and Icahn has established a track record.

In summary, under Yahoo’s current strategies, analysts don’t foresee much growth. Yahoo’s lackluster performance the past several years is not expected to change going forward, pursing the same course. Yet, shareholders and Carl Icahn believe Yahoo’s potential value is much greater than what historical performance and earnings projections would suggest- value contingent on business combination or management change.

If no deal (of some sort) ever comes to fruition, then YHOO shares would likely be cut in half. Ostensibly, there is inherent value not recognized in Yahoo’s performance, but if Icahn is not successful in removing a stubborn board, then it’s unlikely anyone else would be either.

Independent Yahoo- nearly all of Yahoo’s revenue comes from search and display advertising. Yahoo has been losing share in search; Google’s superior algorithms boosted its share into the mid sixties. In the English lexicon, Google has become a verb “Google xyz,” meaning to perform an internet search. Yahoo is still the second most popular search engine, but I believe most yahoo searches are secondary events. Yahoo’s content attracts users, who in the course of their visit, become compelled to search for a particular item and do so on yahoo, instead of navigating to Google. Conversely, users not on Yahoo’s portal choose to navigate to Google opposed to Yahoo to perform a search query. Hence, some of Yahoo’s search traffic is a matter of circumstance, and not necessarily one’s usually first search engine choice. Hence, the content from the portal aids in generating search traffic, but without a superior search engine, search depends heavily on traffic the portal attracts.

53% of Yahoo’s revenues come from advertising on its own properties, and segment revenues increases 18% in Q1. Yahoo attracts traffic through its news, finance, sports, and mail content/services. There isn’t anything proprietary about the content Yahoo provides, thus can be duplicated. In addition, Yahoo is buggy. Yahoo Mail doesn’t work right (search & spam filter), sometimes pages don’t render correctly and tables fail to populate. Groups and message boards are filled with spammers.

In my opinion, there are many things that have gone down hill on Yahoo’s site. Social networking sites and blogs are gaining traffic, traffic that could be going to Yahoo. Much of what Yahoo has now, could be duplicated, perhaps by Google. Google provides similar content and services, such as mail, messenger, maps, etc. and in my opinion, is better. In sum, Yahoo is dependent creating content and services that will attract visitors to its website.

Yahoo also provides advertising to third parties or affiliate sites, but segment revenue (33%) and margins have been declining. In Q1, segment sales fell 7%, after accounting for the drop in margin (shares more with partner), net revenues declined 13%. Yahoo’s total net revenue increased 9% for Q1. Google’s revenue growth was 42%.

Google Analysis:
At $576 / share, Google is fair-valued. In mid-March, I was bullish on Google when it was trading around $440. In my Google valuation analysis, I pegged Google’s fair value at $540 / share. I think, given the take-over turmoil engulfing Yahoo, and the ensuing distraction and departures, has boosted Google’s lead further. Thus, a $600 share price for Google is reasonable, but not attractive.

I am reluctant to place a valuation higher than $600 on Google due to its spending. GOOG has very high profit margins, but absent from the income statement is capital spending. Capex as a percentage of total revenue has been in the mid-teens for the past several years. R&D as percentage of sales has increased as well, from 10% (FY05) to 13% (FY07). Headcount has also significantly expanding leading to declining sales/employee & income/employee ratios. The significance- On the margin, each incremental dollar of revenue growth is accompanied by higher costs and investment. Hence, Google’s prospective growth generates less incremental corporate value compared to its past growth. Nothing new here, just the law of diminishing returns taking hold.

Conclusion:
Owning Yahoo at these levels is purely a bet on an acquisition. There is some upside to $31 or perhaps $33, but there is some downside risk as well. Owning shares of the acquirer (whoever that may be) is a bet that synergies will enhance value and that the purchase price was not excessive. Owning Google is a pretty safe bet with the upside potential balanced with downside risk.

Advantages to Controlling Hardware Selection and OS Development

PC Magazine contributor Sascha Segan shares his insight on Microsoft’s recent missteps with Vista and Mobile OS in this month’s edition (June ’08). His primary thesis is that there is a disconnect between Microsoft’s OS and the capabilities of hardware components. Microsoft develops software on the assumption that the hardware installed-base would contain the latest, most powerful processors and graphic cards. This became problematic for MSFT when chip and device makers chose to keep costs down by utilizing lower powered circuitry. In short, Microsoft OS is built for the hardware of tomorrow as opposed to that of today.

Firms such as Apple (AAPL) and Research In Motion (RIMM) control the OS and hardware for their products. In my opinion, this gives them an advantage over Microsoft who must tailor its OS to the hardware of multiple manufacturers.

According to Segan, Intel needed to contain its costs, thus it opted for motherboards that included non-Vista-friendly integrated graphics as opposed to a dedicated chip set. Even though Vista operated poorly integrated graphics designed PCs, Microsoft approved its operability. This hardware-software gap caused significant performance issues for consumers.

Eventually, PCs become more powerful thus performance catches up to the needs of the Microsoft’s OS. In past years, this wasn’t a significant issue. However, today, consumers have a more viable alternative as evidenced with the populatity of Apple’s Macintosh. Consumers may not wait for performance to catch up, rather they may be inclined to purchase a Mac instead.

Segan also claims that MSFT has made the same mistake with Windows Mobile OS. It’s designed for processor speeds not found in the majority of mobile handsets. Segan adds “given a choice of making it faster or making it cheaper, most manufacturers will pick cheaper”

We have seen that Vista has had a rocky introduction, and Microsoft recently announced that a “downgrade” to XP would be available for less powerful machines. Mobile OS has been less than stellar as well, albeit improving. My experience with Mobile OS was horrible. I finally ditched the device after becoming fed up with the “spinning hourglass” popping up when trying to answer a call.

I believe Segan’s article illustrates the advantage Apple obtains from controlling both software and hardware functions. This gives Apple total control over the user experience as well as making it very difficult for competitors to duplicate.

I was dismayed when PALM decided to go with Windows Mobile OS for its Treo handsets. This creates several problems. First, MSFT Mobile OS places constraints on PALM’s innovation of its mobile devices. The user experience is dependant on MSFT not necessarily on PALM. Second, it limits PALM’s ability to differentiate its handsets. There isn’t much difference between PALM devices and others running Windows Mobile OS, given that the hardware is the easiest component to replicate. Even if competitors are able to replicate Apple’s or RIM’s devices, the software is still different and protects from “knock-off” models.

Apple has a distinct advantage; it’s devices run seamlessly. Vista’s troubles may partially be responsible for the surge in adoption of Mac computers. The simplicity of Apple’s iPhone OS may prove to be a huge weapon against Windows Mobile OS devices, especially when the iPhone become more price competitive.

Apple recently agreed to purchase PA Semi, a private boutique microprocessor design company known for robust, low-power designs. The true nature of Apple’s plans for the acquisition is unknown; however, PA Semi would aid in creating chips that are optimal for Apple’s OS. In addition, instead of licensing CPU architecture, Apple's proprietary, in-house chip design differentiates itself from competitors who use "off the shelf" chip architecture. With unique OS and CPUs, both aspects can be designed around each other, optimizing performance.

Apple and RIM will continue to outshine other mobile handset device makers using Windows Mobile OS. Even if Mobile OS drastically improves, these manufacturers lack differentiation and will have to compete on price. This increases pressure to utilize less powerful components, which will affect performance. RIM and Apple select the hardware needed to support the OS and do not have to make sacrifices detrimental to performance. MSFT, on the other hand, must design its OS according to the specs of the available hardware. However, since MSFT doesn’t control which hardware will be actually used by manufacturers, it faces a more challenging task.