Posts Tagged ‘k-swiss’

Learn how to invest, read stock analysis, and find stock picks

K-Swiss Valuation (KSWS)

Value stock or value trap? K-Swiss, a simple, easy to understand business which is probably within everybody’s circle of competence. K-Swiss operates in the athletic footwear business designing and marketing mainly tennis and casual shoes to the teen market. Currently down to the $16’s, how is it as an investment?

Business Summary

Shoe business is a simple to understand business.
Design shoes, get orders, manufacture it in cheap labor countries, ship it to its international business locations, sell them to customers who in turn sell it to consumers.

K-Swiss main product base is focused on tennis and casual shoes, with the “Classic” being the best selling item.

From the 2007 annual report: “K-Swiss was founded in 1966 by two Swiss brothers, who introduced one of the first leather tennis shoes in the United States. The shoe, the K-Swiss Classic has remained relatively unchanged from its original design, and accounts for a significant portion of our sales. The Classic has evolved from a high-performance shoe into a casual, lifestyle shoe. In our marketing, we have consistently emphasized our commitment to produce products of high quality and enduring style and we plan to continue to emphasize the high quality and classic design of our products as we introduce new models of athletic footwear.

On December 30, 1986, K-Swiss was purchased by an investment group led by our current Chairman of the Board and President, Steven Nichols. Thereafter we recruited experienced management and reduced manufacturing costs by increasing offshore production and entering into new, lower cost purchasing arrangements…

In November 2001, we acquired the worldwide rights and business of Royal Elastics an Australian-based designer and manufacturer of elasticated footwear. The purchase excluded distribution rights in Australia, which were retained by Royal Management Pty, Ltd. In the third quarter of 2005, Royal Elastics launched a new collection that is part of a long-term licensing partnership with L.A.M.B.”

The company is organized into three geographic regions: the United States, Europe and Other International operations.

Growth Strategy

With the “Classic” shoe making up 69% of its sales, sagging sales of the Classic domestically has caused revenue to plummet by as much as 20%. That’s the source of the problem with KSWS. With the Classic taking up so much of its sales, if demand drops, then there is no other product in their portfolio to recuperate that big offset. The Classic has been a good wave to ride for over 20 years but now KSWS is finally introducing new designs and trying to penetrate niche markets.

Recently KSWS has launched its new line of free running shoes with Sebastien Foucan, the creator of parkour or free running to promote the shoe. You also saw him in that awesome action opening sequence of James Bond; Casino Royale. Free running has seen big growth as a sport in Europe and KSWS is trying to capitalize on that by bringing it to the United States with its Ariake shoes. Currently, there is no company that designs and markets specific to free running, not even Nike or Adidas, so KSWS is trying to establish itself as the first player in this niche.

KSWS isn’t as well known as its competition. Think of an athletic shoe company and the first name to pop up is probably Nike. To create some brand awareness, KSWS has been investing heavily in its marketing campaign. They’ve come up with a new “Keep it pure” slogan as well as signing up Anna Kournikova as its spokesperson to attract attention to its tennis heritage and emphasis. As well as creating a shoe for DCMA, a clothing line created by Joel and Benji from the band Good Charlotte, it seems like KSWS is trying as hard as possible to produce growth and get its name out there.

Although US sales have been dropping, international sales have been showing good growth and demand. Watch for sales overseas to exceed domestic sales soon.

Competitive Position

A small company in the footwear industry doesn’t have much lasting competitive advantage over the big boys. K-Swiss does not have the economies of scale to be able to compete effectively with Nike or Adidas. But one thing K-Swiss and the other smaller players can do that the Nike’s and Adidas’ can’t is focusing on niche markets. However, this obvious fact isn’t really a competitive advantage.

The one that K-Swiss claim themselves is their lasting designs. As you read above in the business summary, the overall Classic design has barely changed. Sure there has been updates to keep it with the times, but the design is practically the same. This means K-Swiss does not have to spend resources on designing and manufacturing new shoe designs every season.

K-Swiss only sell their shoes to “middle upper” class retailers. You won’t see their shoes on the wall with a big discount sticker attached at Payless Shoes or Big 40. K-Swiss are strict about being seen with the right retailers to ensure their name isnt referenced as “cheap” or “bargain”. They want to maintain their high end image. K-Swiss also has strict pricing policies with very little discounts and sales. Their high margin also allows their retailer customers to benefit from higher than usual margins. This has allowed K-Swiss to earn a median of 10% net income for the past 10 years.

However, all of this still amounts to a very narrow moat and one of Buffett’s quotes comes to mind.

I say to myself, give me a billion dollars and how much can I hurt the guy?

Risks

K-Swiss is currently facing the consequences of their risk. Their sales were based around mostly 1 product and now that it is losing its edge, the company is finding it hard to bring in revenue.

K-Swiss is definitely in a turnaround phase and the big risk is that K-Swiss won’t be able to turn it around. However, the current management team has been through 2-3 such cycles and have come out better each time.

Futures orders have also dropped significantly domestically, down 40% but international futures orders rose 14%. Sales to Foot Locker, its biggest customer, accounted for 13% of revenue while no other customer accounted for more than 10% of total revenues. Therefore if Foot Locker decides to cut back on orders, that is a big chunk of revenue K-Swiss will lose.

Management

I wrote some points about KSWS management in the dual class shares and K-Swiss post. I’ll revisit only the important ones here.
Check the annual reports and SEC filings and you will see that a majority of the management team has been with the company for over 10 years. For executives to remain at the company, the company must be offering a killer retention package or the work culture must be brilliant for executives to remain for so long.

Management is very candid and shareholder friendly. They are very open about issues they are facing and don’t try to hide it. Their straight forwardness can be seen as downright scary.

Financial Health

Close to zero long term debt, no leverage to run the business, plenty of cash on hand, strong CROIC shows that KSWS is financially quite strong. Even in current economic and difficult times, they should be able to get by with the $8 cash per share in hand.

Click the image below to see KSWS financial performance from my intrinsic value spreadsheet.

Opinion

From the spreadsheet, the intrinsic value comes out to be $19.86. Add the current cash per share of $8 and the intrinsic value comes out to be around $28. This may seem like a cheap stock but considering K-Swiss is not expected to produce a turnaround until 2009, money can be used best elsewhere. Their narrow moat and volatility risk isn’t something to ignore for those that are price sensitive.

I on the other hand bought with such a huge margin of safety that even at current $16 levels, I am just below breaking even. I am going to stick with this one and see how things progress.

If you find any bias in this post, forgive me as I may still have ownership pride. I am still human after all.

Dual Class Shares & K-Swiss (KSWS)

Recently I had an interesting discussion regarding dual class share structures and how it impacts a company’s fundamentals and valuation. Now if a company had a dual class structure where they offered only class A shares to the public, the investing public who buys a stake in the business will only be entitled to a single vote compared to maybe 10 votes for a class B stock. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway, class B holders have 1/200th the voting power of class A shareholders.

Whether it be 1/10th or 1/200th the voting power, is the difference in voting power all there is to a dual class structure?

Disliking Dual Class Shares

Many investors dislike dual class shares, but there also seems to an unfair prejudice towards it – acutally, I would call it unrealised prejudice, but there is a reason to dislike it. Shareholders of the lower class are paying up without getting much say in the direction of the company, while the founding families or executives financially own a smaller piece of the pie, yet are entitled to super voting rights. Of course people dislike this idea. It leads people to believe that companies with such structures are downright unfair and not shareholder friendly.

Another negativity surrounding dual class shares is that if the family or executive team owns a large portion of the company, they will not be held accountable for mistakes made. Family and friends being the kind, generous and loving people they are, may probably end it with a stern face and a little tap on the wrist. They don’t really have to deal with the furious mob of sharesholders wanting their heads. But then again, it may be better than shareholders forcing a change in CEO’s every few quarters because one couldn’t clean up after the previous CEO and thus creating more mess. It’s ironic how shareholders acclaimed Stan Oneal for his decisions related to subprime mortgages during the housing bubble but then sent him to the slaughterhouse when the bubble burst.

Liking Dual Class Shares

The reasons stated above are perfectly valid to dislike dual class structures and move on. However, don’t rule it out just yet. Did you know The New York Times Company, The Washington Post Company, Dow Jones, Berkshire Hathway, Ford, K-Swiss and Google, yes Google, are all dual class share companies? I’ve never looked too deeply into Google so I was surprised to see it in this category. Let’s hear Google’s voice of reason.

The main effect of this structure is likely to leave our team, especially Sergey and me, with increasingly significant control over the company’s decisions and fate, as Google shares change hands. After the IPO, Sergey, Eric and I will control 37.6% of the voting power of Google, and the executive management team and directors as a group will control 61.4% of the voting power. New investors will fully share in Google’s long term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights. …

Google has prospered as a private company. We believe a dual class voting structure will enable Google, as a public company, to retain many of the positive aspects of being private. We understand some investors do not favor dual class structures. Some may believe that our dual class structure will give us the ability to take actions that benefit us, but not Google’s shareholders as a whole. We have considered this point of view carefully, and we and the board have not made our decision lightly. We are convinced that everyone associated with Google—including new investors—will benefit from this structure. However, you should be aware that Google and its shareholders may not realize these intended benefits. …

As an investor, you are placing a potentially risky long term bet on the team, especially Sergey and me. The two of us, Eric and the rest of the management team recognize that our individual and collective interests are deeply aligned with those of the new investors who choose to support Google. Sergey and I are committed to Google for the long term. The broader Google team has also demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to our long term success. With continued hard work and good fortune, this commitment will last and flourish. – Google IPO Letter

To simplify, Google is saying that a dual class of shares will allow them to focus on the long term business. That is probably the biggest advantage to a dual class structure. Wall Street is so focused on each quarter and estimates that they forget a stock is a business that will sometimes have to forfeit a short term profit in order to reap large long term gains. As investors, shouldn’t we also be looking for companies that are trying to create long term wealth rather than squeeze short term profits here and there just to please analysts?

A Different Price on Shares

If only one share class is available to the public, we tend to think the price of that stock is what Morningstar, Google/ Yahoo finance is showing (note, Google & Yahoo don’t always show the current numbers). But looking at Berkshire, which trades both classes, class B is about 1/3 the price of class A stocks. Why? because the additional voting power warrants a premium to the inferior class. Most companies however, do not operate as transparently as Berkshire. I like KSWS for their candidness, long term perspective and shareholder friendliness but the price of the share would be different if we consider that both class A and B shares are fairly entitled to the company value. That is, the current price only reflects class A’s number of shares outstanding. If we take the number of shares outstanding as both class A and class B shares, the price of KSWS would seem to be less than what it is currently trading for.

If Berkshire B stocks are 1/3 the price, does that mean the public shares for KSWS should be 1/3 of its listed price? Maybe, maybe not. That’s what I’m trying to research and figure out.

Additional Input Regarding K-Swiss

When I bought K-Swiss, I did not consider that the price only reflected class A shares. (edit: in actual fact I was only looking at the shares outstanding numbers. I did not look properly at how many shares each class had outstanding. Also remember that Google and Yahoo makes many mistakes when writing up financial info so it is best to go to the source. Sorry about this mistake.) A new valuation now could potentially bring the intrinsic value lower. However, I am continuing to bet that K-Swiss will recover and believe the negative side of dual class shares do not apply to KSWS.

Reasons being:

  • The CEO, Steven Nichols, has been in the footwear industry his entire life. He knows the industry inside out. He bought K-Swiss when it was on the brink of bankruptcy and made it profitable in 3 years.
  • Candid and transparent management. Open about problems it is facing and plans to resolve them.
  • Emphasis on long term wealth. Shareholder friendly.
  • A majority of the current management team have been with the company for over 10 years. Low turnover can derive that management has good chemistry.
  • The current management team has been through 2-3 such cycles as it is now enduring. Experience in difficult conditions is abundant.
  • Maintaining a design/model for a much longer period than the usual footwear industry allows KSWS to profit by reducing designing and manufacturing costs and helps to identify the brand.
  • New updated designs with upcoming designers and stars (Sebastian Foucan, Anna Kournikova, Joel and Benji from Good Charlotte) and marketing campaigns to create brand awareness.
  • They have a large cash base which allows them to continue investing in new footwear, overseas operations, new retail stores and other business opportunities even in a difficult economic environment.
  • A large portion of their security investments are tied to riskless treasuries. No subprime or risky investments with these guys.
  • Large portion of sales coming from overseas growth.

K-Swiss are definitely finding it difficult at the moment but I believe the current problems can be overcome.

Edit: This post is featured on “The Festival of Stocks #85″ at Can I Get Rich On A Salary.