Defying Gravity: VF’s Quarter and Van’s Results

I’ve been opinionating for some time now that careful control of distribution was a requirement of brand building in a world of products very similar to competitors.  I’ve further said that it might be a good idea to give up some sales and build the bottom line at some expense to the top line.

I’m squirming around here trying to discern some platitude that explains Van’s results and gets me off the hook.  “The exception that proves the rule” is all I can come up with, though I’ve never entirely known what that meant.

In the quarter ended March 31st, Van’s revenues grew “…39% with strength across all regions, channels and franchises.”  The reported increase was 45%, but that included 6% from favorable foreign exchange rates.  They continue in the conference call, “Revenue in the Americas increased 44%. Europe increased 36%. And Asia Pacific increased 24%. Our wholesale business increased more than 30% and our direct-to-consumer businesses increased nearly 50%, including more than 75% growth in digital, and over 40% total comp growth supported by our customs platform, which tripled in the quarter.”

The brand’s expected growth for fiscal year 2019 that will go through the end of March 2019 (they’ve changed their fiscal year and the quarter we’re talking about now is the transition quarter) is 12% to 13% with 20% growth in the first half.

I can understand that kind of growth for the year, though I continue to wonder how long they can keep it up without a hiccup.  President and CEO Steve Rendle pointed to their product development and launches, specifically noting that 75% of revenue was from other than Old Skool.  He also noted that Van’s “Retail inventory levels are in great shape and we remain disciplined with respect to inventory management, merchandising and assortment planning.”  I like that, but note he specifically said retail inventory levels rather than just inventory levels.

North Face revenues rose 11% and Timberland 5% during the quarter compared to the numbers in last year’s quarter.  The numbers without the foreign exchange impact were 7% and (1%) respectively for the two brands.  The Outdoor and Action Sports segment grew 19% overall for the quarter so the influence of Vans is obvious.

CEO Rendle made a comment about VF becoming a “…a purpose-driven company” and noted it was the title of this year’s annual report.  “It will help us attract and retain the industry’s best talent, it will provide clarity to our decisions and actions, and it will galvanize our associates around a shared purpose and enable us to serve as a powerful force for good in the world. It’s no longer enough to just focus on what we do. It’s equally important to consider both how and why we do it.”

When you are this big, this diverse, and trying to maintain your flexibility, there is a lot of organizational value in having a consensus among employees as to what the company is trying to do and why.  This is an overused word, but it empowers people because when a phone call comes in or a piece of paper comes across their desk, they are more efficient in dealing with it.  Just to use one example I’ve personally dealt with, and one VF is certainly interested in, if you have a potential acquisition come across your desk, there might be a lot of effort put into whether or not it’s of interest.  But if there’s already clarity about what an attractive acquisition candidate looks like, there won’t be.  No paralysis by analysis.

Meanwhile, and in a related vein, VF is changing.  As you know, it’s increasingly dominated by its outdoor and action sports segment.  But it’s brands are changing as well.

On October 2, 2107 VF purchased Williamson Dickie for $798.4 million.  The workwear company contributed $233.1 million in revenue and $10.7 million in net income (net of restructuring charges) during the quarter.

On November 1, 2017, VF bought Icebreaker, an outdoor brand focused on “…high -performance apparel based on natural fibers, including Merino wool…”  No income statement was disclosed.  Probably too small to require it.  They did note a $9.9 million gain on the derivatives used to hedge the purchase price.

As announced on March 10, 2018, VF is in the process of purchasing Altra, “…an athletic and performance-based lifestyle footwear brand…”  The purchases price is $135 million.

VF has also, on March 17, 2018, signed an agreement to sell Nautica for $289.1 million.  Earlier in 2017, VF sold Jansport and its licensing business.

With brands coming and going, and with the increasing dominance of Vans and the outdoor and action sport segment, being “purpose driven,” as Steve Rendle described it, becomes even more important.  Not just because of acquisitions.  VF has always been disciplined and focused in its approach to those.  CEO Rendle goes on to say, “We’re making changes to reposition and strengthen our business, get us closer to our consumers, encourage greater collaboration, and position us to win…”

Yeah, this is all good, but kind of touchy feely.  What might it mean?

Let’s return to Vans for a second.  Obviously, Vans has moved way past being a skate/surf brand.  That may be its roots, but you don’t do however many billions of dollars in revenue Vans is doing without transcending what, I’m kind of sorry to say, is a niche market.  And they expect to keep growing the brand.  What products are they going to sell to whom through which new distribution channel?  How do they make the brand stand for something to people who don’t know or care much about skate/surf?

I think “purpose driven” though it may sound like a platitude, has something to do with figuring that out.

The other thing I won’t be surprised to see, based on some of the comments as well as the coming and goings of brands and the dominance of outdoor and action sports and especially Vans, is some kind of restructuring of which brands are in what segment and what the segments are called.  Here’s what they said on page 18 of the 10-Q

“In light of completed and pending transactions resulting from our active portfolio management strategy, along with recently effected organizational realignments, we are evaluating whether changes need to be made to our internal reporting structure to better support and assess the operations of our business going forward. We expect to finalize our assessment early in Fiscal 2019. If changes are made to our reporting structure, we will assess the resulting effect, if any, on our reporting segments, operating segments and reporting units.”

VF’s revenues for the quarter grew 21.8% from $2.5 to $3.05 billion.  Of that growth, $233 million came from acquisitions, $120 million from foreign exchange and the remainder from their existing brands (organic growth).  You can see this broken down by segment below.

 

 

 

 

Without outdoor and action sports, there is no organic growth.  Below, you see where the operating income came from and how it’s changed since 2017.  2018 in on the left, 2017 is on the right for the quarter ended in March of each year.

 

 

 

 

Wholesale revenue, excluding acquisitions and foreign exchange, rose only 1%.  Looks like direct to consumer is where the growth is.

The gross margin rose from 50.3% to 50.5%.  “Gross margin was favorably impacted by increases in pricing, a mix-shift to higher margin businesses in the Outdoor & Action Sports coalition and foreign currency changes, offset by lower margins attributable to the Williamson-Dickie acquisition and certain increases in product costs.”

Wish I could get my hands on some gross margin information by brand.

SG&A expenses rose from 38.5% of revenue to 40.3%.  “The increase was due to expenses related to the acquisition and integration of businesses and higher investments in our key growth priorities, which include demand creation, customer fulfillment, direct-to-consumer and product innovation. Higher compensation costs also impacted the three months ended March 2018.”

Net income rose 21% from $209 to $253 million.  Even with $10.7 million of income from the Williamson-Dickie acquisition during the quarter, the imagewear segment operating income (which includes Williamson-Dickie) didn’t budge.  All the growth in operating income is from outdoor and action sports and I’d love to know, of that total, how much is from Vans.

The balance sheet, largely due to acquisitions, got weaker.  Working capital fell from $2 billion to $1.23 billion.  The current ratio fell from 2.1 to 1.4 a year ago and debt to total capital was up from 37.2% to 50.4%.  Stockholders’ equity declined 15.7% from $4.37 to $3.69 billion.  What I’d highlight is the increase in short term borrowings from $289 million to $1.53 billion.  They expect to reduce that “in coming months.”  Certain of the current asset accounts rose, but the increases were consistent with revenue growth and the Williamson-Dickie acquisition.

Cash used by operating activities was a negative $243 million.  In last year’s quarter, it was negative $210 million.

I still worry about VF’s dependence on Vans and what happens when the inevitable soft spot comes along.  But this is a company that “gets it.”  They understand the pace of change and the need to be flexible in an unprecedented environment.  They recognize (not everybody seems to yet) that no distinction can be made, for both financial and marketing reasons, between a sale made online and one sold in a store.  They are not (far from it) paralyzed because the future is a bit more blurry than usual.  They try new things.  Some work, some don’t.  They move on.

Not a bad approach.

VF’s Management Process and Strategy: Thoughts on Their Annual Report

I’ve spent some time on VF’s 10-K filing for the year ended December 31, 2017.  It was a thought provoking read (yes, I know I’m the only one who would say that about a 10-K) that left me thinking about how VF tries to derive its competitive advantage.  There are some lessons in it for all of us who sell products that are an awful lot like your competitors’ products.  Here are some VF facts on which we can base the discussion.  I’ll also review their numbers for the year.

  • More than 30 brands (23 of which they call primary) divided into three segments; Outdoor & Action Sports, Jeanswear, and Imagewear. Vans, The North Face, Timberland, Wrangler and Lee are the five largest.
  • They sell through specialty stores, department stores, national chains, mass merchants, and through theirs owned brick and mortar and online retail. In international markets, they also sell through licensees, agents, distributors, and independently operated partnership stores.
  • 65% of revenue is from the Americas, 24% from Europe, and 11% from Asia-Pacific region.
  • Total revenue for the year was $11.8 billion.
  • Direct to consumer revenues were 32% of total revenues. At the end of the year they had 1,518 stores worldwide, opening 111 in 2017.  They also have 1,100 “concession retail stores” mostly in Europe and Asia.
  • Vans, Timberland, The North Face, Kipling, Dickies, Lee, Napapijri, and Wrangler have stores under their names that sell only that brand’s products. There are also 80 outlet stores that sell many VF brands.
  • Ecommerce is 21% of direct to consumer.
  • VF owns 21 factories and produced 23% of 473 million units there. It works with approximately 1,000 other factories in 50 countries.  It has 38 distribution centers.

Consider the complexity.  How many combinations of where it’s made, where it’s sold, how it’s distributed, who the customer is and how the brands are positioned against each other (where that’s an issue) are there?  That’s a big, big number.  To some extent, it’s simplified by the fact that the five largest brands are a big chunk of total revenue, but still, this is quite a management challenge.  Here’s how they describe part of it in the 10-K.

“Managing this complexity is made possible by the use of a network of information systems for product development, forecasting, order management and warehouse management, along with our core enterprise resource management platforms.”

Talking about how VF manages its manufacturing base, the 10-K says:

“Products manufactured in VF facilities generally have a lower cost and shorter lead times than products procured from independent contractors. Products obtained from contractors in the Western hemisphere generally have a higher cost than products obtained from contractors in Asia. However, contracting in the Western Hemisphere gives us greater flexibility, shorter lead times and allows for lower inventory levels. This combination of VF-owned and contracted production, along with different geographic regions and cost structures, provides a well-balanced, flexible approach to product sourcing.”

CEO Steve Rendle’s nearly full-time job must be getting quality people he trusts into the right positions.  They had 69,000 employees at the end of the year.  He notes in the conference call, for example, “To support the execution of our strategy and better enable the growth of our large global brands, we have realigned the roles of our Group Presidents and redirected our leadership talents at our most important objectives. Going forward, each Group President will be responsible for a single geographic region and have one global brand reporting to them.”

So, what are the foundations VF builds its business on?  People (like any organization), systems, procedures, and disciplined management processes.

Oh – wait – I didn’t say brand or product.  From the 10-K: “In addition to the design functions of each brand, VF has three strategic global innovation centers that focus on technical and performance product development for apparel, footwear and jeanswear. The centers are staffed with dedicated scientists, engineers and designers who combine proprietary insights with consumer needs, and a deep understanding of technology and new materials. These innovation centers are integral to VF’s long-term growth as they allow us to deliver new products and experiences that consistently delight consumers, which drives organic growth and higher gross margins.”

I’m guessing they have one innovation center focused on each of their geographic areas.  For certain of their brands (surely the top five) they have enough size to develop, if appropriate, area specific product.

They can do this because of their size.  But size can be dysfunctional if you don’t have the four foundations I mention above.  What are the other benefits of being this big and managing like VF tries to?

Higher gross margin.  Your volume, number of contract manufacturers, and having your own factories will give you some advantage.

Lower advertising and promotion expense as a percent of sales.  They spent $716 million, and in fact have accelerated their brand building spending, but it was just 6% of revenues.

More flexibility and faster response to market changes.  Anybody think that’s competitively useful these days?  It’s valuable in brand building but having the ability to make some product quickly and perhaps in smaller quantities rather than making too much of the wrong stuff is also good for your margin.  There’s also value in having a distribution network that lets you move product around in response to changes in demand.  Also improves inventory control which, I believe, helps with brand building.

The cost of increasingly complex logistics and important systems is more efficiently spent.  That is, VF, as an $11 billion business, doesn’t have to spend 11 times as much as a $1 billion business.

As I watch companies like VF focus on flexibility and shorter product cycles, I continue to wonder about the changing role of trade shows.  For certain products, they seem built on the assumption of product cycles that increasingly don’t address what the market and end consumer want and when they want it.

Let’s move on and look at the numbers.

VF showed a revenue increase of 7.1% in 2017 from $11.0 to $11.8 billion.  $489 million was from existing brands and $247 million from the Dickies acquisition.  $49 million was from a positive foreign currency impact.  The gross margin improved 1.2% to 50.5%. “…reflecting a 180 basis point benefit from pricing, a mix-shift toward higher margin businesses and lower restructuring costs, which was partially offset by a 60 basis point impact from foreign currency.”  SG&A expenses grew 11.9% from $3.99 to $4.46 billion.  As a percentage of revenues, it was an increase of 1.6%.  “This increase is primarily due to investments in our key growth priorities, which include direct-to-consumer, product innovation, demand creation and technology initiatives. The increases were offset by lower restructuring costs in 2017 and a pension settlement charge of $50.9 million in 2016, which did not recur in 2017.”

Operating income rose from $1.368 to $1.503 billion.  Interest income rose from $9.2 to $16.1 million while interest expense was up from $94.7 to $102 million.

Income taxes rose from $206 to $695 million.  The new tax law passed in December resulted in a $465.5 increase.  That’s tax on income that had been earned and held offshore.  It’ a one-time thing.  The result was a 42.7% decline in net income from $1.07 billion to $615 million.

As you probably know, VF acquired Dickies in 2017 and has put Nautica up for sale.  On the income statement, they separate discontinued operations, and provide separate information on the late in the year acquisition of Dickies.  I’m not breaking any of that out in my discussion and want to explain why.

The first of four long term drivers of their strategies is, “Reshape our portfolio. Investing in our brands to realize their full potential, while ensuring the composition of our portfolio positions us to win in evolving market conditions.”  Buying and selling brands is part of their normal operations.  They are very disciplined about what they buy and how much they will pay.  They don’t necessarily buy something every year, but it’s an active and ongoing part of their operations and I don’t believe in viewing their results net of it.

Acquisitions remain a top priority for VF as they are “…transforming VF into a more digitally-enabled consumer and retail-centric organization.”

Below are revenues and operating income by segment- what they call coalitions.  The key thing to notice is that Outdoor & Action Sports provided 69.5% of revenue and 72% of operating income.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vans’ revenues were up 17% in 2017.  The North Face was up 4% and Timberland 2%.   Total segment revenues were up 8% for the year.

“Global direct-to-consumer revenues for Outdoor & Action Sports grew 17% in 2017, driven by an expanding e-commerce business, comparable store growth and a 1% favorable impact from foreign currency. Wholesale revenues increased 2% in 2017, driven by growth in the Vans brand and Europe, partially offset by the above-mentioned U.S. retailer bankruptcies, lower year over- year off-price shipments and efforts to manage inventory levels in certain markets.”

The dominance of and dependence on Vans, as well as its continued and rapid growth is rather remarkable.  You won’t be surprised to learn that CEO Rendle lists “…protecting and enabling the explosive growth in Vans…” as the first of their 2018 top priorities.  VF expects “…high-teen growth from Vans through the first half of this year.”

During the conference call, an analyst asks the following question, which has been on my mind for a while as well.

“You talked about protecting the brand. You talked about not letting it overheat. What does that mean to how you’re going to manage the brand into the wholesale channel and your DTC, right? Are you going to constrict some of the deliveries into the wholesale channel? Are you going to limit some of the inventory across the channel? Are you going to segment the styles further? How do you plan to maintain a double-digit growth rate, as you alluded to, so that this doesn’t roll over, like we’ve seen other brands do in the not-too-distant past?”

Good question.  You can read into it the inevitable and often discussed in Market Watch public company problem; How do you grow without screwing up the brand?  Here’s part of Steve Rendle’s answer.

“…our Vans team is really the benchmark business on how they look at product segmentation across the different consumer touch points that we have to sell into, with our stores being the most premier expression of our brand. They’re really evolving how they’re looking at using stores and coming up with a mix of formats that play into the specific communities across the globe, but being very thoughtful, and direct partnerships with those wholesale partners, placing the right amount of inventory, being very thoughtful about not having one style over-torque, but really having it be a balanced approach with the right amount of newness to keep the brand moving forward each season.”

His answer sort of comes down to, “We manage the brand better than other brands are managed.”  Apparently so.  Yet it doesn’t really address the public company conundrum and I’ve never known a brand that didn’t, eventually, hit a dump in the road- “roll over” as the analyst puts it.  And I wonder, given the relative growth rates, why they can’t manage The North Face and Timberland as well as they are managing Vans.  It has something to do with the brand and the competitive environment, not just the brand management it seems.

Given the dependence on Vans, I hope they can continue to be disciplined in how they grow sales while protecting the brand.

A quick note on “risk factors” as listed endlessly in the 10-K.  I used to spend a lot of time on them.  Now, I find myself skimming them and rarely having anything to say about them- and not just for VF.  That’s because risk factors seem to be evolving from meaningful business considerations to a list of anything that the lawyers think could possibly go wrong.  They aren’t written to inform investors as much as to protect the company.

The balance sheet is weaker compared to a year ago.  Total equity fell 25% from $4.9 to $3.72 billion.  The current ratio is down from 2.4 to 1.5 times and cash declined from $1.227 billion to $566 million.  Debt to total capital was up from 31.9% to 44%.

The growth in receivables and inventories seems consistent with revenue growth and the acquisition of Dickies.  Also due to the Dickies acquisition, short term debt jumped from $26 to $729 million.  Hope they can refinance that before rates rise.  Long term debt was also up a bit from $2.04 to $2.19 billion.

The percent of their earnings they paid out as dividends was 96.2%.  That’s up from 59.9% last year and 38% in 2013.  It’s not that the balance sheet is weak- it’s just not as strong as it was.  If I were an investor in VF, the balance sheet changes and payout ratio would leave me wondering what happens if Vans should hit that bump.

The majority of VF’s growth for the year came in it’s fourth quarter, when revenues jumped 20.5% from $3.04 to $3.65 billion.    They reported a loss of $90 million in the quarter but remember the big accrual for taxes they were required to take due to the new tax law.  Vans, by the way, was up 35% in the fourth quarter, which puts some perspective on the 17% growth for the year.

Like all companies, VF tries to put its best foot forward in its public filings and conference calls.  I’m sure they have as many things go wrong as the next company.  Still, I walk away from reading their 10-K (and that of some other companies) with a strong sense that what used to give smaller companies a chance for an advantage is no longer exclusively available to those smaller companies.

Advantage Big Guys with Solid Processes and Cash Flow: VF’s Quarter

Before I dive too deep into the financial weeds, let’s look at VF’s overall strategy as explained by CEO Steve Rendle and Chief Financial Officer Scott Roe in their conference call discussing the results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

Strategy Stuff

Steve: “…while we expect the retail landscape to remain uncertain, we will invest against our largest growth opportunities to create momentum rather than wait for it.”

They have the cash flow and balance sheet to do this.

Read more

“Sacrifice a Little Growth…for Quality.” VF’s March 31st Quarter

Well, there you have it.  At some level, it is that simple.   But let me complete CFO Scott Roe’s comment in the conference call.  “…we are sharply focused on fundamentals and willing to sacrifice a little growth in the near term for quality. Our efforts are clearly paying off in the gross margin line. And we believe our decisions will improve the long-term health of both our brands and the marketplace.”

They improved their gross margin 1.3% (remember that’s a mixed retail and wholesale gross margin and, unfortunately, they don’t break it down between the two).  Distribution matters these days in brand building, and you can afford to give up some sales if you increase your gross margin that much.  In fact, I’d suggest you get that margin increase precisely because you made some distribution decisions that improved the “quality” of your sales.  Scott notes later, referring to off price business, that they’ve “…already cleaned a lot of that up.”

Read more

How Was VF’s Year?

It’s accurate to say that VF ran into the same issues and economic dislocations as other brands and retailers.  During their fourth quarter, ended December 31, 2016, revenues fell 2.7% from $3.41 billion to $3.32 billion in the quarter ended December 31, 2015 (the prior calendar period- PCP).  Net income was also down from $312 to $264 million, or by 16.7%.

For the year, revenue was almost the same at just over $12 billion.  Net income fell 12.8% from $1.32 in 2016 to $1.07 billion in 2015 (also the PCP).  More details and nuance later.  I wanted you to have those numbers as we talk strategy.

Read more

We’re All in This Together: Things to Think About from VF’s Quarterly Report

We’re All in This Together:  Things to Think About from VF’s Quarterly Report

VF’s 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30 showed up last week.  As usual, I’ll look at the numbers.  But I want to focus on several statements and action VF highlights in their conference call and 10-Q.  They highlight the extent to which we’re all dealing with the same economic and business conditions, and how we’re mostly dealing them in the same way. There’s also a couple of good ideas in here and maybe an “AHA” moment.

I’ll start by quoting CEO Eric Wiseman’s comment on the business environment.

Read more

VF’s June 30 Quarter: It’s Not Easy Out There for Anybody

After the results we’ve seen from VF in previous quarters and years, this quarter’s can only be characterized as disappointing.  Just goes to show you how difficult the market is right now.  They’ve got lots of company.

Total revenue rose just 0.75% to $2.445 billion.  VF ended the quarter with 1,461 brick and mortar stores worldwide. Direct to consumer business was up 6% in the quarter and accounted for 27% of total revenues.  “The increase in direct to consumer revenues…were due to new store openings and an expanding e-commerce business.”  The increase was not, apparently, due to higher comparable store sales or I assume we would have been told about it.  International revenue was 35% of total revenue.

Read more

VF’s Quarter: It’s Not Easy for Anybody Out There

VF filed its 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2nd on May 10th.  The results, while in line with expectations, showed VF under the same kind of pressure other public companies are dealing with.  Even their action sports segment, where most of their growth has been coming from, experienced very modest sales growth and reduced operating income.

Read more

VF’s June 30 Quarter: Damn This Strong Dollar!

VF reported a 4.62% revenue increase in the quarter that ended June 30 compared to the same quarter last year (prior calendar period- PCP). The increase was from $2.402 to $2.514 billion. As usual, we’ll focus on the Outdoor & Action Sports (OAS) segment, as that’s where most of the action seems to be.

Below is the chart from the 10Q that lays out the revenues and operating profits of each of VF’s segments for the quarter and the half year.

Read more

Portfolio Theory at Work at VF; Their Quarterly Results.

VF’s 10Q for the quarter ended September showed another strong result. You can see the 10Q here. However, as with recent quarters, the good news was pretty much limited to their outdoor and action sport segment (OAS). I want to talk a bit about what that might mean, but first, let’s lay out the numbers.

VF’s revenue grew 6.8% from $3.3 to $3.52 billion. Gross margin rose from 47.6% to 48.3%. OAS has the highest gross margin of any of the company’s segments.

SG&A expense rose 8.1% from $0.989 to $1.069 billion. Operating income was $633 million, a 6.2% increase over the $580 million in last year’s quarter. At $20.7 million, net interest expense was almost unchanged. Net income rose from $434 to $471 million.

Okay, let’s break it down a little. Below is the chart from the 10Q that shows revenue and operating profit by segment- by coalition as they call their segments. I’ve included the information for both the quarter and the nine month period.

Untitled

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do we see when we evaluate this chart? First, note that OAS revenues were up 10.6% for the quarter. Remember that total quarterly revenues for the whole company rose by 6.8%. That translates into a revenue increase of 1.1% for all the segments combined excluding OAS. So OAS saved the day for VF.

OAS represented 62% of total revenue for the quarter, up from 60% in last year’s quarter. And it generated 67.5% of all operating profits, up from 64.5% in last year’s quarter. OAS operating profit rose by 12.8% from $421 to $475 million, or by $54.2 million. Operating profits in all other segments combined actually fell slightly from $232.4 million to $228.9 million. That’s not good.

OAS, and especially The North Face, Vans, and Timberland, are the engines pulling this train right now. Their revenues grew by 9%, 12% and 15% respectively during the quarter. OAS revenues in the Americas, European and Asia Pacific regions were up, respectively, 11%, 10% and 13%. Direct to consumer (online and their own retail stores) rose 20%. Wholesale revenues were up 8%

Here are some comments from the conference call on brand performance. For The North Face, “In the Americas revenues were up at a low double-digit percentage rate with almost 30% growth in D2C and high single-digit growth in wholesale.”

In Europe, “…The North Face revenues increased at the low single-digit rate. Our wholesale business was essentially flat due to a combination of a sluggish outdoor retail environment and a shift in the timing of product shipments into the fourth quarter. However our D2C business was up nearly 30% in the quarter…” In Asia, North Face revenue rose “…at the mid-single digit rate.”

Now for Vans. “In the Americas, revenues increased at a high single-digit rate.” In Europe, “…revenue grew at the mid-teens rate with D2C growth of 25% and low double-digit increases in the wholesale business.”

“In Asia Vans revenue grew nearly 40% with China increasing more than 40%…”

And finally, Timberland. “Third quarter global revenues were up 15% driven by 18% wholesale growth and a 6% increase in D2C.”

“In the Americas, revenues were up 22% driven by more than 30% growth in the wholesale business. This growth, similar to the second quarter was very balanced across all products and channels…On the apparel side we continue to expand our distribution and see strong sell-through as our fall 2014 collection hits retail floors across our own and wholesale partner doors.” My guess is that Timberland has quite an opportunity in apparel.

“Timberland’s revenues in Europe were up 15% in the third quarter with balanced growth in both D2C and wholesale… In Asia, third quarter revenues increased at the low single digit rate.”

Not a word about Reef. That never surprises me, but I’m always disappointed.

For the whole company, direct to consumer revenues grew 16% quarter over quarter. VF ended the quarter with 1,333 retail stores with direct to consumer revenues representing 22% of total revenues. They expect add around 150 stores a year “…over the 2017 planning period.”

Here’s a quote from the 10Q about the company’s overall business. “VF reported revenue growth of 7% in both the third quarter and first nine months of 2014 [was] driven by growth in the Outdoor & Action Sports coalition, and continued strength in the international and direct-to-consumer businesses.”

I guess if I took the obverse of that, or maybe I mean the converse, it sort or says, “Our wholesale business in the Americas outside of OAS wasn’t specifically too good.”

The balance sheet is fine, and I won’t even risk putting readers to sleep by analyzing it. Current ratio, at 2.0, was the same as a year ago. I would note that inventory was up just 4%- less than the increase in sales. There’s a whole lot of money to be made in good inventory management and not just for VF. It is also, in my judgment, an important part of differentiating and building your brand.

All’s fine with VF as long as all’s fine with Vans, The North Face and Timberland. Some other OAS brands are doing fine we’re told, but those three are responsible for most of VF’s revenue and profit growth right now.

VF has 35 brands in total. They are interested in further acquisitions (because they’ve told us so in the conference call) and have been willing to sell brands that didn’t seem to have the potential they were looking for (most recently, John Varvatos in 2012). They are focused on OAS, they tell us, because that segment represents the best opportunity to increase revenue and gross margin.

The numbers we’ve reviewed above tell us there are some issues with certain brands in other of VF’s segments, though we can’t know exactly which brands. The 24 brands that are not part of OAS did not all grow revenue at 1% during the quarter. Some did better, some worse.  It’s the nature, in fact the justification, for having a portfolio of brands that the overall portfolio can do well even when some brands aren’t performing.  Over time, you can expect different brands to perform at different levels.

I’m wondering if VF, especially if they can find some attractive OAS acquisitions, might not consider selling some of these other brands that are apparently not performing.

Strategically, that’s what I’ll be watching at VF.