capital recruitment


m8bA common refrain in the pet industry is that to predict the future of the consumables category, you need only to look back on the prevailing human trends three years prior. Today, I would argue that this rule-of-thumb applies more broadly, to a cross section of pet industry categories, than previously appreciated. As an example, the rise of ecommerce in the pet industry follows a similar trajectory to a number of human categories that were thought to be “Amazon proof”.  This is why I think pet industry participants should be paying attention to recent funding deals for Freshly, Inc., whose $77 million Series D was led by Nestle, USA, and Chef’d, LLC, whose $17.6 million Series B was led by Campbell Soup Company.

Both Freshly and Chef’d are in the business of delivering fresh food to your door step.  In the case of Freshly, these are fresh prepared meals, which require minimal intervention to get them from the packaging to the plate.  Chef’d delivers personalized meal-kits, which you then prepare at home, in as little as 10 minutes.  As a side note, I’ve never completed a meal kit from any company in under an hour, but maybe that says more about my cooking skills than anything else. Notably Chef’d partners with culinary and media personalities to create menu inspirations.  That said, what these companies deliver is less interesting than who is financing the growth of their business.

Large human food companies have significantly increased their investment activity in emerging food brands over the past 24 months.  Major industry players have set up dedicated investing units to source and evaluate opportunities.  The human food industry has largely outsourced its research and development function to start-ups who are seeking to capitalize on emerging consumer trends.  These companies become investment or acquisition targets if their solution set demonstrates the ability to resonate with a large enough audience and if their production processes can scale.  However, this pattern has, to-date, largely been confined to product companies.  Freshly and Chef’d are direct-to-consumer distribution companies cloaked in a product orientation.

The pet industry has its Freshly and Chef’d corollaries.  Companies like JustFoodForDogs and The Farmer’s Dog, have both recently received major cash infusions from financial players.  There are numerous others competing for this emerging space — Ollie Pet, NomNomNow, PetPlate, to name a few.  Yet, I believe the investment trend illustrated by the Freshly and Chef’d transactions tells us more about the real value of scale direct-to-consumer businesses such as A Place for Rover and Bark & Co., than the potential for fresh food delivery in the pet category, whose future we also think is bright.

What the pet food and products manufacturers have in common with their human counterparts is their core means of distribution are under siege by small retailers who provide better service and/or in-store experience as well as by the internet.  As such, any opportunity to get directly to the end customer is highly coveted, and therefore of great value. Within the pet category, there are a very limited set of players that have proven their ability to directly access a critical mass of pet owners.  Therefore, as large manufacturers look for direct-to-consumer exposure they will be left with a choice of ascribing a very high value to an asset with breadth or taking a calculated risk on an upstart.

What these large strategics are looking for is the ability to build a relationship directly with a consumer that is tied solely to the product or offering, and that exists outside of that buyer’s relationship with any retailer, physical or digital. If they own the customer they can look to monetize him or her in a variety of ways, capturing more the the margin along the way. We believe this trend to be applicable to both product and service providers in the pet category.

The question then becomes what would a tie-up between a Mars/Purina/J.M. Smucker Company and a Rover/Bark & Co. mean for the acquired entity.  Would consumers have the same affinity for their Bark Box if it only included treats from the buyer organization, or is the lack of affiliation that part of the value proposition?  We don’t know the answer to that question, but if we follow the story of Freshly and Chef’d going forward, we may well find out.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change. While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

Advertisements

petcoWhen Petco Animal Supplies agreed to be acquired by CVC Capital Partners and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board for $4.6 billion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was trading around 17,800.  The market had recovered from the August swoon that turned out to be the worst month for the index in five years. Concerns about a slowdown in China, falling oil prices, and possible rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, sent the index into a tailspin.  Now, a mere 90 days removed from that correction, the Dow stood within three percent of its 2015 high water mark, and little concern was expressed about mega-deals, such as the Petco transaction, getting to close.  Press releases for the deal indicated a closing would happen in 1Q2016.

When the deal was announced, it was also disclosed that the transaction would be supported by $3 billion in acquisition financing, underwritten by Barclays, Citigroup, Royal Bank of Canada, Credit Suisse, Nomura, and Macquarie.  The broad lender support was a function of the company’s strong credit profile and a favorable following with investors after multiple recapitalizations, which is reflected in its trading profile in the secondary loan market.  Further, PetSmart’s acquisition debt had been trading a favorable rates in the secondary market, boosting interest. However, the deal was subject to syndication that would happen in 1Q2016.  While there has been no indication with any issues in closing the deal, there is cause for concern.  When the debt package was originally negotiated, the credits market were choppy,  now they are downright turbulent with bankruptcies accelerating and junk bond issuances declining by over 70% year-over-year.  While these bankruptcies are primarily related to the energy markets and energy dependent segments, they have put a malaise into the large cap buyout credit market as a whole.  Notably, in January, Citigroup tweaked the terms of Petco’s loan package to make it more attractive to potential syndication partners.

I proffer an example of the credit market’s uneasiness in the case of Mills Fleet Farm Group. In 2015, KKR agreed to buy the family owned retailer of rural consumer goods, including pet products, for $1.2 billion. Mills Fleet operates 35 stores in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota.  The deal was set to close in late 2015, before it ran into trouble with its debt package. No sell-side capital markets deck was willing to take the paper, and KKR was forced to sell finance a large portion of the debt package against a backdrop of large retailer earnings misses, which drove up pricing.  The sale of Mills Fleet closed on Leap Day 2016, fitting.

While we may not be able to draw a direct correlation between Mills Fleet and Petco, the deals fall into the same buyout class.  Further, if you look outside of these transactions not many large cap LBOs are closing.  Most of the recent multi-billion deals have involved strategic acquirors.  Ultimately, we expect the Petco transaction to close, but there may be more bumps in the road along the way.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

 

plantThe pet industry delivered another strong year of relative growth in 2014.  According to the American Pet Products Association (“APPA”), the industry grew 4.2% to just over $58.0 billion in total revenues.  While growth was again strong relative to other consumer sectors, it was 0.8% below estimates. This shortfall represents the first time in the past five years that the industry did not meet or exceed APPA projections.

From a growth rate standpoint, the industry was again driven by veterinary services (+4.7%) and non-health care services (+9.8%).  The industry benefited from 0.9% of product inflation and 2.9% of services inflation, which puts volume/unit growth in perspective. With the pet population growing at a slow pace, the industry has benefited from price escalation to overcome anemic volume growth.  Industry growth was again constrained by consumables which grew at 3.2%, 1.6% short of estimates. It appears that the industry may in fact be hitting the ceiling on the pet food upgrade cycle, as premium pet food market share was flat from 2012 to 2014 at 42% of pet food sales.

The slowdown in industry growth was, to the informed observer, not unexpected. The industry can’t grow at 5% when the largest specialty retailer produces flat comps. However, what was more meaningful in the APPA disclosures was the rate at which new owners were entering the inudstry. The APPA estimates indicate that as much as 10% of the pet ownership population came into the fold during the past 12 months, reflecting a rising rate of companion animal ownership among younger demographics at the expense of the Baby Boomers, who continue to slow pet replacement and when they do they favor smaller companion animals.  If in fact industry purchasing power is transitioning to Gen X and Gen Y and this rapid pace it will have meaningful implications on what products are purchased and where.

In our bi-annual industry summary contemplate these changes are other key observations as outlined below.

  • Convergence Gathers Momentum. Convergence between industries serving the human population and those serving companion animals is not an all together new trend. Not since Nestlé’s acquisition of Ralston Purina (2001) and Del Monte’s acquisition of Milk Bone and Meow Mix (2006), has the consumer landscape seen this phenomenon in play on such a grand scale. However, the J.M. Smucker Company/Big Heart Brands and AmerisourceBergen/MWI Veterinary Supply transactions are evidence that mainstream acquirers are again seeing the potential of buying into the pet industry. These buyers are seeking access to the growth inherent in the pet industry as a means to offset slowing growth or contraction in their core businesses. If this trend trickles down to the lower middle market it will be a game changer in terms of exit alternatives for leading pet players. Expect sellers to test this theory.
  • Demographic Shift has Accelerated. In earlier reports we tied the recent performance erosion of major pet specialty to shifting industry ownership demographics. Our analysis postulated that rising spend from new pet owners, who are predominately part of Gen X and Gen Y, was benefiting independent retailers and online players at the expense of major pet specialty. A recent study by the APPA indicates that the industry added eight million new pet owners in the past year, nearly 10% of the owner population. Growth in first time pet ownership is accelerating faster than previously anticipated. If the rise of Gen Y, and to a lesser extent Gen X, in terms of purchasing power continues at this pace it will have significant impacts on industry spend. Notably, Gen X/Y pet owners exhibit less channel loyalty and ascribes more importance to convenience. Additionally, they place greater value on wellness which bodes well for retailers, product manufacturers, and service providers catering to these pet needs.
  • Exit Dynamics for Consumables Improving. A challenge for pet consumable companies seeking to exit has been a decided lack of strategic acquirers. Consolidation has historically been dominated by a handful of major industry participants leaving smaller companies with few options for synergistic exits. However, this landscape is now changing. Most notably, investment in companies with production assets is creating a new class of acquirers. Existing brands such as Merrick & Company and Nature’s Variety as well as traditional producers including Ainsworth Pet Nutrition and Pro-Pet have become net buyers of assets as a result of third party investment. Additionally, consumer companies in adjacent segments have shown an interest in buying brands that control their own manufacturing capabilities. Finally, the successful public offering of Freshpet is likely to lead other mid-market pet food players to pursue public offerings, which will create more acquisition currency. This multiplexing of exit options is good for the ecosystem and will support additional consolidation.
  • Expect a Blue IPO in 2015. In 2014, it leaked that Blue Buffalo had selected underwriters for an anticipated public offering. However, its plans were impacted when, in late 2014, it came to light that the company had received improperly labeled shipments from one of its suppliers resulting in animal by-products being introduced to some of their formulations. Since that announcement, there has been little news related to lawsuit brought by Nestlé that resulted in the non-conforming ingredient disclosure or about Blue Buffalo’s plans for a listing. In the interim, there has been continued speculation of an acquisition. We don’t buy it. Blue Buffalo’s valuation in the public markets would dwarf any buyers willingness and ability to pay in an M&A event. Looks for Blue to renew its listing push in 2H2015.

As always our pet industry report is available by commenting here or emailing me directly.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

fresh2Earlier this month, pet food marketer, Freshpet pulled off a successful initial public offering, raising $156 million. The company, which generated $74.5 million in sales and $23.1 million in losses for the 12 month period ended June 30, 2014, priced its IPO at $15, higher than the anticipated $12 – $14 range. The stock enjoyed an opening day “pop” of approximately 27%.  Freshpet occupies some pretty attractive real estate in the form of 12,500 branded refrigerators.  Those units include distribution (as of September 30, 2014) in Wal Mart (1,607 stores), PETCO (1,364 stores), PetSmart (1,306 stores), Target (1,157 stores), Kroger (972 stores) and Whole Foods Market (226 stores).  The company was backed by Mid-Ocean Partners, a New York based private equity fund, who, for all intents and purposes, salvaged the company in 2011 after it burned through the original undisclosed investment it received from Tyson’s Foods, who is the primary protein supplier to the company and remains a minority shareholder.

At is current enterprise value of $676 million (November 24, 2014), Freshpet’s public equity trades at 9.1x multiple of revenue.  In contrast, publicly observable acquisition multiples for the most attractive pet food assets have historically topped out at 3.7x revenue (Del Monte Foods / The Meow Mix Company, March, 2006). This convergence of circumstances has led many too ask, often using colorful language, how the market might justify such a premium. Here is my response:

  • When a Number if Not the Number. When a company goes public, there is a collaborative process to create positive momentum for the stock price.  The supply chain has the company selling at a discount to the underwriter who in turn sells at a discount to institutional investors and sprinkles some of the well connected general investing public. Those not in this inner circle who seek to access the stock are forced to bid it up in an effort to acquire a position.  The resulting supply/demand imbalance generally buoys the stock price for some period, ideally until fundamentals catch-up to the price. In the period immediately following a public offering, there is limited downward pressure, outside of broader market fundamentals, on the stock until it posts earnings or the lock-up period expires. As such, the prevailing price is simply the price you can buy or sell the stock for right now rather than indicative of the long range, or fair-market valuation of the company.  You can see other examples of this trend in practice with other recent pet related IPOs Pets-At-Home Group (LSE:PETS) and Trupanion (NYSE:TRUP) both of which, after a brief honeymoon period wherein the stock was supported by the supply/demand imbalance, have seen their multiples revert to the mean for their business respective models.
  • Don’t Underestimate the Pent-Up Demand. Retail investors love the pet space because, for companion animal owners, it is easy for them to understand. However, as we have detailed before, there is a lack of pure play pet companies, especially in the consumables category.  Investors can play the retail space through PetSmart (NasdaqGS:PETM) and Pets-At-Home, the health care space through VCA Antech (NasdaqGS:WOOF), Zoetis (NYSE:ZTS), and Neogen (NasdaqGS:NEOG), and distribution through MWI Veterinary Supply (NasdaqGS:MWIV). However, opportunities to invest directly in pet food and treats are non-existent.  The three biggest players — Purina (subsidiary), Mars (private), and Big Heart Brands (private) do not currently offer that opportunity. As someone who subscribes to the Peter Lynch theory of investing (i.e., go with what you know) I can see why retail investors might be willing to pay a premium to get access to the sub-sector given its growth profile, consolidation multiples, and recession resistant dynamics.
  • Compelling Business Attributes.  What is overlooked in the analysis above is the fact that Freshpet has some compelling business attributes that should be ascribed a premium price.  The company’s refrigerator inventory occupies some valuable real estate and the business model is such that retailers are unlikely to support multiple players, providing Freshpet with a first mover advantage and considerable barriers to entry once that cost is underwritten.  Ultimately, the company might become a toll taker whereby it is paid to host third party products in its established real estate. Also consider that Freshpet reports that its refrigerator units reach cash flow breakeven in 15 months. If we assume the company will generate approximately $81.6 million in sales this year (the most recent reported quarter (2Q2014) annualized), this translates to approximate $18/per refrigerator/day to support this breakeven point.  One and one half six pound tubes of the company’s Vital brand would essentially cover that daily revenue bogey.  As revenues scale breakeven per refrigerator will come more quickly, thereby enhancing cash flow.  Finally, the cost premium, while significant is not that far out of market for owners already feeding their pet super premium solutions.  Consider that an active 50 pound dog would go through at 28.6 pound bag of Orijen premium pet food (made by Champion Pet Foods) in 23 – 27 days (based on the brand’s feeding guidelines here) at a cost of approximately $3.75 – $4.25/day based on an in-store retail ring with sales tax.  That same active 50 pound dog would go through a six pound tube of Freshpet Vital in 4 – 5 days, at a cost of approximately $3.50 – $4.40/day. While the disparity gets larger with the size of your dog or as you indulge in more exotic Freshpet offerings, and the price variance is much greater versus mass market kibble, it is not all that out of line for a premium consumer.

The net of all this is that the current equity price of Freshpet is hard to fathom.  While the current price is being artificial inflated, the business has some operating characteristics that support a premium.  I won’t hazard to guess what Freshpet will be worth once the trading shackles are off, but we have seen examples of where companies that are pioneering unique niches in the food space can enjoy strong multiples from some time (see Annie’s).  However, invariably company performance will have to accelerate meaningful to support even the prevailing enterprise value.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

fly in soupOn its way to a date with a public security listing, Blue Buffalo ran into a small problem.  It seems there was a fly in their soup; one which they claim to have been blissfully unaware.  Equally embarrassing was the fact their fiercest rival, Nestle Purina, had been the source of the discovery.  What followed the initial accusation is either evidence of the power the independent premium pet food company wields or the first act in a Greek tragedy. The outcome is likely to have an impact on the pet food industry investment and the pet food M&A landscape.

In March 2014, it was leaked that Blue Buffalo, the $600+ million revenue independent premium pet food marketer, had selected a trio of lead arrangers for its public offering. The company had, for years, been rumored to be on and off the market seeking a buyer at prices between $2 – $3 billion depending on the timing of the speculation. It appeared that the company was now ready to tap the public markets for liquidity, an event that filled the industry with equal parts fear and excitement.

Two months after the leak, Nestle Purina filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging its competitor was lying about the contents of its products. Nestle claimed that independent tests show that Blue Buffalo uses chicken byproducts and corn in some of its food formulations — despite making marketing claims to the contrary.  Nestle would later amend its case to dispute other product claims on kibble, treats, and even cat litter. The fact that the industries top dog would undertake efforts to undermine Blue Buffalo came as a surprise to many.  Many speculated it was a tactic to lower the potential acquisition price for the brand.  Blue Buffalo returned the volley several days later counter-suing Purina for defamation, a summary of which can be seen here.

In a letter to customers, Blue Buffalo Founder and Chairman, Bill Bishop wrote:

“It is an easy thing to make unsubstantiated claims, put them in a lawsuit and then publish them all over the Web to disparage and defame a company. It is quite another thing to prove those allegations… We will prove these and other matters in court with good reliable evidence, and we look forward to disproving the voodoo science that Nestlé Purina relied on to support their outrageous allegations.”

The complete responses from Bishop can be seen here and here. Later, Bishop would go all in on a letter to the editor of Businessweek that can be seen here.  During the process, the National Advertisers Review Board (NARB) recommended that Blue Buffalo modify marketing claims it was making about competing products.  While Blue Buffalo disagreed with the the conclusions of the NARB, they agreed to take into account their recommendations in the future.  Details of the review hearing, recommendation, and associated reaction can be seen here.

Upon reading the first letter of response, I knew Nestle had something.  History has shown that the de facto strategy for the guilty is to attack not the claim but the science of the test and the party administering it. If professional sports is a relevant proxy, sometimes that plan works.  So Blue Buffalo then set out to undermine the validity of the Purina’s independent test going so far as to claim the laboratory involved had “dubious scientific credentials.”  The company’s critique of Windsor Labs and its scientific findings can be seen here.

As it appeared the two sides were heading to court, Blue Buffalo issued a statement that one of its suppliers had mislabeled ingredients sent to their customers, which could (that choice of words is important) have resulted in Blue Buffalo product being made with poultry by-product meal.  That statement can be seen here.  While it is notable that Blue Buffalo is acknowledging some of Nestle’s claims, it is passing the buck to its supplier.  While Wilber-Ellis has a history of recall related issues, the names of other pet food companies who may have received mislabeled ingredients, as Blue Buffalo claims, have not surfaced.  Since the FDA and Wilber are choosing to remain silent on this issue (the FDA views those names, if any, to be confidential information), it would be natural to speculate that there are no other names and in fact, this circumstance was known to Blue Buffalo.  However, that is merely speculative. What is also interesting is that Blue Buffalo has not issued a voluntary recall (the FDA does not mandate a recall in cases where the ingredients involved do not have a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences), has not disclosed probable lot numbers, or offered to refund customers their money.  So far the strategy seems to be working as they have not wavered from their approach.

What happens next is likely to impact pet food investing and M&A.  If the circumstance above results in Blue Buffalo modifying or pulling its IPO plans, or going public and experiencing diminished value, or selling at a diminished value, it will be yet another cautionary tale of how supply chain issues can quickly erase equity returns hard earned over time in the pet space.  This may lead to investors pursuing pet consumables investments with greater caution and scrutiny.  Further, pet consumables M&A may come with more strings attached — broader seller representations and warranties, higher indemnification caps, etc. — or at lower valuations to account for this risk.  Companies that can demonstrate control over the product they put in the bag should also be ascribed a premium.  Owning your production assets becomes, in fact, more valuable. That written, if Blue Buffalo is able to hold shelf space, avoid a recall, and move forward with its liquidity plans, it will, in fact, validate how powerful the leading independent brand really is.

My view is the marketer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the product in the bag matches the associated claims.  However, absent consumer lash-back, Blue Buffalo is unlikely to suffer much.  Further, given how much traffic their products drive at retail, pet specialty chains are more likely to accept the “it’s not our fault” explanation.  In the meantime, Blue Buffalo may get to see the results of the Freshpet IPO before confirming its path.  Freshpet is expected to price on November 6th.  At the mid-point of the range, Freshpet would command a fully diluted value of $414 million.  Based on estimated 2014 revenue, that would value the company at 3.5x – 4.0x revenue.  Those multiples would only serve to validate Blue Buffalo purported $3 billion price tag.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

catAs we approach the bell lap in 2014, anticipated full-year performance for the pet industry is starting to come into clearer focus.  For the first time since we have been blogging about the industry, we believe projected growth might fall short of APPA projections.  The industry continues to face structural headwinds that are dampening our expectations.  Notably, three metrics we commonly rely on as relative predictors of growth are lagging the benchmarks we feel are necessary for these projections to be achieved.

  1. Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE), which consist of the actual and imputed expenditures of households by consumption category as measured by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, for pet related goods and services showed growth of 3.7% in 1H2014 versus 5.7% in 1H2013;
  2. PetSmart same-store-sales comps (including inflation) for 1H2014 were -0.6% versus 3.5% for 1H2013;
  3. Adoption rates, as measures by PetHealth Inc.’s PetPoint Report shows that adoptions of canines have been weak through 1H2014, with feline adoptions also lagging in 1Q2014.

There are other factors that concern us as well.  Household formation has been sluggish, wage growth is stagnant, and the retail environment is tepid, at best.  However, offsetting these concerns is data that shows pet parents are spending more than ever, alternative sales channels such as online and farm and feed and experiencing strong growth, and conventional grocery is making significant investments in the category.  From experience, we also know the pet industry is like a cat — it always lands on its feet.

As we take stock of the industry here are the key themes we see shaping the current landscape:

  • Transaction Environment Heats Up. Acceleration in pet industry transaction volume began in 2010 driven by third party investment in emerging brands. After peaking in 2011, velocity tapered in 2012 and 2013. Based on YTD numbers, pet industry transaction volume is set to rebound, led by increased M&A activity. Consolidators are looking to gain greater exposure to faster growing segments of the market. Large amounts of liquidity in the market are driving up valuations, when combined by uncertainty in the retail channel, is motivating sellers. Notably, available liquidity options have now expanded to the public markets for mid-sized pure play pet companies with strong growth impetus. As market growth slows, we expect pressure to consolidate will heighten further giving this M&A velocity uptick legs through 2015.
  • Major Pet Specialty is Getting Pinched. Pet specialty retailers are facing slower comps and market share erosion from a myriad of drivers we have highlighted over the past few years. Margin is moderating for this channel as sales growth slows, at a time when investments are needed. We believe the successful response to these threats requires bold moves not currently being contemplated. While tweaks to the merchandising mix may help, rapidly expanding omni-channel capabilities through acquisition and investment and pursuing vertical integration opportunities are needed. Imagine PetSmart’s fortune if it had invested in Blue Buffalo ten years ago. Channel barriers are coming down and retailers need to think out of the box to protect their incumbent positions. Change takes time, so do not expect a near term rebound, but do not discount the power these retailers have with manufactures to mitigate losses.
  • Channel Barriers Are Eroding. The pet industry has a high percentage of channel tied merchandise. PetSmart derives nearly 30% of its revenue from product exclusives. Brands that bridge into FDM are generally shunned by independents. As comps slows in pet specialty, emerging brands are getting anxious about their own growth prospects, causing them to consider testing the prevailing merchandise borders. As conventional grocery attempt to reverse share losses realized over the past five years, expect them to expand their efforts to recruit leading brands or incentivize those brands to develop solutions that work at lower price points. The risk for the industry is that a broader carriage of authentic and emotive brands in conventional grocery at lower price points could result in the realization of a downgrade cycle.
  • Online Independents Enter End Game. While pet products growth online continues to be robust, profits associated with these sales remain thin. Being a sub-scale online pet retailer is a losing value proposition, literally. The best situated players are developing forms of differentiation – media and education assets, prescription capabilities, and private label offerings – to offset lower margin product sales. Those who are successful will be the attractive consolidation candidates. PetSmart’s acquisition of Pet360 is consistent with this thematic. Three other independent players are currently for sale. Some of these companies will be acquired for their differentiated capabilities, but we expect the others to become zombies or go away entirely. We expect that three years from now, there will be no meaningful independent traditional pet ecommerce retailer.

For a complete summary of our pet industry market insights, please contact me for a copy of my report.

/bryan

Source: American Pet Products Association, CapitalIQ, PetSmart, Inc., U.S. Department of Commerce

Note: The purpose of this blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

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

 

 

 

 

Next Page »