Thursday, August 28, 2014

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Part XII: the rolling solvency calculation

I am short Various parts of the Valeant capital structure and long a few thousand put contracts.

This is a bet that is levered to terrible outcomes at Valeant. It is not quite a bet on insolvency - but it is a bet on financial stress.

It is a very non-consensus bet. Valeant is considered extremely profitable. Bill Ackman gave a presentation that explained just how profitable Valeant is compared to average pharmaceutical companies and the numbers are breathtaking.

If Bill Ackman's assertion is correct (and it may be) then my bet is guaranteed to lose money.

--

That said the enormous profitability of Valeant is not evident in the audited accounts.

Valeant's audited accounts show large an increasing cumulative losses.

The difference between the GAAP earnings and Valeant's cash earnings estimates are large restructuring and other charges which Valeant management assert are one-off results of acquisitions.

The argument is that if the acquisitions stop these one-off expenses will also stop and so the GAAP earnings will rise to converge with the so-called "cash EPS".

--

The problem with this argument is that the one-off costs which are more than 100 percent of profits are not audited in that no auditor asserts that they are truly "one off".

You have to take management's word for it.

Some of these costs I have managed to verify are truly one off. In one instance I have verified the reverse, however that one instance was trivially small.

So you are really left with management's word.

At the end Valeant is a "trust me" story. The sole question is do you trust management and in particular their estimate of non-recurring costs. If you do you see a well run company at ten times earnings.

If you don't trust management then alas the company becomes very hard to value because there is clearly some truth in the management assertion of "one-off costs" and the true underlying earnings are somewhere between GAAP EPS and management's "cash EPS". Alas that is an enormous gap.

If 80 percent of the one-off costs are truly one-off my short is also a bad idea. Valeant would not be trading at ten time true earnings - but it would not be expensive.

For my short to be right I need a substantial proportion of the one-off costs to actually be recurring.

Genuinely this is an assessment I can't make.

--

Still against GAAP cash flows Valeant looks insolvent. GAAP cash flow from operations over the past four quarters sums $1.3 billion and net debt is about $16.8 billion. There is also some compulsory capital expenditures which need to be funded out of cash from operations.

Consider this against personal finances: someone with debt more than ten times their cash flow is not obviously refinanceable. A company is more refinanceable than the person because a person needs to hold a fair bit back just to eat. The company can dedicate most of its cash flow to servicing debt. But this is edge-of-refinanceable whatever you want to count.

On the pure GAAP numbers this company looks particularly difficult especially as much of their debt needs to be refinanced starting in 2017.

Linked here is a Google Spreadsheet with the quarterly numbers for Valeant (and legacy Biovail) going back to the March quarter of 2007. The raw numbers come from CapitalIQ. The first three pages of the spreadsheet are my calculations from the raw numbers. [You can reconstruct the data if you wish.]

In this table - from 2011 only - I have listed

(a). the GAAP cash from operations,
(b). the sum of the GAAP cash from ops over the last 4 quarters
(c). the net debt at the end of the quarter
(d). the net debt averaged over the last four quarters

and (e) a calculation of the average debt divided by the cash from operations over the last four quarters.

The last calculation in appropriate for an acquisitive company as it accounts for the rising cash flow given acquisitions.

For the Fiscal Period EndingCash from opsCash from ops - trailing four quartersnet debtnet debt - averaged last 4 QsAverage annual debt/cash from ops
3 months




3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2011
86.3304.84,310.32,569.78.4
Restated
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2011
190.7386.54,304.93,611.99.3
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2011
173.7449.34,969.44,194.99.3
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2011
189.8640.56,480.65,016.37.8
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2012
167.2721.46,671.95,606.77.8
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2012
254.6785.37,161.36,320.88.0
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2012
166.8778.47,382.26,924.08.9
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2012
67.9656.610,110.17,831.411.9
Restated
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2013
255.3744.610,203.48,714.211.7
Restated
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2013
305.1795.18,254.78,987.611.3
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2013
201.7830.016,808.411,344.113.7
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2013
279.91,042.016,779.413,011.512.5
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2014
484.31,271.016,787.414,657.511.5
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2014
376.01,341.916,763.116,784.612.5


Note that debt is 12.5 times GAAP cash flow. On the GAAP numbers the company looks extraordinarily difficult.

--

It is even worse when you consider the GAAP cash flow has to fund some stay-in-business capital expenditures. Valeant is known for cutting capital expenditures to a minimum so this is not a big consideration but here is another table with the GAAP cash flows less capital expenditure compared to average debt.


For the Fiscal Period EndingCapital expenditureFree cash (ie cash from ops less capex)Free cash, trailing twelve monthsnet debt - averaged over last 4QsAverage net debt/cash from ops
3 months




3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2011
(21.5)64.8270.12,569.79.5
Restated
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2011
(12.5)178.2342.23,611.910.6
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2011
(9.6)164.1396.44,194.910.6
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2011
(15.0)174.8581.95,016.38.6
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2012
(11.1)156.1673.25,606.78.3
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2012
(13.6)241.0736.06,320.88.6
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2012
(57.1)109.7681.66,924.010.2
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2012
(25.9)42.0548.97,831.414.3
Restated
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2013
(14.0)241.3634.08,714.213.7
Restated
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2013
(12.8)292.3685.38,987.613.1
3 months
Q3
Sep-30-2013
(24.9)176.8752.411,344.115.1
3 months
Q4
Dec-31-2013
(63.6)216.3926.713,011.514.0
3 months
Q1
Mar-31-2014
(58.1)426.21,111.614,657.513.2
3 months
Q2
Jun-30-2014
(113.5)262.51,081.816,784.615.5

On this measure the average debt is now 15.5 times the available cash flows to service it. There is a word for that: stuffed.

In other words if you believe the GAAP numbers this company is so dead it is pushing up daisies.

--

The company however should not be dead if what the management says is correct. The management have continuously asserted that there are (literally) billions of dollars of non-recurring costs and that when there are no more acquisitions the operating cash flow will rise by billions of dollars.

If that is the case then the solvency calculations above are entirely moot. All will be well for the company.

--

Strangely the solvency measure deteriorated sharply lately - rolling average debt is now 15.5 times trailing twelve month available cash flow - and that is despite it being more than a year since the mega-acquisition of Baush + Lomb closed. The company has done many small deals since - but the plausibility of one-off costs associated with old mega-acquisitions is declining.

--

If you believe management vis the one-off costs incurred by Valeant then the solvency measure above - average debt to trailing cash flows - is going to improve dramatically over time.

My plan: to continue updating this post until either (a) the cash flows improve as management guides or (b) the company loses all credibility and maybe dies.

The whole process could take years. I am patient. I hope my clients are too. And as always I could be entirely wrong.







John

Monday, August 18, 2014

Nuskin - an MLM with wonky accounts

Regular readers will know that I am not an unbridled fan of multi-level marketing schemes MLMs - but I don't think they are all evil either.

They do provide a service that is valuable - they provide community support for whatever product they are selling.

But they have a tendency to sell the business opportunity rather than the product. And they have a tendency to decentralized law avoidance - for instance selling snake-oil cures in breach of FDA regulations.

I wrote a post once about good-and-bad MLMs - where I went through Avon and Pampered Chef as mostly good MLMs and Nuskin as a business built on decentralized law avoidance.

Herbalife was a fair way up the Pampered Chef end of the scale.

Nuskin sells mostly vastly overpriced vitamin pills. This is a picture of some:



Nuskin is in the process of blowing up.

Nuskin's main product is overpriced and is sold under the ridiculous label of "lifepak nano" as if they contain nano-technology. The pills promise "enhanced molecular delivery" without an explanation of what that might be. The pills are maybe 50, maybe 100 times overpriced. And they have a bunch of claims for them. Look at the original post for the whole comical list but they do (falsely) promise the fountain of youth. Here is one claim:
Advanced anti-aging formula helps protect the body with key nutrients such as NanoCoQ10™ and nano carotenoids*
The asterisk - which I am sure the distributors ignore - is to say that the claim is not evaluated by the food and drug administration.

But lets get into the true snake-oil here.
NanoCoQ10 utilizes cutting-edge nanotechnology to deliver highly bioavailable coenzyme Q10 for potent cardiovascular and cognitive benefits.
There was no asterisk where I took that quote from!

It is gobbledygook - but suffice to say that Coenzyme_Q10 is synthesized in pretty well all tissues in the body. There is some evidence that it reduces some headaches - so I guess there are cognitive benefits - if poorly explained.

Anyway - I am not writing about the business model - which on my observation differs substantially from Herbalife - I am writing about the accounts. And those are disastrous.

Here is the balance sheet:


June 30, 2014
December 31, 2013
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
$
219,501
$
525,153
Current investments
14,227
21,974
Accounts receivable
41,712
68,652
Inventories, net
389,650
339,669
Prepaid expenses and other
180,957
162,886
846,047
1,118,334
Property and equipment, net
429,332
396,042
Goodwill
112,446
112,446
Other intangible assets, net
79,258
83,168
Other assets
136,531
111,072
Total assets
$
1,603,614
$
1,821,062
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
$
35,836
$
82,684
Accrued expenses
383,012
626,284
Current portion of debt
99,828
67,824
518,676
776,792
Long-term debt
111,621
113,852
Other liabilities
81,559
71,799
Total liabilities
711,856
962,443
Commitments and contingencies (Note 9)
Stockholders' equity:
Class A common stock – 500 million shares authorized, $.001 par value, 90.6 million  shares issued
91
91
Additional paid-in capital
410,440
397,383
Treasury stock, at cost – 31.3 million and 31.6 million shares, respectively
(844,615)
(826,904)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
(42,284)
(46,228)
Retained earnings
1,368,126
1,334,277
891,758
858,619
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity
$
1,603,614
$
1,821,062



And here is the P&L:


Three Months Ended
Six Months Ended
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2013
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2013
Revenue
$
650,027
$
671,328
$
1,321,088
$
1,212,633
Cost of sales
156,010
111,273
262,654
201,318
Gross profit
494,017
560,055
1,058,434
1,011,315
Operating expenses:
Selling expenses
283,575
297,170
596,676
530,264
General and administrative expenses
155,705
148,302
305,824
283,809
Total operating expenses
439,280
445,472
902,500
814,073
Operating income
54,737
114,583
155,934
197,242
Other income (expense), net
(21,119)
(1,187)
(38,627)
(1,075)
Income before provision for income taxes
33,618
113,396
117,307
196,167
Provision for income taxes
14,111
38,961
42,946
67,450
Net income
$
19,507
$
74,435
$
74,361
$
128,717


Now I want you to notice $389 million in inventory versus six months cost of goods sold of 263 million. It has about 270 days of inventory. By contrast Herbalife has about 50 days of inventory.

It looks like Herbalife is professionally run and Nuskin is not.

But I think it might be worse. Nuskin has $389 million of inventory and the inventory is mostly vitamin pills. Can you imagine what $389 million in vitamin pills sitting in warehouses at production cost looks like? It is kind of strange thinking just how much that is...

--

But the asset padding at Nuskin continues. It has less than half the sales of Herbalife but has $429 million of property plant and equipment. Herbalife has $363 million and that is after Herbalife has built some large impressive plants.

By comparison Nuskin seems profligate with plant - but hey - I have never seen one of their factories. Maybe they are gold-plated.

--

But the whole thing becomes worse on the cash flow line. Herbalife is massively cash generative - almost comically cash generative.

Nuskin is not.

Here is Nuskin's cash flow statement.

Six Months Ended
June 30,
2014
2013
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income
$
74,361
$
128,717
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization
24,965
15,527
Foreign currency (gains)/losses
48,264
863
Stock-based compensation
13,726
11,411
Deferred taxes
3,871
(2,901)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable
27,121
(24,647)
Inventories, net
(54,218)
(45,228)
Prepaid expenses and other
(31,157)
(25,515)
Other assets
(14,797)
(10,987)
Accounts payable
(46,503)
3,593
Accrued expenses
(233,532)
132,787
Other liabilities
3,034
5,237
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
(184,865)
188,857
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment
(57,136)
(82,515)
Proceeds of investment sales
22,011
9,701
Purchases of investments
(13,655)
(5,077)
Net cash used in investing activities
(48,780)
(77,891)

You might notice that 186 million of cash was used in operating activities and a further 49 million was used in investing activities.

The cash balance dropped from $525 to $220 million. And there is a bunch of long term debt as well. It has more cash than long term debt - so survival is at least possible. But they better turn around awfully fast.

With Nuskin we have to analyse in terms of survival which is far from guaranteed just on the accounts.

It is that bad.

--

Now as readers know I am a bit of a Herbalife fan. When I visit Herbalife distributors I see people providing a real service. The real service is emotional and physical support during dieting. Some sell Herbalife and run fitness clubs. Sometimes it looks more like a café. Some sell Herbalife out of "spiritual healing massage centres". Where I live in Australia it is often the personal trainers who sell Herbalife on the side - and comment (favourably I guess) on the new svelte bodies in their charge.

But in all cases there is a support network for dieting behind successful sellers. The product is not just the shake - it is the support network that goes with it - and the support network fits into the culture from where it is from. In Queens they reflect low-wage Hispanic workers. In more middle class areas of Miami the clubs are larger and better appointed. In Sydney they are fitness obsessed and at the beach and with upper-middle class customers.

And it shows. Herbalife generates more cash every year. The cash flow statement tells the story. This is for six months:


  
Six Months Ended
  June 30,
2014
June 30,
2013
  (In thousands)
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
  
Net income
  $194,160  $262,035  
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
  
Depreciation and amortization
  44,776  42,310  
Excess tax benefits from share-based payment arrangements
  (6,693(15
Share-based compensation expenses
  23,398  15,253  
Non-cash interest expense
  19,021  1,295  
Deferred income taxes
  (7,838(7,939
Inventory write-downs
  12,373  10,448  
Unrealized foreign exchange transaction loss (gain)
  2,532  (44
Foreign exchange loss relating to Venezuela
  86,108  15,116  
Other
  3,717  (674
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
  
Receivables
  (1,163(312
Inventories
  (2,409(14,094
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
  (50,669(13,150
Other assets
  (4,642(534
Accounts payable
  13,038  4,586  
Royalty overrides
  (12,113(2,051
Accrued expenses and accrued compensation
  16,661  43,761  
Advance sales deposits
  20,915  4,481  
Income taxes
  (8,158(12,546
Deferred compensation plan liability
  4,569  3,527  
  




NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
  347,583  351,453  
  




CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
  
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
  (105,482(56,048
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment
  11  33  
Investments in Venezuelan bonds
  (7,588—  
  




NET CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
  (113,059(56,015)

Note 348 million produced in operating cash flows, 113 million consumed in investing (but that includes the construction of the above-mentioned large and impressive factory). I suspect investing cash drain falls and Herbalife becomes even more cash generative.

The net free cash after six months is 234 million or 470 million annualized. I suspect it will be higher because the investing cash use should drop.

This does not look expensive versus market cap (or even market cap plus net debt).

Its a real business, providing real and valuable service to at least ten million people - and it is highly cash generative.

But hey - that was where I started. Not all MLMs are equal. And not all outcomes are equal either.

Billy Bob shorted the wrong MLM.




John

Disclosure: Long Herbalife, short a little Nuskin. I regret not having the Nuskin short on earlier. The balance sheet was always a little stretched - the inventory build in 2013 was insane - and the business model did not make sense - but the denouement is more rapid than I thought possible.

At least one person I talk to got that entirely right including timing both the long Herbalife and short Nuskin legs.

General disclaimer

The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Hempton. You should assume Mr. Hempton and his affiliates have positions in the securities discussed in this blog, and such beneficial ownership can create a conflict of interest regarding the objectivity of this blog. Statements in the blog are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. Certain information in this blog concerning economic trends and performance is based on or derived from information provided by third-party sources. Mr. Hempton does not guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based. Such information may change after it is posted and Mr. Hempton is not obligated to, and may not, update it. The commentary in this blog in no way constitutes a solicitation of business, an offer of a security or a solicitation to purchase a security, or investment advice. In fact, it should not be relied upon in making investment decisions, ever. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author. In particular this blog is not directed for investment purposes at US Persons.