Takeaway: Our analysis suggests that RH stores should be far bigger, and will be much cheaper than the Street thinks. Numbers are too low.
Conclusion: We’ve spent a lot of time on the road discussing RH over the past three weeks, and most specifically, our recent 45-page deep dive on RH’s real estate. The punchline of our analysis is that a) RH stores could (and probably should) get far bigger than even the RH bulls seem to think, b) Aside from reconfiguring 66 existing markets, there’s another 19 markets we identified where the spending rate on home furnishings by people making over $100k in income suggests that RH should expand to these markets with Design Galleries, and c) the availability and economics on large properties for all these markets are far better than people think. This analysis supports our $11 earnings power in five years (double the consensus), as well as our view that that this stock is headed well above $200. Here are some of the slides that we kept revisiting in our conversations.
1. Market Share Trumps Store Productivity: For the most, people underestimate the ramp in RH’s addressable market as the company continues to expand into new categories. Over the next five years, there should be $45bn upside in market opportunity for RH simply by expanding its presence into new categories at retail, including kitchens. An important note is that we analyzed every market of the US, and isolated only consumers making over $100k annually. The government’s aggregate numbers include every income level. But the fact of the matter is that the average American spends $857 annually on home furnishings, while those making over $100k spend $1,779.
2. Real Estate Methodology. In our analysis, we look at each market at a micro level. That is, we isolate the existing store, and then look at the demographics within a specific driving radius. We look for income levels, home values, and ultimately, how much money consumers at each income level spend on the categories where RH is expanding. This chart below shows Seattle, but we did this for every existing and potential RH market in the US and Canada.
3. Store can get MUCH bigger. The key to how we model RH is based entirely on market share. There are three factors that mater…store size, productivity, and market share. It’s absolutely impossible to pinpoint any one of those without knowing the other two. We think we can get pretty close. We already know that the highest productivity FLDGs are running at 8-9% share of their respective markets – and that’s before adding new categories like kitchens. Our model assumes that each FLDG hits 10% share in year five of our model, and generates $1,200 per foot (reasonable based on what we’re seeing today). That leaves us with an implied store size. In some markets like New York, it suggests that RH could have a store over 100,000 feet. Same for Houston (we think it expands its existing store). Most people we talk to cringe when we discuss anything bigger than the 20-25k box that we’ve seen built over the past two years. But this analysis suggests that RH could support 30 stores over 50,000 square feet, and all but 5 can support a 25,000 foot FLDG.
4. New Market Potential. In addition to existing markets, there’s another 19 markets where RH can, and should, build FLDGs. In 10 of the markets RH could add a store 45,000 feet or larger, and the biggest market – Montreal – could support an 80,000 sq. ft. store.
5. New Store Math is a Slam-Dunk. In this example (Cherry Creek) RH is taking over a Saks and is going from a 7,500 feet legacy store to a 56,000 foot FLDG. Implied market share at the property goes from 1.5% to 4.3% by our math, and despite the incremental $20mm in revenue, rent only goes from $1.3mm to $2.0mm. That takes occupancy costs from 12.6% to 6.5%, and likely lower as the store becomes more productive. But the key to this algorithm is that there’s $19.5mm in build-out costs, $15mm of which is being picked up by the landlord. Inventory costs in this business are minimal at the store level. So when you add up all the economics of the store, you get to a 6 month payback. It’s tough to find that elsewhere in retail. This leads us to think that our Gross Margin estimates (which don’t go above 39%) are potentially conservative.
6. Yes, there are more of these opportunities than most people think. There’s still a nice pipeline of free-standing locations – like what RH has in Greenwich, Houston, and Boston. But we’ll see more examples of the mall-anchor space as outlined above in Denver. Take for example the Cherry Hill mall in NJ. A high-end property with three anchor tenants – Nordstrom, Macy’s and JC Penney. Which one does not belong? JCP has less than half the productivity of Macy’s and Nordstrom, and arguably does not belong in any ‘A’ mall. That’s not where JCP’s customer shops. We think we’ll see more situations where the landlord buys out JCP, takes the space and carves it into 2 or 3 highly productive retailers – who will collectively transform that end of the mall. In this instance, we use RH, and arbitrarily pick CAKE and WFM. That would take annual REIT income from $10.1mm to $23.7mm (see second table below). That makes it pretty easy for the landlord to justify buying out JCP and building a couple million worth of walls, stair cases and escalators. As a point of reference, JCP has about 140 ‘A Mall’ properties. Yeah…big number.
Jonathan Casteleyn, co-head of the Financials sector at Hedgeye, briefly explains why he likes shares of Och-Ziff Capital Management, an idea he highlighted in early May.
The USD appears to be breaking out while both the EUR/USD and European equities are sending bearish signals. Both of these moves, should they continue, would be a headwind for Gold.
Last week we released an extensive report outlining the implications of a QUAD #4 (inflation and growth decelerating) GIP set-up through Q3. A link to that slide deck is included below:
We are waiting and watching closely for confirmation on this potential inflection point. Our current view that domestic growth is slowing remains intact. Although with commodity disinflation from the first half of the year and recent weakness in Europe, we are watching this re-tracement closely. Recent data has opened up an internal discussion about the strength of our #ConsumerSlowing theme:
We highlighted developing credit trends in a note last Friday:
Gold currently stands right in the middle of key @Hedgeye TREND/TAIL levels after trading in a tight range last week (with the exception of a big rally Wednesday front-running Draghi’s speech.) The move suggests the market expected him to announce an asset purchase program. Gold ended the week up over +1%.
@Hedgeye intermediate-term TREND support is at $1271. The long-term TAIL Line of resistance sits at $1323. We would become louder on the long-side if Gold penetrates and holds this TAIL line. The narrative remains the same:
1. Growth expectations slow
2. U.S. interest rates fall
3. Both Gold and Long-term Treasury Bonds rise (holding the monetary policy of other reserve currencies constant over the more intermediate-term a very important factor to our gold thesis that we are watching intently right now).
Ten-year yields touched YTD lows Friday reflecting skepticism around a sustainable recovery despite the +4.1% initial Q2 GDP bounce. After breaking @Hedgeye long-term TAIL support, 1.70% is the next line of defense. The ten-yr yield is down over 20% from the beginning of the year and currently sits near the lows at 2.43% (2.36% YTD low late last week). Our risk management signals suggest the momentum embedded in this trend makes further downside to 1.70% a more probable scenario than the consensus 3%+ expectation.
Although this narrative for the USD outlook works both for and against the price of gold under certain scenarios, we continue to believe real growth expectations in the U.S. for the second half of 2014 remain too high. About a month ago we published a note outlining the thesis on Gold’s interaction with monetary policy by walking through its performance vs. other asset classes under different economic scenarios:
Right now there are two big headwinds to our position that will have implications for Gold’s direction:
Our recommendation is short:
Two comments in particular from Draghi last week caught our attention:
His tone this past week reflected his willingness to stand ready for an ABS purchase program. In fact, he more or less said that he would implement an asset-backed purchase program (QE without the government bond and public asset purchase program). Not a single economist surveyed by Bloomberg expected a change in interest rates from Draghi last week, but the bounce in Gold suggests the market may have expected some kind of easing out of Draghi Thursday.
The president more or less said the ECB Monetary Policy Committee cannot be outdone with regards to easy-money policy implementation. We interpreted his comments as a confident gesture that the Euro will continue to weaken against the USD and Pound over the intermediate to long-term.
European equity performance ugly last week:
Both the quant signals and our GIP model suggest Europe may slow for the next three consecutive quarters which could potentially warrant a surprisingly more dovish ECB policy. CAN DRAGHI CONVINCE THE MARKET HE’LL BE MORE DOVISH FROM HERE? Unfortunately don’t possess a crystal ball, but the recent weakness is concerning…
We DO believe growth estimates for the full year in the U.S. remain too high, and a more dovish tone will likely be received as bullish for gold on the margin. Please feel free to ping us with any comments or questions.
Start receiving Hedgeye's Cartoon of the Day, an exclusive and humourous take on the market and the economy, delivered every morning to your inbox
By joining our email marketing list you agree to receive marketing emails from Hedgeye. You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in one of the emails.