The End of an Era (In a Good Way!) at Quiksilver

I don’t think anybody else noticed this (or at least I didn’t see anybody else mention it) but on October 27th, Quik got a $20 million term loan from Bank of America. Along with some cash on hand, they used it to pay off the last $24.5 million (including accrued interest) of their original term loan from the Rhone Group.

The new term loan’s interest rate is 5.3%. You may remember that the interest rate on the Rhone money was 15%. The rest of the Rhone loan (it was originally a $150 million five year term loan made in August of 2009) has either been paid off or converted into equity.

Instead of paying $22.5 million a year in interest on the $150 million (some of it was non cash), they are now either paying nothing (to the extent it was converted to equity) or paying at a much lower rate.
Financially, of course, paying off $24.5 million in debt doesn’t fundamentally change anything for Quik. But it makes me feel good to see it happen, so I can only imagine how everybody at Quik must feel. I hope they had a Rhone Credit Agreement Termination Party and burned the note. And I wish I’d been invited.
Nice work!

Billabong’s Annual General Meeting

On October 26th, Billabong Chairman Ted Kunkel and CEO Derek O’Neill made speeches at the company’s annual meeting.  Together they only run to to seven pages of big, easy to read, type.  You should read them, and you can read them here.  There’s a lot of good, succinct information on why fiscal 2011 is a transition year, the performance of their acquisitions, the evolution of their retail business (now almost 40% of their revenue), the impact of currency fluctuations, market conditions, and their continued focus on operating efficiency.

In a lot of ways, it’s a convenient, easy to ready, summary of the annual report that came out a couple of months ago.  It lays out their results, strategies, and issues without being too detailed and dense.

I did a detailed analysis of their annual report when it first came out and if you’re curious, and haven’t seen it before, it’s here.

 

 

 

 

Action Sports Market Evolution as Reflected in VF’s Quarterly Results

VF released its earnings and held the quarterly conference call yesterday at 8:30 Eastern time. I’m not quite dedicated enough to listen to it at 5:30 AM on the West coast, but I did listen to the replay later in the morning. You can see the press release here. Remember, we don’t have the SEC filing on the quarter yet, so though the numbers are the same as what you’ll see in the 10Q, we do get management’s spin on things- their “happy dance,” as I like to call it.

The Numbers 

There’s no doubt VF had a good quarter.  For the quarter ended September 30, revenues were up 7% to a record $2.2 billion and gross margin at 46.5% was the highest ever. Net income for the quarter was up 11.4% to $243 million. For nine months, sales have risen 5.1% to $5.576 billion and net income is up 31% to $517 million. They accomplished this while increasing marketing, administrative and general expenses in both the quarter and the nine months compared to the same periods the prior year. The balance sheet is very strong with $403 million at the end of the quarter. They’ve got no real financial limitations in carrying out their strategy.
 
You may recall that VF divides their business into six segments they call coalitions; outdoor and action sports, jeanswear, imagewear, sportswear, contemporary brands, and other. The table below, taken from the press release, shows sales and  what I think are operating profits for each segment, though they just call it profit. As you can imagine, they were almost giddy with the
 
 
results and opportunities they see in outdoor and action sports.   They said that revenues for the North Face and Vans rose in the quarter by 17% and 19% respectively. The whole coalition rose 14%. The coalition’s growth for nine months was 12%. For the quarter, the outdoor and action sports coalition generated 59.3% of total coalition profits and 46.9% of sales. For nine months, the numbers are 50.5% of profits and 41.4% of sales.
 
You can understand the focus on outdoor and action sports. The other coalitions didn’t perform as well and aren’t as large. Jeanswear is actually down for nine months and up only slightly in the quarter. That was impacted by VF exiting the jeans mass market segment in Europe. Imagewear revenues are up 10% for the quarter but just 5% for the year. Its profit, however, increased pretty dramatically as you can see.
 
Sportswear revenues were down for both periods and profits fell rather precipitously, especially in the quarter. This is explained partly by some Nautica shipments being moved from the third to fourth quarter.   Contemporary brand revenues were up 11% for nine months, but pretty much level for the quarter. But profits in that segment fell hard in both time frames.
 
You can see why they spent so much time on outdoor and action sports. It’s the biggest chunk of their business, it’s performing well, they see lots of opportunity, and the news in some of their other segments isn’t as good.
 
Implications for the Action Sports Market
 
What I really found interesting- more than the financial statements- were a handful of observations made about their business. Those included:
 
  • They have 779 retail stores (retail comps were up about 3% for the quarter) and are on track to open 85 stores for the year. Direct to consumer revenue was up 10% for the quarter (18% in outdoor and action sports).
  • Marketing spending is up 35% for the quarter. Year to date they’ve spend an additional $50 million and expect to spend an incremental $45 million in the fourth quarter. Half of this will go to the North Face and Vans.
  • They are “…adding top freeride and slopestyle skiers, and halfpipe snowboarders to our athlete team to extend the reach of The North Face(R) as a snowsports brand during the upcoming winter X Games.”
  • In the fourth quarter and going forward into next year, they expect gross margins to be “stable.” That is, not up though in another context they note it is improving in retail.
  • They expect that their average wholesale price will be up next year. There was a lot of discussion about the cost of cotton.
I slept on this to see if an eloquent way to tie all this together would explode fully formed into my brain. It didn’t, so I guess I’ll just start writing. The North Face as a snowsports brand just sort of stopped me in my tracks. Can any brand that makes anything to be in cold weather become a snowsports brand if they have enough resources to establish the marketing position? If you’re a snowsports brand, are you an action sports brand?
 
Just what is the action sports market these days anyway? I don’t think the action sports market grows just because VF (or Nike, or Billabong, or Burton, or Quiksilver, etc.) sells one more piece of stuff to one more person who’s never been near a skateboard, snowboard, or surfboard. I know that there’s still a meaningful connection between some people who don’t participate and the “core” market of those who do, but as you get further and further from that connection and deeper and deeper into the distribution can you still talk about being an action sports brand in a meaningful way?  That is, in a way that helps you run your business.
 
Growth in the action sports market is related to growth in participation, and I don’t think we’re seeing much of that right now. As a brand, it’s dangerous to believe yourself an action sports brand once you move beyond the participants and its relatively immediate environment because you just won’t have the customer connection you think you have. 
 
VF, of course, doesn’t see itself as an action sports brand, but as a portfolio of brands some of which are in action sports. Maybe they’ve got the resources and management to make The North Face into a snowsports brand (Please, no North Face snowboards).   That won’t make it an action sports brand, but it will contribute to the confusion (at least to my confusion) about what this market is and is becoming.
 
Meanwhile, they’ve got 779 retail stores and counting. And speaking of confusion, which brands will they carry in their stores? Just their own or brands they don’t own as well? Will the brands they carry but don’t own want to be in those stores? Can they afford the possible sales decline that will occur if they aren’t in those VF (or Billabong, or Nike, or Quik) owned stores? Do more brands have to open more retail stores as a strictly defensive move to preserve their sales volume? 
 
And this is all going on while cotton costs are going to lead to some inevitable price increases and no growth in gross margins while consumers are cautious about their spending. This is happening to VF (and others, we already know) even with their sophisticated systems, supply network, and negotiating power. How will it impact smaller companies?
 
Those of you who have been around a while remember when it was clear what was and was not the action sports business. You knew who your customers and potential customers were. My suggestion, if you really are and want to be in the action sports business, is that you go back to that.   I’m not saying don’t grow. But don’t delude yourself into believing that the real action sports market and your target market is $10 billion or $20 billion or whatever the apparel/fashion/lifestyle market is. That is not the action sports market no matter how many big companies with their very own retail chains say it is.

 Dance around the 800 pound gorillas. Not with them.  

 

Vail’s Annual Report; What’s the Future of Resort Real Estate?

This 10K was filed a couple of weeks ago for the year ended July 31. There are about 760 ski areas in North America. Vail owns five major ones that accounted for 7.7% of skier visits (about six million) during the last season. We don’t get many chances to see individual data from many of them, so taking a look at this is worthwhile. It’s particularly interesting, in our current economic circumstances, to see how the real estate component of Vail’s business is faring.

 Numbers by Segment

 Let’s start with a little table that shows Vail’s revenues over the last five years broken down by its three business segments; mountain, lodging and real estate. The numbers are rounded to the nearest millions of dollars and are for the years ending July 31.
 
                                                2010       2009       2008       2007       2006
Mountain                               638         615         686         665         620
Lodging                                169         176         170          162         156        
Real Estate                            61         186         297          113            63
Total Revenue                      869        977     1,152           941          839
 
Here the operating expenses for each segment:
 
                                                2010       2009       2008       2007       2006
Mountain                                456         451         470         463         443
Lodging                                  167         169         160         144         143        
Real Estate                              71         142         251         115           57          
Total Expense                       694         763         882         722         642
 
And here is the EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) for each:
 
                                                2010       2009       2008       2007       2006
Mountain                               184         164         221         202         177        
Lodging                                   2              7            10           18           13
Real Estate                             (4)          44            46             (2)           6
Total EBITDA                        182         215         277         218         196
 
Some of the above numbers don’t add precisely because of rounding and some minor accounting stuff. I’ve ignored that to minimize the eyes glazing over factor.
 
The Mountain segment “…is comprised of the operations of five ski resort properties as well as ancillary services, primarily including ski school, dining and retail/rental operations.” Lift tickets are about 45% of revenues there. Of the three segments, it contributes by far the most revenue and EBITDA. You can see that segment revenue in 2010 is only about 3% ahead of where it was after peaking in 2008.
 
Lodging revenues come from owning and managing hotels near their resorts. It also includes revenue from golf and a transportation company they own. It follows a pattern similar to the Mountain segment, peaking then falling in the recession and ending up just 8% higher than it was at the end of fiscal 2006. I should note that the Lodging revenue numbers include $19 million and $18 million in 2010 and 2009 respectively for transportation. That’s from a company Vail bought and there were no transportation revenues in earlier years. One could argue that lodging revenues are really up only about 3.5% over five years, similar to the Mountain segment.
 
Real Estate
 
Real estate is the development and sale of homes and condos of various sizes. Look at the 2008 peak in real estate revenues in the chart above. 2010 real estate revenue, at $61 million, is only 3% below the 2006 amount of $63 million. But the 2008 real estate revenue peak of $297 million is almost 5 times the 2006 or 2010 levels. You don’t see that level of rise or fall in either the Mountain or the Lodging segments.
 
Though accounted for separately, the three segments are closely related as Vail discusses. Selling real estate and increasing the lodging options increases the bed base and options for customers. Putting in a new high speed lift or opening new restaurants or retail makes the resort more attractive and may increase the value and desirability of the real estate. At the risk of oversimplifying, mountain development makes the real estate more attractive and real estate development can make the mountain more attractive. The trick is to coordinate development so as to maximize the value of both. 
 
The real estate revenue stream is highly variable due to the nature of the business. Even when you get deposits and sign sales contracts for a property, you don’t recognize any revenue until the title to the property passes to the buyer. Your revenue depends on when you start the project, how big the project is, how well it sells, and any delays you incur in completing it. When you do close a sale and recognize the revenue, it’s in amounts of at least hundreds of thousands of dollars (the recently completed One Ski Hill Place project had an average selling price per unit of $1.4 million). You don’t have thousands of closings of similar, smaller amounts like you were selling lift tickets.
 
With that as background, what’s Vail’s take on real estate and real estate development? The first thing I’d note is that “Real estate held for sale and investment” was $422 million at July 31. That’s up 35.7% to $311 million from the same date last year. The amount the previous year was $249 million. Vail specifically states that “…we currently do not plan to undertake significant development activities on new projects until the current economic environment for real estate improves. We believe that due to our low carrying cost of real estate land investments combined with the absence of third party debt associated with our real estate investments, we are well situated to time the launch of future projects with a more favorable economic environment.”
 
Talking about their One Ski Hill Place project, they note that they “… closed on 36 units, or 61% of the 59 units that were under contract…while 23 units that were under contract defaulted. Additionally, we have another real estate project substantially completed (the Ritz-Carlton Residences, Vail) which units under contract will begin closing during the first quarter of Fiscal 2011. We have increased risk associated with selling and closing units in these projects as a result of the continued instability in the credit markets and a slowdown in the overall real estate market. Certain buyers have been or may be unable to close on their units due to a reduction in funds available to buyers and/or decreases in mortgage availability and certain buyers may successfully seek rescission of their contracts…We cannot predict the ultimate number of units that we will sell, the ultimate price we will receive, or when the units will sell. Additionally, if a prolonged weakness in the real estate market or general economic conditions were to occur we may have to adjust our selling prices in an effort to sell and close on units available for sale, although we currently have no plans to do so."
 
Back in April, when I wrote about Vail’s January 31 quarter, they had reported that 13 holders of contracts to purchase Ritz-Carlton Residences had sued to get out of the contracts and get their deposits back because of a disputed delivery date. I wrote,
 
“If you really wanted your new 2nd home, you probably don’t sue because it’s a little late being finished. Maybe you negotiate for some free upgrades (heated toilet seats?), but you don’t sue to get out of the deal. Unless, of course, you can no longer afford to buy the place and/or it’s now worth a lot less than you’ve agreed to pay for it.”
 
The problem appears to be worsening and I’m quite certain Vail isn’t the only resort that develops real estate that has these kinds of issues.
 
The Financial Statements
 
I hate resort balance sheets. When you see a current ratio that’s deteriorated from what, in traditional financial analysis, would be called a dangerous current ratio of 0.91 to an even worse 0.51 over the year you get worried. But then you remember (especially if your introduction to this industry was trying to run an equally seasonal snowboard company) that it’s all about cash flow, and you don’t borrow money and pay interest just to make your current ratio look better at the end of the year.
 
The total liabilities to equity ratio improved slightly from 1.44 to 1.40. Debt maturities are only $1.87 million in 2011, but increase to $35 million in 2012.
 
The decline in current assets is almost completely the result of a fall in cash and cash equivalents from $69 million to $15 million. Total liabilities have hardly changed at all.    I would note that cash flow from operations has fallen from $217 million in fiscal 2008, to $134 million in 2009 to $36 million in 2010.
 
You’ve seen the revenue and expense numbers by segment in the table above. Vail worked hard to reduce and manage its expenses, but income was down.   Operating income was $69 million, down from $106 million the previous year and $176 million the year before that. Net income was $30 million, down from $49 million in 2009 and $103 million in 2008. Net income as a percentage of revenue fell from 8.9% in fiscal 2008 to 5.0% in 2009 and 3.5% in 2010. 
 
As explained above, Vail’s three business segments each support the other. The Mountain and Lodging segments took a hit in the recession and are still impacted, but are starting to recover. The real estate is not and I don’t see that happening in the immediate future. As Vail management notes in the lengthy quote above, real estate development is off the table until the economic improves. They are uncertain about their ability to sell or close on sold properties and are concerned that prices might have to be reduced. They’ve got a lot of cost in completed units and undeveloped property and at some point could have to recognize some reductions in carrying value.
 
As I said when I started, we don’t get to see the numbers for most of the large resorts. The value in looking at Vail is not just in knowing how Vail is doing, but in understanding some of the pressures that any resort with real estate is likely to be under.         

 

 

An Insider’s History of the Surf Industry; Good Reading!

Part of my weekend was spent reading Phil Jarratt’s excellent book, Salts and Suits; How a bunch of surf bums created a multi-billion dollar industry…and almost lost it. Phil has worked in surf publishing and the surf industry for more than 35 years, including five years as the head of marketing in Europe for Quiksilver. He seems to know and have talked to everybody in the industry over a period of years, but just got around to putting it all together in this book, published in Australia around April of this year.

It’s very Australia centric, though anybody in the industry will know of or have met many of the individuals who figure prominently in it. It has not been released in the U.S. and you can’t, to my amazement, buy it at Amazon. However, it looks like you can order it from Australia and here’s one link where you can get it.

The sense of history and the perspective it gives you on the origins and evolution of the surf industry is very valuable. And the stories of how our most respected industry players got into the business, along with descriptions of some of their antics and foibles is a lot of fun to read.
 
It also reminds you that for all the changes, some things just haven’t changed. Here’s a quote from the author’s 2005 interview with Duke Boyd who, in 1960, was trying to sell some early board shorts.

Most of the surf shops sold boards and wax, and that was about it. I knocked on Dewey Weber’s door twenty times before he’d talk to me, and then he goes, ‘Okay, I’ll take them, but only white and only in my size, in case they don’t sell.’ Then one day I had a coffee with the guy at Hobie’s and I told him my trunks would make him forty percent of the sale price. I asked him how much he made off of a surfboard sale. It was half that, and the boards were taking up all the space! He got that, and soon all the guys started to realize that trunks would pay the rent.

So it seems that the issue of margin on hard goods goes back at least fifty years.
 
The hardest thing for me was not skipping to the end of the book where the Quiksilver’s hiring of Bernard Mariette, the Rossignol deal, and its aftermath are described in, if not as much detail as I would have liked, more than I’ve seen anywhere else.
 
Anyway the book is fun, evocative, entertaining, and educational and I hope Phil Jarratt brings it out in the U.S. soon.
 
Maybe I should offer to be his distributor. 

 

 

Never Summer’s and Mervin Manufacturing’s Little Patent Brouhaha

I guess I should start by admitting that I’m not an expert on snowboard technology, and I don’t have a strong opinion (any opinion, actually) on which kind of camber is best and I don’t know who made which claim first. I also haven’t read, and don’t intend to read, the patents.   I figure I suffer enough just having to read the public company’s SEC filings.

Having followed some of the discussion on various web sites, it’s clear that you don’t have to know all that much to have an opinion. But I’m going to cleverly stick to history, marketing and industry strategy. Those are subjects which I do know something about in this industry, or at least it’s hard to prove that I don’t.

Let’s start with a little history. Months and months ago, before my new web site was up and running, I posted an article on Facebook that talked about alternative camber and my personal experience with it. It also included some information from an interview with Mervin’s Mike Olson. It might give you some perspective on what’s going on and you can view it here.
 
Meanwhile, I’d like to remind you that I’ve said from time to time, “What’s the Goal? Begin With the End in Mind.” What’s the goal for Mervin and Never Summer in this dispute? It’s not to see who can spend the most in legal fees. It’s not to beat the other one in court and have their patent proclaimed the winner. The goals are to build their respective businesses, earn a return for their shareholders and grow snowboarding by making it easier and more attractive to learn and participate in.
 
How does a business do that? At least in snowboarding, we can say that having the best patented technology first is no guarantee of success (see the above referenced article). I’d argue that’s also true in skateboarding and surfing. Not to mention in software, semiconductors and most any industry you can name. First off, it’s the consumer who decides what’s “best” and they can sometimes have a different perception of our innovations, technologies, and patents than we in the industry do. Second, companies in this industry have spent a lot of time and a truly unbelievable amount of money creating their brands’ market position and image in the hope that the consumer will purchase their branded product based on that image. Even with a patented innovation, a consumer may go with a brand image. Because, let’s face it; there’s no bad snowboard product out there anymore.
 
We all talk to each other too much. This, like all industries, is a bit incestuous. Too much of the discussion, perhaps because a confrontation is so intriguing, seems to be around whose patent is better, who’s got the best lawyers, and who might “win.” I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
 
As two niche brands with long histories and both making product in the U.S., Never Summer and Mervin have a lot in common. Mervin, owned by Quiksilver has done very well the last couple of years. I imagine, given Quik’s situation, that Mervin is under some pressure to grow and I hope that doesn’t impact the resolution of this dispute. Never Summer, because of its reputation for quality and long standing control of distribution is also in good shape. I’m hoping Mervin and Never Summer don’t get caught up in the partially industry generated controversy and forget to ask how this technology can best serve the snowboarders to the benefit of both companies and the industry. There must be a royalty or cross licensing agreement or something somewhere in our future.
 
I know it’s business, and I don’t want to sound naïve. I don’t know who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” but I am pretty sure the interests of both companies and the industry are served by a deal.
 
I read Transworld Business’s excellent interviews with Mervin’s Mike Olson and Never Summer’s Tracey Canaday (you can read them here) and was stunned to hear they’d never met each other. I lived in Ireland for two years and learned that there’s nothing that can’t be settled at the pub. I’d be happy to introduce you two and help you make a deal. I work for beer and I’m hopeful this isn’t more than a four or five pint problem.

 

 

Nike’s First Quarter; Strong. The Integration of Brand and Retail is Particularly Interesting

Normally, I prefer to wait for the actual quarterly filing to be available before doing this kind of analysis, but I trust you can all appreciate what a monumental waste of time it would be to really dig into Nike’s balance sheet. They’ve got $4.7 billion in cash and short term investments and $9.7 billion in shareholders’ equity. They got only $342 million in long term debt and no outstanding bank borrowings. So my analysis? It’s strong. It’s a monster. They can do anything they want. Let’s move on.

Reported revenue for the quarter ended August 31 was up 8% to $5.175 billion compared to the same quarter last year. Gross profit was up 10% to $2.434 billion with the gross profit margin rising from 46.2% to 47.0%. This increase was the result of “…growth and improved profitability from Direct to Consumer operations, fewer and more profitable close-out sales and improved in-line product margins. These factors more than offset margin pressures resulting from changes in foreign currency and higher air freight costs to meet strong demand for NIKE Brand products.”

They note in the conference call that they were surprised by the strength of their gross margins because some cost increases were hitting later than expected. They see labor, oil, and cotton becoming more expensive. They also note that there was a delay in price increases because they negotiate prices with factories several seasons out. In the long term, they believe they can continue to expand margins.
 
Some of those statements seem worthy of some more discussion. If anticipated cost increases are down the road how, exactly, will they increase gross margins? Maybe it depends what you mean by “long term.” They indicated they might have some pricing power with certain products and maybe that’s where higher margins could come from.
 
We all have marketing or advertising and promotion expenses, but Nike has “Demand creation expense,” which I think is a much more descriptive phrase. It went up 23% to $679 million. They point to a couple of major events as being responsible for much of that increase. Their “Operating overhead expense” (what you and I might call general and administrative expense) was essentially flat at $994 million. Net income was up nine percent to $559 million.
 
Hurley, which we’d all like lots of details on but don’t get, is part of Nike’s “Other Businesses” segment. In addition to Hurley, the segment includes Cole Hann, Converse, NIKE golf and Umbro. That segment generated revenues of $693 in the quarter. Hurley revenues were up double digit, but that’s the only specific we get, and it’s not all that specific.
 
North American Revenues, at $1.903 billion, were up 8% as reported. Western Europe, at $1.056 billion, was down 4%. Central and Eastern Europe, at $263 million, was up 3%. Greater China was up 11% to $460 million but Japan fell 12% to $163 million. Emerging Markets at $591 million grew 30%.
 
For the Nike brand, footwear grew 7% to $2.798 billion and represented 54% of total quarterly revenues. Apparel, up 7% as well, was $1.362 billion or 26% of total revenues for the quarter. Equipment was $276 million, down 5% and representing 5%.
Retail sales were a record for the quarter, with comparative store sales up 13%. Digital sales grew by 22%. 
 
The immediate future looks pretty good. Worldwide future orders for Nike brand apparel and footwear “…scheduled for delivery from September 2010 through January 2010, totaled $7.1 billion, 10 percent higher than orders reported for the same period last year.” They don’t offer any numbers for equipment or the other “other” segment that includes Hurley.
 
Strategically, their discussion of flexibility, balance and alignment as the three reasons for outstanding performance was really interesting. I know it kind of sounds like a platitude, but it’s not. I could write a whole bunch on what they mean, but I couldn’t say it much better than they did. The conference call transcript is here. http://seekingalpha.com/article/226811-nike-ceo-discusses-f1q2011-results-earnings-call-transcript. I strongly suggest you read through their prepared comments in the early part of the transcript to understand what they mean. As part of it, they talk about the integration of retail and brands and how they are “… learning how to integrate and leverage the brands more than ever before.” They specifically refer to how they combined the Nike, Hurley and Converse brands at the U.S. Open in Huntington Beach. Many of you no doubt saw that.
 
This isn’t just about Nike. Multiple brands with a retail and online component seems to be the strategy most larger companies are pursuing. I’d go so far to say you won’t be able to become a larger brand unless you pursue that strategy, so you need to pay attention to it. It not only offers competitive advantages, but really lets a company leverage its back end. Look at Billabong or Quiksilver. Watch as retailer Zumiez works to make itself a brand.
 
You can learn a lot from Nike’s strategy.      

 

 

SIA Article on the Rising Costs of Chinese Production

About a week ago, SIA published a really good article on why production costs in China are rising.  If you haven’t read it you can, and should, here: http://www.snowsports.org/SuppliersServiceProviders/SIANewsletter/NewsletterDetail/Contentid/1272/#top.
The article is pretty tactical in nature, and I thought a little bit of the longer term social and political perspective might be interesting to you.  It should at least convince you that this is probably not a temporary trend.
Chinese governments have always derived their legitimacy from their ability to provide stability and jobs. “Harmony,” if you will.  And when I say “always” I don’t mean a measly couple of hundred years.  The first history of China was written about 1,500 BC.  China’s current export oriented economic system is unsustainable.  The Chinese know this.  But the changes they need to make to improve domestic consumption move up the valued added chain in what they manufacture and resolve some of their significant structural issues are not conducive to that stability.
That’s a very short and very oversimplified explanation of the situation.  But the next time you hear that “everybody” knows that China is going to become the next superpower you might not rush to agree.  Could it happen?  Sure.  But remember in the 1980s when “everybody” knew Japan was going to take over the world?  Didn’t quite work out that way.  The chart below illustrates one of the issues China has.  Note the coming decrease in the working age population.

Quiksilver’s July 31st Quarter: Sales Down, But Profits Up and Balance Sheet Stronger

Quik is the poster child of a company that’s done what it needed to do following the twin blows of the Rossignol acquisition and the recession. As somebody who’s done a bit of turnaround work, I can tell you it’s no fun, for either management or employees, to be dealing with negative stuff month after month. Quik maybe has a little more work it wants to do on its balance sheet, but it’s largely out from under the reverberations of that deal though, like all of us, not of the recession.

I still have the same question for Quik (and for other brands) that I had before; how do you grow sales? You can’t improve profitability by controlling expenses and improving gross margin forever. I imagine the new Quik women’s brand and DC’s efforts in racing will be part of the answer. They note in the conference call that 95% of Roxy’s customer base doesn’t know that Roxy is related to Quik. Partly as a result of that, they believe there’s room for a Quiksilver Girls brand. It will debut in spring, 2011 and be directed at the 18 to 24 year old market.

While we wait for that to happen, I’d like to start with the balance sheet and discuss the improvement there.
 
Deleveraging
 
Quik raised some rather expensive money from Rhone Capital as you call, and refinanced its bank lines pushing out the maturities. When you look at this year’s July 31 balance sheet and compare it to last year’s at the same date you can see the impact of those actions and of their control of expenses. Trade receivables are down by 19.6%, and average days receivables are outstanding is down by 6 days, which is good for cash flow. Inventories fell by 19% from a year ago to $271 million.   
 
Current liabilities have fallen by 41%, from $658 million to $390 million.  I’d particularly point to the decline in the line of credit outstanding from $221 million to $25 million. The amount of debt that Quik had was an issue, but also important was that way too much of it was coming due in the short term at the same time.
 
 Long term debt is up by around $25 million to $759 million, but total liabilities fell from $1.43 to $1.19 million. The current ratio has improved from 1.65 to 2.26 as has total liabilities to equity from 3.21 to 2.45. I imagine they’d like to reduce that further.
 
Actually, they have. After the quarter ended, they did a debt for equity swap with Rhone Capital that reduced their debt by an additional $140 million in exchange for 31.1 million shares of stock at $4.50 a share. I’m oversimplifying a bit, but if I take the July 31 balance sheet, reduce long term debt by $140 million and increase equity by a similar amount, the total liabilities to equity ratio falls further to 1.68. As a result of this exchange, Quik will have a “non-recurring, non-cash and non-operating” charge in the quarter ending October 31 to write off some costs associated with issuing the debt. 
 
I’m not the only one who sees this as a lot of progress. On August 27th, Quik was able to amend its North American credit agreement with an interest rate reduced to Libor plus 2.5% to 3%. Before the margin over Libor was 4% to 4.5%. Libor stands for London Interbank Offer Rate. The interest savings will be substantial. Wonder if they’ll be able to do the same thing with any of their other bank lines.
Net cash provided by operations rose from $150 million to $193 million. Increasing cash generation from operations is always a good thing.
 
Income Statement
 
Quik’s bottom line for the quarter was a profit of $8.3 million compared to a profit of $1.3 million in the same quarter the prior year. For nine months, it had a profit of $12.4 million compared to a loss of $190.3 million for nine months the previous year. Of that loss, $132.8 million was from discontinued operations- Rossignol. They had a profit from continuing operations for the nine months of $13.9 million compared to a loss of $56.5 million the previous year. For the quarter, the continuing operations profit was $8.4 million compared to $3.4 million the prior year.
 
Reported revenues for the quarter were down 12% from $501 to $441 million. Gross profit fell 1.55% in dollars to $230.7 million, but the gross profit percentage rose to 52.3% from 46.7% in the same quarter the prior year. The gross margin improvement worldwide was largely the result of less discounting and some improvements in sourcing. Quik CFO Joe Scirocco clarified this by saying that “…the vast majority of it [margin improvement] is in fact, a better mix of sales because we have cleaned inventory so well.”
 
In a related comment he noted that “…a lot of the contraction that we’re seeing this year in volume is intentional. It is done as part of our plan to clean up distribution, to get better, higher quality sales and it is coming through very strongly in the gross margin.” I’m guessing that cleaning up distribution and higher quality sales refers to some extent to only selling to accounts who are likely to continue in business and be able to pay you; a good idea.
 
You know what would be really interesting? If they would break out the wholesale gross profit margin from the retail. That way, we could look at the two segment’s performance individually. And it might make for some easier (and probably interesting) comparisons with other brands and retailers.
 
Sales, general and administrative expenses fell by 8.8% to $193 million, but rose as a percentage of sales from 4.2% to 4.4%. There was a noncash asset impairment charge of $3.2 million this quarter related to the Fiscal 2009 Cost Reduction Plan.
Interest expense rose from $15.3 to $20.6 million. The foreign exchange loss was $213,000 compared to $3.5 million last year and the income tax provision rose a bunch from $396,000 $5.1 million.
 
That’s a lot of movement in various stuff. Before all the charged that followed the impairment charge, operating income was up 52% from $22.6 to $33.5 million for the quarter and from $53.5 million to $89.2 million for nine months. Sales fell 6.7% for the nine months.
That’s the summary. Let’s dig in a little.
 
As reported on the financial statements, sales in Quik’s three segments (Americas, Europe and Asia/Pacific) fell by 9%, 20%, and 1% respectively during the quarter. Sales in each of the segments were $234 million, $152 million, and $55 million respectively. In constant currency, the Americas drop stays the same, but the European decline becomes 11% and the Asia/Pacific decline increases to 11%. Overall, the constant currency decline was 10%.
 
The gross profit margin (as reported) in the Americas segment rose from 37.7% to 46.7%. It provided $109.6 million or 47% of total gross profit for the quarter. Europe’s gross profit margin rose from 57.7% to 60.6%. It provided 40% of gross profit for the quarter. The remaining 3% of gross profit dollars came from Asia/Pacific, where gross margin percent fell from 53.7% to 52.7%.
Operating income in the Americas jumped from $4.5 million to $27.7 million. Europe’s fell from $25 million to $15.6 million and Asia/Pacific went from a profit of $2.33 million to a loss of $1.63 million.
 
The revenue decrease in the Americas segment “…was primarily attributable to generally weak economic conditions affecting both our retail and wholesale channels, with particular softness in the junior’s market. The decrease in the Americas came primarily from Roxy…and, to a lesser extent, DC. The decrease in Roxy…came primarily from our apparel product line, but was partially offset by growth in our accessories product line. The decrease in DC…came primarily from our apparel and footwear product lines and, to a lesser extent, our accessories product line. Quiksilver brand revenues remained essentially flat…”
 
“The currency adjusted revenue decrease in Europe was primarily the result of a decline in our Roxy and Quiksilver brand revenues and, to a lesser extent, a decline in our DC brand revenues.”
 
On the retail side, they note that “…retail store comps in the US were again modestly positive overall in Q3.” They saw “…strong in-store gains in the Quiksilver and DC brands…” In Europe, “…retail comps were down in the mid single digits on a percentage basis for the quarter…” Quik has opened 12 new stores in Europe over the last year, but they’ve also closed 12 so the net number has not changed. Twelve underperforming retail stores have been closed in the U.S. since the end of the third quarter of 2009. Two were closed in the quarter just ended.
 
The Future
 
Quik expects fourth quarter revenues to be down 15% after taking into account a weaker translation rate for the Euro and demand softness in Asia/Pacific. Remember that Billabong said its Australian forward orders were down 20%, and they expect a similar decline in sales. Quik isn’t immune to the late arriving economic downturn in Australia.
 
They expect to be able to deliver gross profit margins in the fourth quarter that are 4% to 4.5% higher than in the fourth quarter last year. Remember, that’s not 4% higher than this quarter I’m writing about now, but 4% higher than the same quarter last year. Pro forma operating expenses are expected to be “as much as” 7% lower than in the fourth quarter last year. Wish they’d tell us what they expect to report instead of giving the pro forma number.
 
Diluted earnings per share are expected to be “…in the mid single digit range…” At this time, they aren’t providing any guidance on fiscal 2011.
 
Joe Scirocco has the following really interesting comment that shows their focus on retail and ecommerce; not unlike some other major brands. “Well, I think the key to operating leverage frankly is getting higher sales through the retail channel – through our own retail stores. And those areas of the business in which we have a fixed cost infrastructure. So, it is basically retail stores and eCommerce are going to be the two areas at which we can most drive leverage.”
 
Quik has great brands and has largely finished deleveraging their balance sheet. They’ve taken out a lot of costs and improved their operating efficiency. But sales (especially the wholesale portion) are down. Partly, this is due to their focus on cleaning up distribution as described above. But it’s also due to lower demand and caution in who they sell to. The positive result is the big improvement in gross margin.
 
But lacking an improvement in the economy and in banks’ willingness to lend, a lot of that lost distribution isn’t coming back. Certainly new, innovative products can generate some additional sales, but I’d expect most of their growth will have to come from retail (brick and mortar and ecommerce) and new initiatives like Quik Girls.
 
It’s not just Quiksilver that approach will apply to, and there are interesting implications for competitive strategy in our industry. Maybe that’s worth a Market Watch column.

 

 

Biting to the Core: The Future of Mom-and-Pops, the Majors, and Brand Labels in the Evolving Retail Landscape

In a rapid and rather remarkable convergence of four key trends, a lot is changing for core retailers and for retail in general. The accelerating push of large brands into retail, their reduced dependence on core shops, the decline in the number of true core shops, and the financial/management model required in our new economic environment pose many challenges but also many opportunities for those still standing. I’ve written about some of these issues before, but it’s time to pull them all together. There’s a lot to cover, so let’s get started.

Evolution of the Core Shop
Once upon a time, 20, 30 years ago (pick the timing for the sport that interests you most), a true core shop was the place you dropped in on to get your fix of whatever subculture sport you were in to. You were an active participant part of a tight community, the products were niche and exclusive, and the few other places to turn to for the goods you were looking for took some effort. The folks in the shop had thorough knowledge and the best product service not to mention they were participants themselves who really lived the lifestyle and were driving forces in the progression of the time. They were the first to see new trends and introduce innovative products.
            There was a certain interdependency between brands and shops. A bigger percentage of a brand’s sales went through the core shops, there were fewer other distribution channels, and there was more of a risk to consumer brand perception if they went outside the core shops. Further, the cost structure of the time made it easier for the small retailer to succeed. There was one land phone line. No computer and internet expenses. Insurance was a lot less. Stores weren’t open as many hours. Consumers had fewer options in terms of getting their hands on product and product information. Bottom line: It was considerably easier to be a destination shop.
            Then some time after 1980 began the great economic melt-up. At some point even further down the road, “shops” started to pop up like mushrooms on damp, warm, manure. If they carried a collection of hardgoods and stood alone as single brick-and-mortar storefronts or even small independent chains, we labelled them as “core.” Eventually, large numbers of doors emerged. But the cost of operating a shop grew. Competition exploded and put pressure on margins, distribution expanded, consumers had more choices and easier access to products and information, internet sales took off creating a space of zero travel distance between product and consumers, brands moved into the retail space, and lifestyle customers became increasingly more important than participants. Brands, as they grew, inevitably became less dependent on core shops.
            None of these emerging trends mattered so much as long as sales and cash flow grew and the economy was throwing a wild party. But like always happens, the bash ended and there were some terminal hangovers involved. All of the issues that growth and cash flow had let us work around came home to roost. Many core shops have had to scramble for cover or, worse, literally close up shop.
            Thing is, though some may have been independent of any significant financial source, many of them were never really the core shops outlined above in the first place. We called them that because we didn’t have a better term and it didn’t really seem to matter. What were they then? I don’t know. Aberrations of a hot economy? Symptoms of unsustainable consumer spending?
            Now, the overall number of shops has declined. The real core shops—the kind that were around a couple of decades back—will get a little breathing room if only because there are no longer five shops in a 10 block area. But not, in all cases, enough breathing room because the trending issues touched on above that economic prosperity allowed us to push to the side are still very much alive. And, as we’ll see below, big brands are getting very serious about retail.
 
The New Economic Model
Sales growth, though improving over last year, doesn’t seem likely to return to 2006 or 2007 levels. Credit is tougher to obtain and that issue is likely to stick around for a whiile. Being aware of risk and actually managing it is back in vogue.
            Inventory is being vigilantly managed and expenses carefully controlled. The focus should now be on generating more gross margin dollars. You can’t get anywhere without a strong balance sheet. Systems, which are pretty bad in a lot of smaller retailers and brands, are a strategic advantage and a place you need to spend money. Issues of the cost of doing business, distribution, and the internet are not going away even when the recession completely ends. And consumers, though they seem to be spending more than they were a year or so ago, haven’t reopened their wallets with the same giddy abandon we enjoyed for so long.
            What’s been really interesting are the conversations with shops and brands that have had to cut spending pretty dramatically and manage their businesses more closely. Almost universally, they tend to say, Damn! If only I’d done this 10 years ago, I’d be in great shape and have a whole lot more money in the bank. Turns out that, in many cases, these necessary actions the economic downturn required of retail to stay afloat were just smart business moves. Just because there was a long period where it wasn’t absolutely crucial to run your business well doesn’t mean there wasn’t a lot to gain by doing it. Oh, by the way, now you have to or you won’t be around.
The Eight Hundred Pound Gorillas
The conventional wisdom on why core stores are important to our industry says that they’re an early warning system for trends coming and going, they are builders of community, they provide better margins for both the shop and the brands sold in them because of who the customers are, they are incubators of brands, and they help keep the sport and culture a bit edgy and, well, special.
            Obviously, some of that isn’t as true as it used to be, but I still think core shops are important. I’m not certain some larger companies feel as strongly about that as they once did. Or, at least, they have other priorities that make them less sensitive to the role of the core shop than they once were. Among these priorities is growth. It’s a public company thing and the growth, mathematically, just can’t come from small shops.
            I’ve been pretty surprised over the last couple of months to hear what some of these major companies are saying in their Security and Exchange Commission filings and in the company conference calls where they discuss their results publically, meaning anyone can listen. All the quotes compiled below are from one of those two sources. Overall, they seem unclear about growth opportunities in core stores and, moreover, about the survival of some of those stores.
            Billabong CEO Derek O’Neill says, “I can’t sit here at all and say that all the accounts that we’re currently dealing with will still be there in three months time.” He also says his company may have to tighten credit by the end of the next six months.
            Genesco CEO Robert Dennis (Genesco owns U.S. shoe chain Journeys) notes that when, for example, a five-store chain has a lease coming up for renewal, it will find Genesco on their landlord’s doorstep taking over that space. The other thing that’s happening, as Dennis describes in discussing Genesco’s hat, uniform and sport apparel business, is that they “…are consolidating the industry,” he says. “The mom and pops are going out of business or they are credit constrained and can’t stay fresh.” I’m not so sure that’s any different than in action sports.
            It’s interesting to note how U.S. retail giant Zumiez characterizes its stores in a recent 10-Q report. Except for being in malls, it’s typical of the description a traditional core store might use: “Our stores bring the look and feel of an independent specialty shop to the mall by emphasizing the action sports lifestyle through a distinctive store environment and high-energy sales personnel. We seek to staff our stores with associates who are knowledgeable users of our products, which we believe provides our customers with enhanced customer service and supplements our ability to identify and react quickly to emerging trends and fashions. We design our stores to appeal to teenagers and young adults and to serve as a destination for our customers. Most of our stores, which average approximately 2,900 square feet, feature couches and action sports oriented video game stations that are intended to encourage our customers to shop for longer periods of time and to interact with each other and our store associates.”
            The big companies are also coming around to the idea that they can potentially merchandise their own brands in their own stores better than through core stores.
            Nike: “We will continue to invest in bringing world-class solutions to consumers who are hungry for new retail experiences. Nowhere is this more important than online. The digital lifestyle is driving dramatic change in our industry and significant potential to our company. We are attacking that in every dimension; online shopping, customization, immersing our brands in consumer cultures and telling inspiring and entertaining stories.”
            Billabong: “If you look at the wholesale level, most of the business going on, the buyers are focused on your price point category and up to your mid price print category. …In our own retail, which has definitely outperformed our wholesale side in this period, in our own retail we can showcase and merchandise a product across all the price points and we’re doing really well right across the board.”
            Billabong continues: “…we are beginning to drop product into our own retail even faster than wholesale channel. We are beginning to, on certain key styles… build product that may go into our own retail before even the wholesale consumer sees it in an indent process.”
            They see systems and operations as key. Operating well is a key advantage that can put a lot of money to their bottom lines.
            Zumiez: “We have developed a disciplined approach to buying and a dynamic inventory planning and allocation process to support our merchandise strategy. We utilize a broad vendor base that allows us to shift our merchandise purchases as required to react quickly to changing market conditions. We manage the purchasing and allocation process by reviewing branded merchandise lines from new and existing vendors, identifying emerging fashion trends and selecting branded merchandise styles in quantities, colors and sizes to meet inventory levels established by management… Our management information systems provide us with current inventory levels at each store and for our company as a whole, as well as current selling history within each store by merchandise classification and by style.”
            Nike: “To do that we committed to building our retail capabilities, smoother product flow, surgical assortment planning that focuses on key items, more compelling merchandising, stronger brand stories and more efficient back-of-house systems.”
            Billabong: “If you look at the big retail brands out there, they don’t have a buyer to get past, they just decide what they’re going to make and they put it in their own stores and therefore they could have a very short cycle.…we are looking more and more at some of our own retail stores where we can looking at touching on a more vertical model. And not having that delay with going out and having an eight week ordering pattern and then go away and ordering product, we’ll just go straight to retail.”
            PacSun talked about doing the same thing in their conference call last week. Genesco’s CEO characterized small retailers systems as being “from the dark ages.” The current overall consensus from these big brands and major retailers is that they’re looking at the vertical integration and fast fashion models of retailers like H&M and American Apparel. Essentially offering on-trend, in-season apparel at lower prices. What’s more, these retailers stock stores more frequently, but with limited quantities of merchandise, giving shoppers a reason to visit stores more often. As you can see, there’s a lot going on in the retailing world. So what’s a smaller retailer to do?
The Road Ahead
The first thing to recognize is that only you as a shop operator can change your own behavior. These big companies are going to do what they’re going to do. As the saying goes, it’s just business, and developing outward is the natural progression of economic growth. The good news is that there’s a role for specialty shops based on the original model, that is to say, a store that properly services the core participants of the sport and lifestyle. But you’re going to have to run your shop like a business. Location and community will be your key attributes, and a credible online presence is now a requirement. Running it like a business is just the price of admission.
            Another piece of good news is that there are some natural limits on just how big big chains can get while still being credible. In his first conference call as Pac Sun CEO, Gary Schoenfeld said, “Nobody needs 900 Pac Sun stores.” The company is trimming back and reducing its number. Journeys store numbers will be almost static over this year. Genesco expects to open only 50 stores over five years across the whole company. Meanwhile, Footlocker, The Gap and Starbucks are other big retailers who we’ve seen that have learned this lesson and had to close storefronts.
            Next, some of your suppliers—skate comes to mind—are able to supply you with new product regularly and quickly. Take advantage of that to the fullest extent possible. Another important element, and something that has been lost in recent years, but goes back to the historical specialty shop model, is finding and featureing new brands—even when it looks risky. It’s a point of differentiation you can’t afford to give up, and what’s even riskier is not taking chances on smaller, emerging brands. It’s always been the case that new brands grow up in the core shops and then move on into broader distribution. It’s true that it may be happening faster than in the past but that comes under the heading of something you can’t fix. That doesn’t mean you’re helpless. Favour brands that offer product exclusively for specialty shops. Do some private label (but not too much, you don’t want to completely bite off the hand that feeds you) that gives you a better margin.
            Recognize the bigger brands’ concerns with the price points you’re buying and your ability to merchandise across their line well in the space you have available (see the quotes above). You’re never going to be in a position to carry everything by Quiksilver or Burton, but sit down and work with your brands to achieve a mix you’re both happy with. I mean, what’s wrong with saying to Brand XYZ, “Look, I’ve only got x-number of square feet in the whole store and can’t do what you’d like without turning myself into a Brand XYZ store. But I’d love to sell more expensive, faster-turn product that puts more gross margin dollars towards the bottom line. How can you help me do that?” Recognize their legitimate concern and interests in this area. If they don’t have a good answer, you’ve learned something and at least your conscience is clear. And if they do have a good answer, you might make a few more bucks. Finally, remember that the best shops give credibility to the brands they carry—not the other way around. I can’t believe how much mileage I’ve gotten out of saying that.
            Okay, let’s talk systems. A lot of retailers, perhaps more than half in action sports, have point of sale systems that they don’t use as anything but glorified cash registers. That’s got to end. If you agree that your focus has to be on capturing gross margin dollars and that you can no longer rely on big sales increases, then what choice do you have? You probably already own most of the hardware and software you need. If not, it’s cheap enough to get. Yes, the training will be a pain in the ass and this management accounting stuff kind of sucks, but if you don’t know which inventory is moving (and which isn’t), how quickly, and at what margins, then you are simply screwed. At best, you’re leaving a pile of money on the table. Good for you if you can afford that. At worst, poor systems will guarantee you go out of business.
            Conceptually, the whole analysis above isn’t that hard to get your head around. Do you agree with the evolution and role of core shops I’ve described? Does the financial model make sense given the current economic conditions? You can’t argue with what big brands are doing in retail. They are doing it and they are transparently telling you they’re doing it. But don’t despair. You’ve got tools and you can compete, even prosper, if you just remember the values of what the core shop really consists of and apply these to your own retail environment.