PacSun’s Strategic Positioning and Results for the Year

There are two things I really like about PacSun’s 10K annual report (read it here) which was filed last Friday. The first is that they are more or less through closing stores. From a peak of 950 stores in 2008, they ended their February 3rd fiscal year with 644 stores. They closed 38 stores in fiscal 2008, 40 in 2009, 44 in fiscal 2010, 119 in 2011 and 92 in 2012. This fiscal year, they expect to close 20 to 30 due to lease expirations or kick-out rights (where they have a lease they can get out from under if, for example, certain sales levels aren’t reached). 

There’s the positive impact on financial results where they aren’t operating poorly performing stores, taking asset impairment charges, incurring cash costs for closings, and lower inventory margins and possible write downs as they close stores. There’s also the fact that they can stop focusing management time, attention and resources on this fundamentally “not fun” even if necessary task. 
 
With that out of the way, what they can do now is focus all their energy on their strategy. As you know, before CEO Gary Schoenfeld took over, PacSun had lost its way. For a variety of reasons, its targeted customers no longer had a reason to visit their stores. PacSun wasn’t cool. 
 
This is an issue that has been recognized since Gary’s tenure started. But they were busy turning over the whole senior management team, closing stores, and dealing with financial issues. With the introduction of their Golden State of Mind brand positioning in 2012, they are primarily focused on implementing the strategy that is to address this. 
 
PacSun characterizes itself as “…a leading specialty retailer rooted in the action sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle.” 
 
They go on to say, “Our mission is to provide our customers with a compelling product assortment and great shopping experience that together highlight a great mix of both branded and proprietary merchandise that speak to the action sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle. PacSun’s foundation has traditionally been built upon a great collection of aspirational brands, including Billabong, Crooks and Castles, DC Shoes, Diamond Supply Co., Fox Racing, Hurley, Neff, Nike, O’Neill, Roxy, RVCA, Vans, Volcom, and Young and Reckless, among others. We also continue to invest in and grow our proprietary brands, which include Bullhead , Kirra , LA Hearts , On the Byas , Black Poppy and Nollie…Taken together, we believe that this mix of brands gives us the capability to offer our customers an unmatched selection of fashionable and authentic products synonymous with the creativity, optimism and diversity that is uniquely California.” 
 
Equally interesting is a presentation Gary made this January at an investors’ conference where he showed how the men’s brand mix had changed from 2009 to 2013. The two empty boxes are for new brands being introduced in 2013. One of them is Neff.
 
 
 
 
Talking about the men’s business in the conference call, CEO Schoenfeld said, “Strong growth continued within our emerging brands and in our footwear business, which was driven by the strong performance by both Nike and Vans but was offset by continued declines in some of our heritage brands and the decline in some of proprietary business as the make up of our brand mix continues a pretty significant shift and in a direction that we are excited about.” 
 
You can decide for yourselves what it means. The point is that they are looking at their brand strategy carefully in terms of the competitive positioning they have chosen and making changes they consider appropriate. In the conference call, CEO Schoenfeld said, “We continued to partner with highly covetable emerging brands that are beginning to make PacSun, once again, the brand destination in the mall.” 
 
Their three main strategic focuses haven’t changed. They are, according to Schoenfeld, “Authentic brands, trend right merchandising and reestablishing a distinctive customer connection that, once again, makes PacSun synonymous with the creativity, optimism and diversity that is uniquely California.”   Their targeted customers are the “…17 to 24-year-old guys and girls who value great brands and have a confident sense of their own style.” 
 
Okay, that’s enough. This is starting to sound like a PacSun commercial, but you get the picture. 
 
Their proprietary brands were 48% of net sales in the year ended February 2nd, 2013. There was a time I would have thought that way too high. But in the era of brands becoming retailers and retailers becoming brands, I don’t necessarily believe that. What PacSun is doing feels a lot like what Buckles does, with the private brands completely integrated into the retailer’s overall strategy, and not just an opportunity for a little more margin. I still wonder when we’re going to see some retailer take one of its successful private brands and sell it to other retailers. Or maybe it’s happened and I’ve missed it? Obviously, brands that have become retailers are doing it. Let me know if you’re aware of an example. 
 
As with all serious retailers, PacSun has a focus on the quality of its information systems and supply chain management. Getting the right product to the right store at the right time is worth a lot in terms of customer satisfaction, not to mention the financial benefits of better inventory and cost management. Typically, each PacSun store received new merchandise twice a week.
 
The Numbers 
 
Most of the numbers in the 10K are for the year, but I’ll give you what we’ve got for the quarter before moving on. Revenue of $228 million was up 4.3% from $209 million in the same quarter last year. However, the year ended February 2, 2013 included an extra week compared to the prior year that generated an incremental $8 million in sales. The gross profit margin was 21.1%, up from 19.3% in last year’s quarter. The loss from continuing operations fell from $26.7 million to $22.5 million. The bottom line improved from a net loss of $38.1 million to a net loss of $19.1 million however discontinued operations (stores being closed) showed income of $2.6 million in this year’s quarter compared to a loss of $11.4 million in the prior year’s quarter. 
 
The balance sheet isn’t as strong as it was a year ago, with the current ratio falling from 1.58 to 1.37. Total liabilities to equity rose from 2.14 to 3.88 which is quite an increase. The liabilities didn’t change much, but equity fell $113 million to $64 million.
 
Inventory rose a bit from $88.7 to $90.7 million. Might have expected some decline with the store closings.  But as I recall, a lot of those closures happened in the first part of 2013, so perhaps we will see it early this year. In the conference call they tell us the inventory was up “…due primarily to timing of a 1 week later end to the fiscal year…leading to increased in-transit inventory. Store inventory per square foot at fiscal year-end was down 11%.” 
 
Net sales for the year rose from $777 to $803 million, or by 3.3%. Comparable store sales grew by 2% during the year. That accounted for most of the revenue growth. Men’s apparel represented 48% of revenue, down from 49% the prior year. Women’s apparel stayed the same at 37%. Footwear and accessories rose from 14% to 15%. Denim overall was 17% of sales, down from 19% in the prior year. Internet sales were 7% of the total, up 1% from the prior year. 
 
The gross margin grew a bunch from 21.9% to 25%. Most of that came from the merchandise gross margin increasing from 46.9% to 49.1%. Selling, general and administrative expenses fell from $242 to $239 million. That includes advertising costs of $15 and $14 million respectively for the two years. There was a $5 million decline in depreciation expense. 
 
Noncash impairment charges for stores fell from $14.8 million last year to $5.3 million this year.  Obviously, those decline as store closures fall, but I would note that most of the charges in the year just ended ($5.2 million of the total) were “Impairment charges from continuing operations.” 
 
The operating loss was $38 million, down from $78 million the prior year. Interest expense rose from $4.4 to $13.3 million so the loss from continuing operations after tax was $52.2 million, down from $82.1 million. The net loss was $52 million compared to $106 million last year. In the year ended January 28, 2012 there was a loss of $24 million from discontinued operations. That loss was $144,000 in the year ended February 2, 2013. 
 
Finally, I’d note that net cash provided by operating activities was $6.4 million, compared to a negative $47.4 million the prior year, and a negative $40.9 million the year before that. That’s good to see. 

So what have we got here? Well, we’ve got a focused strategy that seems to make sense. Whether it’s the right one will become known in the fullness of time. We’ve got financial results that are improving but still poor. Losing $52 million, even though it’s less than last year just isn’t success quite yet.   And we’ve got a weakening balance sheet. The questions seems to be, as it’s been for PacSun before, can the strategy be successful enough quickly enough before the balance sheet deteriorates further. If not, what other sources of capital will be available to them?

 

Naude/Sycamore Bid $0.60 for Billabong, but Deal Not Done Yet

Paul Naude and Sycamore Partners (“NS”) have made a non-binding bid of AUD $0.60 for each share of Billabong yesterday, down from their preliminary bid of $1.10. Billabong has given them an exclusive period of ten business days to complete their investigation and finalize the bid. You can read Billabong’s press release here. It’s the “proposal update” under “Recent News.” 

And before we get into the details, you might also want to read this article, which was published over the weekend in Australia. Ms. Knight does an excellent job of encapsulating Billabong’s history and the forces and decisions that lead the company to its current situation. I wish I’d written this. Thanks, you who sent it to me!
 
Here’s what we know from the press release:
 
Sycamore is going to form a new company which would legally be the entity buying Billabong. A seller of Billabong shares can either take $0.60 a share or shares (they call it scrip) in the new company. I don’t know if scrip is something different from stock under Australian law.
 
It’s a condition of the proposal that at least 15% of shares accept scrip and that insiders Gordon Merchant and Collette Paull and their families take the scrip unless they get a better offer. Together, they own about 16% of the Billabong shares, and they’ve indicated they’ll take the scrip. What this means is that NS has to come up with less cash then they otherwise would. The fact that they got this provision accepted is to me an indication of Billabong’s need for a deal.
 
I don’t know what will happen, but if I’d paid, say, $5.00 or more (or maybe less) for my Billabong shares and was about to get $0.60 a share, I might just take the scrip and hope Paul and his team can do good things.
 
NS is also going to “…engage an internationally recognized accounting firm to complete a confirmatory quality of earnings analysis typical of an acquisition debt financing.” Not a surprise given the number of times Billabong has reduced its earnings expectations in recent months.
 
Also, the “…conditions of the bidder’s debt funding” have to be satisfied. We don’t know how the debt is being funded or what those conditions are. Could be Sycamore’s money, could be a third party, maybe Paul’s putting in some cash or maybe some combination of all three. In any event, as the press release makes clear, the deal isn’t done and right now neither party has an obligation to go through with it. I suspect the quality of earnings analysis will have a lot to do with satisfying the lenders, whoever they are.
 
We don’t learn whatever happened to the VF/Altamont offer. Maybe they didn’t make an offer or maybe they offered less. As I wrote when their interest was first made public, I thought they might have a hard time agreeing who got which piece of Billabong at what price.
 
As you are probably aware, Billabong’s assets are pledged to their bankers and, basically, that gives those bankers a lot of influence. As bankers, they aren’t so much concerned at this point about Billabong growing and prospering as they are about getting their money back. So it’s reasonable to assume they are in favor of any deal that gets their loans paid off or at least improves their security.
 
Billabong, for its part, can only not make this deal (or some other deal not in evidence) if, with the support of those banks or from another source, they have the working capital to cash flow their business while current CEO Launa Inman’s strategy is implemented. Remember she said at their half yearly presentation that while they were working on it and had already seen some results, the real benefit wouldn’t show up until next year.
 
Unless the quality of earnings analysis turns up something pretty bad, I think the odds are that this deal will happen, though I have no opinion as to what the final price per share will be.           

 

 

The Confluence of Internet with Brick and Mortar, and Notes from Nike’s 10Q

Nike filed its 10Q for the quarter ended February 28th on April 4th. You can see it here. An actual analysis of their financial statements seems like a waste of time. I’ll mention a few comments I pulled out, but then I want to get on to what they are saying about e-commerce as it seems to be consistent with what other companies are saying. 

The first thing about Nike’s 10Q and conference call is what’s conspicuous by its absence. I can’t claim to have read every word, but nowhere did I see “skate,” “skateboard,” or “skate shoe.” I assume those sales are just part of footwear. Hardly a surprise. As I’ve discussed, skate shoe sales were never going to move Nike’s earnings per share. Their goal was to become credible with a piece of the market that didn’t see Nike as quite legitimate. Mission accomplished I’d say. And it doesn’t hurt Nike that the skate shoe market has evolved towards casual footwear, because they are pretty good at that.
 
Next, here’s the little bit we find out about Hurley. Nike’s “other businesses” are Converse, Hurley and Nike golf. Revenues for the quarter of those businesses totaled $615 million, around 10% of total quarterly revenues of $6.187 billion.
 
“Excluding the impact of currency changes, total revenues for these businesses increased by 9% and 8% in the third quarter and year to date periods, respectively, reflecting growth in Converse and NIKE Golf.”
 
I read that to say little if any revenue growth in Hurley.
 
“On a reported basis, EBIT for our Other Businesses increased 23% for the third quarter and 18% year to date, driven by improved profits at Converse and Hurley.”
 
So even if Hurley’s revenues didn’t increase, it’s being managed a little more rigorously to improve operating profitability. You know I like that approach.
 
Meanwhile, here’s what President and CEO Mike Parker says about their online business:
 
“In Q3 our online business grew 33% – outpacing the growth in our total DTC business and for total NIKE, Inc. We’ve delivered strong double-digit results in our e-commerce business every quarter for the last 5 years.”
 
He continues:
 
“That said, I’m not satisfied. Right now e-commerce is a relatively small portion of our total revenue. There’s a pretty big gap between where ecommerce is today and where we can take it. So we’re driving more innovation into the shopping experience, elevating the level of service and expanding customization online. At the same time we’re simplifying the user experience making it easier to find and buy our products. I can assure you given the size of the opportunity; everyone on the leadership team shares my sense of urgency around e-commerce.”
 
We’ve all watched a lot of companies get big percentage increases from their e-commerce business though sometimes those big increases were coming from small bases. We’ve wondered (or at least I’ve wondered) just what the mix of online and brick and mortar was going to be and how the two would influence each other. I think I’m getting an inkling.
 
The two channels are supporting mutual growth, but I suspect that online is going to mean fewer brick and mortar stores. That doesn’t mean there won’t be total brick and mortar revenue growth, but the number and purpose of actual stores will change. 
 
Zumiez alluded to this in their last conference call where they talked about the need for new metrics to measure comparable store sales and discussed how growth in the number of stores no longer translates in the same way into revenue.
 
It’s not that stores still won’t be opened (and closed). But the decisions may be more strategic. That is, there will be more to that decision than what sales that store can generate. The question is becoming, “How can opening a store here contribute to our reaching our customers through all available channels?
 
I don’t know how to measure that, but lots of companies are no doubt working on it. As they figure it out, I expect it to have implications for store size, location and inventory. There isn’t any doubt that e-commerce sales cannibalize brick and mortar sales to some extent, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be growth in the combined channels as well as some potential cost savings in the brick and mortar channel. I assume everybody who’s doing both (which is basically everybody) believes that.
 
We’ve also noted that brands are becoming retailers and retailers are becoming brands. We noted it, however, without really explaining why. Now we’ve got a clue. The internet and the need to be at all consumer touch points (Omni channel to use Zumiez’s phrase) requires it.
 
Uh, am I saying here that branding is becoming more important at a time when product is everywhere, it’s hard to create meaningful differences among a lot of products in a category, and the consumer knows everything and is picky? That implies high marketing costs but not always great margins and would seem to favor larger players.
 
Yeah, I guess I am saying that. I’ll be back to you after I’ve thought about it some more.