I debated writing a response to Nike's quarter, because I truly don't want to come across as being self-promotional. But I've gotten hit with a dozen questions over the past 40 min...So here goes...
The bottom line is that there's not a whole lot to say relative to our expectations.
1) But we said the company would earn a buck compared to the Street’s $0.89. They earned $1.01.
2) We said it would largely come from a meaningful revenue beat. They printed 7% compared to the Street at 3.4%.
3) We said inventories looked tight, which bodes well for Gross Margins. They SMOKED the gross margin line with a 300bp kicker vs last year. (More than we thought)
4) In typical Nike fashion, they invested the upside. If they wanted to, they could have printed $1.15 how I’m doing the math (I’m glad they didn’t).
5) Constant dollar futures grew by 6% -- double the Street’s estimate.
7) Inventories were down by 13%.
Big caveat…My sense is that about 25min into the call, Don Blair will douse the excitement of many folks who love these numbers. They’ll come up with a reason to keep expectations grounded. They’re fans of Shakespeare at Nike…”Expectations are the root of all heartache.”
Bottom line is that they beat on revenue and gross margins with accelerating futures while inventories were down double digits. We’ve been touting this as our top pick for the last two months. This is not a one quarter story, and not a one year-story. But rather, this is the beginning of a 2-3 year run where Nike will meaningfully accelerate top-line growth due to structural changes that will facilitate a new ‘go to market’ strategy that will allow it to tack on another $8bn in revenue. Yes, with the stock acting so well over the past month, and now with squeaky clean results one can argue that this is known. But I’d argue against that. Faster money could care less about the bigger call, and many others out there (esp the sell side) like it for the wrong reasons, and are missing the really big call here.
In the spirit of being transparent about our research process, I have decided to start showing more of the back and forth we have within our exclusive idea generating network. We have some very bright people who are transparent enough to tell us when they disagree with us and why. We are grateful for their trust. Hedgeye’s goal isn’t to be inflexible. It’s simply to be right.
On the topic of China selling Treasuries, this is what I wrote in the Early Look yesterday:
All the while, the Chinese are selling Treasury debt to the masses of people who are punch drunk at this global debt rock concert. Just plow it into whoever’s 401k that will take it as the Chinese sell it right back down our Congressional wind pipe.
China selling? Oh, no – they’d never do that, would they? I’ve said this enough times to be as annoying as Chris Dodd telling you he has it figured out this time, but please, for the sake of sobriety – please watch what the Chinese do versus what they say.
China was a net seller of US Treasuries for the 3rd consecutive month in January, selling another $5.8B net and taking its balance of America’s debt holdings down to $889 Billion.
That’s another $889 Billion reasons to ignore the reality that you can just “take me now but know the truth.” If we anger The Client (China) enough, rates are going a lot higher than your “exceptional and extended” Congressman’s sense of self is telling you.
Here was a response and ensuing debate between Hedgeye and a major Fixed Income PM from Massachusetts:
1. It is factually incorrect that they sold...they can buy out of London. Also, they extended out the curve to coupon bearing bonds instead of discount notes. A few months back the TIC data said they sold...but when more info came out, it turns out they were still the biggest net buyer....
most likely same thing happened here.
Hedgeye: Are you suggesting that its factually correct that they didn’t sell?
2. I am suggesting that other reports show they didn't.
Hedgeye: Well it sounds like no one can say, factually, that they didn’t sell – so I am going to go with what I see them doing every day, which is giving America the bird and reducing risk to her compromised financial system.
3. I’ll find where in report and send it to u when I get a chance. It is buried in the TIC data…
Hedgeye: ok, thanks - we looked there and didn’t come to the same conclusion, but this isn’t crystal clear and we may have missed something.
4. Let me revise...it is NOT factually wrong that the Chinese have sold. Net net it appears as though they have, although they could have purchases through UK custodian. there is no way of knowing who is buying all the USTs through UK custodian.
On the other hand, they have net added coupon bonds (us treasuries, as opposed to us bills) to the same tune as they have been buying for a while.
bills expiry > ust treasury buying = net "selling" that is apparent on the report (without being able to adjust for the potential to buy through UK custodian).
hope this helps.
Hedgeye: this is very helpful - thanks for taking the time to flag this. We need to do more work here and we will be back to you with anything incremental.
Keith R. McCullough
Chief Executive Officer
get free cartoon of the day!
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.
And that was a very ugly “bubble”
Yesterday, it was HOG and today it’s PLCM…
According to today’s rumor mill, Polycom is in talks with Apax Partners over a deal that could take the company public.
The daily rumor mill is a scary reminder of 2007 and we know how that ended. Unfortunately, with the FED keeping rates low for an extended period of time, the chance of this getting crazier before it’s over is very high. Here is what we have so far – PLCM, HOG, HUN, RSH, WHR and GME are all stocks that have been in the rumor mill about some sort of buyout speculation.
In the restaurant space, both Benihana and CKE Restaurants have recently announced bids on the table. Adding to the “noise,” the New York Post reported last week that Nelson Peltz was considering a counter bid for CKR.
The following is a list of restaurant companies that could be on the A list for a private equity transaction and/or for becoming victim of the rumor mill:
CAKE, PFCB, MSSR, TXRH, BOBE, EAT, CHUX, RRGB, PEET and CPKI
In compiling this list, we are trying to avoid waking up one day to a “potential” short up 10% on “buyout” rumors. While it may be easy to take issue with the fundamentals or potential valuation of any of these names, what you can’t deny is that all of these companies have very little funded leverage and generate substantial free cash flow.
Good news is good; bad news is taken with a grain of salt.
Yesterday, Starbucks was upgraded to buy from neutral on a “sales and profit momentum” call that will not end. At 10x NTM EV/EBITDA, SBUX is looking expensive but fundamentals are strong. I agree with the “call” behind the upgrade, but think the analyst is just a little late to the party.
Sonic was also upgraded to overweight from underweight; Cheesecake Factory downgraded to underweight from neutral and Brinker downgraded to underweight from neutral.
Yesterday’s score care looks this:
- SBUX up 3.6% on a 125% increase in its 30-day average volume
- SONC up 5.6% on a 274% increase in its 30-day average volume
- EAT down only 0.5% on a decline of 11% in its 30-day average volume
- CAKE down only 0.1% on a 27% increase in its 30-day average volume
Today, JACK was upgraded to buy from neutral and the stock is currently trading up 5.6% on strong volume.
I can’t comment on the legitimacy of the analysts who are making these “calls”. What seems obvious is that there are no willing sellers on “bad” news, but the buyers show up on good news. The current economic environment is having an outsized impact on QSR over FSR and that is now clear to everyone.
What is uncertain is when that tide will change. The most obvious signal will be when the Casual Dining industry believes that the economic climate is strong enough for the major industry players to start growing units again.
If this chart weren’t so sad, it might be funny. The Federal Reserve’s track record in proactively predicting inflation isn’t funny. It’s embarrassing.
Never mind Bernanke suggesting we had no inflation with oil at $150/barrel in 2008, he never saw it coming in 2007 to begin with. In the chart below, we have outlined the headline producer price index (PPI), monthly, going back 3 years.
I know, I know. Some of Washington’s finest revisionist historians don’t use the headline numbers. They apparently are in the business of taking the government’s word for it on what is “core.” That’s actually funny.
This morning’s PPI report came in at +4.4% year-over-year growth. Even if you do trust the government’s calculation, that’s inflationary.
Since government hired economists are in the business of commenting on Made-off numbers, here are some thoughts on Made-up the numbers:
- If you want to exclude things like meat and eggs (heck, maybe you don’t eat these things), then producer prices were lower (eggs prices were +8.5% y/y and meat was +4% y/y).
- If you want to exclude gasoline (heck, maybe your businesses margins don’t include gasoline), then producer prices were higher (gasoline was down -7.4%).
- If you want to look at a price chart of oil or gasoline since the February lows, you can do that too – that’s going to look inflationary
Today’s report was based on February prices. Prices in March (again, depending on what’s relevant to your profession) are, by and large, a lot higher than where they were in February. Heck, stock prices alone are up +10.2% since February 8th; maybe we should ask people who are in the business of producing returns on the short side if we should include that in the PPI calculation!
The chart below doesn’t lie; politicians lie about inflation. If you want to tell me that inflation slowed sequentially by 20 basis points y/y versus the January inflation report of +4.6% year-over-year price growth, I will agree with you. I’ll also ask you whether you agree with me or not that the PPI will re-accelerate sequentially in March. Just don’t ask He Who Sees No Inflation (Ben Bernanke) what he sees. Sadly, that too is proactively predictable.
Keith R. McCullough
Chief Executive Officer
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.