Category Archives: Fundamentalanalyse

Distressed debt Praktiker AG – Why not sell Max Bahr ?

After writing yesterdays post about the Praktiker bond, I wanted to summarize my current thoughts about Praktiker in a more structured way.

My current take aways are:

1. The exercise of looking at Praktiker from a control distressed investor shows, that the plan from the CEO to invest an additional 300 mn EUR into Praktiker does not leave a lot of upside to investors due to the already high amount of net debt (~300 mn EUR).
Read more

Esso S.A.F. – less attractive at a second glance

After having quickly analysed “Magix Six” stock Esso S.A.F a few days ago with some encouraging results, I dived a little bit into the company.

Despite beeing a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, the homepage is “french only”.

Luckily, I managed to understand at least the two investor presentations they have on their website.

Both, the 2011 and the 2010 show a quite depressing picture.

Read more

IVG capital increase

IVG is an interesting example for a “distressed” company, where the position as Senior bondholder is much more comfortable than being a shareholder.

After announcing relatively good Q3 numbers on which I commented earlier this month, they announced today the following:

The management board of IVG Immobilien AG, Bonn (ISIN DE0006205701) has, with the consent of the supervisory board, resolved to increase the registered share capital of the company from € 138,599,999 by € 69,283,885 by issuing 69,283,885 new ordinary bearer shares.

The new shares will be offered to existing shareholders by means of indirect subscription rights at a subscription ratio of 2:1, meaning that two existing shares will entitle a shareholder to subscribe for one new share. The subscription price is € 2.10.

A lot of people bought IVG shares because they trade well below book value, howver, issuing such a huge amount of new shares at an ever larger discount to book value is a clear dilution for existing shareholders. The result was a 15% drop in the shareprice.

For the 2014/2017 Convertible bond, this is in contrast good news which shows in a steadily increasing bond price:

From my point of view, there are a few take aways from this situation:

– looking at price to book ratios for distressed companies should always include the possibility of massive dilution
– especially when banks are involved who can use loan covenants as a tool the force capital increases, shareholders will normally suffer
– in such cases buying senior bonds at a large discount looks like a much better position compared to stocks
– stock or subordinated debt of distressed companies will only become intersting, once liabilites are reorganized in a way that no refunding is necessary for an extended amount of time (e.g. through long term bond issuance)

In my opnion, we will see more or less similar actions for Praktiker.

Praktiker – Restrukturierungsplan

Ich hatte in den vergangenen Monaten ja diverse Posts zu Praktiker gschrieben mit dem Resultat, dass aufgrund der hohen Verschuldung und der Mietverbindlichkeiten kein “Margin of Safety” erkennbar war.

Insbesondere die Cashflow Problematik hat die Handlungsfähigkeit der Firma extrem eingeschränkt.

Mein Votum nach den Halbjahreszahlen war:

Zwischenfazit: Insgesamt darf man also mit weiteren „Sondereffekten“ rechnen, sollte ein neuer CEO mal anfangen aufzuräumen und unprofitable Standorte zu schliessen. Auch die Marge dürfte unter dem Lagerverkauf und den dazu notwendigen Sonderaktionen im 3ten Quartal deutlich leiden.

Jetzt ist der neue Chef Thomas Fox mit seinem Sanierungsprogramm an die Öffentlichkeit gegangen. Da ich kein Sanierungsexperte bin, kann ich relativ wenig zum Inhalt sagen,aber generell macht es sicher Sinn, nur eine Zentrale zu haben und unprofitable Standorte zu schliessen.

Interessant ist diese Aussage aus einem FTD Artikel:

Konkret will er in den kommenden Wochen mit Arbeitnehmern, Vermietern und den Kapitalgebern, die eine Praktiker-Anleihe gezeichnet haben, über einen Verzicht verhandeln. Die Höhe des Verzichts wollte er nicht benennen. “Ich habe für jede Gruppe sehr genaue Vorstellungen”, sagte er dazu lediglich. Einigen Vermietern drohte er außerdem mit dauerhaften Einschnitten oder Kündigungen, weil ihre Mieten überhöht seien.

Das ist doch sehr interessant. Ich bin zwar kein Distressed Debt Spezialist, aber solange Praktiker keine Insolvenz anmeldet gibt es keinen Grund für Anleihegläubiger auch nur einen Cent nachzulassen. Insbesondere da die Anleihe ja die durchaus werthaltige “Change of Control” Poison Pill besitzt.

Praktiker will ja 300 Mio investieren, die Aussagen im Conference Call zur Finanzierung waren sehr vage.

Ohne eine klare Vorstellung der Refinanzierung ist meines Erachtens auch die Anleihe nach wie vor “uninvestierbar”. M.E.ist auf jeden Fall eine massive Kapitalerhöhung unvermeidbar, wahrscheinlich dazu noch eine Wandelanleihe o.ä.Auf jedne Fallwerden die Aktionäre nch weiter verwässert werden, insofern ist der Kursrückgang der durchaus gerechtfertigt.

Interessant ist die Tatsache, dass nach der Veröffentlichung des Plans der Kurs zuerst gestiegen ist, um dann nach dem Call wieder stark zu fallen.

Das ist aber m.E. kein Wunder, der CFO macht meines Erachtens keine gute Figur und fasselt nur allgemein daher,man hat nicht das Gefühl dass man das Thema Finanzierung wirklich im Griff hat.

Merke: nicht nur Berichte lesen sondern auch die Calls anhören.

Fazit: Die Aktie ist m.E. nach wie vor für Valueinvestoren nicht investierbar, es dürfte noch eine signifikante Verwässerung durch Kapitalerhöhung bevor stehen. Die Anleihe selbst könnte bei einem wirklich geringen Preis (unter 50%) interessant sein werden.

Vetropack (CH0006227612) – Rock Solid Swiss compounder

Vetropack is one of the “Core Value” shares of my portfolio which I haven’t covered in detail yet.

Vetropack describes itself on its homepage as follows:

Vetropack is one of Europe’s leading manufacturers of packaging glass. With a rich variety of glass packaging products to offer the beverages and food industry, as well as a broad spectrum of services, Vetropack truly delivers “tailor-made glass”.

and:

This end-to-end service is the fundamental reason for Vetropack’s position as market leader in its six home markets, namely Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine.

Based on “traditional” metrics, the stock looks OK but not “super cheap”:

P/B 1.25
P/E 2010 17.6
P/E 12M Trailing 10.4
P/E Graham (10 years): 13.5
EV/EBITDA 12M Trailing 5.1
Div. Yield 2%
FCF Yield (2010) 9%

No debt (95 CHF net Cash per share)
no intangibles

A quick view on historical earnings shows quite an impressive picture:

EPS BV/share FCF Share
1999 10.96 497.29 25.21
2000 36.58 510.66 92.28
2001 27.22 534.51 30.76
2002 59.78 578.15 -29.87
2003 91.03 681.03 120.04
2004 97.74 768.46 19.42
2005 119.10 909.37 85.48
2006 101.20 933.70 -22.48
2007 236.30 1,180.99 138.17
2008 182.55 1,243.69 105.58
2009 184.84 1,371.71 207.95
2010 91.24 1,283.77 155.84

We can clearly see the incredible rise in Earnings and Book value since 1999 until 2007, however in the last few years the picture has changed to a certain extent.

Looking at the Earnings developement in Swiss franks only shows part of the picture. Only 17% of Vetropacks sales are generated in Switzerland by the Swiss operations, 83% is outside Switzerland. Important: Vetropack does not export anything from Switzerland.

So if we look at peak Earnings in 2007 and compare them to the 2010 earnings, we should take into account that the 87% of Euro denominated Earnings have been reduced by a significant reduction in the value of the EUR against the CHF. Even more interesting is the effect on Free Cashflows:

FCF CHF FCF EUR FX Rate CHF/EUR
2007 138.17 83.56 1.65
2008 105.58 70.69 1.49
2009 207.95 140.16 1.48
2010 155.84 124.51 1.25
CAGR 3.2% 12.3%

Over the last 4 years, Cashflos in CHF have increased by 3%, the underlying EUR Cashflows by 12%, quite a difference. The currency movement also explains the lower book value in 2010 against 2009 despite the profit made.

So how can we value Vetropack ? If we look at the last 5 year free cashflows, we can see that the 2006 number looks quite odd, being negative. A quick glance into the 2006 annual report shows, that actually operating cashflow was strong but the company invested some extra amount in acquisitions and starting productions in contries like Slovakia.

So if we just take the average Free Cash flow of the last 4 years (which would be 150 CHF per share) and capitalise them at 10% we would end up with an intrinsic value of 1.500 or roughly 5% less than the current market price of 1.600 ChF.

Now we enter a difficult area for a contrarian investor: lower discount rates and growth.

If we just look at the following table where I simply discount the avg. Free Cash flow with various growth and discount rates (Discount rate X axis, growth : y axis)

7% 8% 9% 10%
1% 2,516.67 2,157.14 1,887.50 1,677.78
2% 3,020.00 2,516.67 2,157.14 1,887.50
3% 3,775.00 3,020.00 2,516.67 2,157.14
4% 5,033.33 3,775.00 3,020.00 2,516.67
5% 7,550.00 5,033.33 3,775.00 3,020.00

We can clearly see that for a margin of safety of 50% I would need to assume for instance a discount rate of 8% and a growth rate of 3%.

If history is any guide, Vetropack should be easily able to grow by 3%, having achieved much much mor in the past. Additionally, a 8% discount rate for a non-cyclical consumer product related company with net cash and an extreme conservative balance sheet should be reasonable.

Finally a quick check of the stock chart:

In 2008 the stock went down to almost 1.100 CHF, slightly below book value. Currentbook Value is around 1.300 CHF, so in a 2008 scenario we look at a 20% downside from here.

Summary: Vetropack is a stock with extremely strong historical growth, strong free cash flow generation and a rock solid balance sheet. Based on relatively conservative assumptions (3% growth, 8% Cost of capital), the current price would imply amargin of safety of almost 50%. If the stock should show some weekness in the next few days, I would actually be tempted to increase the allocation from the current 2.8% to 5% on acurrency hedged basis.

UPM Kymmene part 3: Qualitative aspects, Value Trap check and conclusion

So after the quick check, the Replacement Value analysis and the calculation of the EPV we have the following result:

Replacement Value ~ 14 EUR
EPV between 9.2 and 13.5 EUR depending on the assumption for future Capex.

Reader Weljo grouv however made a very good comment: The lower Capex seems to be an industry wide developement, so actually projecting the currently low capex expenditures into the future might be aggressive.

If we then just try to explain, why a conservative EPV is so much lower (maybe ~10 EUR) than the replacement value, the simple answer could be that I falsely took all the machinery at book value instead of applying a discount.

At this point in time it makes also sense to check for characteristics of a value trap. I posted already the great presentation from Jim Chanos and like to use now as a exercise.

I will start with the first mentioned characteristic:

Cyclical and/or Single Product
• Cycles sometimes become secular (Steel, Autos)
• Fad does not equal sustainable value (Coleco,Salton, Renewable Energy)
• Illegal does not equal value (Online Poker)

The first point is really the key: Will demand for paper (especially magazine paper where UPM is market leader) really recover ? Or will the Ipad take over. I am not an expert in this, but this is definitely a “red light”.

Hindsight Drives Perceived Value
• Technological obsolescence (Minicomputers,Eastman Kodak, Video Rental)
• Rapid prior growth – “Law of Large Numbers”(Telecom Build-Out)

This is also an interesting point. Although UPM is not a technology company, its major product magazine paper could be a victim of technolgy change. Let’s call this an “yellow light”.

Marquis Management and/or Famous Investor(s)
• New CEO as a savior – ignoring Buffett’s maxim(Conseco)
• The “Smart Guy Syndrome” (Take your pick!)

No problem here, “green light”.

Cheap on Management’s Metric
• EBITDA…Arrgh! (Cable TV, Blockbuster)
• Ignore restructuring charges at your own peril(Eastman Kodak)
• ‘Free’ cash flow…? (Tyco)

This could be a problem. Management stresses “free cashflow” based on current low Capex. We don’t know how sustainable that is. “yellow light”.

Accounting Issues
• Confusing disclosure (Bally Total Fitness)
• Nonsensical GAAP (Subprime lenders)
• Growth by acquisition (Tyco, Roll-ups)
• Fair value (Level 3 assets)

“Green Light” here I would say.

So all in all, that makes 2 green lights, two yellow one red.

So basically we can stop at this point. Especially based on the EPV analysis, UPM doesn’t really offer a “hard” Margin of Safety. It also shows several characteristics of potential value traps. The relativley high free cashflow could be at least partly more a liquidation than a going concern.

Despite some very positive characteristics like

– transparent use of free cash flow
– strong market position
– some upside due to consolidation (recent takeover of smaller competitor)
– vertical integration
– some “extra assets”

the risk of ending up with a value trap in a secular declining industry is not offset by the margin of safety.

As a result, I will still follow UPM and maybe look at other paper companies (SCA is maybe a better choice), but for the time being I will not buy any shares of UPM at the current price.

UPM Kymmene Part 2: Earnings Power Value (EPV)

After the replacement value analysis for UPM in part 1, let’s move to an EV analysis based on free cash flows:

Interestingly, UPM’s standard cashflow reporting makes life relatively easy for my free cashflow analysis.

I will start with a rather big table and then explain

Starting with the operating Cashflow as stated, one can quickly see that working capital is relatively volatile, however over 7 years the effect was more or less neutral.

Next, the capex line is really interesting (Capex ex M&A and sale of assets). We can clearly see that UPM drastically reduced capex from 2009 on. UPM’ paper mills seem to be relatively new and don’t require a lot of maintenance cost in the foreseeable future.

Also interesting is the fact that although UPM is still relatively “asset rich” and despite having invested more than 500 mn EUR into the Uruguyan pulp mill in 2008, over the last 7 years ~ 1.8 bn EUR of net assets have been sold.

So in total, UPM generated ~ 4.9 bn cash, thereof 3.1 bn free Cash flow plus 1.8 bn assset sales over the last seven years. More than half of this has been used to pay dividends and buy back stock, the rest has been used to pay down net debt.

This corresponds nicely ith the communicated goals of the company:

UPM intends to pay as an annual dividend at least one third of net cash flow from operating activities less operational capital expenditure. To promote stability in dividends, net cash flow will be calculated as an average over a three-year period.
Remaining funds are to be allocated between growth capital expenditure and debt reduction. The net cash flow from operating activities for 2010 was EUR 982 million and operational capital expenditure EUR 186 million.

So how does this translate into EPV ? Based on the 7 year average free cashflow of 0.92 EUR and a standard discount rate of 10%, this would only result in an EPV of 9,2 EUR or roughly 10% undervaluation.

Now the big question is: are those 7 years really “average” years or has something changed? In particular it is crucial to understand if capex will go up again in the future or remain at the current low level.

A quick glance into the Q3 report shows that “normal” capex has remained at a relatively low level, at a run rate of around 300 mn EUR for 2011.

If we assume this as a representative Capex going forward, UPM could deliver under a “no growth” scenario around 1 bn of operating cash minus 300 mn for Capex which would result in a recurring free cash flow of 700 mn EUR or ~ 1.35 EUR per share p.a., which would give us an EPV of around 13.5 EUR, relatively close to the Replacement Value of 14.26 EUR.

So summarizing this I would state the following:

– UPM seems to have greatly reduced Capex over the last 2 years
– if those reductions are to a large extent permanent, a “fair” EPV could be around 13.5 EUR per share (no growth), if not, the stock would be only slightly undervalued
– management clearly communicates and delivers on the use of free cash flow (very positive in my opinion)

In the upcoming final post for UPM I will focus on the qualitative aspects and the business itself

Magic Sixes – Quick Check Iren SpA (ISIN IT0003027817)

One of the companies which recently appeared in the Magic Sixes Screening (P/B < 0.6, P/E 6%) is another Italian Company named Iren Spa.

Based on “simple” criteria, the Share seems to be really cheap:

P/B 0.58
P/E 4.59
Div. Yield 9,15% (!!)

The description of the business in Bloomberg reads as follows:

IREN S.p.A. generates, distributes, and sells electricity and district heating. The Company manages natural gas distribution networks, markets and sells natural gas and electricity, and manages water services.

Based on available data, the bulk of the business seems to be energy distribution, geographically 100% of the business is done in Italy.

Market Cap is around ~ 1bn EUR– There doesn’t seem to be a single majority shareholder.

The company was IPOed almost exactly 11 years ago at 2,70 EUR. Even taking into account dividends, the performance from the initial IPO was around -6% p.a., which is better than the Italian BM index (9% p.a.).

However, the first thing I usually check is the debt load and free cashflows.

Currently, they have around 2.14 EUR per share net debt per share, which results in an enterprise value of ~3,50 EUR per Share. Based on trailing 12M EBITDA of 0,43 EUR, this results in 12M trailing EV/EBITDA of 8,8x, which for a Italian utility seems to be quite rich.

Based on Bloomberg, free cashflow has been negative for every single year since IPO.

Last but not least, only 0,42 EUR of the 1.42 EUR book value is “tangible”. One would have to check, if certain infrastructure licenses are included in the intangible part.

However at this point I can already stop summarize:

For me, the combination of a large debt pile, negative free cashflows and a significant portion of non-tangible book value makes Iren SpA more or less uninvestible. Based on the pure financials without any further analysis there doens’t seem to exist any Margin of Safety despite qualifying as “Magic Sixes” stock. For the time being, Iren will not be analyzed further as there seem to be more attractive “targets”.

WestLB Update – Erstmal kein Verkauf des Firmenkundengeschäfts an Trinkaus

Die Meldung schon vor einigen Tagen hatte ich glatt übersehen. Interessant ist m.E. der Grund:

HSBC Trinkaus wollte ursprünglich das WestLB-Geschäft mit großen Firmenkunden sowie 600 Mitarbeiter übernehmen. Am Dienstag war die Bank dann aus den Verhandlungen ausgestiegen und hatte dies damit begründet, dass die geforderte Exklusivität bei der vertieften Buchprüfung ihr nicht zugesagt worden sei. Hintergrund: Das Sparkassenlager hatte plötzlich ein eigenes Interesse an dem Geschäftsfeld entdeckt – will aber nur einen kleineren Teil des Geschäftes übernehmen, als ihn HSBC hätte übernehmen wollen.

Aha, könnte da vielleicht die Fälligkeit der Geußscheine, die vmtl. zum großen teil in Händen des “Sparkassenlagers” sind eine kleine Rolle gespielt haben ?

Damit hat man vmtl. eine Abschreibung für das aktuelle Geschäftsjahr verhindert, was m.E. eigentlich nur positiv für die 2011er GS sein kann.

Hans Einhell AG (ISIN: DE0005654933) – Undervalued or Value Trap ?

Hans Einhell AG was part of the initial portfolio and is still there, however with 1.8% weight being the smallest position. Although the stock was mentioned briefly in some posts, I haven’t done an “in depth” analysis yet.

Company Profile:
Einhell sells a diverse range of gardening tools and other “do it yourself” tools mainly for “non professional” users. Production ist completely outsourced to China. 40 % of the products are sold in Germany, another 40% in the EU mostly through DIT chain stores like OBI, Hornbach or Praktiker.

The Einhell tools are sold cheaper than brands like Bosch or Black & Decker, however they are more expensive than no-name products. The company strategy as stated in this 2010 sell side research piece is “cheaper than the best, better than the rest”.

In an Investor presentaton from 2010 (only in German), Einhell defends its business model against a pure “importer”.

Stock & Simple Valuation metrics

The listed shares are preferred shares without any voting rights. In total, 1.68 mn preferred shares are outstanding plus 2.094 mn voting shares which are all privately held, most of them by the founding family.

At currently 35 EUR per share and assuming the same price for the voting shares, this would result in a market cap of 132 mn EUR.

Using “traditional” value metrics, the stock looks very cheap which was the main reason for putting it into the portfolio:

 
P/B 0.89
P/B Tangible 0.92
P/E 2010 8.26
P/E trail 12M 7.75
EV/EBITDA 6.71
EBIT/EV 13.02%
P/S 0.36
Div. Yield 2.29%

A quick glance to the earnings of the last 5 years shows relatively stable earnings with a small drop in 2009:

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Avg
EPS 4.31 4.42 3.96 2.88 4.24 3.96

Based on those simple valuation metrics the stock looks relatively cheap, so let’s move on to a more detailed analysis.

Stage 1: Replacement Value

As a first step, I routinely eliminate any goodwill and minority interest. This results in the following “tangible” net equity:

Per Share
NAV 39.43
– minorities -0.63
– Intangibles -2.38
Tangible NAV 36.42

Next are the “usual suspects” for direct adjustments, especially:

pension liabilities: Einhell only has a very small amount of pension liabilities (1.2 mn EUR) with relatively conservative discount factors ( no adjustment necessary

real estate: Einhell owns most of the real estate it uses. Gross purchase value of real estate (land and buildings) is 26 mn EUR, it has been written down to currently 10.5 mn EUR. As Einhell doesn’t produce any chemical or otherwise dangerous substances, one could assume that the current market value of these assets is a lot higher than current book value if sold. My conservative standard assumption would be that we can add back 50% of the writedowns or ~8 mn EUR

Other than that I could not locate any special items like “extra assets”, Einhell has a relatively simplye structure with holding only majority owned and therefore consolidated subsidiaries

Now let’s look at additional adjustments required for calculating a “replacement” value::

– R&D expenses: Einhell expenses around 90% of their R&D (~4 mn EUR per year). Although Einhell is not a producer, at least part of this R&D should be viewed as an investment, as a new competitor would need to spend some time and money to gain the same know how like Einhell with regard to this business. As a proxy, I would use 1.5 mn EUR per annum for the last 5 years as “capitalized” R&D

– marketing & branding: For a consumer product company one usually treats some of the marketing expenses as “invetsment”. Einhell however does not spend anything on advertising. Based on personal experience with Einhell tools I would not allocate any value on the Einhell brand.

So putting it all together, we get to the following result:

Per Share
NAV 39.43
– minorities -0.63
– Intangibles -2.38
Tangible NAV 36.42
+ real estat adj 2.12
+ R&D cap 1.99
Replacement Value 40.53

All in all not bad, but at 35 EUR this results only in a very small discount to the Replacement Value of 40.53 EUR. So from a pure asset point of view, Einhell doesn’t look too exciting

Stage 2: Earnings Power Value (EPV)

Now we try to determine, how much cashflow to equity can Einhell generate on a “steady state” assumption. I have a slightly different way to do this. I start with reported operating cashflow and eliminate working capital movements before subtracting “maintenance” capex (as Einhell doesn’t state maintenance Capex, I use the regular depreciation as proxy). I do this to be able to compare cash generated with earnings booked.

Mn EUR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Op. CF 6.585 0.455 13.907 51.111 -7.661
Working capital -13.613 -20.06 -8.031 41.029 -28.508
Op CF w/o WC 20.198 20.515 21.938 10.082 20.847
Capex -4.736 -4.532 -3.612 -3.425 -3.282
Free CF to Equity 15.462 15.983 18.326 6.657 17.565
per share 4.10 4.24 4.86 1.76 4.65

So ingoring working capital, free cash flow to equity is with the exception of 2009 equal or even higher than stated earnings, which could be a good sign.

The average free Cash flow to equity has been 3.92 EUR for those last 5 years. Discounted by an average 10%, this would also imply an intrinsic value somewhere near 40 EUR. I don’t see any reasons here to use a lower discount rate as history shows that there is significant volatility in Einhells cashflows.

But coming back to the Working Capital issue:

Over those 5 years, Einhell has produced 74 mn EUR free cashflow to equity. Over this 5 years, the cash has been used as follows.

– 13.3 Mn EUR as dividends to shareholdes
– Accumulated cash 20 mn EUR
– 30 mn increase in working capital
– the rest (10 mn EUR) went into smaller acquisitions

So only less than 20% of the free cash flow has been distributed to shareholders, whereas 40% went into the build up of working capital. Management has also indicated that 20% of net profit is their goal for dividends, so even with 5 EUR EPS one would only get 1 EUR or less than 3% in divídends.

If we look into the 2011 half year report, we can see that during the year the situation is even worse, the cash position has shrinked from 44 mn EUR at year end to only 6 mn at June 30th. This clearly shows that working capital requirements during the year are higher than at year end and therefore year end cash balances should not be deducted from any valuation efforts.

Net working capital at half year amounts an astonishing 175 mn EUR, 10% less than sales in the first half year.

This cash conversion cycle of ~6 months is described in the before mentioned research report:

Einhell usually converts inventory into cash in approx. 200 days. After having received orders for a number of different products from the subsidiaries or by clients directly. Einhell’s trading company in Hong Kong bundles orders and passes these on to the factories in China.
Depending on the product and batch size, manufacturing usually takes between six to eight weeks. After receiving the products for shipment Einhell pays its creditors i.e. factories in approx. 20 days. Including shipping time of 3-4 weeks the average inventory turnover is approx. 4 or 90-100 days. With DSO being ca. 65 days this means that inventories are recycled to cash in approx.
six to seven months.

So the big problem for Einhell is the fact that it has to pay its producers within 20 days, but receives the cash much later. With this business modell, every Euro growth in sales increases capital requirement by 50 cents.

As Einhell doesn’t want to or can’t use operational leverage (trade financing etc.), depending on the realised margins (4-5% net) and capital cost, any growth in Einhell could actually destroy value for the shareholder.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no catalyst for any change in the financing structure.


So summarizing the whole case in a couple of bullets we get the following result:
– Replacement Value and EBV are both around 40 EUR, shares are only slightly undervalued
– current business model with high working capital requirements financed mostly through equity does not create value after cost of capital
– free cash flow to equity has to be used mostly to finance increasing working capital requirements, a significant increase in dividends seems highly unlikely
– due to minority status of preferred shareholders, no catalyst (take over, activist etc.) is on the horizon

In my opinion, despite the cheap valuation from a “traditional” pont of view, Einhell does not offer a sufficient Margin of Safety. The risk of ending up with a typical “Value Trap” is not remote. The remaining position will be sold.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »