Shopify’s Shares are Flying High: Is it too Late To Buy Now?

Shopify’s stock has skyrocketed 18-fold in just under 5 years. While the growth stock looks poised to continue growing, is the stock too expensive now?

Shopify is one of the hottest stocks in the market right now. The e-commerce platform has seen its stock rise 18-fold since it went public in 2015, with much of that gain coming in the past 13 months.

But the past is the past. What investors need to know is whether the stock has the legs to keep up its market-beating performance. With that said, here’s an analysis of Shopify, using my blogging partner Ser Jing’s six-point investment framework.

1. Is Shopify’s revenue small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or is its revenue large in a fast-growing market?

Canada-based Shopify is a cloud software company that empowers entrepreneurs and even large enterprises to develop online storefronts to sell their goods. 

It earns a recurring monthly subscription from retailers that use its platform. In addition, Shopify collects other fees for merchant solutions such as payment processing fees, Shopify Shipping, Shopify Capital, referral fees, and points-of-sale hardware. 

All of Shopify’s services essentially make the entire e-commerce experience more seamless for the retailer. From the building of a website site to the collection of payments and the shipping of the product to the user, everything can be settled with a few clicks of a button.

Based on the way Shopify charges its customers, there are two factors that are needed to drive growth: (1) Increasing the number of users for the company’s platform and (2) higher gross merchandise value (GMV) being sold by Shopify’s retailers.

In 2019, Shopify generated US$1.578 billion in revenue. Of which, US$642 million was from its subscription service and US$935.9 million was from merchant solutions. Shopify also breached the 1 million user milestone in 2019.

On the surface, these figures may seem big but it’s still small compared to Shopify’s total addressable market size.

The global online retail market is expected to grow from around US$3.5 trillion in 2019 to US$6.5 trillion in 2023. Comparatively, Shopify’s gross merchandise value for 2019 was only US$61.1 billion, which translates to just 1.7% of the total e-commerce market.

Shopify is well-positioned to grow along with the wider industry and also has the potential to gain market share.

This growth is likely to be fueled through the company’s international expansion. Shopify only increased the number of native languages on its platform in 2018 as it begun to target the international market.

The number of merchants outside its core geographies of the US and Canada are also growing much faster and will soon become a much more important part of Shopify’s business. 

2. Does Shopify have a strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt?

Shopify is part of a rare breed of high growth companies that have no cash problems. As of December 2019, the software company had US$2.5 billion in cash and marketable securities and no debt.

It is also generating a decent amount of cash from operations. Net cash from operations was US$70 million in 2019, despite it reporting a GAAP loss. Shopify also turned free cash flow positive in the year.  

A large part of the diversion between cash flow and the GAAP-loss is that a large portion of Shopify’s expenses are in the form of stock-based compensation, which is a non-cash expense.

In September 2019, Shopify also raised around US$600 million in cash in a secondary offering of shares at US$317.50 apiece. The cash was immediately put to use to pay 60% of its acquisition of 6 River Systems, which makes robotic carts for order fulfillment centres. The acquisition will automate part of Shopify’s nascent but growing fulfillment network, enabling it to compete with the one-day shipping that Amazon is offering.

3. Does Shopify’s management team have integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset?

Tobi Lutke, Shopify’s CEO and founder, has proven to be a capable leader. 

Shopify was born after Lutke himself tried to start an online shop selling snowboards. He realised that there were many challenges involved with selling a product online and that a solution to make the whole process easier was needed. 

So far, Lutke’s focus on the customer experience has increased Shopify’s market share even though it operates in a highly competitive environment, which includes Amazon and Adobe’s Magento.

I think Lutke has taken the right steps to make Shopify a force to be reckoned with. His decision to focus on the core English-speaking geographies at the start proved sensible as Shopify increased its presence in those markets first before pursuing international growth.

Shopify has also made sensible capital allocation decisions in the past. I think 6 River Systems looks to be an astute acquisition – it should improve Shopify’s competitiveness in terms of the speed and cost of fulfilling orders.

In addition, Shopify’s compensation structure for executives is tilted towards long-term objectives. Lutke received US$586,000 in base salary in 2018 and US$8 million in shares and options-based awards that vest over a three-year period.

It is also worth noting that Shopify has consistently beaten its own forecasts. As an investor, I appreciate a management team that is able to over-deliver on its promises.

4. Are Shopify’s revenue streams recurring in nature?

If you’ve read our blog before, you know that Ser Jing and I love companies that have recurring revenue. Recurring revenue provides a consistent platform for businesses to build on. A company that does not have to worry about retaining existing revenue can focus more of its efforts on growing its business.

Shopify ticks this box.

Its subscription service is a monthly auto-renewal contract that is recurring in nature. As of December 2019, monthly recurring revenue for its subscription service was US$53.9 million. That translates to a run rate of around US$650 million, which is around 35% of its projected 2020 revenue.

Shopify’s merchant solutions are less consistent and more dependent on the gross merchant value (GMV) sold by merchants using its platform.

That said, the GMV sold by merchants on the company’s platform has risen considerably in the past and looks poised to continue doing so.

In 2019, merchants selling on the Shopify platform for 12 months or more grew their GMV year-on-year by an average rate of 21%. The more successful its partner-merchants are, the more Shopify can earn from its merchant solutions.

5. Does Shopify have a proven ability to grow?

Shopify certainly does well here too. The chart below illustrates the company’s immense track record of revenue-growth since 2012.

Source: Shopify Year in Review 2018

In 2019 (not pictured in the graph), Shopify’s revenue increased by 47% to US$1.578 billion, and revenue is expected to top US$2 billion in 2020.

Although growth has decelerated of late, Shopify is still expected to grow by double digits for the foreseeable future.

Not only are the number of merchants using the platform increasing, but existing clients are also seeing more sales. The chart below illustrates the revenue earned by annual cohort:

Source: Shopify Year in Review 2018

Shopify’s existing clients have increasingly paid more fees to Shopify. Shopify describes the trend saying:

“The consistent revenue growth coming from each cohort illustrates the strength of our business model: the increase in revenue from remaining merchants growing within a cohort offsets the decline in revenue from merchants leaving the platform.”

6. Does Shopify have a high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future?

Shopify already turned free cash flow positive in 2019. That’s a good achievement for a company growing as fast as Shopify is.

It’s also important that there seems to be a clear path toward profitability. Shopify’s subscription revenue and merchant solutions have a gross margin of 80% and 38%, respectively. 

The high gross margins will enable the company to profit when it reins in its marketing expenses. In 2019, sales and marketing made up about 30% of revenue. However, that has been trending down in recent years. For instance, in 2018, sales and marketing expenses were 35% of revenue.

Although Shopify is still spending heavily on international expansion, based on its 2019 results, I think that it will start to see more consistent profit and free cash flow generation in the future.

It is also heartening to note that management seems sensible in its approach to growth. In a recent interview with the Motley Fool, CEO Lutke said:

“Shopify had an ambition to be a profitable company for its first four years, and then it accomplished this in years five and six. Only afterwards (when) the venture capital and then into an investment mode which we’re still in.

So I know what it feels like to run a profitable company. I loved it. I really want to get back there at some point. Not a lot of things are much better in life than the company you’re running happens to be profitable. But I think it would have been also a grave mistake to not change gears back then, because clearly the opportunity was the right one. We needed this investment money. We needed to invest.”

Risks

Competition

One of the biggest risks I see with Shopify is competition. The e-commerce enabler is fighting with some of the biggest tech companies on the planet. Amazon has its own market place that enables third-party merchants to sell products. Amazon’s fulfilment network also provides merchants with the ability to ship its products within a day.

But unlike Amazon, Shopify enables entrepreneurs to build their very own virtual storefront. Amazon sellers, on the other hand, have to sell their products on a common market place and are also competing with Amazon’s own products. This is why Shopify has been able to attract a growing number of retailers to its platform each year.

Other players such as Magento (owned by Adobe), Woo Commerce, and Wix also provide startups with the necessary tools to build their very own online store.

I believe Shopify currently has an edge over its competitors due to its integration with numerous apps and other services it provides such as payment, fulfillment, and referrals etc. But the competitive landscape could change and Shopify needs to continue innovating to stay ahead.

Key-man risk

Another big risk is key-man risk. Tobi Lutke has led the company from a young start-up to one that is generating more than a billion in revenue each year in a relatively short amount of time. That’s an amazing feat and his leadership has been key to Shopify’s success.

Although I don’t see him stepping down anytime soon, a change in leadership – if it happens – may be detrimental to Shopify’s vision and progress.

Stock-based compensation

Anothing thing I am keeping my eye on with Shopify is its stock-based compensation. Although stock-based compensation could align the interests of the company’s employees and leaders with shareholders’, Shopify’s stock-based compensation has been very high relative to its revenue. 

In 2019, stock-based compensation was US$158 million compared to revenue of US$1.57 billion. That means that almost 10% of all revenue generated is being paid back to management in the form of stocks, diluting existing shareholders in the process. Ideally, I want to see revenue grow much faster than stock-based compensation in the future. Stock-based compensation was up by 65.5% in 2019.

Valuation

This is where I think Shopify fails. The e-commerce enabler has a market cap of US$60 billion. That’s a whopping 30 times next years’ sales-estimate. Even for a company that is growing as fast as Shopify is, that number is hard to justify.

Shopify’s valuation today looks pricey even if we assume that (1) it doubles its market share, (2) total GMV grows to US$6.5 trillion, (3) merchants on Shopify’s platform doubles by 2022, and (4) the company generates a 10% profit margin.

If all the above assumptions come into fruition, Shopify’s current shares still trade at a lofty 12 times projected revenue and 120 times earnings.

The Good Investors’ conclusion

There are so many things I admire about Shopify. It is led by a visionary leader who has grown Shopify into a dominant e-commerce player. Besides Shopify’s impressive top-line growth, it is also one of the rare fast-growing SaaS (software-as-a-service) companies that are already free cash flow positive. Moreover, its untapped addressable market is immense.

However, while I would love to participate in Shopify’s growth, the company’s stock seems too expensive at the moment. 

I think the market has gotten ahead of itself and the long-term returns on the stock do not look enticing due to its frothy valuations. As such, I prefer waiting for a slightly lower entry point before dipping my toes in this fast-growing SaaS firm.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

What Investors Don’t Get About Netflix

Netflix may be one of the most divisive stock in the market today. However, I think there may be some aspects of the company the bears are overlooking.

As one of the best performing stock of the 2010s, it is no surprise that Netflix is also one of the most talked-about stocks on the internet. But despite the seemingly endless discussions online, I still think there are some aspects of the company that some investors may be overlooking.

I want to discuss these aspects in this article.

#1 There is a clear path to positive free cash flow generation

Netflix had a negative free cash flow of US$3.5 billion in 2019, extending a streak of eight years of increasing cash burn. This burn rate certainly cannot go on forever and it is what’s putting many investors off. The negative free cash flow is even more alarming when you add the fact that the company is in a net debt position of around US$9 .7billion.

However, Netflix’s high cash burn rate may soon be a thing of the past. Netflix’s CEO, Reed Hastings, believes a turnaround is on the cards. In its most recent 2019 fourth-quarter shareholder letter, Netflix said:

“For the full year, FCF was -$3.3 billion which we believe is the peak in our annual FCF deficit. Our plan is to continually improve FCF each year and to move slowly toward FCF positive. For 2020, we currently forecast FCF of approximately -$2.5 billion… With our FCF profile improving, this means that over time we’ll be less reliant on public markets and will be able to fund more of our investment needs organically through our growing operating profits.”

I think management’s confidence is entirely warranted. Let’s break it down. The majority of the cash Netflix is spending is for the licensing and production of content. In 2019, Netflix spent US$14.6 billion on streaming content, meaning around 75% of its US$20 billion in revenue was spent on content alone.

To improve its free cash flow metric, Netflix needs to spend much less as a percentage of its revenue. And I think its entirely possible that this scenario will play out sooner rather than later. 

The math is simple. 

There is a fixed cost to producing content but the value of the content scales as the user count grows. 

For instance, the content that Netflix is producing today can reach its 167 million global subscribers. But as the number of subscribers grows, the content it is producing will reach a larger subscriber base. Put another way, the fixed amount spent on each movie or series will be spread out across a much larger revenue base as user count grows.

Over time, the amount of cash spent on content will take up a much lower percentage of revenue and, in turn, free cash flow should eventually be positive.

#2 Content retains value over a long time frame

Another point to note is that the company is actually already profitable and has been for a few quarters. Then why is the company free cash flow negative?

For one, the company is spending money upfront for content that it is only releasing in the future. As such, it does not recognise this into its income statements. Think of it as capital expenditure for the future.

The second reason is that the content is amortised over a multi-year time frame. I think investors underappreciate the fact that much of the original content that Netflix is producing will be in its content library forever. Good content, while most valuable when it’s first released, retains some of its value to viewers for years. Case in point include hits such as Friends and Seinfield, which fans love to rewatch. 

I think investors often overlook these two facts: (1) that Netflix’s current cash burn includes its spending for the future, and (2) good content retains its value over a multi-year period.

#3 Competition is not hurting Netflix as much as feared

When Disney and Apple announced that they would be entering the online streaming market, I’m sure many Netflix watchers (shareholders included) must have feared the worse. Disney has a vast library of intellectual property and Apple is flush with cash. Surely, Netflix would be in trouble.

However, competition has not hurt Netflix as much as some may have feared. In the fourth quarter of 2019, Netflix’s paid memberships in the United States increased by 400,000. While this fell short of analyst estimates, the growth in paid subscribers at a time when Disney Plus was released shows how sticky Netflix’s user base is. More impressively, the gain in member-count in the US in 2019 coincided with an increase in the membership price by US$2. 

Internationally, growth continues at a breakneck pace. Paid memberships outside of the US increased from 80.8 million in 2018 to 106 million in 2019, a 25% increase. 

There are a few things to glean from these trends. 

First, Netflix’s subscriber base is sticky. The lure of original content that customers love and the fact that Netflix’s price point is still considerably lower than cable TV means customers are willing to stick around despite price hikes.

Second, Disney Plus, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, and Netflix can co-exist. 

A recent survey of Netflix subscribers showed that they are willing to subscribe to multiple streaming video subscriptions. The trend is fueled by consumers reducing their spending on traditional TV offerings by turning to streaming services.

On top of that, subscribers who want to watch Netflix Originals have no alternative besides subscribing to Netflix.

In its most recent shareholder letter, Netflix explained:

“We have a big headstart in streaming and will work to build on that by focusing on the same thing we have focused on for the past 22 years – pleasing members.”

With Netflix’s content budget dwarfing all its competitors (US$15 billion in 2019 vs US$6 billion for Amazon Prime, the second-largest spender of content), the chances that subscribers switch to another online streaming platform looks much slimmer than what investors may have initially feared.

The Good Investors’ conclusion

Netflix is one of the more divisive stocks in the market today. There seems to be an endless discussion between bears and bulls online.

In my view, I think there are a few crucial aspects of Netflix that some investors may be overlooking:

  • Netflix has a clear path towards free cash flow generation 
  • It is spending wisely on well-loved content that retains value over a multi-year period
  • The threat of competition is not as bad as it looks

Moreover, management has a knack of spotting trends well before they develop. As such, shareholders should be confident that management will be able to adapt and thrive even as operating environments change.

Given all this, I think Netflix looks poised to prove its doubters wrong.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

My Thoughts on Elite Commercial REIT

Elite Commercial REIT will start trading on 6 Feburary 2020. Here are some factors to know If you are considering buying into the UK-focused REIT.

Elite Commercial REIT is set to be the first REIT listing in Singapore in 2020. I know this article is a little late as the public offer closed yesterday. However, if you are still considering buying units in the open market, here are some factors to consider.

Things I like about the REIT

Let’s start with a quick rundown of some of the positive characteristics of the UK-based REIT. There are many points to go through here so I will be as brief as possible for each point.

Multi-property portfolio

Based on the prospectus, Elite Commercial REIT has an initial portfolio of 97 commercial properties in the UK. While the properties are all located in the United Kingdom, the large number of properties means that the REIT is not overly-reliant on any single property. The properties are also well-spread across the entire UK, with properties situated in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. 

Another thing to like is that all except for one property is free-hold. Even the sole property that is not free-hold has a very long land lease of 235 years.

Reliable tenant

Perhaps the most appealing aspect of the REIT is that all of its properties are leased to the UK government, specifically the Department for Work and Pensions. 

As it is virtually impossible that the UK government will default on its rent, there is very little tenancy risk.

Long leases

The weighted average lease expiry for the properties stands at a fairly long 8.6 years. Given the long leases, investors can rest easy knowing that the distribution will be fairly consistent for the next few years. 

However, investors should note that some properties have a break option in 3.6 years. Assuming these options are exercised, the portfolio’s weighted average lease expiry will drop to 4.89 years.

The properties are important to the UK government

80 of the 97 properties in the portfolio are used for front-end services such as JobCentre Plus. Furthermore, 86.3% of these JobCentre Pluses do not have an alternative JobCentre Plus within a 3-mile radius. This is important as investors need to know that there is a high likelihood that the Departement for Work and Pensions will renew its leases when the current contracts expire in 2028.

Triple net leases

The UK government has signed triple net leases for the properties. What this means is that it will cover all operational costs, property taxes and building insurance. The triple net leases provide the REIT with more visibility on cost for the period of the remaining lease.

Low gearing

Another thing to like about the REIT is its low gearing of 33.6%. That is well below the 45% regulatory ceiling, giving it room to make acquisitions in the future.

Decent Yield

The REIT’s IPO price of £0.68 represents a price-to-book ratio of 1.03 based on Collyer’s valuation report. In addition, the indicated distribution yield of 7.1% is higher than the average distribution yield of Singapore-listed REITs.

What I dislike

There are certainly a lot of things I like about Elite Commercial REIT. On the surface, it looks like a very stable REIT with a reliable tenant and the potential for acquisition growth. However, looking under the hood, I found unsavoury characteristics that might put off some investors.

Leases all expire at the same time

The previous owners of the property negotiated to lease the properties back to the UK government with all leases expiring on the same day- 31 March 2028. I much prefer a staggered lease expiry profile as it gives the REIT time to find new tenant should existing tenants fail to renew their leases.

Another concern is whether the UK government will indeed renew all contracts with the REIT when their leases expire. While the REIT is quick to point out that the UK government is likely to renew its leases, things could easily change in the future. If the UK government decides not to renew a few of its leases, the REIT will need to find a quick solution to prevent a rental gap.

Inflated market value

Another thing that I got alerted to by a fellow blogger’s article was that Collyer’s valuation of the portfolio was based on current rental leases. The existing leases are slightly above market rates and could suggest that the market value is somewhat inflated.

Likewise, as market rent is below the current rent, we could see rental rates reduce come 2028 when new contracts are signed.

IPO NAV Price Represents a 13.1% jump from purchase price just a year ago

Another thing to note is that the private trust of Elite Partners Holdings is selling the portfolio to the REIT just a year after buying the property. The sale price represents a 13.1% gain for the initial investors of the property portfolio.

Floating rate debt

The REIT has taken a floating rate loan. While floating-rate loans tend to have lower rates when it is first negotiated, it can also rise in the future. Even though rates have been dropping the last year, things could change in the future. Higher interest rate payments will result in lower distribution yield for investors.

Brexit concerns

The United Kingdom has just finalised its exit from the European Union. There are so many uncertainties regarding its exit. How will this impact its economy, property prices and even the value of the pound?

All of which could potentially impact distribution and rental rates in the UK.

The Good Investor’s Take

Elite Commercial REIT has both positive and negative characteristics. The indicative 7.1% yield and backing by the UK government are the main draws. However, the fact that all leases expire on the same day, the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the potentially inflated market rate of the properties are things that investors should be concerned about.

Given these concerns, I will likely be staying on the sidelines for now.

*Editors note: In an earlier version of the article I stated that one of my concerns was that the private trust of Elite Partner Holdings was not participating in the IPO. However, upon clarification with the managers of Elite Commercial REIT, I realised that the four individual investors and Sunway Re Capital, who were the investors in the private trust that initially owned the portfolio were individually participating in the IPO. They each rolled over their principal investment amount from the private trust to the REIT. Elite Partner Holdings also has an interest in the REIT via Ho Lee Group and Tan Dah Ching. I have since edited the article to reflect the new information gleaned from management.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Why Facebook Shareholders Shouldn’t Panic

Facebook saw its shares slip 6% after releasing its 2019 fourth-quarter results. Despite this, I’m more bullish than ever on its prospects.

I woke up last Thursday to a rude surprise. My shares of Facebook had fallen 6% in a single trading session, following the company’s 2019 fourth-quarter earnings results. A big jump in expenses during the quarter was the culprit. 

However, after reassessing Facebook’s position, I think the decline was unwarranted. In fact, I feel more optimistic than ever for the social network’s long term prospects and am more than happy to hold onto my shares. 

Why investors have been put off

Before discussing the reasons why I am bullish about Facebook, let me first say that I acknowledge that there are very real reasons why the broader market is sceptical of Facebook. 

The first possible reason is that Facebook carries a degree of regulatory risk. We can’t sugarcoat that.

In recent months, Facebook incurred a US$5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission due to a privacy breach and had to pay a US$550 million settlement for collecting users’ facial recognition data. In addition, there have also been a few threats from European regulatory bodies.

These regulatory concerns are, in turn, the reason why Facebook’s expenses have skyrocketed. The company has spent big hiring thousands of employees to update its platform and make it safer for users. 

The second reason is Facebook’s decelerating growth. Facebook enjoyed 36% annualised top-line growth over the last 3 years. However, that growth has since decelerated. Shareholders who have been accustomed to the 30%-plus growth rate may have been disappointed by the latest figures.

Despite these two factors, I think Zuckerberg’s brainchild is still a great investment. Here’s why. 

The numbers are still really good

Despite a slight deceleration in growth in recent times, Facebook is still posting solid numbers.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, Facebook saw revenue jump 25% and income from operations grow 13%. Looking ahead, management said that it expects revenue-growth in 2020’s first quarter to decelerate by a low to a mid-single-digit percentage point compared to 2019’s fourth quarter.

Although a deceleration looks bad, that still translates to a healthy 20% increase in revenue.

The social media giant is also now sitting on US$55 billion in cash and marketable securities, and zero debt. On top of that, its cash flow from operations in 2019 was 24% higher than in 2018.

Other metrics are healthy too

Besides its financials, the company’s all-important user engagement metrics are also very healthy. Daily active users, monthly active users, and family daily active people were up 9%, 8% and 11% respectively at end-2019 compared to a year ago.

The worldwide average revenue per user also ticked up 15.6% from 2018’s fourth quarter, demonstrating that Facebook is doing an excellent job improving the monetisation of its gargantuan user base.

Facebook is addressing the regulatory concerns

Zuckerberg and his team have also taken privacy concerns very seriously. Zuckerberg emphasised in his recent conference call with analysts:

“This is also going to be a big year for our greater focus on privacy as well. As part of our FTC settlement, we committed to building privacy controls and auditing that will set a new standard for our industry going beyond anything that’s required by law today. We currently have more than 1,000 engineers working on privacy-related projects and helping to build out this program.”

Facebook is also rolling out a privacy checkup tool to close to 2 billion of its users to remind them to set their user privacy control to the level they wish for.

I think with Facebook’s size, the task of managing privacy is going to be a multi-year process but Facebook’s commitment to addressing the issue is certainly heartening for investors. 

Becoming a Super App

While advertising is Facebook’s bread and butter, the social media giant has the potential for so much more.

It now has online dating features, e-commerce, gaming, Watch and other features. Although not all of these features will cater to everyone, they each appeal to a certain segment of people. This will grow user engagement and increase ad impressions per user.

This is similar to WeChat in China. The Super app of the East has built-in functions such as payments, e-commerce, bookings, and much more. Facebook, with its billions of users, has the potential to become the Super app of the world.

New functions also give Facebook a different source of revenue. One example is through implementing a take rate for payments made on its platform. This could be a new revenue growth driver as Facebook plans to roll out WhatsApp payment and payment services to facilitate Facebook Marketplace.

History of great capital allocation decisions

Although there is a lot to like about Facebook’s business going forward, I think the most exciting thing is how Facebook will use its massive cash pile, which is growing by the day.

As mentioned earlier, Facebook is sitting on US$55 billion in cash (US$50 billion after it pays off the aforementioned US$5 billion fine). That’s an incredible amount of financial resources and the possibilities are endless.

Most importantly, Facebook has a brilliant track record of spending its cash wisely. In the past, it bought Instagram for just a billion dollars in 2012, solidifying its position as the leading social media player in the world. On top of that, the outlay for the Instagram investment should have already been more than covered by the ad revenue that Facebook has generated from it.

More recently, Facebook has been aggressively buying back shares. In its latest announcement, it said it has earmarked another US$10 billion for share repurchases, which I think is a great use of capital given its stock’s ridiculously cheap valuation (more on that later). This again shows that the decision-makers in Facebook are doing the right things with its ever-growing cash hoard.

Valuation too cheap to ignore

It is no secret that Facebook is not the most loved stock on Wall Street. Despite growing its top line by 26% in 2019 and the numerous tailwinds at its back, the stock still trades at just 23.5 times normalised earnings (after removing the one-off fines and settlement charges).

That’s the lowest multiple among the FAAMG stocks. For perspective, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon trade at price-to-earnings multiple of 31, 25, 29, and 87 respectively.

I simply don’t see how Facebook can suffer a further earnings multiple compression unless there’s a market-wide collapse.

Even after factoring the deceleration in growth, Facebook is still expected to grow revenue and profits by close to 20% in 2020 and beyond. Moreover, Facebook has so much cash on hand, its growth could even be boosted if Facebook decides to make an acquisition down the road.

The Good Investors’ Take

With so many opportunities for growth and the heavy fines behind it, Facebook is likely to see double-digit growth to its bottom line for years to come. Its enduring competitive moat looks unlikely to be eroded any time soon and the capital allocation decisions have been extremely sound.

Just as importantly, the stock trades at unreasonably beaten down valuations. Given everything, I’ve seen, I like my position in Facebook.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Does Twilio Fit Our Investing Framework?

Twilio’s stock has risen more than eight-fold since its IPO in 2016. Is the Communication software as a service company still worth investing?

Twilio (NYSE: TWLO) isn’t a household name, but many of us unknowingly use it every day. The software company provides developers with an in-app communication solution. By integrating phone numbers and messaging communications, Twilio offers communication channels including voice, SMS, Messenger, WhatsApp, and even video. 

When your Uber arrives and you receive a text, that’s Twilio. Airbnb uses Twilio to automate messages to hosts to alert them of a booking. eBay, Twitter, Netflix, Wix, Mecardo Libre each use Twilio in some form or other. 

With in-app communications set to boom and Twilio the top dog in this space, is Twilio worth investing in? To answer this, I will use my blogging partner’s six-point investment framework to dissect Twilio’s growth potential.

1. Is Twilio’s revenue small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or is its revenue large in a fast-growing market?

Twilio recently surpassed US$1 billion in annualised revenue run rate in the third quarter of 2019. That’s tiny compared to its market opportunity. The CPaas (communications platform as a service) segment is forecast to grow from US$3.3 billion in 2018 to US$17.2 billion in 2023- a 39% annualised growth rate.

International Data Corporation said in a report that CPaaS companies are driving this growth by “integrating new segments, churning out new use cases, and piquing the interest of enterprise developers with innovative digital solutions for customer engagement.”

With the acquisition of SendGrid last year, through an all-shares purchase, Twilio added email communication into its array of products. SendGrid also brought with it 84,000 customers, giving Twilio a new base of developers to cross-sell existing products to.

2. Does Twilio have a strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt?

Twilio is financially sound. As of 30 September 2019, it had US$1.9 billion in cash and marketable securities and around US$450 million in debt (in the form of convertible senior notes). That translates to a net cash position of around US$1.5 billion.

That said, Twilio’s cash flow from operations has been lumpy over the past few years as it chased growth over profitability or cash flow.

While its relatively large cash position should provide it with a buffer to last a few years, investors should continue to monitor how Twilio is using its capital.

Twilio already ended up having to issue new shares in a secondary offering in 2019 to raise money. This diluted existing shareholders, and current shareholders of Twilio should not rule out further dilution in the future.

The table below shows Twilio’s cash flow over the past four years.

3. Does Twilio’s management team have integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset?

Twilio’s founder Jeff Lawson has overseen the company from the start (the company was founded in 2008). As mentioned earlier, Twilio has a US$1 billion revenue run rate. That’s an impressive achievement, and a testament to Lawson and the rest of the management team’s ability to scale the company.

I also believe Twilio’s executive compensation structure promotes long-term growth in the company.

Lawson’s base salary in 2018 was only 2% of his target pay mix. 51% was in restricted stock units and the other 47% was in stock options. As the stock options vest over a few years, it encourages planning towards increasing shareholder value over the long term.

Lawson’s base salary of just US$133,700 in 2018 is also low in comparison to what other CEOs are getting.

So far, Twilio’s management has also been able to strategically acquire companies to expand its product offering and customer base. Its purchase of SendGrid brought with it email communication capabilities and more than doubled Twilio’s existing active users.

Twilio’s management has also taken the opportunity to raise more capital as its shares trade at relatively high multiples. This, to me, seems like a prudent move, considering that Twilio needs some cash buffer as it looks to grow its business.

Twilio is also proving to be led by innovative leaders as the company has consistently introduced new products. In 2018, Twilio introduced Twilio Flex, a programmable contact centre that integrates multiple tasks into a single user interface. Twilio Flex opened a new door of opportunity to tap into.

4. Are Twilio’s revenue streams recurring in nature?

Twilio’s enjoys a sticky customer base. Its existing customers have a history of becoming increasingly dependent on Twilio’s services over the years.

The communication software company’s net dollar base expansion rate, a metric measuring net spend by existing customers, was 132% in the quarter ended 30 September 2019. What that means is that existing customers spent 32% more on Twilio’s services in the last 12 months compared to a year prior. 

More importantly, Twilio’s net dollar expansion rate has been consistently north of 100% for years. Its net dollar expansion rate was 140%, 128%, 161%, and 155% for 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

The beauty of Twilio’s business model is that there are no built-in contracts. Customers simply pay as they use the company’s software. The more messages they send using Twilio’s API, the more Twilio charges them.

As customers such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb grow their own customer base, the need for in-app messaging increases, and Twilio grows along with its clients. The model also allows small enterprises to start using Twilio at the get-go due to the pay-as-you-go model.

It is also heartening to see that there is little concentration risk as the top 10 accounts contributed around 13% of Twilio’s total revenue in the most recent quarter.

5. Does Twilio have a proven ability to grow?

With a steady base or recurring revenue, Twilio has been able to focus its efforts on expanding its services and winning over new customers. Its customer account has risen more than six-fold from 2013 to 2018.

Source: Twilio 2018 Annual Report

The growth in customer accounts is also reflected in its financial statements. Revenue increased from below US$100 million in 2013 to more than US$600 million in 2018.

Source: Twilio 2018 Annual Report

That growth still has legs to run with base revenue (excluding the impact of its acquisition of SendGrid) in the first three quarters of 2019 increasing by 47% year-on-year.

6. Does Twilio have a high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future?

While Twilio’s topline has shown impressive growth, it has neither been able to generate consistent profit nor free cash flow.

Twilio has been spending heavily on research and development and marketing. In fact, the company has consistently spent around a quarter of its revenue of research and development.

However, I believe that there is a clear path towards profitability and free cash flow generation, as Twilio can eventually cut back its R&D and marketing expenses.

That being said, the company is still laser-focused on top-line growth at the moment and consistent profitability and free cash flow generation may take years.

Risks

One of the big risks I see in Twilio is succession risk. Lawson is the biggest reason for Twilio’s success so far. He is the founder and has led Twilio every step of the way. 

That said, Lawson is only 42 this year and is likely to continue at the helm for the foreseeable future.

I also believe that the high cash burn rate is still a concern. Investors should keep a close watch on Twilio’s free cash flow levels and hopefully, we can see it turn positive in the coming years.

Twilio also faces competition that could eat into its market share. Its competitors such as Nexmo, MessageBird, and PLivo are also growing quickly. Twilio will need to consistently upgrade its APIs to ensure that it defends its competitive edge. For now, Twilio’s competitive moat includes the high switching cost to a competitor.

Twilio also enjoys a network effect. In its 2018 annual report, Twilio said:

“With every new message and call, our Super Network becomes more robust, intelligent and efficient…Our Super Network’s sophistication becomes increasingly difficult for others to replicate over time as it is continually learning, improving and scaling.”

Valuation

Valuing a company is always tricky- especially so for a company that has no profits or consistent free cash flow.

As such, we will need to estimate what is the company’s long term growth potential and mature-state profit margins.

While some best-in-class SaaS companies enjoy profit and free cash flow margins of around 30%, that does not seem feasible for Twilio.

Twilio’s gross profit margin is only around 54%, much lower than other software companies such as Adobe which has a gross margin north of 80%. As such, I think that Twilio’s steady-state profit margin could potentially be closer to 10%.

Given the total addressable market of US$17 billion, and assuming Twilio can achieve a market share of around 50%, revenue can increase to around US$8 billion. Using my 10% net profit assumption, net profit will be around US$800 million. If growth can sustain at current rates of around 35%, Twilio will take around seven years to hit this size.

We also have to estimate a reasonable multiple to attach to its earnings. Adobe has a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 58 but it is still growing. Let’s assume a discount to that multiple and assume Twilio can command a P/E ratio of 40. That translates to a US$32 billion market. Given all these assumptions, Twilio will have a market cap that is twice its current market cap in seven years, which translates to a decent 10% annualised return for existing shareholders.

The Good Investors’ conclusion

There are certainly compelling reasons to like Twilio as a company. Its 40%-plus top-line growth, huge market opportunity, dominant position in the CPaaS industry, and capable management team, are just some of the reasons why I think Twilio has a bright future ahead.

However, its stock is richly priced, trading at more than 16 times revenue. It has yet to record a profit and has been burning cash. There is a lot of optimism baked into the stock already and the company needs to live up to the high expectations if investors are to make a decent annualised profit from the stock.

While my valuation assumptions predict a decent return, there are certainly risks involved. Any stumble in those growth projections or an earnings multiple compression will result in mediocre returns to investors. I suggest that investors who want to take a nibble off of Twilio’s growth should size their position to reflect the risk involved.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Ulta Beauty is Too Cheap To Ignore

Ulta Beauty is one of the top performing stocks of the last decade. Despite near-term headwinds, I think now may be the best time to pick up more shares.

Ulta Beauty (NASDAQ: ULTA) is a retailer defying the odds. While many retailers have struggled since the introduction of e-commerce, Ulta’s sales have risen sharply over the last decade. Its share price has mirrored its business performance, rising nearly 1300% over that time frame, making it one of the top-ten performing US stocks of the decade. But Ulta’s stock lost some of its shine towards the end of last year- with the share price falling 25%-  after the company cut its full-year outlook for 2019.

Investors were also spooked by an industry-wide slow-down in cosmetic sales. But with Ulta Beauty shares trading at only 23 times earnings now, I believe it is way too cheap to ignore.

What caused the sell-down?

The first thing to note is Ulta still remains a fine business. Ulta has consistently won market share from other beauty retailers in the country and that has not changed. The only problem now is Ulta could suffer some near-term earnings volatility due to the downcycle of cosmetic sales in the US.

In the latest 2019 third-quarter earnings conference call, CEO Mary Dillion explained:

“Like other consumer categories, makeup has experienced a number of up and down cycles. The most recent growth cycle began in 2014, driven by new application techniques and looks like contouring, highlighting and brow styling, and new products such as pallets, minis, and travel sizes. The rise of social media influencers, video tutorials and selfies also contributed to strong growth in the category.

After several years of robust growth, the category began to decelerate in 2017 and turn negative in late 2018, resulting from a lack of engaging newness and incremental innovation. This negative trend has continued through 2019 with further deceleration in the most recent quarter.”

But there are reasons to be positive…

Despite the near-term challenges, there are still good reasons to be bullish about Ulta. 

The numbers are still really good

First, even though Ulta had a poor third quarter by its high standards, the company still delivered decent results. Total sales increased by 12% and comparable store sales increased by 6.2%. Diluted earnings per share, excluding last year’s tax benefit, increased by 11.5%.

Despite the decline in cosmetics sales in the broader US market, Ulta still posted low single-digit growth in that category. That just goes to show that Ulta continues to drive meaningful market share growth across the cosmetics category.

According to data for February through July, Ulta captured 24.5% of the prestige beauty market (as tracked by NPD Group, an American Market research company). That’s 2.1 percentage points better than last year.

Cosmetic sales will rebound

Cosmetics remains Ulta’s largest revenue contributor at around 50%, so a market-wide sales decline will no doubt impact Ulta’s business. But the downcycle will eventually come to an end.

Dillion, who has been extremely candid and frank with shareholders, believes that innovation and new products will help aid the turnaround. She said in the latest earnings conference call:

“We continue to believe that the headwinds facing the makeup category are largely cyclical, resulting from a lack of incremental innovation and compelling newness. We remain confident that makeup category will return to growth, but recognize that it will take time.”

Other categories picking up the mettle

Yes, cosmetics is an important part of Ulta’s business but Ulta is not just about cosmetics. In fact, its other segments in total make up about 50% of sales. One of the strongest growth categories in recent years is skincare. Suncare, prestige, and mass-market skincare products each delivered double-digit growth in Ulta’s most recent reporting quarter. 

Gen Z spending habits are also shifting towards skincare as young women increasingly decide to go for a more natural look. The Gen Z demographic is more engaged in skin care products than other cohorts were at the same age.

Haircare and fragrance are also both expanding. The performance of these other categories should help to reduce the impact of the slowdown in cosmetic sales.

Ulta is growing its membership base

At the end of the 2019 third quarter, Ulta had 33.9 million active members in its Ultamate Rewards program. That’s 11% higher than it was last year. The growing member base shows that Ulta is still attracting new customers to its shops.

On top of that, once customers sign up, they receive points, which can then be redeemed for gifts, giving them extra incentives to shop at Ulta.

The beauty segment is not as impacted by e-commerce

While Ulta’s online sales increased by around 20% per year in the latest quarter, brick and mortar sales still make up the bulk of the company’s business.

Fortunately for Ulta, according to a survey by Piper Jaffray, 91% of female teens still prefer in-store shopping for beauty products versus online. Consumers still prefer the in-person experience of testing colours, fragrances, and textures when it comes to beauty products.

As such, until augmented reality (AR) can truly replace the in-person experience, I don’t foresee Ulta losing significant market share to online sales channels.

Rewarding shareholders

Ulta has also been rewarding shareholders by using the cash generated from its business to buyback shares. The total number of outstanding shares dropped by close to 4% in the quarter ended 2 November 2019 from a year ago. With shares trading at a low valuation (I will touch on this later), I think it makes perfect sense for the company to continue using its spare cash to buy back shares.

Ulta is sitting on slightly over US$200 million in cash and has no debt (if we exclude its operating lease liabilities), giving it the financial muscle to continue to pursue share buybacks in the future.

More importantly, its business remains a cash cow. The beauty retail giant generated operating cash flow of US$634 million, US$779 million, and US$956 million in fiscal 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. And in the first 39 weeks of fiscal 2019, Ulta’s operating cash flow was up 2.8% from the year before to US$558 million.

The reliable stream of cash flow will enable the beauty retailer to continue reducing its outstanding share count further.

Valuation

As you can see, despite Wallstreet’s skepticism about Ulta, I think there are still numerous reasons to believe its long-term growth is intact.

On top of that, shares of Ulta are trading at what I would consider extremely low valuations. The company expects to earn diluted earnings per share of at least US$11.93 in fiscal 2019. Ulta currently trades at US$273, which translates to around 23 times that earnings projection.

An earnings multiple of 23 is much lower than LVMH (which owns Sephora), Loreal, and Estee Lauder – they trade at 33, 38 and 42 times earnings respectively. 

As such, barring a market-wide collapse, it is hard to see how Ulta can suffer a further compression in its earnings multiple.

More importantly, Ulta’s problems are likely short-term in nature. Cosmetics sales will rebound in the future and in the meantime, other beauty segments are picking up the slack.

On top of that Ulta looks likely to continue to win market share as it targets to open more stores in the coming years.

Over the longer term, Ulta has built lasting brand appeal and partnerships with some of the most loved beauty brands in the world. Despite being a dominant retailer in the US beauty industry, Ulta’s market share in the beauty products market was just 7% in 2018. This small share means the company should have room to grow much bigger.

With all that said, while I think it is reasonable for investors to be cautious about near-term sales volatility, I think Ulta’s valuation and long-term prospects are just too good to ignore.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Is CapitaLand Mall Trust and Capitaland Commercial Trust’s Proposed Merger Good For Unitholders?

CapitaLand Mall Trust and CapitaLand Commercial Trust are set to merge to form the biggest REIT in Singapore. Does it benefit the unitholders of both REITs?

CapitaLand Mall Trust (CMT) and CapitaLand Commercial Trust (CCT) are set to combine to form the largest REIT in Singapore. The proposed merger is the latest in a string of mergers over the last few years.

Mergers may benefit REITs through greater diversification, higher liquidity, cost savings due to economies of scale and access to cheaper equity.

With that said, here are some things that investors should note about the proposed deal between the two CapitaLand REITs.

Details of the merger

CMT is offering to buy each CCT unit for 0.72 new units of itself and S$0.259 in cash. The enlarged REIT will be renamed Capitaland Integrated Commercial Trust (CICT).

Source: Presentation slides for CMT and CCT merger

The combined REIT will own both CMT and CCT’s existing portfolios, making it the largest REIT in Singapore and the third-largest in Asia Pacific. Its portfolio will include 24 properties valued at S$22.9 billion.

Source: Joint announcement by CCT and CMT regarding the merger

What does it mean for current CMT unitholders?

The best way to analyse such a deal is to look at it from the angle of both parties separately. 

For CMT unitholders, the merger will result in them owning a smaller stake in an enlarged REIT. Here are the key points that investors should note:

  • Based on pro forma calculations, the merger is distribution per unit-accretive. The chart below shows the DPU (distribution per unit) increase had the merger taken place last year.
Source: Presentation slides for CMT and CCT merger
  • Based on similar assumptions, the deal is NAV-accretive. The net asset value (NAV) per unit of the enlarged REIT is expected to be S$2.11, higher compared to S$2.07 before the merger.
  • As debt will be used, it will cause CMT’s aggregate leverage to increase from 32.9% to 38.3%.

The question here is whether current CMT owners will be better off owning units in the merged entity. I think so. The deal will be both DPU and NAV-accretive. While the merged entity will have a higher gearing, I think the trade-off is still advantageous.

On top of that, the enlarged REIT will also benefit from economies of scale. As I briefly mentioned earlier, bigger REITs benefit from diversification, cost savings and the ability to take on bigger projects.

The downside for CMT

Although I think the deal is beneficial to unitholders of CMT, I doubt it is the most efficient use of capital.

CMT is paying 0.72 new units of itself, plus S$0.259 in cash, for each CCT unit. That works out to around S$2.131 for each CCT unit. Even though that seems fair when you consider CCT’s current unit price of S$2.13, the purchase price is much higher than CCT’s actual book value per unit of S$1.82.

Needless to say, CMT unitholders would benefit more if CMT is able to buy properties at or below their book value. Ultimately, because of the current market premium attached to CCT units, CMT will end up having to pay a 17% premium to CCT’s book value.

Although the impact of paying above book value is countered by the fact that CMT will be issuing new units of itself at close to 25% above book value, I can’t hep but wonder if CMT could gain more by issuing new units to buy other properties at or below book values.

What does it mean for CCT unitholders?

At the other end of the deal, CCT unitholders are getting a stake in the merged entity and some cash for each unit they own.

Here are the key things to note if you are a CCT unitholder:

  • Based on pro forma calculations, the merger is DPU-accretive for CCT, if we assume that the cash consideration is reinvested at a return of 3% per annum.
Source: Presentation slides for CMT and CCT merger
  • From a book value perspective, the deal will be dilutive for CCT unitholders. Before the merger, each CCT unit had a book value of S$1.82. After the deal, CCT unitholders will own 0.72 new units in the enlarged REIT and S$0.259 in cash. The enlarged REIT (based on pro forma calculations) will have a NAV per unit of S$2.11. Ultimately, each CCT unit will end with a book value of S$1.78, a slight decrease from S$1.82 before the deal.

Other considerations for CCT unitholders

For CCT unitholders, the question is whether they will be better off owning (1) units of the existing CCT, or (2) cash plus 0.72 units of the enlarged REIT.

I think there is no right answer here. Ownership of the enlarged REIT has its benefits but CCT unitholders also end up obtaining the new units at quite a large premium to book value.

Although the deal will result in DPU-accretion for current CCT unitholders, the enlarged REIT also has a higher gearing than CCT and consequently, has less financial power to make future acquisitions.

Investors need to decide whether the yield-accretion is worth paying up for (due to the new units being issued at 25% premium to book value), or whether they rather maintain the status quo of owning a decent REIT with a lower gearing and better book value per unit.

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

There are certainly reasons for both sets of unitholders to support the proposed merger between these two CapitaLand REITs. The deal will benefit CMT unitholders in terms of both DPU and NAV-accretion, while CCT unitholders will also gain in terms of DPU growth.

In addition, the enlarged REIT could theoretically benefit from economies of scale, portfolio diversification, and greater liquidity.

That said, I have my doubts on whether it is the best use of capital by CMT due to the purchase price’s 17% premium to CCT’s book value. CCT unitholders also have a lot to digest, and they will need to assess if they are comfortable that the deal will be dilutive to them from a book value perspective.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Should Investors Bet on Uniqlo?

Uniqlo has been one of the fastest growing apparel retail brands in the world. But with its stock sitting at all-time highs, is it still worth investing in?

Most of you reading this would be familiar with Uniqlo.

The Japanese clothing brand is one of the fastest-growing apparel retailers in the world. I experienced first hand how much Uniqlo has thrived over the past few years. Its popularity in our homeland, Singapore, has exploded, with Uniqlo outlets appearing at most major malls in the country (I’m a big fan of its products too).

The numbers speak for themselves. Sales at Fast Retailing (Uniqlo’s parent company) increased by 179% from its financial year 2011 to its financial year 2019. Its shares have reflected that growth, climbing 320% during that time.

But with Fast Retailing’s share price sitting near a record-high, have investors missed the boat? I decided to take a closer look at its business to see if its current share price still presents a good investment opportunity. I will use my blogging partner Ser Jing’s six-point investment framework to dissect Fast Retailing. 

1. Is Fast Retailing’s revenue small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or is its revenue large in a fast-growing market?

As mentioned earlier, Fast Retailing is now the third-largest apparel retailer in the world. It recorded 2.3 trillion yen (US$20.8 billion) in sales in the year ended 31 August 2019. On paper that seems huge. You may be thinking: “How could it possibly grow much larger?”

However, looking under the hood, I realised that Fast Retailing’s US$20 billion in revenue is tiny in comparison to its global market opportunity.

The global apparel market is expected to hit US$1.5 trillion this year. More importantly, Uniqlo is well-placed to grab a growing share of this tremendous market. Uniqlo International saw sales of around 1 trillion yen (US$9.34 billion). That’s a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the global apparel market.

Putting that in perspective, Uniqlo’s revenue in Japan was 872.9 billion yen (US$7.9 billion) in the 12-months ended August 2019. Japan has a population of roughly 126.8 million and yet revenue from Japan made up 36% of the company’s total revenue. China’s population alone is more than 10 times as big as Japan. That gives us an idea of the massive international opportunity that Uniqlo can potentially tap into.

With Uniqlo opening its first shops in India recently and expanding its presence in Europe, China, the United States, and Southeast Asia, I expect Uniqlo International’s sales to become much more important for the company in the coming years.

In his FY2017 annual letter to shareholders, Tadashi Yanai, CEO of Fast Retailing, said:

“My focus is to ensure solid growth in Greater China and Southeast Asia, which have the potential to grow into markets 10-20 times the size of Japan’s. We have announced five-year targets of increasing revenue from current ¥346.4 billion to ¥1 trillion in Greater China, and from ¥110 billion to ¥300 billion in Southeast Asia and Oceania.”

2. Does Fast Retailing have a strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt?

A robust balance sheet enables a company to withstand any economic slowdowns. It also enables the company to use its extra cash to expand its business.

Uniqlo ticks this box easily. The Japanese retail giant boasted around  ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) in cash and cash equivalents and around ¥660 billion (US$6 billion) in debt as of 30 November 2019. That translates to a healthy US$4 billion net cash position.

Equally important, Fast Retailing is a serious cash machine. The company has consistently generated around US$1 billion in cash from operations at the minimum in each year since FY2015. The table below shows some of the important cash flow metrics.

3. Does Fast Retailing’s management team have integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset?

To me, management is the single most important aspect of my stock investments. 

Fast Retailing’s founder and CEO, Tadashi Yanai, has proven himself to be everything you can ask for in a leader.

He founded the first Uniqlo store back in 1984 and has since built it into an internationally recognised brand with a network of more than 2,000 stores globally. Uniqlo is also one of the most innovative companies in apparel retail. It has patented some of its unique materials such as Heat tech and Airism. 

Yanai was also able to transform the company’s brand image. Previously, Uniqlo was perceived as a discount retailer selling cheap and low-quality apparel. Seeing this, Yanai decided to open a 3-story iconic store in Harajuku in central Tokyo in 1998. This was the turning point for the brand as consumers’ perceptions shifted. Uniqlo became viewed as a brand that offered affordable but high-quality products. Yanai’s willingness to spend big to improve the brand-perception is testament to his foresight and capability.

More recently, Fast Retailing has embraced technology to improve its work processes and decision making. The Ariake Project, which aims to transform the company digitally, was initiated two years ago and is beginning to bear fruit. Through the Ariake project, Fast Retailing restructured its decision-making process and now small, flat teams are able to faster analyse the business, make decisions, and implement ideas. Fast Retailing also has automated warehouse processes such as stock receipts, sorting, packing, and inspection.

The company has been treating shareholders fairly too, by paying around 30% of its profits as dividends. 

It is also heartening to see that Yanai owns around 44% of Fast Retailing. With such a large position in the company, his interests will likely be aligned with shareholders.

4. Are Fast Retailing’s revenue streams recurring in nature?

Recurring revenue is an important yet often overlooked aspect of a business. Recurring revenue allows a company to spend less effort and money to retain existing clients and instead focus on other aspects of the business.

In Fast Retailing’s case, I believe a large portion of its revenue is recurring in nature. The company has built up a strong brand following and repeat customer purchases are highly likely.

5. Does Fast Retailing have a proven ability to grow?

Fast Retailing has been one of the fastest-growing apparel retailers in the world. The chart below shows Fast Retailing’s sales compared to other leading apparel retailers since 2000.

Source: Fast Retailing 2018 Annual Report

The red line shows Fast Retailing’s annual sales. As you can see, Fast Retailing started from the lowest base among the top five global apparel retailers. However, it has since seen steady growth and has overtaken traditional powerhouses such as Gap and L Brands.

It is worth noting that the most recent quarter saw a slight dip in revenue and operating profit. However, I believe the long-term tailwinds should see the company return to growth in the longer-term.

6. Does Fast Retailing have a high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future?

A company’s true worth is not based on its accounting profits but on the cash flow it can generate in the future. That is why Ser Jing and I have an eye on companies’ free cash flow numbers. 

I believe Fast Retailing has all the ingredients in place to consistently generate increasing free cash flow in the years ahead.

The company is expanding its store count internationally, with China and Southeast Asia set to become important drivers of growth. As mentioned earlier, Fast Retailing’s free cash flow has been increasing from FY2015 to FY2019.

Fast Retailing’s management is also cautiously optimistic about its International market expansion prospects, and showed the chart below in its FY2018 annual report:

Source: Fast Retailing FY2018 annual report

Based on the chart, management is expecting Uniqlo International sales revenue to double from 2018 to 2022. That tremendous runway of growth will likely provide the company with a growing stream of free cash flow.

Risks

A discussion on a company will not be complete without assessing the risks.

I think the most important risk for the company is key-man risk. The current CEO and founder, Yanai, is the main reason for Fast Retailing’s growth. His vision and ability to grow the brand, develop new products, and enter new markets is the driving force behind Uniqlo’s success.

As a major shareholder of the company, he has also made decisions that have been favourable towards other shareholders. Moreover, Yanai is not getting any younger and will be turning 71 in February this year.

That said, I believe Yanai is still going strong. Despite ranking as the 31st richest man in the world, and the richest in Japan, he still has the ambition to drive the company further. Yanai is aware of succession planning for the company and is confident that the new leaders will step up to the plate. He said in late 2018:

“Okazaki (current CFO) and others in management have been progressing to where, even if I am not here, the company will be run properly.”

In its bid to expand internationally, Uniqlo also needs to properly manage its brand image. Mismanagement of the brand can have a detrimental effect on sales, as was the case with Under Armour.

In addition, I think a large part of Fast Retailing’s sales growth will have to come from new product offerings. Uniqlo needs to maintain its high standards while developing new fabrics and designs to keep its customers coming back.

Valuation

Valuing a company usually requires a wee bit of estimation and assumptions, so bear with me here.

In Fast Retailing’s case, I will assume it can hit management’s targets of doubling its International sales to around ¥1.6 trillion by 2023. This assumption seems fair, given the potential for China and Southeast Asia alone to hit around ¥1.3 trillion in sales by that time.

For this exercise, I also assume that its sales in Japan will maintain at around ¥900 billion. In addition, I assume that operating margins for Japan and International sales are 11.5% and 13.5% respectively (based on historical margins).

Given all these assumptions, Fast Retailing can expect profits after tax in the region of around ¥225 billion yen (30% tax rate on pre-tax operating profits).

Nike currently trades at a price-to-earnings multiple of around 35. Attaching that multiple to my 2023 earnings estimate, I estimate that Fast Retailing can have a market cap of ¥7.9 trillion in the next few years.

That is 17% higher than its current market cap, despite assuming a fall in the price-to-earnings multiple from its current 39 to 35.

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

Fast Retailing is undoubtedly a company that possesses many great qualities. A visionary leader, a powerful brand, an enormous addressable market, patented products that consumers love, and more. Its finances speak for themselves, with strong cash flow, earnings, and revenue growth.

Based on my estimates, the company’s valuation has room to grow over the next four years even if there is an earnings-multiple compression. In addition, investors should also consider that Fast Retailing can extend is growing streak well beyond the next four years.

As such, despite the company trading near all-time highs, and with the existence of some execution risks, I believe there is enough positives to warrant picking up shares of Fast Retailing today.

If you enjoyed this article, I wrote a similar article on another apparel brand, Lululemon.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Why I Own PayPal Shares

PayPal has been in my family’s portfolio for a number years and it has done well for us. Here’s why we continue to own PayPal.

PayPal Holdings (NASDAQ: PYPL) is one of the 50-plus companies that’s in my family’s portfolio. I first bought PayPal shares for the portfolio in June 2016 at a price of US$38, again in November 2018 at US$83, and yet again in June 2019 at US$117. I’ve not sold any of the shares I’ve bought.

The first two purchases have performed well for my family’s portfolio, with PayPal’s share price being around US$116 now. But it is always important to think about how a company’s business will evolve going forward. What follows is my thesis for why I still continue to hold PayPal shares. 

Company description

PayPal was first listed in the US stock market in February 2002, but it was acquired by e-commerce site eBay just a few months later. The acquisition made sense for PayPal, as the company could tap on eBay’s larger network of users and gross merchandise volume.

Interestingly, PayPal outgrew eBay over time. Eventually, PayPal was spun off by eBay in mid-2015 through a new IPO. On the day of PayPal’s second listing, its market capitalisation of around US$47 billion was larger than eBay – and has since nearly tripled.

It’s likely that even for us living in Singapore, we have come across PayPal’s online payment services. But there is more to the company. PayPal’s payments platform includes a number of brands – PayPal, PayPal Credit, Braintree, Venmo, Xoom, and iZettle – that facilitate transactions between merchants and consumers (and also between consumers) across the globe. The platform works across different channels, markets, and networks.

PayPal recently added discount-discovery services for consumers to its portfolio. It announced a US$4 billion acquisition of Honey in November 2019 that closed earlier this month. According to PayPal, Honey “helps consumers find savings as they shop online.” Honey has around 17 million monthly active users, partners with 30,000 online retailers across various retail categories, and has helped its user base find more than US$1 billion in savings in the last 12 months.

PayPal’s revenue comes primarily from taking a small cut of its platform’s payment volume. This transaction revenue accounted for 90.3% of PayPayl’s revenue of US$12.8 billion in the first nine months of 2019. Other business activities including partnerships, subscription fees, gateway fees, service-related fees, and more (collectively known as other value added services) comprise the remaining 9.7% of PayPal’s net revenue. 

The US was PayPal’s largest country by revenue in the first nine months of 2019 with a 53.2% share. In a distant second is the UK, with a weight of 10.5%. No other single country made up more than 10% of the company’s net revenue.

Investment thesis

I had previously laid out my investment framework in The Good Investors. I will use the framework, which consists of six criteria, to describe my investment thesis for PayPal.

1. Revenues that are small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or revenues that are large in a fast-growing market

PayPal’s business is in digital and mobile payments. According to a 2018 PayPal investor presentation, this market is worth a staggering US$110 trillion, as shown in the chart below. For context, PayPal raked in just US$17.0 billion in revenue in the 12 months ended 30 September 2019 based on US$676.2 billion (or just US$0.676 trillion) in payment volume that flowed through its platform.

Source: PayPal presentation

Around 80% of transactions in the world today are still settled with cash, which means digital and mobile payments still have low penetration. This spells opportunity for PayPal. 

2. A strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt

PayPal’s balance sheet looks rock-solid at the moment, with US$5.0 billion in debt against US$6.9 billion in cash, as of 30 September 2019. The picture is likely to change with the aforementioned US$4 billion acquisition of Honey, but we will only know when PayPal announces its 2020 first-quarter results (which should take place sometime in April this year).

I’m not worried though, because PayPal has a storied history of producing strong free cash flow which I’m going to discuss later.

3. A management team with integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset

On integrity

PayPal’s key leader is CEO Dan Schulman, who’s 61 this year. In 2018, the lion’s share of the compensation for PayPal’s key leaders (including Schulman and a handful of other senior executives) came from the following:

  • Stock awards that vest over a three-year period
  • Restricted stock awards that depend on the growth in PayPal’s revenue and free cash flow over a three-year period
  • (Specifically for Schulman) Stock awards that depend on the performance of PayPal’s share price over a five-year period

PayPal’s compensation structure for its key leaders has emphases on free cash flow, multi-year-vesting for stock awards, and a dependence on the company’s long-term share price movement. I think this structure aligns my interests as a shareholder with the company’s leaders.

Moreover, PayPal requires its CEO and other senior executives to hold shares that are worth at least three to six times their respective base salaries. This results in skin in the game for PayPal’s leaders. As of 29 March 2019, Schulman himself controlled 719,297 PayPal shares that are collectively worth around US$80 million at the current share price; other members of the company’s senior management team each controlled around US$11 million to US$14 million worth of shares.

On capability and innovation

Some members of PayPal’s senior management team have relatively short tenures with the company, as illustrated in the table below. But together, they have accomplished plenty since PayPal’s separation from eBay.

Source: PayPal website, and other press releases

First, the company has grown its network of users impressively since the spin-off. The table below shows how PayPal’s transactions, payments volume, and active accounts have changed from 2014 to the first nine months of 2019.

Source: PayPal IPO document, annual reports, and quarterly filings

Second, PayPal has made a number of impressive acquisitions in recent years under Schulman. They are:

  • Digital international money-transfer platform Xoom (acquired in November 2015 for US$1.1 billion). The platform’s money-transfer network covers more than 160 countries.
  • iZettle, a provider of solutions to small businesses for the acceptance of card payments and sales management and analytics (acquired in September 2018 for US$2.2 billion).  PayPal acquired iZettle to strengthen its payment capabilities in physical stores and provide better payment solutions for omnichannel merchants. I believe that a retailer’s ability to provide a seamless omnichannel shopping experience is crucial in today’s environment. When iZettle was acquired, it operated in 12 countries across Europe and Latin America, and was expected to deliver US$165 million in revenue and process US$6 billion in payments in 2018.

Third, PayPal has been striking up strategic partnerships in many areas since becoming an independent company. The slides below from PayPal’s 2018 Investor Day event says it all: PayPal had no strategic partners when it was still under eBay!

Source: PayPal investor presentation

4. Revenue streams that are recurring in nature, either through contracts or customor-behaviour

I mentioned earlier that PayPal’s primary revenue source is payments that take place on its platform. And when I discussed PayPal’s management, I also pointed out that the company had processed 8.9 billion transactions in the first nine months of 2019 from 295 million active accounts (at the end of 2018, PayPal had 267 million active accounts, of which 21 million are merchants).

I think that these high numbers highlight the recurring nature of PayPal’s business. It’s also worth noting that there’s no customer-concentration: No single customer accounted for more than 10% of PayPal’s revenues in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

5. A proven ability to grow

PayPal returned to the stock market only in 2015, so I don’t have a long track record to study. But I’m impressed by what the company has.

Source: PayPal annual reports

In my explanation of this criterion, I mentioned that I’m looking for “big jumps in revenue, net profit, and free cash flow over time.” PayPal fits the bill. A few key things to note:

  • Revenue has increased in each year from 2012 to 2018, and has compounded at a healthy clip of 18.2% per year.
  • Net profit was always positive, and has increased by 17.6% per year.
  • PayPal has not diluted shareholders too. Its 68% growth in net profit from 2015 to 2018 is similar to the 71% jump in diluted earnings per share (EPS) over the same timeframe. 
  • Operating cash flow and free cash flow were always positive in each year, and the two important financial metrics have compounded at impressive annual rates of 23.2% and 28.1%, respectively. 
  • PayPal’s operating cash flow and free cash flow in 2018 had enjoyed a one-time boost from the sale of the company’s US consumer credit receivables portfolio in July that year. But even after making the relevant adjustments, PayPal’s operating cash flow and free cash flow for the year would still be strong at US$4.1 billion and US$3.3 billion, respectively. 
  • PayPal’s balance sheet was stellar throughout, given the high net cash position. 

PayPal continued to grow in the first nine months of 2019. Revenue was up 14.1% to US$12.8 billion, driving a 32.5% jump in net income to US$1.95 billion (diluted EPS grew 34.4% to US$1.64). Operating cash flow and adjusted free cash flow came in at US$3.3 billion and US$2.8 billion, respectively; adjusted free cash flow was up 25% from US$2.2 billion a year ago.

I see two notable traits in PayPal’s network: 

  • PayPal has a global reach. It is able to handle transactions in over 200 markets, and allow its customers to receive money in 100 currencies, withdraw funds in 56 currencies, and hold PayPal account balances in 25 currencies.
  • I believe PayPal’s business exhibits a classic network effect. Its competitive position strengthens when its network increases in size. When I discussed PayPal’s management earlier, I showed that the volume of payments and number of transactions increased faster than the number of accounts. This means that PayPal’s users are using the platform more over time – to me, this indicates that PayPal’s platform is becoming more valuable to existing users as more users come onboard.

I also want to point out two payment services providers that are in PayPal’s portfolio; I think that they are crucial for the company’s future growth:

  • The first is mobile payments services provider Braintree, which was acquired in 2013 for US$713 million. Braintree provides the technological backbone for the payment tools of many technology companies, including ride-hailing app Uber, cloud storage outfit DropBox, and accommodations platform AirBnB. Braintree helps PayPal better serve retailers and companies that conduct business primarily through mobile apps.
  • The second is digital wallet Venmo (acquired by Braintree in 2012), which allows peer-to-peer transactions. Venmo is highly popular among millennials in the US, and PayPal reported that there were more than 40 million active accounts for the digital wallet in 2019’s first quarter. During 2019’s third quarter, Venmo’s total payment volume surged by 64% from a year ago to US$27 billion (and up more than five times from just three years ago in the third quarter of 2016). The annual run rate of Venmo’s total payment volume has also now exceeded US$100 billion. Meanwhile, monetisation of Venmo has progressed at a rapid clip. The digital wallet’s annual revenue run rate in 2019’s third quarter was nearly US$400 million, double the US$200 million seen in 2018’s fourth quarter.

6. A high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future

PayPal has excelled in producing free cash flow from its business for a long time, and has huge growth opportunities ahead. There’s no reason to believe these will change any time soon. 

Valuation

I like to keep things simple in the valuation process. In PayPal’s case, I think the price-to-free cash flow (P/FCF) ratio is a suitable gauge for the company’s value. That’s because the payment services outfit has a strong history of producing positive and growing free cash flow.

PayPal carries a trailing P/FCF ratio of around 38 at a share price of US$116, after adjusting for the one-time boost to the company’s free cash flow in 2018. This ratio looks a little high relative to history. For perspective, PayPal’s P/FCF ratio was only around 28 in the early days of its 2015 listing.

But I’m happy to pay up, since PayPal excels under my investment framework

The risks involved

There are six key risks I see in PayPal.

First, the payments space is highly competitive. PayPal’s muscling against other global payments giants such as Mastercard and Visa that have larger payment networks. Then there are technology companies with fintech arms that focus on payments, such as China’s Tencent and Alibaba. In November 2019, Bloomberg reported that Tencent and Alibaba plans to open up their payment services (WeChat Pay and Alipay, respectively) to foreigners who visit China. Let’s not forget that there’s blockchain technology (the backbone of cryptocurrencies) jostling for room too. There’s no guarantee that PayPal will continue being victorious. But the payments market is so huge that I think there will be multiple winners – and my bet is that PayPal will be among them.

Second, there’s eBay’s relationship with PayPal. When the two companies separated, they signed a five-year deal – expiring in July 2020 – for PayPal to help eBay process payments. eBay announced in 2018 that it would not renew the deal when it expires (although PayPal will still be a payment-button on eBay’s site through July 2023). eBay accounted for 8% of PayPal’s total payment volume (TPV) in 2019’s third quarter. But PayPal’s management expects the percentage to fall to “well under 5%” by the end of 2020. eBay’s also a waning presence in e-commerce, so I don’t think it holds any importance to PayPal’s future growth. During 2019’s third quarter, PayPal’s total TPV (excluding currency movements) grew by 27% despite the 3% decline in eBay’s TPV (similarly excluding currency movements) on PayPal’s platform.

The third risk I’m watching is regulations. The payments market is heavily regulated. What PayPal can take per payment-transaction could be lowered in the future by regulators for various reasons.

The fourth risk concerns recessions. I don’t know when a recession (in the US or around the world) will occur. But when it does, payment activity on PayPal’s platform could be lowered. PayPal’s business was remarkably resilient during the last major global economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. Back then, eBay had no revenue-growth from its main e-commerce platform. But the segment that consisted primarily of PayPal produced strong double-digit revenue growth in both years. PayPal’s a much larger company today, so it may not be able to grow through a future recession that easily – but its historical track record is impressive.

Source: eBay annual report

The US$4 billion acquisition of Honey represents the fifth risk. I want to be clear: I like the deal and I think it will work out great. But it’s still a risk. Let me explain. Honey’s revenue in 2018 was over US$100 million, with growth of more than 100% –  and the company was already profitable. In a recent article, Ben Thompson from Stratechery shared how the acquisition can lead to upside for PayPal’s business:

“The most important effect, according to Schulman, was on PayPal’s relationship with consumers. Now, instead of being a payment option consumers choose once they have already committed to a purchase, PayPal can engage with consumers much higher in the purchase funnel. This might be one step higher, as would be the case with coupon search, but it could also be around discovery and calls-to-action, as might be the case with the app or notifications and price-tracking…

…Honey is also an intriguing way for PayPal to actually make money on Venmo in particular. Honey’s audience skews heavily female and millennial, which means there is a lot of overlap with Venmo, and there is a good chance PayPal can really accelerate Honey’s adoption by placing it within its core apps (which it plans to do within the next 6 to 12 months)…

…If PayPal, via Honey, knows exactly what you are interested in buying, and can make it possible for merchants to offer customized offers based on that knowledge, well, that may be a very effective way to not only capture affiliate revenue but also payment processing revenue as well. Demand generation remains one of the most significant challenges for merchants… And here the fact that PayPal has 24 million merchant partners versus Honey’s 30,000 is a very big deal.”

But Honey is PayPal’s largest acquisition ever, and the deal comes with a steep price tag of US$4 billion. Assuming Honey can grow its revenue by 100% in 2019, PayPal is effectively paying 20 times revenue for the discount discovery company. I will have to face a situation of PayPal writing down the value of Honey if the integration of the two fails to live up to expectations.

Lastly, I’m mindful of succession risk. PayPal’s CEO, Dan Schulman, is already 61 this year. Fortunately, PayPal’s key leaders are mostly in their mid-fifties or younger.

The Good Investors’ conclusion 

I think the transition from cash to cashless payments holds immense opportunities for companies. I also think a payment company with a wide network of consumers and merchants (PayPal, for instance) stands a good chance of being one of the eventual winners. 

Furthermore, PayPal has a robust balance sheet, a proven ability to generate strong free cash flow, high levels of recurring revenues, and an excellent management team whose interests are aligned with shareholders. PayPal’s P/FCF ratio is on the high end, but I’m happy to pay up for a top-quality business.

Every company has risks, and I’m aware of the important ones with PayPal. They include competition, regulation, and more. But after weighing the risks and rewards, I’m still happy to allow PayPal to be pally with my family’s investment portfolio.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Are Lulelemon Shares Too Expensive?

Lululemon shares surged 79% last year. It now trades at more than 50 times earnings. Is it too expensive to add shares now?

To say that Lululemon (NASDAQ: LULU) has been on a hot streak is a major understatement. The Canadian athletic apparel maker’s revenue and earnings per share soared 21% and 34% respectively in the first nine months of 2019.

Consequently, market participants have driven Lululemon’s shares up by 79% in the last year. That brings its five-year gain up to 273%.

But with its share price sitting near its all-time high, have investors missed the boat?

I decided to do a quick assessment of Lululemon’s investment potential based on my blogging partner Ser Jing’s six-point investment framework

Company description

Before diving into my analysis, here is a quick brief on what Lululemon does. Lululemon is one of the first companies to specialise in athletic apparel for women. Its products are distributed through its network of company-operated stores and direct online sales channels.

Lululemon’s products are unique in that it has its own research and design team that source advanced fabrics that feel good and fit well. Customers of Lululemon tell me that its products indeed feel more comfortable than other brands.

With that, let’s take a look at how Lululemon fits into our investment framework.

1. Is its revenue small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or is its revenue large in a fast-growing market

One of the key things we look for in companies is whether they have the ability to grow. A company can grow either by increasing its market share in a large addressable market or by participating in the growth of a growing market.

I think Lululemon can do both.

Lululemon’s revenue is tiny compared to its current total addressable market size in the sports apparel space. According to Allied Market Research, the sports apparel market was valued at US$167.7 billion in 2018 and is estimated to reach US$281 billion by 2026. Comparatively, Lululemon’s net revenue of US$3.7 billion is just 2% of the total addressable market in 2018.

In particular, the athletic apparel brand has set its sights on enlarging its menswear segment and has seen some solid progress in recent years. In the most recent quarter ended 3 November 2019, sales of Lululemon’s men’s category increased by 38%.

The Canadian brand is also increasing its international presence, which presents a huge market opportunity for the company. Revenue from countries outside of the US and Canada increased by 35% in the three quarters ended 3 November 2019. And yet, sales outside of North America still contributed just 12% of Lululemon’s total revenue. 

In 2019, management introduced its “Power of Three” plan to grow revenue by the low double-digit range annually over the next five years. To do so, it plans to double its men’s and digital revenues and quadruple its international revenue.

Based on Lululemon’s addressable market size, I think these are very achievable goals. Given that traditional sports apparel powerhouses such as Nike and Adidas derive most of their sales outside of their home turf, I foresee that Lululemon’s sales outside of North America will also eventually outgrow its North American sales. 

2. Does Lululemon have a strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt?

Lululemon has a pristine balance sheet. As of 3 November 2019, the Canadian company had US$586 million in cash and no debt. 

It has also been consistent in generating cash from its operations. Lululemon generated US$386 million, US$489 million, and US$743 million in operating cash flow in fiscal 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.

Lululemon’s strong balance sheet and steady cash flow have allowed it to use internally generated funds to open new stores, invest in research for new products, and to open new geographical markets.

The company has also used some of its spare cash to reward shareholders through share buybacks. In the last three full fiscal years, Lululemon used more than US$700 million for share buybacks.

3. Does Lululemon’s management team have integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset?

Calvin McDonald was appointed as chief executive officer of Lululemon in August 2018. So far, McDonald has overseen Lululemon’s steady growth in sales over the last one and a half years, while building the brand in Asia and Europe. 

I think he has done a good job so far and his plans to grow internationally and in the menswear segment seem sensible.

On top of that, McDonald brings with him a wealth of experience. He was the president and CEO of Sephora Americas, a division of LVMH group of luxury brands in the five years prior to joining Lululemon. During his tenure there, LVMH enjoyed double-digit growth in revenue.

I also believe that the management team has done well in maintaining Lululemon’s brand image. The company is also consistently upgrading and increasing its product offerings.

The top executives are currently paid a performance bonus based on financial performance goals, weighted 50% on operating income and 50% on revenue. I think the performance goals are in line with shareholder interest. That being said, I would prefer that the executives also have long-term goals in place that would encourage management to think of long-term strategies.

But overall, I still think that Lululemon’s management has proven itself to have integrity and capability in increasing shareholder value.

4. Are its revenue streams recurring in nature?

Recurring revenue is a beautiful thing for a company. Besides providing a reliable revenue stream, it also allows the company to spend less time and money to secure past sales and focus on other aspects of its business.

As Lululemon has built up a strong brand in its core markets in North America, I think that repetitive customer behaviour will result in recurring revenue for the company.

Another good indicator that customers are spending more at Lululemon’s stores is its substantial comparable-store sales growth. Its comparable-store sales soared by 18% for the fiscal year ended February 2019. Importantly, that figure has held up well this year too, increasing by 10% (excluding the 30% growth in direct-to-consumer channels) in the three quarters ended 3 November 2019. 

While it is difficult to say how much of this was from existing customers, the fact that same-store sales have grown at a double-digit pace certainly bodes well for the company.

Lululemon also managed to increase its gross margin by 70 basis points to 55.1%, which illustrates the brand’s strong pricing power.

Its same-store sales growth is made even more impressive when you consider that Lululemon has been ramping up its store count by around 10-plus percent per year.

5. Does Lululemon have a proven ability to grow?

Lululemon is becoming the envy of retail. While numerous others are struggling to cope with the emergence of e-commerce, Lululemon has been growing both its brick and mortar sales, as well as its direct-to-consumer business.

Its net revenue and net income have increased at a compounded annual rate of 12% and 15%, respectively, from fiscal 2015 to fiscal 2018.

More importantly, that growth looks unlikely to slow down any time soon, with revenue and net profit for the first three quarters of fiscal 2019 increasing by 21% and 34%, respectively.

Lululemon’s focus on international growth and men’s apparel should see it comfortably hitting its target of low double-digit growth over the next five years.

6. Does Lululemon have a high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future?

The true value of a company is determined not on profits but on the cash that it can generate in the future. That is why Ser Jing and I look for companies that will not only generate profits but a growing stream of free cash flow per share.

In Lululemon’s case, it has already been generating a steady stream of free cash flow each year. The table below shows Lululemon’s operating cash flow and capital expenditure over the past three years.

Another point worth noting is that Lululemon’s management has been sensible in the way it has reinvested its cash. It is consistently using around a third of its operating cash flow generated for new store openings and expansion of existing stores. It is also returning excess capital to shareholders through share buybacks.

As such, investors can rest easy that the company will not be unnecessarily hoarding cash that it doesn’t need. Its net cash position has hovered between US$664 million to US$990 million at the end of the past five fiscal years.

Risks

A discussion on a company will not be complete without talking about risks. The biggest risk to Lululemon’s business is the mismanagement of its brand. 

A good example of a growing sports apparel brand that ultimately lost traction with consumers is Under Armour. Under Armour devalued its brand by trying to cater to both the high-end and the low-end markets at the same time. Unfortunately selling cheaper products ended up hurting its brand appeal in the premium market.

Lululemon will need to manage its brand and price-point to prevent a similar scenario from hurting its sales. The company will need to be extra careful as it ramps up its menswear apparel. Lululemon had previously positioned itself as a brand for women. Increasing its men’s apparel sales could devalue this proposition and end up eroding the goodwill it has built with some of its existing customers.

Competitors can also eat into Lululemon’s existing market share. Currently, Lululemon enjoys strong brand loyalty and boasts a product that customers are willing to pay up for. If competitors develop new products that have similar look and feel to Lululemon’s core offerings, it may be faced with eroding margins and difficulty retaining or growing its business.

Lululemon also faces the risk of keeping itself relevant. So far, the company has adapted well to the changing business conditions and have been one step ahead of competitors through new product offerings. For it to continue to grow at its projected five-year pace, Lululemon needs to continue expanding its product offering to retain customer loyalty.

Valuation

What is a good price to pay for Lululemon? As with any company, this requires a reasonable amount of estimation and judgment.

The fast-growing retailer said that it expects to grow at a low double-digit pace over the next five years. If it manages to grow its earnings by around 15% per annum, it will be generating around US$931 million in net income in five years’ time.

Nike shares currently trade at a price-to-earnings ratio of around 36. Using that same multiple on Lululemon, I calculate that the Canadian sports apparel giant could be worth around US$33.5 billion by then.

Using that estimate, Lulelemon shares have a 5% upside based on its current market cap of around US$31.8 billion. That doesn’t seem like much.

However, let’s assume the company also grows its bottom line by 15% annually from year 6 to year 10. Given the huge addressable market outside of North America, a 15% annualised growth rate over a 10-year period seems possible. By 2030, Lululemon will have a net profit of US$1.9 billion. Taking a 35 times earnings multiple, it will have a market cap of US$65.3 billion. That’s more than twice its current market cap, which translates to a decent 8% or so annualised return over 10 years.

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

Lululemon ticks all six boxes of Ser Jing’s investment framework. It has a history of strong growth and is still small in comparison to its total addressable market. Management has also been proactive in returning excess capital to shareholders.

In addition, my valuation projection is fairly conservative. Lululemon could potentially grow its bottom line by more than 15% annually.

On top of that, investors may be willing to pay a larger premium than 35 times its earnings, especially if Lululemon continues to grow at fast rates. 

As such, even though its shares are trading at a seemingly rich valuation of around 56 times trailing earnings, if the company can sustain its growth over the next 10 years, investors who pick up shares today could still be well-rewarded over the long term.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.