June 2014


CPO2In prior posts we have explored the notion that pet industry transaction volume is accelerating, and by all available measures in fact it is.  We have also delved into rumors of a public offering by Blue Buffalo later this year, noting the lack of public traded pure play pet companies. On Tuesday, Trupanion, a venture backed provider of health insurance for dogs and cats, announced it intended to file for an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. We are also aware of at least one other company in the process of filing, and the concept of going public has been increasingly discussed in my industry coverage meetings.  This begs the question, are the public markets the most viable exit opportunity for a variety of midsized pet companies?

What is most notable about the Trupanion filing is the size of the company.  The business, of which I am a customer, disclosed that it was covering 181,634 pets as of March 31, 2014 and generated revenue of $83.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. On a quarterly basis, the company said it has posted quarter-over-quarter revenue growth since the first quarter of 2010. In the most recent quarter, ended March 31, the company reported revenue of $25.6 million, a 44% increase from the same period a year earlier.  However, also in the disclosure was the insight that the company lost $8.2 million in 2013 and has never made money.  That said, Trupanion has a huge intangible data asset, having covered a large population of pets for nearly 14 years; data that would be highly valuable to a variety of players in the pet supply chain. That notwithstanding, it is hard to believe that Trupanion, even at the most generous valuations, is going to achieve an offering price that results in a market capitalization that will motivate meaningful analyst coverage, given its size and earnings profile. Trupanion’s primary competitor, the larger Veterinary Pet Insurance Company, remains private. Other pet insurance companies have not met with favorable results in the public markets due, primarily in my estimation, size.

Often public filings are practical way of putting a “For Sale” sign on a business. Whether or not this is Trupanion’s intention, the mere optionality of a public listing would act as another catalyst for industry transaction volume.  Further, if successful it could pave the way for other midsized pet companies to explore the go public alternative.  Certainly companies such as Radio Systems Corp, Hartz Mountain (which is owned by publicly traded Uni-Charm Corporation) and United Pet Products (owned by publicly traded Spectrum Brands) would be well situated to tap the public markets for liquidity or acquisition capital. Further, brands such as Champion Pet Food, Dosckocil Manufacturing, Freshpet, Kong Company, Nature’s Variety and Merrick Pet Care would gain another exit alternative.

The analysis above separates the issues of “could” from “should”. While Trupanion has a clear path to a diversified growth plan through its data asset, the ability to sustain public company momentum for many of the companies listed above is limited. We have already questioned whether the much bigger Blue Buffalo can remain channel tied as a public company and it dwarfs most of the above listed companies in size and brand awareness.  However, more public pet companies would be good for the industry, which generally lacks a broad set of consolidators.

/bryan

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

chicken_little_funny-t2Last week, PetSmart announced first quarter earnings. The company reported slowing growth and negative same store sales.  I believe it was the first negative comp quarter in 16 years for PetSmart. Management took full year comp store guidance down to zero, from 2%. The stock fell approximately 8% on the news, taking the year-to-date loss to -22%. Naturally, this has led some to question whether the sky is falling for PetSmart, the pet industry, or b0th.  To begin to answer these questions, we first need to uncouple them.

To assess the performance of PetSmart, separate and distinct from the industry, the best place to start seems to be in the context of broader retail.  Anyone who was surprised by softness in PetSmart’s numbers has probably not been keeping their pulse on the four wall retail environment. In January, 20 retailers pre-announced earnings shortfalls. This was the highest number post recession and on par with the levels the industry experienced in third and fourth quarter 2008. Howard Schultz blamed it on the Internet, others cited weather, consumer confidence, and wage stagnation. Notably, both Wal Mart (-0.4%) and Target (-2.5%) produced negative comps for the 1Q2014. We cataloged 1Q2014 revenue growth, EPS growth and performance versus guidance of some of the major big box retailers here — 1Q Retail EPS Performance. Notably, PetSmart was the only company within this comp group to exceed guidance on earnings. What this speaks to is the fact that PetSmart has a very good handle on the cost side of their business. While they experienced slight margin compression, unlike its peers PetSmart does not appear to be chasing the middle market consumer through a promotional discounting strategy. This underscores PetSmart’s relative market position in the industry as well as the ongoing attractiveness of the pet category.

When we shift our analytical purview to the broader industry, the cause and effect relationship is more apparent. While total consumer spending on pet products and services continues on a positive growth trajectory, total growth has been slowing, driven by a falling comps for pet products (see graph below).  What this demonstrates is that the industry is maturing and that drivers are changing.  As the pet food upgrade cycle has tapered products sales growth has slowed.  However, as a wellness focus has ascended, services revenue growth has accelerated.  Given that services is a much smaller part of PetSmart’s mix, it was bound to experience the malaise of the industry’s product sales growth trajectory.  PetSmart’s first quarter revenue growth was more or less inline with the growth in industry product sales.  Additionally, keep in mind that total pet industry sales, as measured by consumer expenditures by category, grew 12.6% between 2011 and 2013; at some point the “law of large numbers” catches up to everyone.Slide1A second lens we like to use to assess pet industry performance is the rate of adoptions.  An increase in ownership and multi-pet householders means an increase in expenditures.  However, as evidenced by the chart below, the growth rate for companion animal adoptions, as measured by shelters monitored by Pethealth, Inc., slowed markedly in 1Q2014, especially for dogs.  That said, a similar contraction was evident in 2011, a year of strong industry growth (4.7% according to the American Pet Products Association).  As such, we think it is too early to call it a year for the industry, but in combination with slowing pet products sales it is cause for some consternation.Slide2In looking at the total body of available data there is reason to be concerned about the pace of pet industry growth but not the overall health of the industry.  Slower growth has been anticipated and therefore should not come as a surprise. The industry has been defying skeptics for sometime, but all good things experience a tapering.  Further, it is too early to call the year from any analytical perspective.  The pet industry remains very attractive long term and while online players, adjacent market competitors, and emerging brands have eroded the leadership of both major retailers and product manufacturers, the threat to their overall industry position remains low.  Generally speaking, physical retail has experience a much more significant contraction, driven by share shift to mobile and online, recently even after you factor out the weather.  In that context one can view PetSmart’s performance in a relatively positive light.

I think I can say with authority, when it comes to all things pet there may be clouds in the sky, but it is not currently falling.

/bryan