Skullcandy Files Another Amendment to Its S1
Skull filed another amendment to its S1 on May 11. You can see it here. I confess that I have not compared both documents side by side and word for word to discover differences. I can tell you that the newly amended S1 has pretty pictures in it at both the beginning and the end which will be part of the prospectus.
I spot checked the numbers and did not notice any changes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. A smart guy named Fred made some interesting comments when I posted my article on the first amendment. You can see those comments below the article. He suggested we’d probably see another amendment showing strong first quarter numbers, but those numbers are not included in this filing. I imagine we will see them before this deal is done.
Here are Skull’s net sales and net income numbers for the last five years ended December 31 of each year (in thousands of dollars).
|
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
|
Net Sales
|
9,105
|
35,346
|
80,380
|
118,312
|
160,583
|
|
Net Income (Loss)
|
632
|
6,258
|
13,019
|
3,547
|
(9,723)
|
Next, here are the “adjusted EBITDA” for the same five years. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization but in this case it’s not that because it’s “adjusted” as described below.
|
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
966
|
9,864
|
21,359
|
30,838
|
38,964
|
Obviously, the adjusted EBITDA trend looks better than the net income trend. Here’s what management says about the adjusted EBITDA numbers. Sorry for the long quote, but I’d prefer you hear it directly from them rather than get my interpretation. Please do take the time to read it. I recommend slowly.
"EBITDA, for the periods presented, represents net income (loss) before interest expense, income taxes and depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA gives further effect to the recording of compensation expense associated with one-time charges of $17.5 million in management incentive bonuses and $2.9 million payable as additional consideration to certain employee stockholders pursuant to the securities purchase and redemption agreement, and to the recording of additional other expense of $14.6 million, which represents the fair value of amounts payable as additional consideration to non-employee stockholders pursuant to the securities purchase and redemption agreement. For a more detailed description of this transaction, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Series C Convertible Preferred Stock Financing and Stock Redemption—Securities Purchase and Redemption Agreement.” These expenses were one-time charges associated with a historical capital transaction and management believes they do not correlate to the underlying performance of our business. As a result, we believe that adjusted EBITDA provides important additional information for measuring our performance, provides consistency and comparability with our past financial performance, facilitates period to period comparisons of our operations, and facilitates comparisons with other peer companies, many of which use similar non-GAAP financial measures to supplement their GAAP results. Our management team uses this metric to evaluate our business and we believe it is a measure used frequently by securities analysts and investors. Adjusted EBITDA does not represent, and should not be used as a substitute for income from operations or net income (loss) as determined in accordance with GAAP. Our definitions of EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA may differ from that of other companies."
There- that’s clear enough, right? And if you understand it, but note and agree with their admonition that adjusted EBITDA “…should not be used as a substitute for income from operations or net income (loss) as determined in accordance with GAAP,” what do you decide as a potential buyer of the stock?
That’s the tactical issue for the people trying to sell this stock. They have to explain. Regardless of the quality of the business model, GAAP accounting shows declining profit leading to a loss on higher sales over three years.
Tell the truth- some of your eyes glazed over when I asked you to read the explanation above. Hell, my eyes glaze over sometimes when I have to read this stuff. If you were selling this stock, which would you rather say? “Here’s a fast growing company with a great business model that’s increasing its profitability with its sales,” or “Here’s a fast growing company with a great business model that lost $10 million last year but don’t worry, I’ve got an explanation you might understand if your eyes don’t glaze over.”
You’d like to have investors focusing on the viability of the business strategy and the company’s financial position after the offering. When I first wrote about Skull’s public offering on February 4th, I summarized their strategy this way. “I think the key to being able to continue their growth while keeping their profitability up is as simple, and as difficult, as keeping SC cool in Best Buy and other places as their distribution grows.”
I still think that puts it pretty well.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!