By
Milwaukee Private
Wealth Management, Inc
:
In the 12 months since June 2011, in its 90th year of business,
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.
(
JBSS
) earned $17.1m. The company produced almost $9m in free cash
(which is depressed due to high commodity costs and 'carry-over' of
pecans, contributing significantly to an increase in inventory on
hand of $17.5m year on year), and increased book value of equity by
$17m on record revenues of $700.6m.
The common equity of the enterprise trades at a 25% discount to
book value. Given the outlook for lower commodity costs as more raw
material capacity comes online, the opportunities presented in the
bakery segment due to troubles afflicting
Diamond Foods, Inc.
(
DMND
), increased penetration in fresh produce sections, and a
rationalization and fine tuning of strategy - this family owned and
controlled branded nut company continues to represent substantial
value.
Click to enlarge
Source: S&P Capital IQ
JBSS is a vertically integrated branded nut company. Its
business operations include procurement directly from growers (in
some cases partly financing farmers) and traders (in the case of
imported produce); processing, packaging and marketing nut
products. It sells via the consumer and commercial ingredients
channels, as well as contract manufacturing and export channels. In
the consumer channel, the products are sold under the
Fisher
,
Orchard
Harvest
and
Sunshine
Country
brand names. Targetable revenue of the sector is estimated to be
$8b. JBSS's net revenues of $700m represents close to 10% market
share. It is a significant player, but there is room to increase
share through strategy, execution and situation.
Sales composition in 2007:
Sales Composition in 2011:
** Combination of industrial and foodservice channels
Source: Investor Presentation
The greater contribution to sales by consumer products
represents partial achievement of the company's five year strategic
plan, formulated during fiscal 2009. The goals of the plan included
attaining recognition by global retailers, food service providers
and consumers as a world class nut partner. The consumer channel
sales are those with highest margins, and JBSS has been dedicating
more resources in advertising to improve penetration of the
Fisher
and
Orchard Harvest
brands.
The commercial ingredient channel supplies nut-based products to
other manufacturers (a nut product equivalent to OEM sales) to use
as ingredients in their final food products. Sales in this channel
are through Fisher and private label brands. The contract
manufacturing channel produces and packages nut-based snacks for
third parties under their brand names.
Wal-Mart
(
WMT
) and
Target
(
TGT
) are JBSS's two biggest customers, accounting for 36% of net sales
under private label offerings.
JBSS's main competitors are Diamond Foods, Inc. and
Kraft Foods Group, Inc.
(
KRFT
) (Planters brand) in branded nut products, and
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.
(RAH) in private label brands, as well as multiple regional snack
food producers. Diamond and Kraft have greater resources and can
impose reduced margins on JBSS depending on their pricing
strategies, but JBSS's slightly different approach sets it
apart.
Nut consumption has been increasing in the U.S. over the last
three decades due to the growing recognition of health benefits,
higher per capita disposable income spent on health food and snack
items, and a growing potential consumer base. It is useful to know
the recent trend in breakdown of net sales by product type, since
along with the breakdown by sales channel, this determines gross
margin performance to a significant extent.
|
Product Type
|
|
FY2012
|
FY2011
|
FY2010
|
FY2009
|
FY2008
|
|
Peanuts
|
|
|
17.6%
|
16.2%
|
19.9%
|
21.8%
|
20.1%
|
|
Pecans
|
|
|
17.9%
|
18.8%
|
19.0%
|
19.2%
|
22.6%
|
|
Cashews & Mixed Nuts
|
20.3%
|
21.0%
|
21.1%
|
22.5%
|
20.8%
|
|
Walnuts
|
|
|
12.2%
|
12.0%
|
12.4%
|
13.3%
|
14.7%
|
|
Almonds
|
|
|
14.7%
|
13.8%
|
11.5%
|
11.3%
|
11.9%
|
|
Other
|
|
|
17.3%
|
18.2%
|
16.1%
|
11.9%
|
9.9%
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
Trends visible in this data are the growing importance of
almonds as a percentage of sales, and the declines in sales
(dollars) of peanuts, pecans and walnuts. The declines are offset
by sales of 'other' products, which include pistachios and dried
fruit / nut mixes etc. These trends have been present across the
industry - with people turning away from cashews and pecans,
choosing less expensive options.
Nut consumption and pricing
Nut consumption per capita in the U.S. is lower than in Europe.
GDP per capita in the U.S. is roughly $45k while that of Europe is
$30k. Despite this, Greece - for example - consumes 37lbs of tree
nuts per capita per year, the highest in the EU, followed by Spain
and Italy (data from
this website
). In the U.S., tree nut consumption is 3.5lbs per capita. The
three most popular tree nuts in the U.S. are almonds, followed by
English walnuts and pecans - together these make up 25% of JBSS's
sales. European consumption of peanuts is over
44lbs per capita
per year
, as opposed to 7.0lbs in the U.S. (half of which is used in peanut
butter). The U.S. is the world's third largest producer of peanuts,
behind China and India (which produces half as much as China). Most
of Europe's consumption is fueled by imports, so pricing pressure
per unit will remain. If unit nut consumption on this side of the
Atlantic does increase over time, JBSS may be positioned to
benefit.
Walnut consumption has been declining in popularity among U.S.
consumers since the early 2000s. A graph of crop production and its
value (figure 1) is the essence of commodity volatility over short
time periods. There was a 50% increase in production in 2008 vs.
2007, which was accompanied by a decline in pricing - from
$2,300/ton to $1,280/ton. Pricing recovered in 2010 to $2,200/ton
and the sharp decline in production in 2011 vs. 2010 resulted in a
price surge to almost $2,900/ton. The reduced 2011 peanut crop sent
prices soaring, but the record crop in 2012 (2.8mm tons vs. a
typical crop size of 2.1mm tons) will likely ease prices again.
This demonstrates the volatility to which nut companies are
exposed, therefore JBSS's chosen strategy to lock in prices on a
one year previous basis makes sense and will, in the long term,
provide effective "smoothing" of the effects of this volatility.
There may be years when this strategy fails to maximize profits if
the market value of nuts declines significantly during the
contracted period. Volatility in nut prices is typically passed on
to consumers, and since nut consumption is generally elastic,
people change their purchases depending on which type of nuts are
most friendly to their wallet -- as evidenced by the year over year
demand destruction in terms of unit sales accompanied by record
dollar sales.
Figure 1:
A USDA/NASS
report
notes that the almond crop forecast for 2012 is 2.1 billion pounds,
which would be the largest almond crop on record with grower prices
expected to remain stable at 2011 levels - $1.92/lb. Almond prices
jumped in 2011 year over year, so stabilization is welcome, and
JBSS will hope for consolidation in the trend in almond
consumption.
In the medium to long term, lower commodity costs will benefit
vertically integrated nut companies by stimulating demand. JBSS is
currently running at a fraction of total productive capacity and
can easily handle pent up consumer demand created by lower
sustainable nut prices. It is not possible to bring extra capacity
online on an industry wide basis in a very short period of time, so
margins may improve substantially in the short term if demand is
supported and created by falling nut prices.
Despite the higher commodity costs, and the blip in 2011, JBSS
has managed to increase operating income per pound of nuts sold
since 2008 (see figure 2). The company sold 5% less pounds in 2012
than in 2008 - but still made operating free cash flow of $46mm -
excluding the increased inventory use of cash. One would expect
that JBSS becomes better able to achieve efficiency in managing its
working capital, and devises a system to avoid committing excessive
net capital when there is volatility in nut prices. It has also
incurred rising advertising expense per unit of nuts sold. This is
in part due to the OVH acquisition, its five year plan, and
attempts to build globally recognized brands.
Figure 2:
|
Adjusted Income Statement
|
FY2012
|
FY2011
|
FY2010
|
FY2009
|
FY2008
|
|
Unit Sales (thousands of pounds)
|
212497
|
232746
|
224302
|
217465
|
221958
|
|
Sales per Lb.
|
|
$3.30
|
$2.90
|
$2.50
|
$2.55
|
$2.44
|
|
Cost of Sales per Lb.
|
|
$2.79
|
$2.54
|
$2.08
|
$2.21
|
$2.14
|
|
Gross Profit per Lb.
|
|
$0.50
|
$0.36
|
$0.42
|
$0.33
|
$0.30
|
|
Advertising expenses per Lb.
|
$0.04
|
$0.03
|
$0.03
|
$0.02
|
$0.01
|
|
Shipping and Handling per Lb.
|
$0.07
|
$0.08
|
$0.06
|
$0.06
|
$0.07
|
|
Other operating exp per Lb.
|
$0.23
|
$0.18
|
$0.20
|
$0.17
|
$0.17
|
|
Operating Income per Lb.
|
$0.16
|
$0.07
|
$0.13
|
$0.07
|
$0.05
|
|
Depreciation & Amortization
|
$0.08
|
$0.07
|
$0.07
|
$0.07
|
$0.07
|
|
Maintenance Capex per Lb.
|
|
|
$0.02
|
$0.02
|
$0.02
|
$0.02
|
$0.02
|
|
FCF (ex inv needs)per Lb.
|
|
|
$0.22
|
$0.12
|
$0.18
|
$0.12
|
$0.10
|
Notes: Other operating expenses excludes write down of asset
in FY2011
The Ansatz on maintenance capital expenditure was 3% on Gross
PP&E.
Using an arbitrary 10% cost of equity capital, an after tax cost
of debt implied by the interest expense and average debt
outstanding, and the current capital structure, one could sensibly
postulate the weighted average cost of capital to be 8%. On that
basis, in three of the last four fiscal years, JBSS's operations
earned returns that compared well with the demands of the capital
used to do so - again, the volatile and high commodity costs in
that period prevented the business from performing on a consistent
basis, which can be seen in gross margin performance throughout
that time period. More stable or falling commodity prices going
forward should afford management the opportunity to execute
properly, in order to consistently exceed cost of capital
charges.
Figure 3:
|
Adjusted Balance Sheet
|
|
|
FY2012
|
FY2011
|
FY2010
|
FY2009
|
FY2008
|
|
Operating Assets
|
|
|
$369.27
|
$350.47
|
$356.84
|
$321.84
|
$350.07
|
|
Operating Liabilities
|
|
|
$73.99
|
$65.22
|
$77.66
|
$45.27
|
$55.56
|
|
Net Operating Assets
|
|
|
$295.28
|
$285.25
|
$279.18
|
$276.56
|
$294.51
|
|
Financial Assets
|
|
|
$2.46
|
$1.32
|
$1.44
|
$0.86
|
$0.72
|
|
Financial Liabilities
|
|
|
$96.72
|
$102.86
|
$100.73
|
$99.62
|
$136.85
|
|
Net Financial Obligations
|
|
|
$94.26
|
$101.54
|
$99.29
|
$98.76
|
$136.14
|
|
Book Value
|
|
|
$201.02
|
$183.71
|
$179.89
|
$177.81
|
$158.37
|
|
Market Cap
|
|
|
$147
|
$88
|
$131
|
$109
|
$97
|
|
Market Cap / BV
|
|
|
73%
|
48%
|
73%
|
62%
|
61%
|
|
ROIC (1)
|
|
|
12%
|
8%
|
11%
|
7%
|
|
|
(1) ROIC = (Operating Income + Depreciation - Maintenance
Capex) after tax / (Period beginning Book value - operating
current liabilities + NFO + write downs)
|
Further, the company's SVA -- the 'Sanfilippo Value Added
Plan'-- demands year-over-year improvement on after-tax operating
returns exceeding the cost of total capital. Note that there were
no incentive compensation expenses in FY2011, as there was no
year-over-year improvement in ROIC (see figure 3) - which may be
used as a proxy for the SVA. Although SVA is not ideal - given that
the cost of capital is based on expected returns (i.e. historical
performance) - it is preferable to other types of compensation
structures because it focuses management's objectives more closely
on creating value for shareholders.
The results of the advisory vote in 2011 to approve executive
compensation was 30.5 million votes "For" the compensation paid to
named executive officers, and 0.5 million votes against. Adjusting
this for the biased share structure (Class A shares having 10
voting rights), the result looks more like 6.6 million votes "For"
- close to 10 shareholders in favor of executive compensation for
every one against - compared to the 60 to 1 ratio suggested in the
Proxy data - with 4 million votes missing. This is one of the
corruptions that this type of ownership structure creates. One
cannot help but feel that if there were some positive reforms
implemented by the Sanfilippos and Valentines, the market would
react positively.
Management has stated they are focused on accepting only
contracts (generally private label) for which margins are
sufficient to justify the commitment -- from customers who are keen
on having the value added product innovation in terms of packaging,
new mixes etc. This means that private label manufacturing will
probably not perform as well as it might have otherwise in terms of
revenue growth. But it is encouraging that management acknowledges
they seek marginal returns on invested capital, not value
destroying revenue growth. This is also the case with OVH offerings
in the fresh produce sections; management has streamlined their
offerings, cutting the number of skews per stand in half. This
rationalization of products should provide increased opportunity
for marginally higher returns.
One will also note that the Fisher brand name is now valued at
zero on JBSS's balance sheet having been fully amortized, with the
Orchard Valley Harvest brand carried at under $100,000 having
suffered a $5m write down. This is a built in margin-of-safety when
valuing JBSS based on its price to book value - and a reason why
JBSS may trade to and above its book value of $17.60/share. One
would have to contend that these real assets are undervalued
according to their book value, given that these brands have proven
earning power.
The difficulties that Diamond Foods has faced in the past year
have presented JBSS with an opportunity which it has not failed to
capitalize on. It has increased its share of the baking nut
category to 15% according to management, Fisher having "over the
past six months, [year ended FY2012] gained 2.2 share points in the
baking category" according to Jeffrey T. Sanfilippo. Those Diamond
associated uncertainties may continue to create prospects of
increased market share at both the retailer and grower ends of the
chain.
Regarding export operations, currently only 5% of sales are
international. To base an investment thesis on those sales would be
naïve. However, paying a price 25% below book value for current
sales and assets in place grants a potential investor a free "call
option" on increasing international sales, provided that management
does not commit excessive capital to achieving those sales. Head of
Sales in Asia has been appointed, and a base set up in Shanghai
(and given the vertically integrated nature of JBSS) - the COGS are
already turning toward the possibility of a payoff on that "option"
being real.
On top of this, the appointment made in January 2011, which was
promised to be a significant breakthrough for the Board of
Directors, seems to be paying off. JBSS's brands have certainly
seen some innovation with respect to marketing and packaging, and
one would hope that Ellen Taaffe's significant experience in the
brand strategy and marketing fields will continue to reap rewards
for JBSS.
From Figures 2 and 3, and given management's discussion in the
most recent earnings call, with relation to crop sizes and demand
levels in late 2012 and early 2013, FY2013 free cash flow is
projected to be in excess of $30mm again. The opportunity to buy
JBSS at less than 9x cash flow and the continued improvement of the
financial condition of the firm compels one to conclude that the
equity is undervalued at the current price.
Disclosure:
I am long [[JBSS]]. I wrote this article myself, and it
expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it.
I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is
mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure:
The security described in this article is owned by the contributor
and clients of Milwaukee Private Wealth Management, Inc., an
investment management firm owned by the contributor. Thus, the
contributor has a financial interest in any future price increase
of the security.
See also
Retirement Strategies: To Hedge Or Not To Hedge,
That Is The Question
on seekingalpha.com