Actually, you could say the whole consumer products group has just gone through the month from hell, with almost every major company, other than
, disclosing earnings that weren't quite up to par. (Does
ring a bell?)
So, why shine the light on
? Because an item
here back in October suggested that the company's fundamentals were showing signs of stress. (The company, of course, disputed that notion, but I digress.) Then, late Thursday, Colgate announced what, on the surface, appeared to be blockbuster fourth-quarter earnings. According to
headline I read, the company either "beat estimates," "exceeded expectations" or "topped consensus estimates."
Ah, but did it really? Not quite, which is why, despite supposedly beating estimates, Colgate's stock skidded 6% on Friday, and barely budged Monday. Seems that after taking a closer look at the numbers, analysts realized the tax rate and interest expenses were also lower than expected, which means -- all things being equal -- the company really just met estimates. Put another way, the quality of those earnings wasn't quite up to quantity. And when you're a highflier (in its world) like Colgate, quality is as important as quantity.
So, a group known for earnings consistency is now showing earnings inconsistency. Why? Any number of reasons, but this much is certain: Earnings consistency has helped the group trade at a pretty big premium to the
Standard & Poor's 500
. As of the fourth quarter, however, that earnings-consistency theme may be out the window.
Herb's Latest: Join the discussion on
TSC Message Boards .
Lernout & Hauspie
is up 18 9/16, or nearly 31%, on
. (The company's press-release machine does seem to be working overtime these days.) Based on my email, the Lernahooligans are chuckling unmercifully at anybody who dared question the company.
And the shorts? They're singing the same old song: Lernout keeps missing earnings estimates, analysts keep cutting numbers and yet the stock keeps going higher -- a case where two plus two is supposed to equal four, but it really doesn't.
No need to go on and on about the company's announcement Monday that it will issue $600 million in euro-denominated converts. (Plenty already written everywhere about it.)
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
is the underwriter -- yep, the same Morgan Stanley whose very own
on Friday wrote: "Call us melodramatic? Go ahead. But we continue to maintain that
may be on its way to becoming one of the greatest companies of our day ... no doubt, there's still a chance that they screw the whole thing up ... but after the CQ4 financial results and C2000 outlook, we are more calmed about Amazon.com's business outlook than we ever have been. Happy New Year!"
Happy New Year, indeed, especially with
Speaking of which, reader
writes: "Two weeks ago it was
, last week it was Amazon." He's referring to comments
here questioning the legitimacy of some analyst recommendations. Specifically, he cited short-seller Jim Chanos' comment, the one in which he said, "Some sell-side analysts are selling their credibility down the river to see one more investment banking fee."
"Are you saying," Joe wonders, "that all these people/firms are liars?"
Let's just say that when it comes to underwriting fees vs. telling it the way it is, Wall Street analysts have been known to look the other way when it comes to bad news.
Herb Greenberg writes daily for TheStreet.com. In keeping with TSC's editorial policy, he doesn't own or short individual stocks, though he owns stock in TheStreet.com. He also doesn't invest in hedge funds or other private investment partnerships. He welcomes your feedback at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Greenberg also writes a monthly column for Fortune.
Mark Martinez assisted with the reporting of this column.