Pre 8 a.m. comments
A fairly quiet day for results today, after an absolute deluge yesterday. As usual I'll take a quick look at the most interesting (to me) results and publish just before 8 a.m.. Then a more leisurely look at a few more companies between 8-10 a.m..
Given my retail background, I'm drawn to today's results for the 52 weeks to 26 Jan 2013 from Moss Bros (LON:MOSB). Performance is expected to be good, as the share price has already factored in rather too much recovery for a business that has struggled to be profitable for several years now.
At 66p and with 99.3m shares in issue, the market cap is £65.5m.
Basic EPS rose from 1.63p to 2.43p, so that puts them on a lofty rating of just over 27 times. The total dividend for the year has been more than doubled, but is still only 0.9p, for a yield of only 1.4%. Put another way, the quoted bid/offer spread would consume over 2 years dividends!
Although the 2.43p EPS figures seems to be well ahead of broker consensus forecasts of 1.88p.
MOSB have a particularly strong balance sheet, with £25.7m in net cash, although that is likely to be at/near a seasonal peak at the year-end date. Current assets total £44.2, and current liabilities are only £15.9m, so there is a very healthy working capital surplus of £28.3m. Long term liabilities are only £7.5m, so working capital less all liabilities is a very solid £20.8m.
This is important, as a strong balance sheet means the company is not likely to go bust - de-risking the investment for shareholders, and giving potential upside if something good is done with surplus cash (e.g. a special dividend, buybacks, acquisitions, etc). Cash also gives suppliers confidence, giving you the pick of the best suppliers & stock, and it means you can use your financial strength to increase profit, by e.g. paying suppliers cash on delivery if they give you a discount.
I note from the narrative that they are looking at refitting 90 stores over the next 5 years, so the business will be capex hungry, and cash could decline. Although it's also worth noting that EBITDA of £7.9m last year is considerably higher than PBT of £3.0m, which implies a fairly hefty depreciation charge of £3.9m. Therefore the business is generating more than enough cashflow to finance the store refits.
Group like-for-like sales were up 4.1% for the year, which is one of the best performances I've seen in 2012 from a conventional retailer. So they must be doing something right! Of course, MOSB is unique in having a formalwear hire operation, the market leader I believe, in addition to retail. They are also effectively embracing the internet, with E-commerce sales up 54%, and they operate click & collect.
It's very interesting how retail is changing rapidly in these tough economic times. It's clear that retail overheads are far too high, and rents can (and will) gradually fall - but because of the way the system works (typically 15 year leases, on upward-only 5-yearly rent reviews), then there is no scope for rents to reduce other than if the tenant goes bust, or when the lease expires. It's only then that the existing tenant renewing the lease, or a new tenant, can tear up the old terms, and negotiate fresh.
Even then, the landlord wants to establish the highest rent possible, in order to create a multiple of that in capital value for the freehold which he owns, as he might also be under financial pressure with his bank worrying about the loan to value ratio. Hence landlords tend to prefer paying an up-front cash inducement to new tenants (a reverse premium) or a long rent-free period. So for retailers who work this system shrewdly, they can expand at nil cash cost, with landlords effectively funding the shop fit-out.
Also it seems that retailers can still make things work if they embrace the internet, and hence use their shops as both places to sell, and also places to allow customers to collect internet purchases. The beauty of click & collect is that you can get the customer to try on the garments in the shop, to ensure they fit. This would drastically reduce the returns rate, which is typically 30-35% for mail order & internet sales of clothing.
MOSB say that they are confident of achieving market expectations in 2013/14, but given that forecasts are for only 2.3p EPS (less than what they achieved in 2012) then that's not a stretching target.
The outlook doesn't sound terribly good though - sales in the first 7 weeks of this year are "slightly below last year's levels, albeit on stronger gross margins. Like-for-like gross profit in the seven weeks to 16 Mar 2013 is 2.4% below last year". Although some could be weather related, as it has been particularly grotty this year. Hire bookings are also behind last year.
The three year chart shows that MOSB has significantly out-performed the small cap sector since Jun 2011, and in my view shareholders should consider themselves fortunate to have achieved such a high price now.
It's difficult to see how any further rise in the share price is justified, given that the outlook is not brilliant, and the share price is already fully valued in my opinion. So it's not of any interest to me as a potential investment. The operating profit margin is only 2.8%, so it's really not a particularly strong business, and I'm surprised the market has taken the shares up to a fairly toppy rating at 66p, which is only justified if you make some fairly aggressive assumptions about continued earnings growth. So it's not for me at this price, although it is good to see a traditional retailer adapt and cope with the changing world.
Post 8 a.m. comments
Next I'm taking a look at Judges Scientific (LON:JDG) who have today published results for the year ended 31 Dec 2012.
Special Offer: Invest like Buffett, Slater and Greenblatt. Click here for details »
I really like this company, but unfortunately missed the opportunity to buy the shares in the early stages, and they have looked fully priced to me in the last year, although as with some other good growth stories, the price just keeps going up.
At 1242p a share the market cap is £66m. The business model at Judges is to make serial small acquisitions at low price multiples, of small companies in the scientific instruments sector. That in itself doesn't sound particularly interesting, but the fact is that the charismatic CEO David Cicurel has executed the strategy brilliantly, and not put a foot wrong with multiple acquisitions having worked well.
As he stated at a presentation last year, it's not about synergies, it's just about making shrewd acquisitions, and using their own cashflows to rapidly repay the debt to acquire them. This is done over & over again, growing the size of the business.
Headline EPS has risen strongly from 61p to 81.3p, although I note that exceptionals wipe out all of the headline profit this year, so will come back to that shortly once I've found out what the exceptionals are. So that puts them on a PER of 15.3, which is clearly an aggressive rating for a collection of small businesses that individually would command very cheap ratings.
The total dividends have risen 50% to 15p for the year, so a yield of only 1.2%.
Net debt is minimal, at £1.75m. The outlook statement sounds positive, saying "the new year has started well for the Group and a solid order intake is buttressing the visibility afforded by the satisfactory year-end backlog".
Turnover of £28m and operating profit pre-exceptionals of £5.9m demonstrated a very strong profit margin of 21.2%, so on that basis I'm becoming more comfortable with the valuation.
The £5.3m exceptionals relate to £3.3m amortisation of intangibles (fine, as it's non-cash), and £1.6m relating to derivatives (seems a lot, more digging is needed on this issue).
The balance sheet is nothing to write home about, as it has zero net tangible assets. Gearing looks fine though in relation to profitability & cashflow, although it's important to note that there is no buffer from balance sheet strength, should earning ever disappoint in the future.
There's no doubt investors have done brilliantly on these shares, and the CEO here is a real class act, in itself justifying a premium rating. But on the other hand, the growth is coming from acquisitions, so it has to keep running to justify a premium rating. So far it's worked brilliantly, but my worry is that at some point it will become increasingly difficult to find the (larger) acquisitions needed, at the right price, to keep EPS growing. Equity holders were diluted about 10% last year to help fund acquisitions, so if they have to pay more for further acquisitions (as you would expect given more bullish conditions for small companies), and issue more equity to finance them, then EPS growth is likely to slow.
On the other hand, Cicurel may continue delivering superb acquisitions, and I certainly wouldn't bet against him, but the PER of 15 looks high enough to me. Probably fairly limited percentage upside on the share price from here, but there again I thought that at 800p too, and it's now 50% higher! Although I do feel that some investors are being lulled into a false sense of security at the moment - valuations don't keep going up forever, and if they do have a long, unbroken rise, then banking some (or all) of the gains is a pretty good idea, in my opinion. There are always investing ideas out there, and having made a lot of profit, sometimes taking my foot off the gas, and sitting back to wait for better priced opportunities can turn out to be a wise move. But each to their own of course!
OK, that's it from me this week. Thanks very much for your comments, always good to get a discussion going, so please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments section below.
I have a 10 a.m. conference call now with an AIM company, so will report back if it looks interesting.
Have a terrific weekend, and see you for the (shortened) week on Monday.
Regards, Paul.
(of the companies mentioned today, Paul does not hold any long or short positions)
Disclaimer:
All opinions expressed are the personal views of Paul Scott only, and not Stockopedia. Opinions are believed to be true and therefore constitute fair comment. Paul's opinions NEVER constitute financial advice, and should not be misconstrued as such. Readers should take professional advice as appropriate in managing your investments. If you spot a factual error in Paul's reports, please let him know, and he will happily correct the article together with an apology as soon as possible.
Moss Bros Group Plc retails and hires formal wear for men, predominantly in the United Kingdom. The Company operates under the Moss, Moss Bros and Bespoke fascias, through its mainstream stores. It also trades through the premium Savoy Taylors Guild fascia. The Company operates in two segments: Retail and Hire. As of January 28, 2012, there were 102 Moss and Savoy Taylors Guild branded stores and 34 outlet stores, which trade the Moss own brands of Ventuno, De Havilland, Blazer and Savoy Taylors Guild. These stores also stock selected third party guest brands including Hugo Boss, Canali, Ted Baker and French Connection. The majority of the stores also have a Moss Bros Hire store within a store operation within them. During the fiscal year ended January 28, 2012 (fiscal 2011), the Company opened 10 new Moss stores and one Outlet store, and closed five stores. On June 18, 2011, the Company disposed of eight Cecil Gee stores to JD Sports Fashion plc. more »
Judges Scientific plc is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale of scientific instruments. The Company operates in two segments: the Materials Sciences group and the Vacuum group. The Materials Sciences group supplies measurement equipment across both public and private sectors. The Vacuum group designs and manufactures instruments to prepare samples for examination in electron microscopes and to create motion, heating and cooling within ultra high vacuum chambers. Its subsidiaries include Fire Testing Technology Limited, UHV Design Limited, Aitchee Engineering Limited, Quorum Technologies Limited, Quorum Technologies Limited and Sircal Instruments (UK) Limited. Judges Scientific plc is an ultimate parent company. On March 18, 2011, it acquired a 51% interest in Bordeaux Acquisition Limited. On March 6, 2012, the Company acquired Global Digital Systems Limited. more »


8 Comments on this Article show/hide all
A stunningly good piece of analysis for so early in the morning. Essential reading for anyone trying to get their heads around retail and the state of the retail commercial property market.
Paul,
If you believe mosb has a good enough cashflow to finance the planned store re-fits then why does the company not offer potential investors the prospect of a meaningful dividend or special dividend or share buyback or anything to encourage people to put their hands in their pockets and invest in their company?
In reply to bobdouglas, post #2
Fair point bobdouglas. Remember that I'm typing up these reports as I'm reading the results, so I do sometimes contradict myself when a point becomes clearer, as it did in this case.
P.
Remember, as per my message yesterday, that you can meet David Cicurel of Judges Scientific (LON:JDG) at AIM Investor Focus 2013 in London on April 17th.
AIM Investor Focus is a Blackthorn Focus event comprising presentations from Judges Scientific (LON:JDG), Mattioli Woods (LON:MTW), Portmeirion (LON:PMP), RWS Holdings (LON:RWS) and WYG (LON:WYG).
The event is free to attend, you can register your interest here:
http://blackthornfocus.com/aif2013
David O'Hara, Blackthorn Focus
Hi Paul
I dont really understand why a company growing by acquisition can justify treating the write off of intangibles as exceptional - they did the same last year, seems pretty normal to me: but then, bang go all the profits.
Judges CEO presents the company in terms of return on total invested capital ("ROTIC") which neatly cirmcumavigates all the goodwill / exceptionals / derivatives issues. For the most part these (certainly in the past) have been dictated by IFRS's that don't really suit the Judges operation.
I hold at a cost of about £6 having waited for a cutback since £4.2. My own judgement is that there is plenty of life in the model yet as its increasing size makes the rating of its own shares higher relative to the target companies, or in line with larger targets. I still know institutional buyers who admire the operation but cannot (or will not) buy because it is just too small - potential aid to the future rating when it reaches a MCap of, say, £100M.
But then nothing goes up in a straight line .....
To understand that, you need to understand the nature of the intangibles. NB they are "amortised" not written off - those are two different things.
This issue is to do with acquisition accounting. Referring to the 2012 accounts, see note 16. The £3.29m amortisation charge comprises the following items (all non-cash, obviously):
76
221
94
357
1,155
Due to IFRS acquisiton accounting rules, all of the above have to be capitalised (as part of the acquisition consideration) and then amortised over their useful lives. However, once the acquired businesses are integrated, further expenditure is not generally required, except in the ordinary course of business, to retain their value. In a sense, the amortisation charge is double counting costs such as marketing which are required to maintain/build the sales order backlog and customer relationships. We already have marketing accounted for and the organic growth reported shows that this spend is sufficient to not only retain customer relationships (for example) but build new ones.
Most importantly, from the perspective of the investor, if Judges didn't make further acquisitions then these amortisation amounts would disappear after a few years and we'd expect the reported profitability of the business to reflect actual profitability excluding exceptionals.
Acquisiton accounting is a minefield and can be used to hide a multitude of sins, so it is wise for investors to be wary (those that followed the RCG Holdings (LON:RCG) story will understand what I mean!). Judges track record of strongly growing operating cashflow and management's delivery on expectations gives me sufficient confidence to retain Judges as one of my larger shareholdings, though I have topsliced along the way.
Concerning the £1.6m of derivative charges which Paul refers to, this is a compex issue relating to redeemable preference shares issued when the company was floated. They had the effect of hitting reported profits whenever the share price rose! This has distorted the accounts for several years, but in 2012 the Board took the decision to change the T&Cs associated with them, which has permitted directors to redeem or convert nearly all of them, so this effect should not impact future years. I covered this issue at length in my report on their 2012 AGM *, where we voted on that change.
I also recommed this excellent article by CantEatValue to readers.
*Only accessible to ShareSoc members, but you can sign up here, FOC if you wish.
Cheers,
Mark
For an excellent summary of the issue of intangibles take a look at the following which comes from Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter - 2012 (pages 12 to 13). Although he refers to US GAAP rules, IFRS differ little on this subject.
"I won’t explain all of the adjustments – some are small and arcane – but serious investors should understand the disparate nature of intangible assets: Some truly deplete over time while others never lose value. With software, for example, amortization charges are very real expenses. Charges against other intangibles such as the amortization of customer relationships, however, arise through purchase-accounting rules and are clearly not real expenses.
GAAP accounting draws no distinction between the two types of charges. Both, that is, are recorded as expenses when calculating earnings – even though from an investor’s viewpoint they could not be more different. In the GAAP-compliant figures we show on page 29, amortization charges of $600 million for the companies included in this section are deducted as expenses. We would call about 20% of these “real” – and indeed that is the portion we have included in the table above – and the rest not. This difference has become significant because of the many acquisitions we have made.
“Non-real” amortization expense also looms large at some of our major investees. IBM has made many small acquisitions in recent years and now regularly reports “adjusted operating earnings,” a non-GAAP figure that excludes certain purchase-accounting adjustments. Analysts focus on this number, as they should.
And that ends today’s accounting lecture. Why is no one shouting “More, more?”
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2012ltr.pdf