A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples

February saw 4/7 sectors in our universe outperform the broader market (non-alcoholic beverages just underperformed the S&P 500 during the month).  Tobacco lagged on regulatory concerns and the protein sector suffered when TSN suggested that trends in the current quarter were weaker than originally anticipated.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Sector performance YTD


This month we added something new - we took a look at the sector’s performance by P/E quartile – unsurprisingly, the 3rd quartile (P/E ratios between 16-20.7xs) had the strongest monthly performance (HNZ was in this quartile).  The HNZ transaction drove multiples broadly higher in large cap staples name, several of which traded in the same P/E range – CL, CLX, PEP.  MDLZ was the weakest performer during the month and the only negative performance within that P/E quartile.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Monthly PE by Quartile


Similarly, within the 2nd P/E quartile (P/E ratios between 13.3 and 16.0x), HNZ appeared to have been the primary driver of monthly performance – CPB was the best performer in that quartile (+12.1%).  The quartile’s performance also benefitted from KMB (+5.3%) and GIS (+10.3%).


The 1st P/E quartile (P/E ratios less than 13.3xs) was all about STZ (+36.7%) – the quartile would have been up 1.7% but for STZ.  A second of our preferred names, (STZ, at the time, being the first) ADM, was a significant contributor to the quartile’s performance, +12.4% on the month.


Higher multiple names in the sector had a good month was well, with SAM (+10.8%) and BNNY (+17.0%) the best performers.  Multiples expanded across all quartiles as prices continued to move higher and estimates for 2013 were lower to unchanged coming out of Q4 earnings season for most sectors (protein being the notable exception).


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Beginning End of Month PE by Quartile


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - EPS Revision Chart


Consistent with a broad-based rally in the consumer staples sector, there hasn't been a significant divergence between high and low beta names.  If anything, lower beta names have outperformed in the wake of the HNZ acquisition, likely setting the stage for some mean reversion in lower beta names as the takeout speculation wanes.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Beta Chase 3.3.13


This is a familiar chart for those of you who have been following our work - it is also the chart that keeps us broadly cautious across the sector.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Staples Forward PE 3.3.13 


The anomalous relationship between the XLP and the 10 year that has existed since 2009 persists...


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - XLP vs. 10 year 3.3.13


...despite the fact that the yield of the XLP has become marginally less attractive (combination of the yield on the 10 year creeping up and the price performance of the XLP).


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Yield spread


Some clients have suggested to us that the move up in the group post-HNZ has been short-covering - the data doesn't appear to bear that out.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - Short Interest February


Finally, our "XLP vs. Economic Surprise" chart suggests that continued strength in the economic surprise index could signal a pause for the staples sector.


A Look Back at the Month in Consumer Staples - XLP and Economic Surprises 3.3.13


Where does that leave us?


We are going to focus on three charts - overall sector valuation, "beta chase" and economic surprise.  These suggest to us that we could see a pause in the staples sector as sentiment surrounding the broader economy improves, valuation becomes more relevant and takeover speculation recedes.  We would look for relative underperformance in the lower quality, lower beta names that have seen a move up in the wake of HNZ (TAP, GIS, CPB).  Our most/least preferred list remains relatively unchanged:


Most preferred

  1. ADM - play on upcoming crop year (BG should work as well)
  2. BUD - least expensive large cap staples name (replaces STZ on our preferred list due to unfavorable risk/reward)
  3. CAG - valuation remains compelling, estimates remain too low
  4. NWL - valuation + stealth housing play

Least preferred


  1. KMB - robust valuation plus deteriorating earnings quality (CL works here as well)
  2. TAP - valuation support but zero business momentum
  3. GIS - run up post-HNZ is unwarranted (CPB eventually, but not yet).

Call with questions,



Robert  Campagnino

Managing Director





Matt Hedrick

Senior Analyst 




The Economic Data calendar for the week of the 4th of March through the 8th of March is full of critical releases and events. Attached below is a snapshot of some (though far from all) of the headline numbers that we will be focused on.



Pensions: The Funding Pit & The Pendulum

Takeaway: Pensions are in dire need of proper reform. Time will tell if America's pension systems can fix themselves before a massive crisis erupts.

Hedgeye’s Industrials Sector Head Jay Van Sciver hosted an expert call yesterday with David R. Godofsky, head of the employee benefits practice at the law firm of Alston & Bird.  A Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, Mr. Godofsky has decades of experience in all areas of corporate benefits and compensation.  His talk yesterday was titled “Pension Funding and Accounting: The Pension Pendulum.” 


Mr. Godofsky’s analysis demonstrates how the nation’s pension plans have been yanked back and forth as Congress repeatedly tries to fix what is wrong with pension funding requirements – then rushes to fix what they got wrong the last time.  Companies struggle to keep their balance while adjusting their pension funding practices to conform to the latest changes.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) took effect in 1976, creating federal funding requirements and government insurance for private sector pensions.  This first swing of the pendulum set funding requirements, giving companies 30 years to meet unfunded liabilities and setting rates for contributions.


ERISA was put under IRS jurisdiction, and the agency pressed companies not to fund their plans quickly, in order to maintain tax revenues.  The convergence of a long time horizon, unrealistically low funding requirements, and IRS pressure to keep contributions low, led to low balances backing very large pension liabilities.  


This was compounded by moral hazard with the introduction of federal pension insurance.  Even today there is very little restriction on what companies can promise in terms of pension benefits – and federal insurance is on the hook.  Godofsky says the vast majority of insurance claims come from collectively bargained plans, where both management and the union know the government will backstop whatever they agree to.


After ERISA was in place, Congress introduced funding caps and a 50% excise tax on withdrawals from overfunded plans, and Congress has kept the pendulum swinging ever since.  Successive new rules keep trying to strike a balance between beefing up contributions to protect employees, and avoiding excessive corporate tax deductions. 


One change, adopted in 1987, was to use actual bond rates as the investment return assumption.  Companies realized they could issue their own bonds at rates below the assumed rate of return.  They used the proceeds to buy stock in the pension plans, and booked the difference in interest rate payments as a profit.  Through the “magic” of this paradigm, companies could consider their pensions fully funded when there was actually a significant asset shortfall.


So Congress changed the assumptions again, requiring contributions to be calculated on the assumption that all investment assets are equivalent.  Except, as Godofsky points out, they are only equivalent today.  Their values will diverge in 30 years.  Or in ten years.  Or by tomorrow.  Companies could no longer create assets using borrowed cash.


Even though funding assumptions were now based on bond rates, between 40%-60% of all pension money is invested in stocks, which did what they were supposed to do: outperform bonds.  This created a large number of overfunded plans.  The companies can’t just withdraw the excess, because of the 50% tax hit.  But they can get creative.  


Some companies deal with excess pension assets by offering extra pension payments in lieu of current compensation.  Or a company with an overfunded pension can sell a division to a company with an underfunded plan.  The buyer also takes on a piece of the seller’s excess funding, paying for it in an inflated purchase price for the operating unit.  There are also legal ways to give special pension bonuses to a select group of senior management employees without having to grant equal treatment to others.


The bottom line, says Godofsky, is that the 50% excise tax is never actually paid, and these measures also reduce payroll and other tax revenues.  And all this still doesn’t prevent companies going out of business and defaulting on plans, increasing the burden on an already distressed pension insurance program.


Congress whipped the pendulum back the other way with the 2006 Pension Protection Act which exacerbates economic cycles by requiring companies to maintain funding levels.  Companies are forced to pump cash into plans in down markets, taking away resources they could use for business expansion or job creation.


What’s The Next Swing?

Godofsky believes funding assumptions will continue to be a source of tension.  Accountants believe pensions should invest in fixed income, because pension liabilities look like fixed income.  Meanwhile, pension managers will continue to be about 50% in equities, because portfolio theory says stocks outperform bonds over the long term.  This tension is not likely to be resolved.


Godofsky sees crises brewing in multi-employer plans, and in public sector plans, especially at the municipal level.  

One thing that appears certain is that Congress will continue to meddle.  It’s what they’re good at.  As Godofsky’s Rule states: the pendulum never stops in the middle. 

Early Look

daily macro intelligence

Relied upon by big institutional and individual investors across the world, this granular morning newsletter distills the latest and most vital market developments and insures that you are always in the know.


BKW remains a short in the Hedgeye Restaurants Position monitory.


Two areas continue to concern us within the Burger King business:

  1. Same-restaurant sales trends
  2. The remodel program


Same-Restaurant Sales


The bullish thesis hinges on 2012 same-restaurant sales demonstrating that the strategies BKW has been pursuing are effective.  We disagree.   A slowdown in early 2013, that we believe is underway at BKW, will shake the prevalent belief that the Burger King turnaround is a done deal.



  • Challenging competitive environment, esp with MCD spending on marketing
  • Weather comparisons
  • Payroll tax hike
  • Gas prices
  • Tough comparisons
  • Brand association with horsemeat scandal

Carrols Restaurant Group (TAST), a franchisee of Burger King and is seeing February SRS tracking -4% to -5%, including average check of 3-4%, implying traffic down between 7% and 9%.  TAST management is still guiding to a 2-4% comp for FY13.  We do not expect this guidance to be achieved.



Remodel Program


Longer-term, we are skeptical that management’s goal of having 40% of the system remodeled over the next three years will be met.  The current sales lift from remodeled stores within the Carrols system is running at 8-10%, below what BKW has guided to: 10-20%. This disappointing sales lift should increase skepticism in the long-term viability of the remodel program.


Don’t take our word for it, Carrols management said the following:  “We would hope to remodel at an aggressive pace, but recognize that we may need to temper this, based on how the year progresses.”



Howard Penney

Managing Director


Rory Green

Senior Analyst

Hedgeye In The News

Hedgeye issues some negative comments on the airline sector (via Seeking Alpha)


4 S&P 500 Dividend Stocks With Troubling Accounting Signals (via Seeking Alpha)


Kass: The Buck Stops Here (via The Street)


5 Homebuilders Currently Undervalued By EPS Trends (via Seeking Alpha)


5 High-Growth Restaurant Stocks With Encouraging Inventory Trends (via Seeking Alpha)


Why More Than 8% Unemployment Could Lie Ahead (via CNBC)


This note was originally published February 28, 2013 at 11:19 in Restaurants

Our bullish stance on Brinker (EAT) remains firmly in place as the Investor & Analyst Conference was starkly different in tone to the unsettling Darden Analyst Meeting the couple of days prior.  Here are our summary thoughts on EAT:


  • Consistent with other industry players, Brinker said that Chili’s quarter-to-date same-restaurant sales are down 2-3%.  This implies industry sales are down more than -3.5% if the Gap-to-Knapp this quarter has remained constant versus that of 2QFY13. 
  • EAT guided FY 2013 to the low end of its prior guidance for EPS of $2.30-$2.45 but in line with consensus expectations.
  • The strong margin trends are insulating the company’s earnings from the current top line softness
  • Brinker indicated that it could meet its long standing $2.75-$2.80 EPS target in FY 2014, a year earlier than the initial goal that was set back in 2010.
  • Brinker's disclosed goal to double EPS again to $4 per share by FY 2017, driven by familiarity, variability and the continued benefit of new technology.
  • To reach that goal the company will drive 3-4% revenue growth and 10-15% EPS growth.
  • EPS will also benefit from the share repurchases are expected to exceed $1 billion over the next five years or 40% of the market cap of the company.
  • The company highlighted a diversified business model comprising of Chili’s and Maggiano’s, franchising royalty streams and the 2nd largest casual dining company in the world.
  • Management has earned the respect of Wall Street delivering 330bps of a targeted 400bps improvement in Chili's stet back in 2010.
  • EAT remains of the best run companies in the restaurant industry and a LONG on the Restaurant Position Monitor.




We believe that Brinker is well poised to deliver on its stated goals and remains one of our favorite names in the restaurant space.  The company is offering investors a differentiated focus on returns with a clear capital allocation strategy.  EAT is one of our favorite names in the restaurant space, even after this past three years.







Daily Trading Ranges

20 Proprietary Risk Ranges

Daily Trading Ranges is designed to help you understand where you’re buying and selling within the risk range and help you make better sales at the top end of the range and purchases at the low end.