🔥F.E.A.R.🔥

⚡️What. The. Hell.⚡️

This week was a complete and utter sh*tshow. There’s no sugar-coating it. As fears about coronavirus rose, the stock market got absolutely annihilated — the S&P dipped over 11% for the week (one of the most severe declines in history) and the Dow dropped approximately 4000 points — precipitating a rabid shift to safety in the markets: the 10-year treasury hit a record low, dipping below 1.2%. Leveraged loans, meanwhile, got napalmed.

About a month ago 60% of the $1.2T in outstanding US #leveragedloan debt was priced at 100 or better. A week ago it was 38%. After today just 10% of that debt is priced at par #COVID19US #economy pic.twitter.com/1PcVaWjzbU

— Leveraged Loans (@lcdnews) February 27, 2020

Majors like Apple Inc. ($AAPL), Mastercard Inc. ($MA) and Microsoft Inc. ($MSFT) lowered guidance and Goldman Sachs Inc. ($GS) issued a report indicating lowered growth expectations for the year — to zero. Yep, zero. The VIX “fear index” jumped into the 40s after being virtually catatonic for years. Now there’s widespread speculation that the FED will lower rates to stimulate the market — a controversial strategy given (a) the sheer volume of money already flushing through the system and (b) the fear that the FED will be ill-equipped to then address any subsequent recession.

There are a lot of restructuring implications — on both sides of the fence. On one hand, lower interest rates ought to help a number of companies with floating-rate loans. It’s clear that the rising interest rate catalyst that many expected — and the FED quickly shot down last year — is nowhere near becoming reality. Secondly, oil and gas prices are getting smoked and given that those commodities constitute huge input costs, companies will see some savings there. Theoretically, lower oil and gas prices should also help stimulate the consumer which, we all know, had been carrying both the economy and stock prices to recent (clearly inflated) highs.

That is, unless they stay home and do nothing other than watch Netflix ($NFLX) and Disney+ ($DIS) and order bottled water and canned goods from Amazon ($AMZN) and Walmart ($WMT) — assuming, of course, that third-party fulfillment isn’t affected by supply chain disruption. Interestingly, both the consumer staples and discretionary spending ETFs are down over 10%. And the former more than the latter, which, when there’s a flight to safety pushing treasury rates down, doesn’t make much sense. So 🤷‍♀️. Corporations are, one by one, curtailing business travel, cancelling conferences, and encouraging stay-home work as advisories abound about congregating in mass group settings. This is impacting the airlines and movie theaters, naturally. The MTA ought to see a decline in ridership which ought to dig a bigger budget deficit hole (PETITION Note: Is NYC f*cked?).

Transports are getting smoked too. SupplyChainDive writes:

The COVID-19 outbreak and resulting quarantines have led to a record number of blank sailings, according to the latest figures from Alphaliner. Inactive fleet size has swelled to 2.04 million TEUs or 8.8% of global capacity. The decline is greater than the 1.52 million TEUs of canceled capacity during the 2009 financial crisis, the previous record, 11.7% of the total fleet at the time.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are facing 56 canceled sailings over the first three months of the year, the ports told Supply Chain Dive.

Note that we had previously asked “Short the Ports?” in “🚛Dump Trucks🚛” here.

Here is The Washington Post highlighting a world of hurt at the ports:

…shipping container traffic both coming and going from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been sliding at an average rate of 5.7 percent a month since the beginning of last year….

Port of Los Angeles is projecting a 25% drop in container volumes this month, as the economic impact of the coronavirus spreads across shipping operations and foreign supply chain. Imagine if 1 in 4 goods imported from Asia suddenly stopped coming. Impact just starting.

— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) March 1, 2020

Pour one out for the shippers.

Of course, none of this is positive for sectors that are already massively struggling, i.e., restaurants. Nor retail. Per CNBC:

If the coronavirus spreads in the U.S., that could mean really bad news for U.S. mall owners, according to a survey taken this week.

The survey by Coresight Research found that 58% of people say they are likely to avoid public areas such as shopping centers and entertainment venues if the virus’ outbreak worsens in the United States. The group surveyed 1,934 U.S. consumers 18 and older.

The survey was taken Tuesday and Wednesday — before California said it was monitoring 8,400 people for COVID-19.

Back to energy. Energy bonds are getting smoked as massive outflows flee the sector.

Some violent moves in energy junk bonds. One example: Whiting Petroleum bonds have lost almost half their value in a month, losing 12.5 cents on the dollar today alone. pic.twitter.com/8Neb8ltmz0

— Lisa Abramowicz (@lisaabramowicz1) February 27, 2020

Today it's like the Sorcerer's Apprentice here, with alerts flooding in every few minutes on outsized drops and new record lows for #distresseddebt bonds. The drought for the #restructuring and #bankruptcy advisers may be over.

— Rick Green (@RickGreenNYBiz) February 28, 2020

OPEC meets next week to discuss a massive production cut. From a restructuring perspective, it’s likely irrelevant at this point.

We’re heading into redetermination season for oil and gas explorers and producers and, given the rapid decline in oil and gas prices, banks are likely to take a stern stance vis-a-vis borrowing base levels. That ought to help usher in another wave of oil and gas restructuring.

Hold on to your hats, folks.

🚛Dump Trucks🚛

Manufacturing, Trucking & the Ports

We’re old enough to remember a narrative that went something like this:

• Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) is dominating retail with 2-day (now 1-day) shipping +

• Traditional brick-and-mortar retailers are converting to e-commerce +

• Digitally-native-vertical-brands are cutting out brick-and-mortar and going direct-to-consumer =

• Increased need for logistics and shipping capabilities.

Because of these developments, among others, this country — it was said — was suffering from a trucking shortage relative to the demand and so wages rose rapidly and seemingly every retailer reported that rising shipping expenses were harming the bottom line. Given this, you’d think truckers would be crushing it.

Maybe…not? At least anymore.

In August we noted the following:

ACT research reflects two straight quarters of negative sector growth and DAT reported a 50% decline in spot market loads, with no category immune to the declining trend. Van load-to-truck is down 50%, flatbed load down 74.5% and reefer load down 55.5%. Some fear this may be a leading indicator of recession. Alternatively, it may just be the short-term effects of tariffs and the acceleration of orders into earlier months to avoid them. 

Still, the trucking industry is worried. 

Van spot rates were down 18.5%, flatbed spot rates down 18.4%% and reefer spot rates down 16.8%. The word “bloodbath” is now being bandied about. Per Business Insider:

“There has been a spate of trucking companies declaring bankruptcy this year, too. The largest was New England Motor Freight, which was No. 19 in its trucking segment. Falcon Transport also shut down this year, abruptly laying off some 550 employees in April.

"We have become increasingly convinced that freight is likely to remain weak through 2019 followed by falling truckload and intermodal contract rates in 2020," the UBS analyst Thomas Wadewitz wrote to investors in a June 18 note.

Trucking's biggest companies have been slashing their outlooks. Knight-Swift and Schneider both cut their annual outlooks earlier this year.”

Will this trend continue as manufacturing numbers continue to slip?

That was a good question. And, indeed, manufacturing does continue to slip — at least according to the ISM Manufacturing PMI report:

With the foregoing context, take some more recent news:

1. Hendrickson Truck Lines Co.

The family-owned trucking company recently filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of California (a chapter 22, actually). The company is on the smaller side: liabilities between $10-50mm; roughly 90 trucks and 100 drivers; operations in 10 states. Per FreightWaves:

“The company said its financial problems started in January with a sharp decline in overall freight tonnage. This, combined with excess truck capacity, resulted in a 21% rate drop compared with 2018, resulting in a $400,000 per month revenue drop, according to its petition.  

Two of the carrier’s top customers, which accounted for nearly 50% of its business, switched to lower-cost providers, the company said.” (emphasis added)

The company also blamed a poor truck leasing deal for its filing.

2. Truck Orders Are Down

The Wall Street Journal recently reported:

Order books for heavy-duty truck manufacturers are thinning out as a weaker U.S. industrial economy pushes fleet operators to put the brakes on plans to expand freight-carrying capacity.

Trucking companies in November ordered 17,300 Class 8 trucks, the big rigs used in highway transport, according to a preliminary estimate from industry data provider FTR. That was down 39% from November 2018 and a 21% decrease from October, providing a weak start for what is typically the busiest season for new-equipment orders.

The orders last month were the lowest for a November in four years, and analysts said they expect a backlog at factory production lines that has been dwindling this year to pull back even more.

It continued:

Truck-equipment makers have started scaling back production and laying off workers this year as demand for new trucks has weakened.

Daimler Trucks North America LLC said in October it planned to lay off about 900 workers at two North Carolina Freightliner plants as “the market is now clearly returning to normal market levels.”

Engine-maker Cummins Inc. cut its annual revenue forecast in October and the company last month said it plans to lay off about 2,000 workers early next year. “Demand has deteriorated even faster than expected, and we need to adjust to reduce costs,” the Columbus, Ind.-based manufacturer said in a statement.

What’s going on here? Well, yes, manufacturing is down. But “global trade tensions are weighing on transportation demand.” More from the WSJ:

U.S. factory activity contracted in November for the fourth straight month, according to the Institute for Supply Management.

Freight volumes and trucking prices have been on the decline. U.S. domestic freight shipments fell 5.9% in October compared with the same month last year, while truckload linehaul rates were down 2.5% year-over-year, according to Cass Information Systems Inc., which handles freight payments for companies.

🤔

3. Trade, Declining Truck Orders, and Imports (Short the Ports?)

We’re curious: if tariffs and trade wars are trickling down to trucking, what must this mean for ports in this country? Per Transport Topics:

Three West Coast ports saw significant drop-offs in cargo volume last month, the latest indication that the United States’ long-simmering trade dispute with China is impacting operations at the nation’s ports.

The Port of Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest facility, saw a 19.1% decline in 20-foot-equivalent units (TEUs) container volume, moving 770,188 compared with 952,553 in the same period a year ago. Imports and exports were both down 19%. The drop-off also means the Los Angeles port is 90,697 TEUs behind last year’s record pace, having processed 7,861,964 TEUs through the first 10 months, compared with 7,723,159 at this point last year.

Port Executive Director Gene Seroka and other officials were in Washington on Nov. 12, and he is sounding the alarm over the damage being done to the economy because of the ongoing trade battle and the resulting tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of products.

And this, apparently, isn’t isolated to the West Coast:

Rough October at Port of NY&NJ as loaded container imports fell slightly and loaded exports dropped 2.7%. The fall's East Coast shipping surge didn't get that far.

— Paul Page (@PaulPage) December 3, 2019

Will we start seeing some port distress in the near future? Fewer trucks and fewer trains mean lower revenue. 🤔

4. Celadon Group Files for Bankruptcy

Indianapolis-based Celadon Group Inc. ($CGIPQ) is a truckload freight services provider with a global footprint. Founded in 1985, the company professes to have pioneered the commerce trail between the United States and Mexico. Thereafter, it IPO’d and used the proceeds for growth capital, expanding its freight-forwarding business with the acquisition a UK-based company and another 36 companies thereafter. Not only did these acquisitions expand its geographic footprint, but they also expanded the company’s freight capabilities, opening up revenue possibilities attached to refrigerated and flatbed transportation. In all, today the company operates a fleet of 3300 tractors and 10000 trailers with 3800 employees. Its primary focus continues to be NAFTA countries; its customers include the likes of Lowes Companies Inc. ($LOW), Philip Morris International Inc. ($PM), Walmart Inc. ($WMT), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV ($FCAU), Procter & Gamble Inc. (($PG) and Honda Motor Co Ltd. ($HMC).  

All of the above notwithstanding, it is now a chapter 11 debtor. Worse yet, it will, in short order, wind down and no longer be in existence. In an instant, the aforementioned 3800 employees’ livelihoods have been thrown into disarray.

Not that the signals weren’t there. The company has been in trouble for some time now. In addition to macro woes, it has a large number of self-inflicted wounds. 

Back in July, the company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy but it bought itself a short leash. On July 31, 2019, the company refinanced its term loans held by Bank of America NA ($BAC), Wells Fargo Bank NA ($WFC) and Citizens Bank NA ($CFG) with a new facility agented by Blue Torch Finance LLC* that counted Blue Torch and Luminus Partners Master Fund as lenders.** The new lenders provided $27.9mm of new term loans and, in exchange, received $8mm in original issue discount and fees. The banks, it appears, got out just in the knick of time. Indeed, the company and its lenders have been engaged in an endless stream of negotiations, concessions and waivers ever since: the credit docs have been amended ad nauseam ever since the initial transaction because the company was in constant danger of breaching its covenants.

Why so much drama? Per the company:

“The need to file these chapter 11 cases was a result of a confluence of factors including industry-wide headwinds, former management bad acts, an unsustainable degree of balance sheet leverage and an inability to address significant liquidity constraints through asset sales and other restructuring strategies. In mid-2019, the trucking freight market began to soften. The combination of a decline in overall freight tonnage and excessive truck capacity in the market led to a significant decline in freight rates, and customers began to take bids at lower freight rates. Compared to the year immediately prior, 2019 showed a steady decline in freight rates, including spot freight rates and contractual rates. In addition to declining freight rates, volumes of loads in freight have experienced decreasing numbers for a significant portion of 2019.”

Sound familiar? Well, these issues alone should have been enough to present problems but they were accentuated by the fact that the company’s prior senior management allegedly engaged in some shady a$$ sh*t. That shady a$$ sh*t ultimately led to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement and a $42.2mm fine. While only $5mm has been paid to date, that $37mm overhang is substantial.

With all of these issues piling up, the company ultimately defaulted on its revolver. Consequently, MidCap Financial Trust, the company’s revolver lender, froze lending and the company’s already-growing liquidity problem became a wee bit more problematic. With barely enough money to fund payroll and payroll taxes, the company had no choice but to file for chapter 11. To put an exclamation point on this, the company had merely $400k of cash on hand when it pulled the trigger on bankruptcy. 

So what now? The company ceased operations and will commence an orderly wind down of its businesses, preserving only Taylor Express Inc. as a going concern. Taylor Express is a NC-corporation that the company acquired in 2015; it is a dry van and dry bulk for-hire services provider, operating principally for the tire and retail industries and primarily in the South and Southeast regions of the US. To fund the cases, the debtors secured a commitment from Blue Torch for $8.25mm in DIP financing. The DIP mandates that any sale order relating to the liquidating business be entered by January 22. 

As for the employees? Well: 

Yeah, they’re understandably pissed. For starters, they were laid off en masse with no notice. One employee, on behalf of all employees, filed an Adversary Complaint alleging a violation of the WARN Act, which requires 60 days’ advance written notice of a mass layoff and/or plant closing. In response, the truckers have formed a “Celadon Closure Assistance and Jobs” group on Facebook. It has 1300 members. Per Fast Company, 

“Truckers in [a] Facebook group are posting about having 20 minutes to clear out their trucks and go. CBS also reported that some drivers “were stranded when their company gas cards were canceled.”

YIKES. All told, this is a hot mess. Per SupplyChainDive:

“’This is noteworthy because of the size of the fleet,’ Donald Broughton, the principal and managing partner at Broughton Capital, told Supply Chain Dive in an interview.  ‘It’s noteworthy because less than 10 years ago Celadon was known as one of the most active, prolific and successful at salvaging small fleets that were struggling and in trouble.’

The failure of Celadon represents the largest trucking failure this year and ‘certainly one of the largest in history,’ Broughton said.”  

“Largest [insert industry here] failure” is not an honor that anyone wants.

*Blue Torch Finance LLC was also active in another DLA Piper LLP bankruptcy, PHI Inc., as DIP lender. 

**Blue Torch hold a priority right of payment on the term loan collateral with Luminus second and revolver lender, MidCap Financial Trust, third. 

💊Pushed Pills Pressure Purdue Pharma💊

Long time PETITION readers should be, if they’re paying attention, identifying recurring themes confronting the various sectors of distress we cover. In retail bankruptcy, for instance, the stories generally contain the same elements: some combination of too much leverage (especially if PE-backed), too large an uneconomical brick-and-mortar footprint, slow adoption of e-commerce, poor supply chain management, awful off-trend product assortment, and disruptors (i.e., Amazon Inc., resale, DTC, etc.). In oil and gas, too much leverage backing capital intensive exploration and production initiatives, an unfavorable commodity environment, bloated SG&A, and too much money chasing outsized returns. In biopharma, new drugs are expensive and time-intensive to produce and often, despite potentially valuable IP and viable use cases, companies run out of money (and/or bust convertible debt) and are unable to continue paying to push their products through the regulatory framework absent a chapter 11. In healthcare, rollups of behavioral health, CCRC, rehab centers, etc., layer on too much debt on top of questionable business models in the face of an uncertain regulatory atmosphere.

And then there is another category: companies with little to no funded debt, minimal trade debt, an ability to fend off competition, and a viable product. What’s their problem? As we’ve seen in recent cases, i.e., Takata Corporation, Imerys Talc America Inc. (also discussed here), Insys Therapeutics Inc., The Diocese of Rochester, those companies tend to get sued into oblivion on the basis of shady-as-sh*t business practices or other general degenerative scumbaggery.

And so it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone* that Oxycontin manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, has joined the fray, filing for bankruptcy this past week in the Southern District of New York (before the same judge administering the Sears sh*t show). Hold on to your butts people, this one ought to be interesting.

Unless you’re a total ignoramus, you know by now that the country has been ravaged by an opioid epidemic. Here is 60 Minutes doing a deep dive into the issue. Here is the White House talking about “[e]nding America’s Opioid Crisis.” And here is John Oliver doing the John Oliver thing while talking about opioids.

We mean, you have to be willfully unaware or just plain stupid if you don’t know that this is a big problem. While numerous companies are implicated in this ever-visible scandal, Purdue Pharma is the biggest fish to fall to date (query how long that lasts). But, as noted above, Purdue Pharma generates a ton of money, has no funded debt, etc. So what it needs — and what it gets from a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing — is a break from the deluge of lawsuits against it. All 2,625 of them.

For the uninitiated, a bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay pursuant to section 362 of the bankruptcy code. This is an injunction, of sorts, that draws a line in the sand and prevents creditors from rushing to enforce their claims against a debtor. The idea is that by halting this rush and providing the debtor a “breathing spell,” the debtor will have a better opportunity to configure a go-forward strategy that is not only to its benefit, but also treats similarly situated claimants fairly. As you might imagine in a litigation scenario where there are literally thousands of potential judgement creditors scattered across various state and federal courts across the country, this is a powerful tool. It prevents Mia Wallace, plaintiff #1, from winning a huge judgement and collecting against that judgement to the point of siphoning away all of the debtors’ asset value before Vincent Vega, plaintiff #2, has had his day in court.** It also helps the debtors triage the outrageous expense involved with defending heaps of lawsuits all across the country; indeed, the Purdue Pharma debtors note that they spend $5mm/week — A WEEK! — defending themselves against litigation. They project to spend approximately $263mm on legal and related professional costs in 2019. That’s no typo, folks. Biglaw lawyers charge mint.

Here’s the thing about that “automatic stay” thing, though: there are exceptions to it — including, most relevant here, one that’s commonly referred to as the “police and regulatory power exception” (section 362(b)(4)). To preempt the applicability of this section, the debtors have already filed a “preliminary injunction motion,” seeking to enjoin continued prosecution of active governmental litigation against them (and a long slate of related parties, i.e., the entire Sackler family tree).***

---

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBER’S ARTICLE, TO READ THIS FULL ARTICLE AND MORE OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT, CLICK HERE. (YOU AND YOUR BOSS WON’T REGRET IT)

📦Nerds Lament: Subscription Box Company Goes BK📦

We’re old enough to remember when subscription boxes were all the rage. The e-commerce trend became so explosive that the Washington Post estimated in 2014 that there were anywhere between 400 and 600 different subscription box services out there. We reckon that — given the the arguably-successful-because-it-got-to-an-IPO-but-then-atrocious-public-foray by Blue Apron Inc. ($APRN) — the number today is on the lower end of the range (if not even lower) as many businesses failed to prove out the business model and manage shipping expense.

And so it was only a matter of time before one of them declared bankruptcy.

Earlier this morning, Loot Crate Inc., a Los Angeles-based subscription service which provides monthly boxes of geek- and gaming-related merchandise (“Comic-con in a box,” including toys, clothing, books and comics tied to big pop culture and geek franchises) filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware.* According to a press release, the company intends to use the chapter 11 process to effectuate a 363 sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly-formed buyer, Loot Crate Acquisition LLC. The company secured a $10mm DIP credit facility to fund the cases from Money Chest LLC, an investor in the business. The company started in 2012.

Speaking of investors in the business, this one got a $18.5mm round of venture financingfrom the likes of Upfront Ventures, Sterling.VC (the venture arm of Sterling Equities, the owner of the New York Mets), and Downey Ventures, the venture arm of none other than Iron Man himself, Robert Downey Jr. At one point, this investment appeared to be a smashing success: the company reportedly had over 600k subscribers and more than $100mm in annualized revenue. It delivered to 35 countries. Inc Magazine ranked it #1 on its “Fastest Growing Private Companies” list. Deloitte had it listed first in its 2016 Technology Fast 500 Winners list. Loot Crate must have had one kicka$$ PR person!

But life comes at you fast.

By 2018, the wheels were already coming off. Mark Suster, a well-known and prolific VC from Upfront Ventures, stepped off the board along with two other directors. The company hired Dendera Advisory LLC, a boutique merchant bank, for a capital raise.** As we pointed out in early ‘18, apparently nobody was willing to put a new equity check into this thing, despite all of the accolades. Of course, allegations of sexual harassment don’t exactly help. Ultimately, the company had no choice but to go the debt route: in August 2018, it secured $23mm in new financing from Atalaya Capital Management LP. Per the company announcement:

This financing, led by Atalaya Capital Management LP ("Atalaya") and supported by several new investors (including longstanding commercial partners, NECA and Bioworld Merchandising), will enable Loot Crate to bolster its existing subscription lines and improve the overall customer experience, while also enabling new product launches, growth in new product lines and the establishment of new distribution channels.

Shortly thereafter, it began selling its boxes on Amazon Inc. ($AMZN). When a DTC e-commerce business suddenly starts relying on Amazon for distribution and relinquishes control of the customer relationship, one has to start to wonder. 🤔

And, so, now it is basically being sold for parts. Per the company announcement:

"During the sale process we will have the financial resources to purchase the goods and services necessary to fulfill our Looters' needs and continue the high-quality service and support they have come to expect from the Loot Crate team," Mr. Davis said.

That’s a pretty curious statement considering the Better Business Bureau opened an investigation into the company back in late 2018. Per the BBB website:

According to BBB files, consumers allege not receiving the purchases they paid for. Furthermore consumers allege not being able to get a response with the details of their orders or refunds. On September 4, 2018 the BBB contacted the company in regards to our concerns about the amount and pattern of complaints we have received. On October 30, 2018 the company responded stating "Loot Crate implemented a Shipping Status page to resolve any issues with delays here: http://loot.cr/shippingstatus[.]

In fact, go on Twitter and you’ll see a lot of recent complaints:

Have you ever considered a Loot Crate subscription? (Don’t.) I’m still waiting on my tees for April, May, June, and July. I won’t be renewing my subscription. @lootcrate needs to get it together. pic.twitter.com/BqqScs9jQR

— Randi ☕️📚🌊🌈❤️ (@biblionoceros) August 11, 2019

Which past crates because I've been waiting for a replacement for a crate that never showed up for 2 months and a crate I ordered last October still hasn't shipped yet this company is ridiculous

— Krystle Bogerman (@Krys_theawesome) August 12, 2019

@lootcrate I would love to know where my loot crate is that was supposed to arrive IN MAY. Not making people want to buy more crates when the ones we've already ordered are still MIA after 3 MONTHS

— Oldworldromance (@Oldworldromanc1) August 12, 2019

High quality service, huh? Riiiiiiight. These angry customers are likely to learn the definition of “unsecured creditor.”

@lootcrate So, Chapter 11, huh? I guess that's another way of telling everyone with a late crate or Loot Wear item that they're well and truly screwed?

— Mike Guerrero (@thesporq) August 12, 2019

Good luck getting those refunds, folks. The purchase price obviously won’t clear the $23mm in debt which means that general unsecured creditors (i.e., customers, among other groups) and equity investors will be wiped out.***

Sadly, this is another tale about a once-high-flying startup that apparently got too close to the sun. And, unfortunately, a number of people will lose their jobs as a result.

Seeing all my friends at Loot Crate losing their jobs makes me ill. I’m sending you all love. This company is a shell of what it once was, & it breaks my heart. There were over 20 customer support agents at one time. They ALL cared about customers. All those jobs got outsourced. https://t.co/vxJx7ymumG

— Bookitty (@B00kitty) August 10, 2019

I'm trembling out of anger from the amount of bullshit in this statement..

I feel so goddamn angry that I am scared I'm going to pass out at my desk.https://t.co/BvBr8Ww3Kv

— CΛΠDICE ❤️S YOU! (@CandiceLikesYou) August 12, 2019

Market froth has helped a number of these companies survive. When things do eventually turn, we will, unfortunately, see a lot more companies that once featured prominently in rankings and magazine covers fall by the wayside.

*We previously wrote about Loot Crate here, back in February 2018.

**Dendera, while not a well-known firm in restructuring circles, has been making its presence known in recent chapter 11 filings; it apparently had a role in Eastern Mountain Sports and Energy XXI.

***The full details of the bankruptcy filing aren’t out yet but this seems like a pretty obvious result.

😬Decreased Birth Rates, Diminished Sales & Distressed Signs: Destination Maternity Deteriorates (Short Turnaround BoD Types)😬

Per NPR:

The U.S. birthrate fell again in 2018, to 3,788,235 births — representing a 2% drop from 2017. It's the lowest number of births in 32 years, according to a new federal report. The numbers also sank the U.S. fertility rate to a record low.

Not since 1986 has the U.S. seen so few babies born. And it's an ongoing slump: 2018 was the fourth consecutive year of birth declines, according to the provisional birthrate report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Birthrates fell for nearly all racial and age groups, with only slight gains for women in their late 30s and early 40s, the CDC says.

These statistics must really suck for any business that generates revenue off of the maternity cohort.

Enter Destination Maternity Corporation ($DEST), a retailer of maternity apparel with a nationwide chain of specialty stores. As of May 4, 2019, the Moorestown New Jersey company had 998 retail locations, including 452 stores in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico, and an additional 546 leased departments located within department stores (eg., Macy’s, Boscov’s) throughout the US and Canada. It has also been kicking around on distressed retail lists for quite some time now. Unfortunately, the business keeps deteriorating: last week the company joined a recent retail wave and reported some truly dogsh*t numbers.

The company reported Q1 ‘19 results that included (i) $94.2mm in sales, a $9mm YOY decrease (-8.7%), (ii) a 5.2% comp store sales decline, (iii) an 12.5% e-commerce sales decline, (iv) increased inventory (+$5.7mm), and (v) increased debt levels and interest expense (up ~$300K). Sales declines permeated throughout the enterprise, including leased department store sales. The only uptick in sales was in wholesale, which is primarily done through Amazon Inc. ($AMZN). On the plus side, the company enjoyed increased gross margin and meaningfully decreased SG&A (down 6.5%). Gross margin increased due to a pullback in promotional activity; nevertheless, gross profit declined by 6.9% due to the overall decrease in sales. As for SG&A, the reduction is attributable to employees getting the shaft and the company shedding leases like its 2019. Indeed, the company cut 32 stores and 88 leased department locations in the twelve month period. While the company wouldn’t articulate its portfolio strategy going forward, the company did expressly state that it expects additional store closures through the end of 2019.

So, what’s the debt look like? Well, for starters, this is a public company and so we don’t have a private equity sponsor strangling the company with too much debt, dividend recapitalizations, management fees and any of that other fun stuff. So, here, the company doesn’t have a patsy to blame for its woeful performance. Only itself and its revolving door of management teams.

The company’s capital structure looks like this:

• $50mm ‘23 Revolving Credit Facility (of which $26.2mm is funded and $6.297mm is outstanding as letters of credit)(Agent: Wells Fargo Bank NA). The company has $10.1mm of availability pursuant to its borrowing base limitation. In other words, the company’s lenders are increasingly minimizing their exposure by limiting the company’s ability to borrow the full extent of the committed facility. Indeed, the facility was, in connection with a 2018 amend and extend exercise, ratcheted down from $70mm. The lenders aren’t fooling around here. The weighted interest rate is 4.53%.

• $25mm ‘23 Term Loan Facility (Agent: Pathlight Capital LLC). The interest rate is LIBOR plus 9%.

• The company has a couple of other financing agreements totaling approximately $4mm.

---

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO OUR @$$KICKING NEWSLETTER (DISRUPT THE COMPETITION WITH PETITION)

💥Mary Meeker’s “State-of-the-Internet” Slide Presentation💥

Another year, another banner “State-of-the-Internet” presentation from Mary Meeker. There are some bits that we thought would be of particular interest to the restructuring community.

• For all we hear about Amazon and e-commerce destroying retail, e-commerce growth is slowing. It constitutes 15% of retail versus 14% a year ago.

• There is a stark shift in time spent on various forms of media and, by extension, the use of ad budgets. This chart ought to frighten the sh*t out of print and radio content producers. Time spent on print and radio is down BIG. Even more disconcerting for print? All of the other mediums appear to have reached an equilibrium between time spent and ad spend but print, however, still enjoys a disproportionate amount of ad dollars. Said another way, print media outlets may still have some pain heading their way.

We’ve made recent mention of rising customer acquisition costs and how that might derail many retailers’ business plans. To reduce CAC, many streaming services (e.g., Zoom, Spotify) use free tiers at the top of their funnel to get potential customers in the door and familiar with their products and then focus primarily on making those potential customers happy instead of otherwise deploying effort to market wholesale (PETITION Note: similarly, this is what we do). That said, CACs are indeed increasing. Ms. Meeker has a chart for this:

---

WANT TO READ THE RESTE OF THIS ARTICLE? CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE NOW

⚡️Earnings Season Ushers in More Bad News for Retail⚡️

In “Thanos Snaps, Retail Disappears👿,“ “Even Captain America Can’t Bring Back This Much Retail (Long Continued Closures)“ and “💸The #Retailapocalypse is a Boon for...💸,” we’ve chronicled the seemingly endless volume of retail store closures that continue to persist in the first half of 2019. As we’ve said time and time again, there are no signs of this trend disappearing. In fact, it continues to get worse.

Over 8,000 store closures have been announced so far in 2019, including:
❌2,354 Payless
❌798 Gymboree
❌674 Dressbarn
❌522 Charlotte Russe
❌367 Shopko
❌263 Fred's
❌250 Chico's
❌250 Things Remembered
❌230 Gap
❌190 Family Dollar (net)
❌170 LifeWay
❌150 Walgreens pic.twitter.com/6eaXk80lfO

— Mitch Nolen Retail (@mitchnolen) May 22, 2019

Last week brought us a deluge of retail news and earnings. And, indeed, along with earnings came more store closure announcements and more indications of who are the “haves”* and the “have nots.”

Let’s start with department stores where there’s a lot of pain to go around in “have not”-ville.

Macy’s ($M) kicked things off with a surprise increase in same-store sales and so it was ONLY down approximately 0.9% on the week. In contrast, Kohl’s ($KSS), Dillard’s ($DDS), J.C. Penney ($JCP) and Nordstrom ($NWN) all got hammered — each down more than 7% — after across-the-board dismal earnings. Kohl’s performance was particularly interesting given its acclaimed experimentation, including partnerships with Amazon ($AMZN) and, coming soon, Fanatics. The company reported a 2.9% revenue decline and a same-store comp decline of 3.4%. Adding fuel to the fire: the company cut its full-year earnings guidance, citing…wait for it…tariffs(!) as a massive headwind.

Kohl’s wasn’t alone there. Home Depot ($HD) also indicated that new tariffs on China might cost it $1b in revenue — on top of the $1b it already anticipated from the prior round of tariffs. 😬

Other have nots in retail? Party City ($PRTY) is closing 45 stores. Tuesday Morning Corp. ($TUES) is closing a net 12 stores. Fred’s ($FRED) announced 104 more closures in addition to the 159 previously announced closures. Burberry Group Plc ($BURBY) is closing 38 stores. Topshop is now bankrupt and will close 11 stores in the US (and more abroad). Hibbett Sports ($HIBB) is adding 95 store closures to the pile (despite otherwise nice results). Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the dumpster fire that is Dressbarn:

Brutal.

Dressbarn is going out of business, plans to shut all 650 stores @CNBC https://t.co/YEUndf47R7

— 💥PETITION💥 (@petition) May 21, 2019

Finally, all of the pain in retail already has at least one ratings agency questioning whether David’s Bridal is out of the woods post-bankruptcy. We can’t wait to add that one to our “Do We have a Feasibility Problem?” series.

All of this has people scattered wondering what’s the next shoe to drop (more tariffs!) and, in turn, what can possibly stop the bleeding? Here is a piece discussing how private brands are on fire.

Here is to hoping that Generation Z saves malls. What draws them to malls? Good food. Malls with great food options apparently experience more sales. Now Neiman Marcus and H&M are going the resale route. Urban Outfitters ($URBN) is experimenting with a monthly rental service. Startups like Joymode look to benefit from the alleged shift from ownership to “access.”

The cultural shift of people moving from ownership to access is real. You can see it in the headlines with Home Depot and Urban Outfitters making rentals a priority. Here is the view from inside this trend on what the last two years of weekly growth looks like at Joymode pic.twitter.com/xlkVNSqm8M

— Joe Fernandez (@JoeFernandez) May 22, 2019

As for continued bleeding, here is yet another sign that things may continue to worsen for retail:

Notably, production of containerboard — a type of paperboard specially manufactured for the production of corrugated board (or cardboard) — is suffering a YOY production decline. Is that indicative of a dip in e-commerce sales to boot? 😬

*On the flip side, there have been some clear winning “haves.” Take, TJX Companies Inc. ($TJX), for instance. The owner of T.J. Maxx reported a 5% increase in same store sales. Target Inc. ($TGT) and Walmart Inc. ($WMT) also appear to be holding their own. The former’s stock had a meaningful pop this week on solid earnings.

💥Sycamore Partners is a B.E.A.S.T. Part I(b).💥

Speaking of feedback, one investor wrote us that the Twitterati — and PETITION to a lesser extent — had the Sycamore/Staples story all wrong. The dividend recapitalization doesn’t affect the retail story one way or another. That is because Sycamore did, in fact, separate the Staples business into multiple businesses, with the debt remaining at the Staples North American Delivery (“NAD”) entity. Staples U.S. Retail and Staples Canada Retail, as the other two units are now called, aren’t on the hook for the billions of dollars of debt. And, so, other than a bitchin’ new logo, Staples Retail isn’t really the story.* Once again, Sycamore is.

The Staples NAD lender presentation is an enlightening (and somewhat propagandist) look at the fast, furious and savage nature of the private equity model. In less than two years, Sycamore has (i) completed its intended business separation, (ii) improved EBITDA by $160mm “through stable top-line performance, expanded merchandise margins, and SG&A reductions, (iii) identified an additional $185mm of additional cost opportunities beyond 2019, (iv) bolted on some acquisitions, and (v) recruited 8 new members of the senior leadership team. Adjusted EBITDA is $1.2b (providing for certain acquisition-related addbacks). How the hell did Sycamore achieve all of this?

In part, by squeezing. The company has increased merchandise margins through “vendor negotiations.” Eat it vendors! Private equity is in the HOUSE!! The company reduced fiscal year ‘18 SG&A by over $100mm “through restructuring initiatives.” Eat it employees!! Private equity is in the HOUSE!! 900 of you can pack yo’ bags!! And hey you. Yeah you. Sales force employee #901 who thinks she’s safe. Well, newsflash: you’re not. Sycamore predicts another $19mm in sales force savings in 2019.

What about you, Mr. IT guy? That’s right:

Sycamore has another 70 full-time employees in the IT department slated for termination to the tune of $6mm in headcount savings. How? “Order management system consolidation.” Read: tech is replacing humans. Another $20mm of savings will come from robotics within Staples’ facilities. And yet another $10mm will come from outsourcing support from internal to low cost contractors (PETITION Note: short the US; long India). When talking heads say that PE strips out costs like a bawse, they’re not kidding. Is this dude on payroll?

NAD has fiercely competed to retain revenue and promote existing customer growth. Staples NAD now purportedly has ~2x as much revenue as Office Depot and ~3-4x more than Amazon Inc. ($AMZN). These guys sell a f*ck ton of office supplies, ink/toner and paper — about $5b worth. That’s insane. And they’re getting after the private label space, where the company has margins over 50%.

To put a finer point on this, look at this slide:

These guys aren’t messing around. These guys did their thing and now they’ve got an eye towards an IPO or a sponsor-to-sponsor transaction. And then it — and its 4.5x net debt ratio — will be someone else’s problem potentially heading into a downturn. There is no coincidence here from a timing perspective. Vicious.

*****

You’ll recall that Staples NAD went out to market shopping Sycamore’s scraps….uh…we mean a new $3.2b first lien term loan and a package of secured and unsecured notes to refinance its capital structure and give Sycamore one hell of a check to cash out its equity:

Well, the market reaction was…uh…interesting. Rather than issue $3.25b of senior secured term loans, the company will complete a $2.3b term loan, splitting the rest of the capital structure between secured ($2b) and unsecured notes ($1b). And the company did have to upsize the secured note piece relative to the unsecured piece. While the yield on the secured bit was mildly tighter than anticipated, the yield on the unsecured piece priced slightly wider than initially expected, indicating that the appetite for the unsecured notes was cautious — even at nearly 11% yield. Looks like certain investors didn’t buy in to the propaganda. Or Sycamore’s reputation precedes it. Either way, Sycamore reportedly took down 18% of the unsecured allotment and apparently agreed not to trade the notes for several months to help push the deal through. 

That said, will Sycamore’s dividend get paid? Well, duh, of course. The market’s reaction to the issuance has no bearing on that whatsoever. Which is not to say the reaction isn’t telling — especially when the paper immediately trades lower as it did here. Short Sycamore’s scraps.

*This thread about Staples’ new logo, however, is pure comedy:

I want to feel as amped as Staples employees giving their new corporate logo a standing ovation. pic.twitter.com/qc7fZfleMd

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) April 5, 2019

YES I FUCKIN LOVE OFFICE SUPPLIES

— 🚮 (@dude_incredibIe) April 5, 2019

Who else wants to get into a back alley fistfight with those cowards at Office Depot?

— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 5, 2019

I feel like I could staple like 50 docs right now

— Alex Konrad (@alexrkonrad) April 5, 2019

Im gonna punch this fuckin staple through a ream of 500 sheets of 8.5x11 and no one is gonna stop me

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) April 5, 2019

Just imagine how amped Sycamore must be to pull out all of its equity and just ride an option for the next few years.

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? JUST WAIT TILL YOU SEE OUR PREMIUM STUFF, DISCOVER MORE FROM PETITION

👚Resale is Real Real. Eff “The Amazon Effect.”👚

The #RetailApocalypse is More Than Amazon Inc.

In September 2017 in “Minimalistic Consumption by Inheritance,” we wrote:

Much has been made about the death of retail and the "Amazon Effect." We mention it quite a bit … but we are also on record as calling the Amazon narrative lazy. After all, there's a reason why resale apps are among the highest downloaded apps in the Itunes app store. We've noted this before: millennials have no problem buying, reselling, buying, and reselling. I mean, sh*t, we're now seeing commercials for OfferUp on television. We've noted the rise of Poshmark and other apps here and here. Perhaps there's more here than meets the eye.

We doubled down with “Enough Already With the ‘Amazon Effect’” in April 2018. Citing the ThredUp 2018 Resale Report, we noted:

…the resale market is on pace to reach $41 billion by 2022 and 49% of that is in apparel. Moreover, resale is growing 24x more than overall apparel retail. “[O]ne in three women shopped secondhand last year.” 40% of 18-24 year olds shopped resale in 2017. Those stats are bananas. This comment is illustrative of the transformation taking hold today,

“The modern consumer now has a choice between shopping traditional retail or trying new, innovative business models. New apparel experiences and brands are emerging at record rates to replace old ones. Rental, subscription, resale, direct-to-consumer, and more. The closet of the future is going to look very different from the closet of today. When you get that perfectly curated assortment from Stitch Fix, or subscribe to Rent the Runway’s everyday service, or find that killer handbag on thredUP you never could have afforded new, you start realizing how much your preferences and behavior is changing.”

Finally, we wrote in January — in “ Retail May Get Marie Kondo'd ,” — that the Force is now strong(er) with the resale trend.

We concluded:

…The RealReal is signaling that resale is so big that it’s ready to IPO. Talk about opportunistic. No better time to do this than during Kondo-mania. The company has raised $115mm in venture capital … most recently at a $745mm valuation.

None of this is a positive for the likes of J.C. Penney. They need consumers to consume and clutter. Not declutter. Not go resale shopping. We can’t wait to see who is first to mention Marie Kondo as a headwind in a quarterly earnings report. Similarly, we wonder how long until we see a Marie Kondo mention in a chapter 11 “First Day Declaration.” 

So, where are we going with all of this?

TO READ THE REMAINDER OF THIS CONTENT, SUBSCRIBE HERE. YOUR INFORMATIONAL EDGE IS JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT LINK.

Cracks in Malls Grow Deeper (Long Thanos, Short CMBS)

Retail Carnage Continues Unabated (R.I.P. Payless, Gymboree, Charlotte Russe & Shopko)

Talk of retail’s demise is so pervasive that the casual consumer may be immune to it at this point. Yeah, yeah, stores are closing and e-commerce is taking a greater share of the retail pie but what of it?

Well, it just keeps getting worse.

Consider 2019 alone. The Payless ShoeSource, Gymboree, Charlotte Russe, Shopko, and Samuels Jewelers* liquidations constitute thousands of stores evaporated from existence. It’s like Thanos came to Earth and snapped his fingers and — POOF! — a good portion of America’s sh*tty unnecessary retail dissipated into dust. Tack on bankruptcy-related closures for Things Remembered, Beauty Brands and Diesel Brands USA Inc. and you’re up to over 4,300 stores that have peaced out.

That, suffice it to say, would be horrific enough on its own. But “healthy” (read: non-bankrupt) retailers have only added to the #retailapocalypse. Newell Brands Inc. ($NWL)is closing 100 of its Yankee Candle locations to focus on “more profitable” distribution channels. Gap Inc. ($GPS) announced it is closing 230 of its more unprofitable locations and spinning Old Navy out into its own separate company — the good ol’ “good retail, bad retail” spinoff. Chico’s FAS Inc. ($CHS) is closing 250 stores. Stage Stores Inc. ($SSI) — which purchased once-bankruptcy Gordmans — is closing between 40-60 department stores. Kitchen Collection ($HBB) is closing 25-30 stores. E.L.F. Beauty ($ELF) is closing all 22 of its locations. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ($ANF)? Yup, closing stores. Up to 40 of them. GNC Inc. ($GNC) intends to close hundreds more stores over the next three years. Foot Locker Inc. ($FL)? Despite a strong earnings report, it is closing a net 85 stores. J.C. Penney Inc. ($JCP)…well…it didn’t report strong earnings and, not-so-shockingly, it, too, is closing approximately 27 stores this year. Victoria’s Secret ($LB)? 53 stores. Signet Jewelers Ltd. ($SIG)? Mmmm hmmm…it’s been closing its Zales and Kay Jewelers stores for years and will continue to do so. As we noted on Sunday, The Children’s Place Inc. ($PLCE) also intends to close 40-45 stores this year. Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc. ($BBW) will close 30 stores over the next two years. Ascena Retail Group Inc. ($ASNA) recently reported and disclosed that it had closed 110 stores (2% of its MASSIVE footprint) in the last quarter. Even the creepy-a$$ dolls at American Girl aren’t moving off the shelves fast enough: Mattel Inc. ($MAT) indicated that it needs to rationalize its retail footprint. There’s nothing Wonder Woman — or even a nightmare-inducing American Girl version of Wonder Woman — can do to prevent all of this carnage.

As a cherry on top, EVEN FRIKKEN AMAZON INC. ($AMZN) IS CLOSING ALL 87 OF ITS POP-UP SHOPS! Alas, The Financial Times pinned the total store closure number for 2019 alone at 4,800 stores (and just wait until Pier 1 hits). Attached to that, of course, is job loss at a pretty solid clip:

All of this begs the question: if there are so many store closures, are the landlords feeling it?

In part, surprisingly, the number appears to be ‘no.’ Per the FT:

“Investors in mall debt have also shown little sign of worry. The so-called CMBX 6 index — which tracks the performance of securitised commercial property loans with a concentration in retail — is up 4.4 per cent for 2019.”

Yet, in pockets, the answer also appears to be increasingly ‘maybe?’

For example, take a look at CBL & Associates Properties Inc. ($CBL) — a REIT that has exposure to a number of the names delineated above.

On its February 8th earnings call, the company stated:

“We are pleased to deliver results in line with expectations set forth at the beginning of the year notwithstanding the challenges that materialized.”

Translation: “we are pleased to merely fall in line with rock bottom expectations given all of the challenges that materialized and could have made sh*t FAR FAR WORSE.”

The company reported a 4.4% net operating income decline for the quarter and a 6% same-center net operating income decline for the year. The company is performing triage and eliminating short-term pressure: it secured a new $1.185b ‘23 secured revolver and term loan with 16 banks as part of the syndicate (nothing like spreading the risk) to refinance out unsecured debt (encumbering the majority of its ‘A Mall’ properties and priming the rest of its capital structure in the process); it completed $100mm of gross dispositions plus another $160mm in “sales” of its Cary Towne Center and Acadiana Mall; it reduced its dividend (which, for investors in REITs, is a huge slap in the face); and it also engaged in “effective management of expenses” which means that they’re taking costs out of the business to make the bottom line look prettier.

Given the current state of affairs, triage should continue to remain a focus:

“Between the bankruptcy filings of Bon-Ton and Sears, we have more than 40 anchor closures.”

“…rent loss from anchor closures as well as rent reductions and store closures related to bankrupt or struggling shop tenants is having a significant near-term impact to our income stream.”

They went on further to say:

“Bankruptcy-related store closures impacted fourth quarter mall occupancy by approximately 70 basis points or 128,000 square feet. Occupancy for the first quarter will be impacted by a few recent bankruptcy filings. Gymboree announced liquidation of their namesake brand and Crazy 8 stores. We have approximately 45 locations with 106,000 square feet closing.”

Wait. It keeps going:

“We also have 13 Charlotte Russe stores that will close as part of their filing earlier this month, representing 82,000 square feet.”

Earlier this week, Things Remembered filed. We anticipate closing most of their 32 locations in our portfolio comprising approximately 39,000 square feet.”

And yet occupancy is rising. The quality of the occupancy, however — on an average rental basis — is on the decline. The company indicated that new and renewal leases averaged a rent decline of 9.1%. With respect to this, the company states:

As we've seen throughout the years, certain retailers with persistent sales declines have pressured renewal spreads. We had 17 Ascena deals and 2 deals with Express this quarter that contributed 550 basis points to the overall decline on renewal leases. We anticipate negative spreads in the near term but are optimistic that the positive sales trends in 2018 will lead to improved lease negotiations with this year.

Ahhhhh…more misplaced optimism in retail (callback to this bit about Leslie Wexner). As a counter-balance, however, there is some level of realism at play here: the company reserved $15mm for losses due to store closures and co-tenancy effects on company NOI. In the meantime, it is filling in empty space with amusement attractions (e.g., Dave & Buster’s Entertainment Inc. ($PLAY), movie theaters, Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc ($DKS) locations, restaurants, office space and hotels. Sh*t…given the amount of specialty movie theaters allegedly going into all of these emptying malls, America is going to need all of those additional gyms to work off that popcorn (and diabetes). Get ready for those future First Day Declarations that delineate that, per capita, America is over-gym’d and over-theatered. It’s coming: it stretches credulity that the solution to every emptying mall is Equinox and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. ($AMC). But we digress.

All of these factors — the average rent decline, the empty square footage, etc. — are especially relevant considering the company’s capital structure and could, ultimately, challenge compliance with debt covenants. Net debt-to-EBITDA was 7.3x compared with 6.7x at year-end 2017. Here is the capital structure and the respective market prices (as of March 19):

The new Senior secured term loan due ‘23:

The Senior unsecured notes due ‘23:

The notes due ‘24:

The notes due ‘26:

Additionally, the company is trying to promote how flexible it is with its ability to pay down debt and invest in redevelopment properties. Here is a snippet of the company presentation that displays the debt covenants on its revolver, term loan and other unsecured recourse debt:

What is the real value of the mall assets that are left unencumbered? Recently, the Company has been slowly impairing a number of its assets and many of the Company’s tier 2 and 3 malls have yet to be revalued. If appraisers lower the value of these assets that are really supposed to be supporting the debt, what then?

Life as an unsecured creditor....when a third of your collateral value comes from dying C malls, and you gaze longingly at the A malls inside the term loan lenders' fence. #YouveBeenPrimed $CBL pic.twitter.com/ENgGeTY4zK

— Donut Shorts (@DonutShorts) February 8, 2019

And that doesn’t even take into consideration the co-tenancy clauses. As anchor tenants fall like flies, you’ll potentially see a rush to the exits as retailers with four-wall sales that don’t justify rents (and rising wages) exercise their rights.

So, given all of above, does the market share management’s (misplaced) optimism?

J.P. Morgan’s Michael W. Mueller wrote in a February 7, 2019 equity research report:

"While commentary in the earnings release noted some sequential improvement in 4Q results, we still see it being a grind for the company over the near to intermediate term."

BTIG’s James Sullivan added on February 20, 2019:

"We see no near-term solution for the owners of more marginal “B” assets like CBL & Associates. Sales productivity for such portfolios has shown little growth over the last eight quarters in contrast to the better-positioned “A” portfolios."

"The recent re-financing provides CBL with some near-term liquidity but limits future access to the mortgage market as only a small number of readily “bankable” assets remain unencumbered."

“We expect the challenging conditions in the industry to continue to create pressure on the operating metrics of mall portfolios with average sales productivity of less than $400/foot. More anchor closures are likely and in-line tenants are also likely to manage their brick-and-mortar exposure aggressively and close marginal locations. We reiterate our Sell rating and $2 price target.”

“With overall flat sales productivity in the portfolio, there is limited evidence that a turnaround in performance is likely in the next 24 months. Instead, we expect continued declines in SSNOI with negative leasing spreads and lower operating cost recovery rates.”

“CBL’s new facility which totals $1.185B is secured and replaces a series of unsecured term loans and a line of credit. Collateral includes 20 assets, of which three are Tier 1 Malls, 14 are Tier 2 Malls, and three are Associated Centers. As a result, CBL now has a much smaller number of unencumbered malls.”

“There are no unencumbered Tier 1 Malls (Sales exceeding $375/foot). There are nine unencumbered Tier 2 Malls (sales $300 -$375/foot) and those malls averaged $337/foot in 2017. The 2018 data is not available yet, but sales/foot for Tier 2 assets in 2018 declined by an average $5/foot. So assuming the law of averages applies, the average productivity of the unencumbered Tier 2 assets is $332/foot. Malls with that level of productivity cannot be financed in the CMBS market per CBL management.”

“With limited access to financing using their unencumbered malls, CBL has to look to its available capacity on its new line of credit, $265m, and projected free cash flow after paying its dividends, we estimate, of $155m in 2019 and $135m in 2020. CBL is currently estimating an annual capital requirement of $75m - $125m to redevelop closed anchor boxes. The per box range is $7m - $10m which we believe is low compared to peers whose cost per unit is closer to $17m. So CBL faces dwindling capital sources at the same time that its portfolio is suffering significant quarterly drops in SSNOI.”

Apropos, the shorts are getting aggressive on the name:

Short Interest in CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. $CBL Increases By 6.8% https://t.co/SBsgSN7VU9

— Zolmax News (@ZolmaxNews) March 5, 2019

The historical stock chart is ugly AF:

Which brings us to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) — derivative instruments comprised of loans on commercial properties. Canyon Partners’ Co-Chairman and co-CEO Joshua Friedman is shorting the sh*t out of mall-focused CMBS (containing among many other things, CBL properties) via a well known CDS index: the Markit CMBX.BBB- (and lower Indices) — to the tune of approximately $1b (out of $25b AUM). This is the mall-equivalent of the big short, except for commercial real estate. 🤔🤔

Here is a CMBX primer for anyone who wants to nerd out to the extreme. Choice bit:

CMBX allows investors to short CMBS credit risk across a wide array of vintages and credit ratings. Shorting individual cash bonds is difficult and rarely done, with the exception of a few very liquid names. The market for cusip level CMBS CDS used to exist, but the liquidity proved very poor and it was quickly replaced by trading of the synthetic indices.

And here is some color on what Mr. Friedman said regarding his trade:

Wowzers. Just imagine what happens to retail — including the malls — when the noise gets even louder.

*Samuels Jewelers filed chapter 11 last year but announced liquidation this year after failing to secure a buyer for its assets.

👜Retail May Get Marie Kondo'd👜

👠Marie Kondo is Coming to a First Day Declaration Near You (Long Thrift Shopping)👠

2019 has already been a rough year for retail. Beauty Brands LLC, a Kansas City-based brick-and-mortar retailer with 58 stores in 12 states filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the first week of January. Then, last week, both Shopko (367 stores) and Gymboree (~900 stores) filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy — the former hoping to avoid a full liquidation and the latter giving up hope and heading straight into liquidation (it blew its first chance in bankruptcy). And, of course, there’s still Charlotte Russe, Things Remembered, Payless and others to keep an eye on.

All of this has everyone on high alert. Take this piece from The Wall Street Journal. Pertaining to J.C. Penney ($JCP) and Sears Holding Corporation ($SHLDQ), the WSJ notes:

J.C. Penney Co.’s sales are falling, its stores are stuck in malls and the turnaround strategy keeps changing. Now, three months after the embattled retailer hired a new chief executive, a handful of senior positions remain vacant.

The series of events is prompting analysts and other industry experts to question whether Penney can avoid the fate of fellow department-store operator Sears Holdings Corp., which filed for bankruptcy and barely staved off liquidation.

The Plano, Texas-based chain was once the go-to apparel retailer for middle-class families. It and Sears had once dominated American retailing but lost their customers, first to discounters like Walmart , then to fast-fashion retailers and off-price chains like T.J. Maxx. The shift to online shopping hastened their decline.

First, the Sears Holding Corporation ($SHLDQ) drama continues as the company heads towards a contested sale hearing in the beginning of February. To say that it “staved off liquidation” is, at this juncture, factually incorrect. While the company’s prospects have improved along with Mr. Lampert’s purchase offer, it is not a certainty that the company will be able to avoid liquidation. At least not until the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ objection is overruled and the bankruptcy court judge blesses the Lampert deal. The sale hearing is slated for February 4.

Second, we were relieved to FINALLY see an article about retail that didn’t pin the blame solely at the feet of Amazon Inc. ($AMZN). As we’ve been arguing since our inception, the narrative is far more nuanced than just the “Amazon Effect.” To point, Vitaliy Katsenelson recently wrote in Barron’s:

Retail stocks have been annihilated recently, even though retail sales finished 2018 strong. The fundamentals of the retail business look horrible: Sales are stagnating, and profitability is getting worse with every passing quarter.

Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com get most of the blame, but this is only part of the story. Today, online sales represent only 8.5% of total retail sales. Amazon, at about $100 billion in sales, accounts only for 1.6% of total U.S. retail sales, which at the end of 2018 were around $6 trillion. In truth, the confluence of a half-dozen unrelated developments is responsible for weak retail sales.

He goes on to cite a shift in consumer spending to more expensive phones, more expensive phone bills, more expensive student loan bills and more expensive health care costs as contributors to retail’s general malaise (PETITION Note: yes, it appears that lots of things are getting more expensive. Don’t tell the FED.). More money spent there means less discretionary income for the likes of J.C. Penney. Likewise, he highlights the change in consumer habits. He writes:

We may not care about clothes as much as we may have 10 or 20 years ago. After all, our high-tech billionaires wear hoodies and flip-flops to work. Lack of fashion sense did not hinder their success, so why should the rest of us care about the dress code?

And:

Consumer habits have slowly changed, including the advent of rental clothes from companies like Rent the Runway and LeTote.

We’ve previously written extensively about the rental and resale wave. We wrote:

Indeed, per ThredUp, a second-hand apparel website, the resale market is on pace to reach $41 billion by 2022 and 49% of that is in apparel. Moreover, resale is growing 24x more than overall apparel retail. “[O]ne in three women shopped secondhand last year.” 40% of 18-24 year olds shopped retail in 2017. Those stats are bananas. This comment is illustrative of the transformation taking hold today,

“The modern consumer now has a choice between shopping traditional retail or trying new, innovative business models. New apparel experiences and brands are emerging at record rates to replace old ones. Rental, subscription, resale, direct-to-consumer, and more. The closet of the future is going to look very different from the closet of today. When you get that perfectly curated assortment from Stitch Fix, or subscribe to Rent the Runway’s everyday service, or find that killer handbag on thredUP you never could have afforded new, you start realizing how much your preferences and behavior is changing.”

Lots of good charts here to bolster the point.

That wave just got a significant shot of steroids.

Earlier this month Netflix Inc. ($NFLX) debuted “Tidying Up with Marie Kondo,” a show that springs off of Ms. Kondo’s hit 2014 book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing.” The news since is not too encouraging for retailers.

Per NPR, “Thrift Stores Say They’re Swamped With Donations After ‘Tidying Up with Marie Kondo’” (audio and audio transcript). Indeed, thrift stores like Goodwill are seeing an uptick in donations across the country (and Canada). The Wall Street Journal published a full feature predicated upon “throw a lot of sh*t out.”

Of course, all of this decluttering is an opportunity. Anna Silman writes in The Cut:

Well, congrats to all the people who have committed to the KonMari life and ridded themselves of the burden of their unwanted possessions, and who now have to waste 15 minutes a day folding their underwear into tiny rectangles. But also, good for us! Imagine how many bad choices people are liable to make in a feverish post New Year’s Kondo-inspired purge? Mistakes will be made. Purgers are going to see that lavish fur cape they never wore and deem it impractical; come Game of Thrones finale cosplay time, they’re going to rue their hastiness. Conscientious closet cleaners will dispose of the low-rise jeans they haven’t worn since the mid-aughts, but the joke’s on them, because low-rise jeans are coming back, bitches!

So, my fellow anti-Kondoers, if you’re in a post-holiday shopping mood, get thee to thy nearest second-hand clothing store Beacon’s (or Goodwill, or Buffalo Exchange, or Crossroads, or the internet) and get started on building your 2019 wardrobe. And if you arrive at your nearest resale outlet and see a long line, don’t worry: Those people are there to sell. Those aren’t your people. Forget them. Focus on the racks — those sweet, newly stocked, overflowing racks, where so much joy awaits.

It’s just like the old adage: One woman’s trash is another woman’s treasure, especially because most of it was never trash to begin with.

Likewise, Lia Beck writes in Bustle, “…get out there and find some things that spark joy for you.”

And reseller The RealReal is signaling that resale is so big that it’s ready to IPO. Talk about opportunistic. No better time to do this than during Kondo-mania. The company has raised $115mm in venture capital from Perella Weinberg Partners, Sandbridge Capital and Great Hill Partners, most recently at a $745mm valuation.

None of this is a positive for the likes of J.C. Penney. They need consumers to consume and clutter. Not declutter. Not go resale shopping. We can’t wait to see who is first to mention Marie Kondo as a headwind in a quarterly earnings report. Similarly, we wonder how long until we see a Marie Kondo mention in a chapter 11 “First Day Declaration.” 🤔

💣Diebold. Disrupted.💣

Are Point-of-Sale & Self-Checkout Systems Effed (Short Diebold Nixdorf)?

Forgive us for returning to recently trodden ground. Since we wrote about Diebold Nixdorf Inc. ($DBD) in “💥Millennials & Post-Millennials are Killing ATMs💥,” there has been a flurry of activity around the name. The company…

To continue reading, you must be a Member. Become one here.

🍾Happy Anniversary, Tower Records!!🍾

Tower Records Filed for Chapter 22 on August 20, 2006 (Long Disruption)

12 years ago today Tower Records Inc. filed for bankruptcy for the second time in 2.5 years, ending the company’s run in the United States (and most other places of the world).

The company first filed for bankruptcy in February 2004. The music retailer had approximately 90 stores and more than $110mm in debt that it owed to the likes of AIG Investment Group, Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase and…wait for it…Bear Stearns Securities Corp. The first bankruptcy was a short prepackaged bankruptcy that eliminated $80mm of debt in a debt-for-equity swap, leaving the company’s famous and eccentric owners with 15% of the company. The company attempted a sale process but had no takers. CIT Group provided the company with a $100mm DIP credit facility. O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Richards Layton & Finger PA represented the company (and both signatories to the petition actually still remain at those firms).

Interestingly, with some limited exception, the narrative explaining the company’s demise is not-all-too-different from what we see from retailers today. SFGate wrote at the time:

Tower's difficulties reflect those of the music industry during the past few years. Industry sales declined from $10.49 billion in 1999 to $8.93 billion in 2002, according to a report from the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, which attributed the swoon to digital downloading and copying. Retailers are also under pressure from online sales by firms such as Amazon.com, and from deep discounting by such rivals as Wal-Mart, and fierce competition from other chains like Borders and Barnes & Noble.

CBSNews added:

The filing is expected to help clear the way for selling the 93-store chain that suffered from rapid changes in the music business, especially the exploding popularity of downloading music for free from the Internet. Discounters such as Best Buy, Circuit City and Wal-Mart Stores also undercut Tower's prices and hurt the chain's earnings.

Those trends and a major slump in the music industry followed fast on the heels of the company's 1998 decision to expand using $110 million of borrowed money. The expansion drove Tower to a peak of more than $1 billion in annual revenue with nearly 200 stores in 21 states and numerous franchises internationally. But it has been rapidly downsizing since 2001.

A filing last April with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission revealed the retailer had lost money for 13 straight quarters.

Wait. Amazon ($AMZN)? Check. Deep discounting from the likes of Walmart ($WMT)? Check. Too much debt to fund an over-expansion? Check. Revenue declines on the basis of technological innovation? Check. We guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

And stay the same they did. Even then. It took just 2.5 years for the company to wind its way back into bankruptcy court. And for all of the same reasons. Two months later, Great American Group, a firm that specializes in liquidations, emerged as the highest and best bidder in an auction for the company, winning with a bid of $134.5mm; it beat Trans World Entertainment Corporation ($TWMC), an entertainment media retail store operator that — shockingly — still exists. You may be familiar with it: it’s largest specialty retail brand is fye, which as of May 2018, still operated 253 stores. It is hanging by a thread, but it still exists — largely on the back of its etailz segment, which apparently thrives by doing omni-channel business with Amazon, Ebay, Jet.com/Walmart and Wish.

Anyway, Trans World had hoped to continue operating at least some of the Tower locations; it lost the bidding by $500k. And, accordingly, Tower Records liquidated. While there is such a thing as Tower Records in Asia, the name is all but a distant memory today.

🛋There's Disruption Afoot in the Furniture Space🛋

Add Furniture to the List of Disrupted Categories (Home Heritage Group Inc. Filed for Bankruptcy)

“New Chapter 11 Filing!” Or is it technically a Chapter 22? 🤔

We know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “this filed a few days ago and I’ve already read all about it.” You may have read something about it, but not like this. Bear with us…

Home Heritage Group Inc. (“HHG”) is a North Carolina-based designer and manufacturer of home furnishings; it sells product via (i) retail stores, (ii) interior design partners, (iii) multi-line/independent retailers, and (iv) mass merchant stores.” In addition, the company has an international wholesale business.

Why do we mention Chapter 22? For the uninitiated, Chapter 22 in bankruptcy doesn’t actually exist. It is a somewhat snarky term to describe companies that have round-tripped back into chapter 11 after a previous stint in bankruptcy court. That, to some degree, is the case here.

WAAAAAAAY back in November 2013, KPS Capital Partners LP formed the newly bankrupt HHG entity to acquire a brand portfolio and related assets out of the bankruptcy estate of Furniture Brands International Inc. (“FBI”). FBI had been, in the early 2000s, a very successful purveyor of various furniture brands — to the tune of $2b in annual sales. But in the 12 months prior to the acquisition, the company’s sales were down to $940mm and, more importantly, its EBITDA was negative $58mm. At the time of filing, it had $142mm in total funded debt outstanding, $200mm in unfunded pension obligations and another $100mm in general trade obligations.

Given this debt, a decline in sales at the time was devastating. The company noted in its court filings on September 9, 2013 (Docket #16):

As a manufacturer and retail of home furnishings, Furniture Brands’ operations and performance depend significantly on economic conditions, particularly in the United States, and their impact on levels of existing home sales, new home construction, and consumer discretionary spending. Economic conditions deteriorated significantly in the United States and worldwide in recent years as part of a global financial crisis. Although the general economy has begun to recover, sales of residential furniture remain depressed due to wavering consumer confidence and several, ongoing global economic factors that have negatively impacted consumers’ discretionary spending. These ongoing factors include lower home values, prolonged foreclosure activity throughout the country, a weak market for home sales, continued high levels of unemployment, and reduced access to consumer credit. These conditions have resulted in a decline in Furniture Brands’ sales, earnings and liquidity.

Sales have continued to be depressed as a result of a sluggish recovery in the U.S. economy, continuing high unemployment, depressed housing prices, tight consumer lending practices, the reluctance of some households to use available credit for big ticket purchases including furniture, and continuing volatility in the retail market.

PETITION Note: My, how things have changed. Just reflect on that synopsis of the economy a mere five years ago. The company also noted that:

…some of the Company’s larger brands have lost some of their market share primarily due to competition from suppliers who are able to produce similar products at lower costs. The residential furniture industry is highly competitive and fragmented. Furniture Brands competes with many other manufacturers and retailers, some of which offer widely advertised, well-known, branded products, and other competitors are large retail furniture dealers who offer their own store-branded products.

All of these factors stormed together to constrain the company’s liquidity and force a chapter 11 filing and eventual sale. KPS purchased several of the FBI brands for $280mm (subject to working capital adjustments), including Thomasville, Broyhill, Lane, Drexel Heritage, Henredon, Pearson, Hickory Chair, Lane Venture, and Maitland-Smith. In other words: brands that your grandfather would know and you would shrug at the mere mention of. Well, some of you anyway.

Fast forward five years and the successor entity HHG has $280mm of debt and…you guessed it…severe liquidity constraints. In its first day filing papers, HHG notes that the previous bankruptcy continues to have lasting effects on its business; it highlights:

Following years of sales declines, many furniture retailers had lost faith in the ability of the Company to produce, deliver, and service its products, and the bankruptcy led many of them to shift their purchases to a variety of competitors or even further utilize their own private label offerings.

This is what people still nostalgically refer to as “bankruptcy stigma.” Indeed, it still exists. The company continued:

In addition, the Company’s operations and performance depend significantly on economic conditions, particularly in the United States, and their impact on levels of existing home sales, new home construction, and consumer discretionary spending. Although economic conditions have been steadily improving in recent years, the Debtors have struggled to adjust to certain shifts in consumer lifestyles, which include: (i) lower home-ownership levels and more people renting; (ii) more apartment living and single-person households; (iii) older consumers that want to age in place; and (iv) cash-strapped millennials that are slow in forming households relative to prior generations.

Haha! The poor millennials. Apparently an entire generation is “cash-strapped” and prefers to sleep in a tent under their WeWork desks. Blame the avocado toast and turmeric lattes. But, wait, there’s more:

Consumer browsing and buying practices are rapidly shifting as well toward greater use of social media, internet- and app-based catalogs and e-commerce platforms, and the Company has been unable to develop a substantial sales base for its brands through this key growth channel.

Furthermore, the residential furniture industry is highly competitive and fragmented. The Company competes with many other manufacturers and retailers, some of which offer widely advertised, well-known, branded products, and other competitors are large retail furniture dealers who offer their own private label products. This competitive landscape has proved challenging for some of the Company’s larger brands as well-capitalized competitors continue to gain market share at the expense of the Debtors. (emphasis added)

PETITION Note: My, how things have remained the same. Sound familiar? Have to hand it to the professionals here: why reinvent the wheel when you can just crib from the prior filing? We guess being a repeat customer in bankruptcy has its benefits!! Chapter 22!!!

<p>Meanwhile a short digression relevant to those last two quoted paragraphs. According to Statista, worldwide online furniture and homewares sales are expected to be close to $190 billion. Take a look at this chart:

RetailDive notes:

E-commerce furniture sales have emerged as a major growth area, rising 18% in 2015, second only to grocery, according to research from Barclays.

Accordingly, GartnerL2 cautions that:

…home brands now have an outsized onus to produce best-in-class product pages for the influx of online shoppers. However, many brands have failed to deliver and aren’t keeping pace with industry disruptors.

Sounds like HHG has, admittedly, fallen into this category.

GartnerL2 highlights the disparate user experiences offered by Williams-Sonoma-owned West Elm and Chicago-based DTC disruptor Interior Define, which was founded in 2013 and has raised $27mm in funding (most recently a Series B in March). The latter offers extensive imagery, a visual guide and an augmented reality mobile app. All of these things appeal to the more-tech-savvy (non-cash-strapped??) millennial buyer.

And that is precisely the demographic that La-Z-Boy Incorporated ($LZB) is going after with its purchase of Joybird, a California-based direct-to-consumer e-commerce retailer and manufacturer of upholstered furniture. Founded in 2014, its $55mm in reported revenue last year took a chunk out of, well, someone. Other players in that space include Burrow ($19.2mm in total funding; most recent Series A in March from New Enterprise Associates) and, of course, Amazon’s in-house furniture brands, Rivet and Stone & Beam. <p><end>

All of these factors resulted in continual YOY declines in sales and a liquidity squeeze. Now, therefore, the company is in bankruptcy to effectuate a sale — or sales — of its brands to prospective bidders. It has one purchaser in line for the “Luxury Group” and, according to the court filing, appears close to an agreement with a stalking horse buyer of the Broyhill and Thomasville & Co. properties. In the meantime, the company has a commitment from prepetition lender PNC Bank NA for a $98mm DIP, of which $25mm Judge Gross granted on an interim basis.

Home Security is a Tough Business

Short Ascent Capital Group

Tough is one word for it.

Saturated is another.

There are countless players in the home security and monitoring space including (i) recently-IPO’d ADT Inc. (owned by Apollo Asset Management),* (ii) Vivint Inc., (iii) Guardian Protection Services, (iv) Vector Security Inc., (v) Comcast Corporation, and (vi) SimpliSafe Inc. And there is also the identity-confused schizophrenic Monitronics International Inc., formerly known as MONI Smart Security and now known as Brinks Home Security, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of publicly-traded holding company Ascent Capital Group ($ASCMA)(did you get all of that?). Nearly all of these companies compete in the market for “alarm monitoring agreements” (AMAs) — contracts pursuant to which these companies provide home monitoring services in exchange for predictable recurring revenue. Predictable in a manner of speaking: with this much competition, the industry is getting a wee bit…less…predictable…?

Ascent Capital Group noted in its most recent 10-K:

Competition in the security alarm industry is based primarily on reputation for quality of service, market visibility, services offered, price and the ability to identify and obtain customer accounts. Competition for customers has also increased in recent years with the emergence of DIY home security providers and other technology companies expanding into the security alarm industry. We believe we compete effectively with other national, regional and local alarm monitoring companies, including cable and telecommunications companies, due to our reputation for reliable monitoring, customer and technical services, the quality of our services, and our relatively lower cost structure. We believe the dynamics of the security alarm industry favor larger alarm monitoring companies, such as MONI, with a nationwide focus that have greater resources and benefit from economies of scale in technology, advertising and other expenditures. (emphasis added).

Make no mistake: ASCMA is purposefully highlighting its monitoring expertise, size and scale. And that is because the market for AMAs is getting increasingly challenged by a number of home security providers. And many of them are of the do-it-yourself (“DIY”) variety. For instance, home owners can get home security devices from Arlo by Netgear.** Or Canary. Or Honeywell ($HON). Or Google (Nest)($GOOG). Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) recently bought Ring Doorbell for $1 billion and that, too, has a home security system. Gadget stores are replete with options for DIY home security systems. Do people even need professional installation and/or monitoring anymore? With property crimes on a nationwide decline, is a self-monitoring system viable enough? Why bother when you can just get alerts to the phone in your pocket or the watch on your wrist? These are the big questions.

Especially for Monitronics.

Monitronics primarily sells its home security and monitoring services through a network of authorized dealers. While it also deploys certain direct-to-consumer initiatives under its DIY-focused subsidiary, LiveWatch Security LLC, the company’s real action is from the recurring fees baked into AMAs. Unfortunately:

In recent years, MONI's acquisition of new customer accounts through its dealer sales channel has declined due to the attrition of large dealers, efforts to acquire new accounts from dealers at lower purchase prices, consumer buying behaviors, including trends of buying security products through online sources and increased competition from telecommunications and cable companies in the market. MONI is increasingly reliant on its internal sales channel and strategic relationships with third parties, such as Nest, to counter-balance this declining account generation through its dealer sales channel. If MONI is unable to generate sufficient accounts through its internal sales channel and strategic relationships to replace declining new accounts through dealers, MONI's business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. (emphasis added)

Was that a borderline “Amazon Effect” reference mixed in there? 🤔 Wait. There’s more:

As of December 31, 2017, MONI was one of the largest alarm monitoring companies in the U.S. when measured by the total number of subscribers under contract. MONI faces competition from other alarm monitoring companies, including companies that have more capital and that may offer higher prices and more favorable terms to dealers for alarm monitoring contracts or charge lower prices to customers for monitoring services. MONI also faces competition from a significant number of small regional competitors that concentrate their capital and other resources in targeting local markets and forming new marketing channels that may displace the existing alarm system dealer channels for acquiring alarm monitoring contracts. Further, MONI is facing increasing competition from telecommunications, cable and technology companies who are expanding into alarm monitoring services and bundling their existing offerings with monitored security services. The existing access to and relationship with subscribers that these companies have could give them a substantial advantage over MONI, especially if they are able to offer subscribers a lower price by bundling these services. Any of these forms of competition could reduce the acquisition opportunities available to MONI, thus slowing its rate of growth, or requiring it to increase the price paid for subscriber accounts, thus reducing its return on investment and negatively impacting its revenues and results of operations.

And here we thought people were shunning the cable companies?

Anyway, can Monitronics circumvent these issues with a superior product? By investing in new technology to ward off the onslaught of newcomers? More from the 10-K:

…the availability of any new features developed for use in MONI's industry (whether developed by MONI or otherwise) can have a significant impact on a subscriber’s initial decision to choose MONI's or its competitor’s products and a subscriber's decision to renew with MONI or switch to one of its competitors. To the extent its competitors have greater capital and other resources to dedicate to responding to technological innovation over time, the products and services offered by MONI may become less attractive to current or future subscribers thereby reducing demand for such products and services and increasing attrition over time. Those competitors that benefit from more capital being available to them may be at a particular advantage to MONI in this respect. If MONI is unable to adapt in response to changing technologies, market conditions or customer requirements in a timely manner, such inability could adversely affect its business by increasing its rate of subscriber attrition. MONI also faces potential competition from improvements in self-monitoring systems, which enable current or future subscribers to monitor their home environments without third-party involvement, which could further increase attrition rates over time and hinder the acquisition of new alarm monitoring contracts. (emphasis added)

Luckily this isn’t an issue because Monitronics currently has the best most technologically-advanced home security offering on the market. Oh. Hmmm. Wait. We spoke to soon…

Here is Wirecutter reviewing “The Best Home Security System.” And suffice it to say, the Monitronics’ product is not the winner. In fact, Wirecutter knocks the “Brinks Home Complete with Video” system on cost.

Here is PCmag reviewing “The Best Smart Home Security Systems of 2018” and the LiveWatch Plug & Protect IQ 2.0 is buried down the list with a 3.5 star rating (out of 5).

And here is Reviews.com’s list of “The Best DIY Home Security” and neither LiveWatch nor Brinks are listed. 😜

To offset all of these current challenges, the company luckily has unconstrained liquidity and a clean balance sheet to invest in marketing to dealers and upgrading its technology for the future. Oh. Hmmm. Wait. We spoke to soon. Again. 😜

Late last week, Moody’s Investors Service Inc. downgraded Monitronics International Inc.to Caa2 from B3; it also downgraded (i) the company’s $1.1 billion senior secured first-lien L+5.50% term loan due 2020 to Caa1 from B2 and (ii) its 9.125% $585 million senior unsecured notes to Caa3 from Caa2. To complete the capital structure picture, the company also has approximately $68.5 million outstanding on a $295 million L+4% credit facility “super priority” revolver due 2021. So, to make sure you grasp the magnitude here: 1 + 2 + 3 = $1.8 billion of debt. Yup, you read that right. There’s a lot of interest expense attached to that. Oh, and per ASCMA’s last 10-K:

The maturity date for both the term loan and the revolving credit facility under the Credit Facility are subject to a springing maturity 181 days prior to the scheduled maturity date of the Senior Notes. Accordingly, if MONI is unable to refinance the Senior Notes by October 3, 2019, both the term loan and the revolving credit facility would become due and payable.

Hmmm. 🤔 Siri, set an alarm for April 2019‼️💥

Moody’s noted:

The downgrade of Monitronics' CFR and facility ratings reflects strains on the company's liquidity and capital structure caused by impending maturities, as well as its continued lackluster operating performance.

The liquidity rating downgrade to SGL-4 reflects the approaching debt maturities. Moody's views Monitronics' liquidity as operationally adequate, but weak in terms of imminent, likely accelerating debt maturities. As a result of the company's continued lackluster performance, Moody's expects Monitronics to generate barely breakeven free cash flow this year. The (unrated) $295 million, super-priority revolving credit facility is large and has, as of early July 2018, a time of seasonally heavy revolver borrowing, roughly $80 million drawn. Reliance on the revolver also creates liquidity risk because the revolver expiration will spring to October 2019 if the notes are not refinanced. While cash on hand continues to be modest ($30 million at March 31st), Monitronics' parent company, Ascent Capital Group, Inc.("Ascent"), has nearly $110 million of cash, which may be viewed as providing additional implied support. Still, Monitronics' combined sources of liquidity are weak relative to the quantum of debt coming due in the next few years. Reliance on the revolver for operational initiatives and to fund purchases of new subscriber contracts from dealers will also prevent meaningful deleveraging over the next year. Weak operational metrics also continue to shrink the cushion it has relative to covenant limits, and the risk of a covenant violation over the next 12-15 months is elevated.

Ergo, the capital structure is rumored to be advisored up with (a) Houlihan Lokey and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan working with an ad hoc group of unsecured holders and (b) Jones Day and Evercore working with the term lenders. Latham & Watkins LLP reportedly represents the company. Anchorage Capital may be a bit of a wild card here as they allegedly hold a meaningful position in the term loan and the unsecured bonds.

All of this drama has taken its toll on ASCMA’s stock:

This company is looking a bit insecure.

* ADT IPO’d earlier this year championing its revenue-generation. In its S-1 filing it noted, “In the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2016, we had total revenues of $3,210 million and $2,950 million, respectively, and net losses of $296 million and $537 million, respectively.” Um, okay. This looks like a textbook Apollo dump. And the market seems to be responding. Here is the range-bound stock performance post-IPO:

Hard to blame Apollo for getting out while the gettin’ is good.

** As we were researching and writing this piece, Arlo Technologies filed its S-1 for a planned $194mm IPO. The firm posted $6.6 million in income on $370.7 million in revenue for 2017.

As we said, “saturated.”

🔥Amazon is a Beast🔥

The "Amazon Effect" Takes More Victims

Scott Galloway likes to say that mere announcements from Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) can result in billions of dollars of wiped-out market capitalization. Upon this week’s announcement that Amazon has purchased Boston-based online pharmacy startup Pillpack for $1 billion — beating out Walmart ($WMT) in the process — his statement proved correct. Check this out:

We like to make fun of the Amazon narrative because we’re of the view that it’s overplayed — particularly in restructuring circles — and reflects a failure to understand broader macro trends (like the direct-to-consumer invasion noted below). Still, the market reaction to this purchase reflects the undeniable power of the “Amazon Effect” and we’d be remiss not to acknowledge as much. This purchase will likely be a turning point for pharmacies for sure; perhaps also, farther down the line, for benefits managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. It also may provide Amazon with meaningful cross-pollination opportunities with its payments business — a subject that nobody seems to be talking about (more on this below).

Putting aside the losers for now, there are a variety of winners. First, obviously, are Pillpack’s founders, TJ Parker and Elliot Cohen. They stand to make a ton of money. Also its investors — Accel Partners, Atlas Venture, CRV, Founder Collective, Menlo Ventures, Sherpa Ventures and Techstars — at an 8x return, at least. Oh, and Nas apparently. And then there is Amazon itself. Pillpack isn’t a massive revenue generator ($100mm in ‘17) and it isn’t a big company (1k employees) but it packs a big punch: licenses to ship drugs in 50 sates. With this purchase, Amazon just hurdled over a significant regulatory quagmire.

So what is Pillpack? Per Wired (by way of Ben Thompson):

PillPack is trying to solve the problem of drug adherence by simplifying your medicine cabinet. Medication arrives in the mail presorted into clear plastic packets, each marked in a large font with vital information: day, time, pills inside, dosages. These are ordered chronologically in a roll that slots into the dispenser. Let’s say you need to take four different pills in the morning and two others in the afternoon every day: Those pills would be sorted into two tear-off packets: one marked 8am, followed immediately by the 2pm packet.

Put another way, Pillpack specializes in the convenience of getting you your medications directly with a design and user-experience focus to boot. The latter helps ensure that you’re taking the proper levels of medication at the right time.

Still, there are some limitations. Per The Wall Street Journal:

Amazon will be limited in what it can do, especially to start. PillPack’s specialty—packaging a month’s supply of pills for chronic-disease patients—is a small part of the overall market. It has said it has tens of thousands of customers versus Amazon’s hundreds of millions.

Current limitations notwithstanding, Thompson notes how much Pillpack’s service aligns with Amazon:

Amazon, particularly for Prime customers, is seeking to be the retailer of habit. That is, just as a chronic condition patient may need to order drugs every month, Amazon wants to be the source of monthly purchases of household supplies, and anything else one might want to buy along the way.

Like all aggregators, Amazon wins by providing a superior user experience, particularly when it comes to delivering the efficient frontier of price and selection. To that end, moving into pharmaceuticals via a company predicated on delivering a superior user experience makes total sense.

Thompson notes further:

The benefit Amazon will provide to PillPack, on the other hand, is primarily about dramatically decreasing the customer acquisition costs for a solution that is far better for consumers; to put it another way, Amazon will make a whole lot more people aware of a much more customer-friendly solution. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing why that is problematic.

To be sure, Amazon will benefit beyond its unique ability to supercharge PillPack’s customer acquisition numbers: just as Walgreen and CVS’s pharmacies draw customers to their traditional retail stores, PillPack’s focus on regular ordering fits in well with Amazon’s desire to be at the center of its customers day-to-day lives. This works in two directions: first, that Amazon now has a direct connection to a an ongoing transaction, and second, that would-be Amazon customers are dissuaded from visiting a retail pharmacy and, inevitably, buying something else along the way. This was a point I made in Amazon’s New Customer:

This, though, is why groceries is a strategic hole: not only is it the largest retail category, it is the most persistent opportunity for other retailers to gain access to Prime members and remind them there are alternatives.

A similar argument could be made for prescription drugs: their acquisition is one of the most consistent and predictable ways by which potential customers exist outside of the Amazon ecosystem. It makes a lot of sense for Amazon to reduce the inclination to ever go elsewhere.

It seems that Amazon is doing that lately for virtually everything. Consistently, further expansion beyond just chronic-disease patients seems inevitable. Margin exists elsewhere in the medical chain too and, well, Jeff Bezos once famously said “Your margin is my opportunity.” David Frankel of Founder Collective writes:

The story of the last five years has been that of bricks and mortar retailers frantically trying to play catch-up with Amazon. By acquiring PillPack, Amazon is now firmly attacking another quarter trillion dollars of TAM. Bezos is a tenacious competitor and has just added the most compelling consumer pharmacy to enter the game since CVS was founded in 1963.

TJ Parker understands the pharma business in his bones, has impeccable product sensibilities, and now has the backing of the most successful retail entrepreneur in history.

Expect some real healthcare reform ahead.

No wonder those stocks all sh*t the bed. That all sounds downright horrifying for those on the receiving end.

*****

Recall weeks back when we noted this slide in Mary Meeker’s “Internet Trends” presentation:

Healthcare spending continues to rise which, no doubt, includes the cost of medication — a hot button issue of price that even Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have agreed on. This purchase dovetails nicely with Amazon’s overall health ambitions. Per the New York Times:

But Mr. Buck and others said Amazon might have a new opportunity. A growing number of Americans are without health insurance or have such high deductibles that they may be better off bargain shopping on their own. He estimated that 25 million Americans fell into that category.

Until now, he said, PillPack has not aggressively competed on price. With Amazon in charge, “how about they start posting prices that are really, really aggressive?” Mr. Buck said.

As Pillpack increases its scale, Amazon will be able to exert more leverage in the space. This could have the affect of compressing (certain) pharmaceutical prices. To get there, Amazon will undoubtedly seize the opportunity to subsume Pillpack/pharma into Amazon Prime, providing Members discounts on medicine much like it provides Whole Foods shoppers discounts on bananas.

There is other opportunity to expand the user base as well. People are looking to save money on healthcare as much as possible. With cash back rewards, Amazon can offer additional discounts if consumers were to carry and use the Amazon Prime Rewards Visa Signature Card — which already offers 5% back on Amazon.com and WholeFoods purchases (plus money back elsewhere too). Pillpack too? We could envision a scenario where people scrap their current plastic to ensure that they’re getting discounts off of one of the most rapidly rising expenditures out there. Said another way, as more and more consumer staples like food and medicine are offered by Amazon, Amazon will be able to entice Pillpack customers with further card-related discounts. And grow a significant amount of revenue by way of its card offering. No doubt this is part of the plan. And don’t forget the data that they would compile to boot.

Per Forbes shortly after Amazon launched its Amazon Prime Rewards Visa Signature Card,

Given that Amazon credit card holders spend the highest on its platform, the company is looking at ways to expand its credit card consumer base. CIRP estimates that approximately 15% of Amazon’s U.S. customers have any one of Amazon’s credit cards, representing approximately 21 million customers. However, growth of its card base has not kept pace with its growing Prime membership. In June 2016, it was estimated that Amazon has around 63 million Prime members. Assuming that only Prime members have an Amazon credit card, it would mean that only a third of its Prime customers have one of its credit cards. According to a survey by Morgan Stanley, Amazon Prime members spend about 4.6 times more money on its platform than non-prime members. Its credit card holders spend even greater amounts than what Prime members spend. By enticing its prime customers to own its credit cards, Amazon will be encouraging them to spend more on its platform. Its latest card is aimed at attracting Prime customers by offering deals not only on Amazon.com but on other shopping destinations as well. This can lead to higher spending by existing Prime customers and help convert the fence sitters into Prime memberships.

And those numbers are dated. Amazon Prime now has 100mm members. Imagine if they could all get discounts on their meds. 💰💥💰💥

All of which begs the question: who gets hurt and who benefits (other than Visa ($V)) from this potential secondary effect? 🤔

Where’s the Auto Distress? (Short PETITION’s Prognistications)

Back in October, we asked “Is Another Wave of Auto-Related Bankruptcy Around the Corner?” The (free) piece is worth revisiting — particularly in light of Tesla’s recent travails. Among many other things, we wrote:

Supply Chain Distress. Last year we saw DACCO Transmission Parts Inc. file for bankruptcy. During the Summer, Takata Inc. filed for bankruptcy (on account of a massive liability, but still) and Jack Cooper Enterprises Inc., a finished-vehicle logistics/transportation provider, reached a consensual agreement with its noteholders that kept the company out of bankruptcy court. For now. Then, a little over a week ago, GST Autoleather Inc. filed for bankruptcy, citing declining auto output. Is this the canary in the coal mine? Hard to say. Literally on the same day that GST filed for bankruptcy - again, citing declining auto output - General Motors, Ford and other OEMs reported the first YOY sales increase (10%), surprising to the upside. It seems, however, that the (sales) uptick may be artificial: in part, it's attributable to (a) Hurricane Harvey damage and mass vehicle replacement; and (b) heavy vehicle discounting. On a less positive note, Ford announced that it will be slashing billions in costs to shore up its financial condition; it also announced back in September that it would slash production at five of its plants. And General Motors Co. announced earlier this week that it would be idling a Detroit factory and cutting production. Production levels, generally, are projected to decline through 2021. Obviously, reduced production levels and idled plants portend poorly for a lot of players in the auto supply chain. 

But, with limited exception (like Nissan’s announcement this week that it would cut U.S. production by 20%), the auto world has been largely quiet since then. Another exception: International Automotive Components Group S.A., a Detroit-based interior parts manufacturer with 77 manufacturing plants worldwide, announced, in April, a new financing transaction through the issuance of $215 million of ‘23 second lien notes funded by Gamut Capital Management LP. Perhaps we just need to be more patient?

Rumblings abound around two more names that may be in more near-term trouble. First, American Tire Distributors’ suffered downgrades on the heels of the announcement that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ($GT) opted to discontinue use of ATD as a distributor. Notably, GT’s stock, itself, is down 20% in the last year:

Anyway, back to ATD. Per Crain’s Cleveland Business,

The news cratered the market value of ATD's $975 million of bonds and its $700 million term loan. S&P Global Ratings quickly cut the company's credit grade deeper into junk and Moody's followed suit, saying its capital structure was no longer sustainable.

Then, on May 9, the 800-pound gorilla entered the industry, as Amazon.com Inc. teamed up with Sears Holdings Corp. to allow customers to buy replacement tires online and have them installed at the troubled department store.

The moves signal radical changes in the replacement-tire market. Manufacturers are taking control of their own distribution, cutting out wholesalers like ATD, and along with retailers are developing their own internet capabilities to reach consumers directly, according to New York-based research firm CreditSights.

Ah, there it is: Amazon ($AMZN). Is a PETITION entry complete without the mandatory Amazon reference? Indeed, Moody’s noted,

“All else being equal, the magnitude of the associated earnings and cash flow decline will compound an already levered financial risk profile, rendering a pre-emptive debt restructuring increasingly likely, in our estimation.”

The Huntersville North Carolina company is a wholesale distributor of tires, custom wheels and other related auto equipment; it is a behemoth with $5.3 billion in revenues in 2017 and 140 distribution centers located across the U.S. and Canada. It also happens to have $1.8 billion of debt. The company is equally owned by private equity firms Ares Management LP and TPG Capital.

The debt — coupled with the loss of a major customer — is a big concern. More from Crain’s,

But ATD's capital structure is stretched tight, said Lawrence Orlowski, a director in corporate ratings at S&P. While the company has access to $465.4 million in asset-based lending facilities and $22.7 million in cash as of the end of 2017, even that liquidity may not be enough to stay solvent if ATD permanently loses Goodyear's business or if any other major tire makers pressure the company for concessions, according to Orlowski.

Something tells us (restructuring) advisors may be circling around trying to determine whether it can get together a group of the company’s term lenders.

*****

Second, Tweddle Group Inc., a The Gores Group-owned manufacturer of automotive owners’ manuals (that nobody ever reads) likewise suffered a disastrous blow when Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. announced back in April that it was no longer using Tweddle’s services. Fiat reportedly accounted for 40% of Tweddle’s 2017 revenue and will be hard to replace. Consequently, Moody’s issued downgrades noting,

“The downgrades reflect a credit profile that is expected to be significantly weakened following Tweddle's loss of certain work from a key customer, and the resultant mismatch between the company's earnings and cash flow prospects and its now much more levered balance sheet.”

This reportedly put pressure on the company’s $225mm ‘22 first lien term loan and now the company reportedly has hired Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP for assistance. While it will likely take some time for the loss or revenue to trip any leverage ratios in the company’s credit agreement, this is a name to watch.

*****

Finally, Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently released its “Electric Vehicle Outlook 2018” report. Therein in noted that there are a variety of factors driving EV sales forward:

• Lithium-ion battery prices have tumbled, dropping 79% in seven years. Meanwhile, the batteries’ energy density has improved roughly 5-7% per year.

• Chinese and European policies are pushing fleet electrification.

• Automakers are aggressively pushing the electrification of their fleets. Choice bit: “The number of EV models available is set to jump from 155 at the end of 2017 to 289 by 2022.”

Bloomberg notes:

Our latest forecast shows sales of electric vehicles (EVs) increasing from a record 1.1 million worldwide in 2017, to 11 million in 2025 and then surging to 30 million in 2030 as they become cheaper to make than internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.

Marinate on that for a second. That is a massive 10x increase in the next 7 years followed by an additional 3x increase in the following 5 years.

Bloomberg continues,

By 2040, 55% of all new car sales and 33% of the global fleet will be electric.

But what about President Trump (#MAGA!) and efforts to limit future alternatives subsidies?

The upfront cost of EVs will become competitive on an unsubsidized basis starting in 2024. By 2029, most segments reach parity as battery prices continue to fall.

So, sure. Distressed activity thus far in 2018 has been light in the automotive space. But dark clouds are forming. Act accordingly.

DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. DAISY. CHAPTER 3 (Short Pet Retailers 2.0) 🔫🔫🔫

Petco: Outlook Negative

On Wednesday, we concluded the “DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. DAISY. CHAPTER 2 (Short Pet Retailers 2.0) 🔫🔫” about Petsmart Inc., with the following statement:

“With 1600 stores, the company isn’t light with its footprint and same store sales and pricing power are on the decline. Still, the company’s liquidity profile remains relatively intact and its services businesses apparently still drive foot traffic. Which is not to say that the situation doesn’t continue to bear watching — particularly if Chewy.com’s customer-acquisition-costs continue to skyrocket, overall brick-and-mortar trends continue to move downward, and the likes of Target ($T), Walmart ($WMT) and Amazon ($AMZN) continue to siphon off market share. A failure to stem the decline could add more stress to the situation.”

Well, guess what: industry trends are continuing to decline. Last week Petco Holdings announced dogsh*t earnings (oh man, we’ve been waiting all week for that…SO GOOD) and, suffice it to say, its (and Petsmart’s) bonds made fresh lows on the news.

To read this rest of this a$$-kicking commentary, you must be a Member...

DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. DAISY. CHAPTER 2 of 3 (Short Pet Retailers) 🔫🔫

🐶 Petsmart Inc.: "Outlook Negative" 🐶 

On this day exactly one year ago, Recode first reported that Petsmart acquired Chewy.com for $3.35 billion — the “largest e-commerce acquisition ever.” Venture capitalists — and the founders — of course, rejoiced. This was an a$$-kicking exit — particularly for a company that, at the time, was only six years old. The reported amount of venture funding topped out at $451 million, a massive sum, but sufficiently low enough for the VCs to make a substantial return. Recode wrote,

“The deal is a huge one by any standard — bigger than Walmart’s $3.3 billion deal for Jet.com last year — and especially for a retail company like PetSmart, which was itself valued at only $8.7 billion when private equity investors took it over in 2015.

But Chewy.com has been one of the fastest-growing e-commerce sites on the planet, registering nearly $900 million in revenue last year, in what was only its fifth year in operation. The company had been a potential IPO candidate for this year or next, but was taken out by its brick-and-mortar competitor before that. It was not profitable last year.”

Recode continued,

“The deal seems like the type of bet-the-company acquisition by a traditional retailer that commerce-focused venture capitalists have been betting on for some time. While Walmart’s acquisition of Jet.com was a huge deal by e-commerce standards, it represented just a fraction of Walmart’s market value.”

Toss of the dice notwithstanding, most talking heads seemed to think that the acquisition made “strategic sense.” Nevertheless, Recode’s sentiment was more prescient than they likely suspected — mostly due to the havoc it has wreaked to Petsmart’s cap stack.

The company financed the purchase with a two-part debt offering of (a) $1.35 billion of ‘25 8.875% senior secured notes and (b) $650 million of ‘25 5.875% unsecured notes. Rounding out the capital structure is a $750 million ABL, a $4.3 billion cov-lite first-lien term loan and $1.9 billion cov-lite ‘23 senior unsecured notes. Let us help you out here: 1+2+3+4 = $8.2 billion in debt. The equity sponsors, BC Partners, GIC, Longview Asset Management, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and StepStone Group, helped by writing a $1.35 billion new equity check. So, what did all of this financing lead to?

One year later, CEO Michael Massey is gone and hasn’t been replaced. More recently, Ryan Cohen, the CEO and co-founder of Chewy.com has departed. Blue Buffalo Pet Products Inc., which reportedly accounted for 11-12% of PetSmart’s sales, opted to supply its food products to mass-market retailers like Target ($T) and Kroger ($KR). The notes backing the Chewy.com deal are trading (and have basically, since issuance, traded) at distressed levels. Petsmart’s EBITDA showed a 34% YOY decline in Q3. And, worse even (for investors anyway), the bondholders are increasingly concerned about asset stripping to the benefit of the company’s private equity sponsors. S&P Global Ratings downgraded the company in December. It stated,

“The downgrade reflects our view that the capital structure is unsustainable at current levels of EBITDA, although we do not see a default scenario over the next year given liquidity and cash generation. Such underperformance came from the company's rapid e-commerce growth that generated higher losses, and unanticipated negative same-store sales at its physical stores. As Chewy aggressively expands its customer base, we believe operating losses will widen because the company has not yet garnered the size and scale to offset the unprofitable business volume from new customers.”

Financial performance and ratios were a big consideration: margin is compressed, in turn negatively affecting the company’s interest coverage ratio and leverage ratio (approximately 8.5x).

Moody’s Investor Service also issued a downgrade in January. It wrote,

“We still believe the acquisition of Chewy has the potential of being transformative for PetSmart as it will exponentially increase its online penetration which was previously very modest. However, as Chewy continues to grow its topline aggressively and incur increasing customer acquisition costs we expect its operating losses to increase. More importantly, the increasingly competitive business environment particularly from e-commerce and mass retailers has led to increased promotional activity which has negatively impacted PetSmart's top line and margins. We expect this trend to continue in 2018.”

Bloomberg adds,

“Buying Chewy.com was supposed to be a coup for PetSmart Inc. For debt investors who funded the deal, it’s been more like a dog.”

See what they did there?

With 1600 stores, the company isn’t light with its footprint and same store sales and pricing power are on the decline. Still, the company’s liquidity profile remains relatively intact and its services businesses apparently still drive foot traffic. Which is not to say that the situation doesn’t continue to bear watching — particularly if Chewy.com’s customer-acquisition-costs continue to skyrocket, overall brick-and-mortar trends continue to move downward, and the likes of Target ($T), Walmart ($WMT) and Amazon ($AMZN) continue to siphon off market share. A failure to stem the decline could add more stress to the situation.

*****

💥We’ll discuss Petco Holdings in “DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. DAISY. CHAPTER 3 of 3 (Short Pet Retailers 2.0) 🔫🔫🔫” in our Members’-only briefing on Sunday.💥

DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. DAISY. CHAPTER 1 of 3 (Short Pet Suppliers) 🔫

🐶 Phillips Pet Food & Supplies: "Outlook Negative" 🐶

We have covered a lot of ground since our inception and, for the most part, the path has been trodden with depressing stories of disruption and destruction. The root causes of that run the gamut - from (i) Amazon ($AMZN) and other new-age retail possibilities (e.g., resale and DTC DNVBs) to (ii) busted PE deals to (iii) fraud and mismanagement. Through it all, nothing has really gotten us too fired up — not the hypocrisy surrounding Bank of America’s ($BAC) loan to Remington Outdoor or the hubris around Toys R Us. But, once you start effing with our dogs’ diets, that’s when we have to start getting all-John-Wick up in this mofo. 

Enter PFS Holding Corp., otherwise known as Phillips Pet Food & Supplies (“PFS”). PFS is a distributor of pet foods, grooming products and other useless over-priced pet gear. It is private equity-owned (sponsor: Thomas H. Lee Partners) and has $450+ million of LBO-vintage debt spread out across a recently-refinanced $90 million revolving credit facility (pushed to 2024 from January 2019), a cov-lite ‘21 $280 million term loan, and a cov-lite ‘22 $110 million second lien term loan.

The company recently got some breathing room with a freshly refi’d revolver but still has some issues. While quarterly sales increased in Q4 from $293 million to $327 million, gross margins were down — a reflection of price compression. EBITDA was roughly $62 million on a consolidated adjusted basis clocking the company in at right around a 7.4x leverage ratio. The ‘21 and ‘22 term loans both trade at distressed levels, reflecting the market’s view of the company’s ability to pay the loan in full at maturity. Upon information and belief, the new revolver includes a 90-day springing maturity which means that the company is effed if it is unable to refi out the term loan prior to its maturity (which, admittedly, seems lightyears away from now).

All in, S&P Global Ratings appears to think that the Force is weak with this one; it issued a corporate downgrade and a term loan downgrade of the company on April 10, 2018. Why? Well, S&P doesn’t pull any punches:

“The downgrade reflects our view that, absent significantly favorable changes in the company’s circumstances, the company will seek a debt restructuring in the next six to 12 months, particularly given very low trading levels on its second-lien debt, between 30 and 40 cents on the dollar. It also reflects our view that cash flow will not be sufficient to support debt service and maintain sufficient cash interest coverage, resulting in an unsustainable capital structure. We forecast adjusted leverage in the mid-teens. PFS recently lost a substantial portion of business with one of its largest customers, which we believe represented over half of the company’s EBITDA. Management implemented several cost savings initiatives last year, but we do not believe savings achieved will be sufficient to offset this dramatic profit loss. Further, we expect the company will continue to be pressured by a secular decline in the independent pet retail market, which we view as PFS’ core customer base. Independent pet shops continue to lose market share to e-commerce and national pet retailers, as consumer adoption of e-commerce for pet products purchases grows.”

There’s a lot there. But, first, who writes these dry-as-all-hell reports? If any of you has a connection at S&P, consider putting us in touch. We could really spice these reports up.

Here’s our take:

“The downgrade reflects the fact that this business is turning into garbage. The company was hyper-correlated to one buyer, is over-levered and is, in real-time, succumbing to the cascading pressures of e-commerce and Amazon. In the age of the internet, nobody needs a distribution middleman. Particularly at scale. The lost customer reflects that. Godspeed, PFS.”

Just saved like 1,382,222 words.

S&P further predicts a double-digit sales decline and negative free cash flow in 2018 and 2019, “with debt service and operating expenses funded largely with asset-backed loan (ABL) borrowings.” Slap a mid 5s multiple on this sucker and it looks like the first lien term loan holders will eventually be the owners of a shiny not-so-new pet food distributor! Dogs everywhere lament.