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.”

Advertising - Short(ened) Ad Time and Short(ed) Ad Companies

Did Netflix Lose a Potential Rev Stream Before Activating it? 

Earlier this week Fox Networks Group’s ad sales chief floated the idea of cutting commercial ad time down from 13 minutes to 2 minutes an hour in a speech he gave in Los Angeles. This is interesting on a number of levels.

First, this would pose a real challenge to advertisers who, undoubtedly, would have to fight for limited but costly supply. Yes, television advertising has flat-lined, but it is still one of the most effective means to get brand messaging out.

Second, such a maneuver could have the effect of squeezing Netflix ($NFLX). Numerous underwriters highlight that Netflix can always open the ad spigot to help it grow into its ever-growing capital structure. And they’re not talking about product placement. If ads are eliminated elsewhere, will consumers focused on the ultimate user experience tolerate ads before watching treasured content like Ozark or 13 Reasons Why? Or will that result in friction and, in turn, leakage? If this decision gains traction, this as-of-yet-untapped revenue stream for Netflix could be collateral damage.

Ultimately, minimal advertising may help draw users back to content. But it will create all sorts of issues for brands trying to sell product AND, by extension, the advertising companies trying to place those brands.

To point, earlier this week the Financial Times reported that “[h]edge funds have amassed bearish bets of more than $3bn against the world’s largest advertising companies in an attempt to profit as the industry undergoes wrenching disruption and slowing growth.” Publicis, WPP, Omnicom Group ($OMC), and Interpublic Group of Companies ($IPG) are all short targets of funds like Lone Pine and Maverick Capital. With corporates like Proctor & Gamble ($PG) cutting ad spend and Facebook ($FB) and Google ($GOOGL) monopolizing same and building custom tools that cut out the middlemen, this is an area worth continued watching.

America's Second-Largest Retailer is Closing Stores

Guest Post By Mitch Nolen (@mitchnolen)

Source: Kroger & Co. 

America’s largest supermarket operator is shrinking.

Kroger Co., the owner of over 20 grocery chains and other retailers, is closing supermarkets and jewelry stores, as well as selling hundreds of convenience stores, while simultaneously hitting the brakes on new openings that the company had already publicly announced.

It's a major U-turn for a serially acquisitive company that has become the nation's second-largest retailer, behind only Walmart in total U.S. sales. While cutting its store count, Kroger is prioritizing $9 billion in spending over three years on initiatives like splashy technology upgrades at its remaining stores.

The upheaval is just the latest in a grocery industry grappling with Amazon’s aggressive advances into its territory.

The Cincinnati-based retailer sold 762 convenience stores to British firm EG Group last month, is shutting an undisclosed number of jewelry stores and has shed net total of 13 jewelers in the first three quarters of 2017, and has closed or is closing at least 18 of its grocery stores since the start of the company's fourth quarter, a development one community leader describes as a “crisis.”

The supermarket closures are a departure for Kroger from recent years. Their store count grew in 2015 and 2016, and there was no store reduction in the final quarters of those years. Combined with the suspension of planned openings, and the company’s explanations, it becomes clearer that this isn't normal annual pruning.

Already in the first three quarters of Kroger's fiscal year that ended February 3, there's been a net closure of six grocery stores.

Kroger is suspending multiple — but not all — store openings and other major projects, such as store remodels, replacements and expansions.

A Kroger spokesperson declined to comment for this story, citing a quiet period before the company’s annual earnings report due out Thursday morning. However, in earlier statements made to local media, one representative said, “Company wide, the pace of construction has slowed down.”

Another official described a “shifting of capital expenditures in the short term from brick and mortar to focus on the customer experience in our existing stores, e-commerce and digital technology.”

The supermarkets that are shutting down are just a fraction of the more than 2,700 that Kroger operates, but any grocery store that closes has an impact on the neighborhood it served. Some closures are devastating.

Two supermarkets have closed in Peoria, Ill., a city once considered synonymous with Middle America. Kroger says neither store had been profitable in over 15 years. Two food deserts have been left in their stead.

“I am not exaggerating when I say we are now in a food crisis in this zip code, 61605,” says Peoria City Councilwoman Denise Moore. “That is one of the most hard-pressed zip codes in the country, let alone the state.”

“There is no supermarket in the entire district,” she adds, referring to her constituency that stretches along the Illinois River and cuts through Downtown Peoria. The district was home to Caterpillar Inc.’s corporate headquarters until earlier this year.

Moore worries about residents not only losing access to healthy food, but also to the store’s pharmacy and Western Union facility, where people without bank accounts can pay their bills.

The company is also shelving store expansions at two of Peoria’s other Krogers.

Another city, Memphis, was also hit by two Krogers closing. The city's mayor, Jim Strickland, took to Facebook to say he was “disappointed by Kroger's decision.”

In a potential reference to the predominantly African-American communities the stores served, he added that “these neighborhoods are no less important than any other neighborhoods in our city, and citizens who live there absolutely deserve access to a quality grocery store.”

The impetus for the closures may be financial, but residents have noticed the affected neighborhoods’ demographics.

In Peoria, one of the closed stores, on Wisconsin Ave., served a majority-minority neighborhood. The closest supermarket now is a Save-A-Lot discount grocer in a majority-white neighborhood two miles away. Walking there from the closed store would take 44 minutes, according to Google Maps.

The other Peoria Kroger sat just outside the edge of city limits, on a highway across from a predominantly black neighborhood where 36 percent of households and 83 percent of families with children under five live below the poverty line. The store is a mile and a half from the next-closest supermarket in a predominantly white neighborhood.

Kroger didn't respond to a Memphis news station that asked last month about an effort to boycott the company, but Kroger had previously stated that each closing store in the city had lost more than $2 million since 2014. The company similarly declined to respond for this story, citing the quiet period.

In other cities, Kroger is closing in different types of neighborhoods. One location, a concept store called Main & Vine, closed in a predominantly white neighborhood in suburban Seattle where the median household income is $82,000. The store went dark less than two years after it opened.

Kroger is said to be eyeing potential e-commerce acquisitions. Online bulk seller Boxed reportedly rejected a bid from Kroger, and the company was said in January to be considering an offer for Overstock.com. Kroger was also reported to be weighing a partnership with Alibaba, China's largest e-commerce site.

At its supermarkets, Kroger is rolling out a scan-as-you-shop system to 400 stores called “Scan, Bag, Go.” Available as a phone app or a dedicated handheld device, it will eventually let customers transact their own payments, too, so shoppers can just walk out with their items.

The sudden ramp-up of “Scan, Bag, Go” came after Amazon teased Amazon Go, Amazon’s newly opened convenience store with “just walk out” technology, which uses cameras and sensors to eliminate checkout lanes.

But just because retailers offer new technology doesn't mean shoppers will use it. Earlier pilots of grocery scanning apps failed to gain traction. And mobile payment systems like Apple Pay and the newly rebranded Google Pay aspire to be the future of commerce, but three years after they first launched, everyday usage remains stubbornly low, according to data from PYMNTS.com, an industry journal.

Kroger is also expanding its online grocery service, called ClickList, which is now available at over 1,000 of the company’s approximately 2,800 grocery stores. Amazon is rolling out free two-hour shipping for Prime members at Whole Foods.

Kroger-owned stores known to have closed or be closing since the start of the company's fourth quarter include:

Tucson, AZ: Fry’s at 3920 E Grant Rd.

Savannah, GA: Kroger at 14010 Abercorn St.

Peoria, IL: Kroger at 2321 N Wisconsin Ave.

Peoria, IL: Kroger at 3103 W Harmon Hwy.

Mitchell, IN: JayC at 1240 W Main St.

Jackson, MI: Kroger at 3021 E Michigan Ave.

Clarksdale, MS: Kroger at 870 S State St.

Charlotte, NC: Harris Teeter at 16405 Johnston Rd.

Columbus, OH: Kroger at 3353 Cleveland Ave.

Portland, OR: Fred Meyer at 5253 SE 82nd Ave.

Memphis, TN: Kroger at 1977 S 3rd St.

Memphis, TN: Kroger at 2269 Lamar Ave.

Brownwood, TX: Kroger at 302 N Main St.

Plano, TX: Kroger at 4836 W Park Blvd.

Gig Harbor, WA: Main & Vine at 5010 Point Fosdick Dr. NW

Cudahy, WI: Pick ’n Save at 5851 S Packard Ave.

1000 store closures have been announced in the past two weeks. Follow @mitchnolen to get updates and @Petition for news about disruption, generally.

Ad Agencies Get Hammered (Short Don Draper)

Changes Afoot as Large Corporates Like P&G Shift Spend

Draper never would’ve made it in the age of #MeToo anyway.

This week, Proctor & Gamble ($PG) announced that it cut its digital ad spending by approximately $200mm, a shot across the bow of certain undisclosed big ad players (cough, Google) and a major blow to the middlemen ad agencies that seem to be caught in a maelstrom of disruption. Back to that in a sec. More on P&G,

P&G, however, has not cut overall media spending. Funds have been reinvested to increase media reach, including in areas such as TV, audio and ecommerce media, a company spokeswoman told Reuters.

Not yet, anyway. P&G intends to cut an additional $400mm in agency and production costs over the next 3 years. In so doing, they’re also going back to the old school after realizing that the 1.7 seconds of eyeball view time doesn’t necessarily translate into sales. Podcast producers take note.

So what about those middlemen? Judging by WPP’s 10% stock price plummet this week ($WPP), investors are bearish. WPP is a British multinational advertising and public relations company besieged by the ease with which advertisers can publish directly on Facebook ($FB) and Google ($GOOGL) and, in an instant, receive performance metrics. Ad agencies, therefore, are no longer needed as much to connect brands with end users. Per the Wall Street Journal:

For their part, big ad agency companies that have traditionally bought advertising space on behalf of marketing clients are under pressure to reinvent themselves to remain relevant as the industry changes. Advertisers are demanding that their agency partners be more transparent about media-buying, so it is clear that agencies are getting the best possible deal for the clients and aren’t receiving rebates from sellers.

Disrupting kickbacks too? Rough.

Is Digital Media in Trouble?

Don't Sleep on Digital Media "Distress"

Last week we announced that we'll be rolling out our Founding Member subscription program in early '18. The response was overwhelmingly positive with many of you reaching out and essentially saying "what took you so long." That warmed our heart: thank you! We look forward to educating and entertaining you well into the future. The timing fortuitously dovetails into a general narrative about the state of digital media today. 

For instance, is it fair to characterize Mashable as a distressed asset sale? Well, the company - once valued at $250mm - is reportedly being sold to Ziff Davis, the digital media arm of J2 Global Inc., for just $50mm. So, what happened? New capital for media companies has dried up (unless, apparently, you're Axios) amidst weakness in the ad-based business model. With Google ($GOOGL) and Facebook ($FB) dominating ads to the point where even Twitter ($TWTR) and Snapchat ($SNAP) are having trouble competing, digital media brands are feeling the heat. Bloomberg highlights that at least a half dozen online media companies - from Defy Media (Screen Junkies, Made Man, Smosh) to Uproxx Media (BroBible) - are also considering sales to bigger platforms. Indeed, in an apparent attempt to de-risk, Univision is ALREADY reportedly trying to offload a stake in the Gawker sites it recently bought out of bankruptcy.

Which is not to say that bigger platforms are killing it too: the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that both Buzzfeed and Vice will miss internal revenue targets this year. Oath, which is Yahoo and AOL, binned 560 people this week. Of course, those in the distressed space know that one's pain is another's gain. To point, Bloomberg quotes Bryan Goldberg, founder of Bustle, saying "Small and more challenged digital media companies have been hit hard. This is a time for companies with cash flow and capital to start acquiring the more challenged digital assets." That sounds like the mindset of a distressed investor: the buyside and sellside TMT (telecom/media/technology) bankers must be licking their chops. Back to restructuring, these sorts of mandates may be decent consolation prizes for those professionals not lucky enough to be involved with the imminent bankruptcies of (MUCH larger and obviously different) media companies like Cumulus Media ($CMLS) and iHeartMedia Inc. ($IHRT), both of which are coming close to bankruptcy (footnote: click the iHeartMedia link and tell us that that headline isn't dangerous in the age of 280-characters!). For instance, Mode Media is an example of a digital media property that failed last year despite at one time having a "unicorn" valuation (based on $250mm in funding), a near IPO, and tens of thousands of users. It sold for "an undisclosed sum" (read: for parts) in an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Scout Media Inc. filed for bankruptcy in December of last year and sold in bankruptcy to an affiliate of CBS Corporation for approximately $9.5mm. Not big deals, obviously, but there are assets to be gained there. And fees to be made. 

In response, (some) digital media brands are looking more and more to subscribers and less and less to advertisers in an effort to survive. Longreads' "Member Drive," for example, drummed up $140,760 which, crucially, it'll use to pay writers for quality long-form content. Ben Thompson has turned Stratechery into a money-making subscription-only service; he told readers that they're funding his curiosity and their education. Indeed, his piece this past week on Stitch Fix ($SFIX) may have, in fact, impacted sentiment on the company's S-1 and, in turn, the company's IPO price. These are only two of many examples but, suffice it to say, the "Subscription Economy" is on the rise. 

Which is all to say that our path is clear. And we look forward to having you along for the ride. Please tell your friends and colleagues to subscribe TODAY: existing subscribers will get a preferential rate.

Feature of the Week: More Earnings (Simon Property Group & Starbucks)

This past week was an earnings-fest with Amazon and Google pumping out redonkulous numbers, Vince Holding Corp. missing estimates by 10 cents, declining 26% and continuing its slide towards bankruptcy, and FTI Consulting missing estimates BADLY, declining 3% and charting -23% year-to-date (we wonder how Berkeley Research Group is doing?). While all of these reports were intriguing, we took particular interest in reports from Simon Property Group and Starbucks...

Simon Property Group

Upshot: increased net operating income, increased retail sales per square foot, and increased average base rent. The company reported a flat occupancy rate of 95.6% at Q1 end and affirmed it's previous '17 guidance (typically, the company raises guidance). Snoozefest, we know, but keep reading...

CEO David Simon had a number of choice things to say about the current state of affairs (PETITION commentary follows in italics):

• Retailers need to improve the in-store experience via technology, look and feel, and merchandising. He straight-up called his tenants to task alleging that they are overspending on the internet vs. the store fleet. He says this is reversing back and notes that pure e-commerce will need brick-and-mortar. Ironically, most recent bankrupt retailers claim that they filed for bankruptcy because they hadn't focused on their e-commerce fast enough! We can't recall one bankrupt retailer who cited too much expense associated with e-commerce as a cause for filing. He also makes no mention whatsoever of Amazon and Walmart's increased market share in clothing, the rise of mobile e-commerce, the rise of platforms, and millennials' lack of interest in shopping (and penchant for vintage clothing). 
• A lot of the current bad performance is driven by private equity leverage rather than the common theme, the internet. He expressly calls out dividend recaps. No quarrel here whatsoever and more victims of this are in the bankruptcy pipeline. 
• SPG has lowered apparel in its retail mix by 5-6%. Whether that was elective was not clear.
• Expect more discounters like TJ Maxx and HomeGoods and grocers like 365, Wegmans and Fresh Market in high end malls. Other specific new tenants include restaurants (Fig & Olive, Nobu) and several movie theater brands with the occasional Dave & Buster's thrown in for good measure. This all seems consistent with the narrative that more experiential-oriented tenants will fill these spaces. Query how long until and to what degree the pain in the grocer segment will come to roost, if at all.
• Because these long-term anchors aren't driving foot traffic and revenue to the malls, there is a lot of upside in reclaiming and redeveloping department stores for mixed use, lifetime or community-oriented activity. They are actively taking back space from unproductive retailers and they are "not putting good money in the rabbit hole," suggesting, at least, in part, that future Aeropostale-like deals are unlikely. Note, also, Aeropostale's performance shaved several basis points off performance and is likely to continue doing so through Q4. This sure sounds like a solid counter-narrative but won't this eventually boil down to a case of volume assuming the vacancy rate next quarter is lower than this quarter?
• Store closures in a market also kill internet sales for that business in-market too. Really interesting and speaks to the thesis promoted by the likes of Warby Parker that some retail presence helps scale.
• Expect improvements in technology in the mall environment. If people had an issue with Unroll.me selling their data, wait until the beacons scale! 
• The mall "traffic is there" and the retail apocalypse "narrative is way ahead of itself." Yet, he wouldn't provide traffic data noting that there aren't traffic counters in their malls. The parking trackers at their outlets, however, are up 2%. See also Starbucks below.
• The strong US dollar has had a significant impact on spending by international tourists. So has our President but we won't go there. Oh, wait, we just did. Not a political commentary: just a plain fact.
• He would not opine as to how much per capital retail needs to come out of the system. It was abstract but, as we noted last week, Vornado Trust's CEO noted somewhere between 10-30% in the next five years.

Macro narrative aside, Mr. Simon remained upbeat about SPG's quarter and guidance. But speaking of REITS, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out this doozy of a red flag piece by the WSJ, highlighting 10 retailers that S&P Global Market Intelligence has noted as at high risk of default: Sears Holding Corp. (for obvious reasons), DGSE Companies Inc. (millennials don't buy precious metals, apparently), Appliance Recycling Center of America Inc. (millennials haven't been buying homes, apparently, so no need for recycled appliances...?), The Bon-Ton Stores Inc. (specialty retailer massacre), Bebe Stores Inc. (what? nobody wants glittery hats and shirts shouting BEBE anymore?), Destination XL Group Inc. ("our financial condition is extremely healthy" says the CEO whose company has a projected net loss on $470mm of revenue), Perfumania Holdings Inc. (mall-based perfume including the foul-stench of the Trump family...also fact, just saying), Fenix Parts Inc. (doesn't Amazon have an auto parts reselling business? why, yes, as a matter of fact it does), Tailored Brands Inc. (tons of quality tuxedo options online these days), Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores Inc. (obvious).

Of SPG's top 10 anchors, Sears is #2 with 69 locations and 11.3mm square footage of space and The Bon-Ton Stores Inc. is #10 with 8 stores and 1.1mm square footage of space. Macy's is #1 with 121 stores and 23.1mm square footage. Top in-line stores? L Brands, Signet Jewelers and Ascena Retail Group - all of which are reporting rough numbers of late. Which may explain why, in the end, SPG's stock was down this week, is down for '17, and is close to its 52-week low. 

Starbucks

Starbucks is just fine from the restructuring community's perspective. With one exception: Teavana. The company indicated that it is "evaluating strategic options." Why? Good question and, quite frankly, the answer is very much at odds with what Mr. Simon says. See, Teavana is a mall-based retailer; it has 350 locations. And they're not faring well predominantly because, per Starbucks' CFO, there is dramatically reduced mall traffic. Accordingly, Teavana has been suffering from negative same store comps and operating losses "for some time" with the rate of decline over the last 6 months far worse than forecast. Now even further declines are expected. And so we did a quick check: there are 78 Teavana locations in Simon Properties which would be 22% of all Teavana locations. Is it possible that those locations are the outliers and are performing extremely well on account of steady foot traffic? Starbucks doesn't break out numbers of a per location basis. But we highly doubt it. 

Why You Should Care About 3D Printing

A few weeks ago we summarized a Andreessen Horowitz presentation about autonomous cars and what the rapid movement in that technology means for various kinds of entities: OEMs, municipalities, etc. If you weren't a subscriber at that point, you can go back and read the summary on our website here. As a footnote to that piece, a Tesla Model S has 150 moving parts. A typical internal combustion engine car has over 10,000. So, you can do the math: as cars shift towards electric and towards autonomy, manufacturing will surely be impacted. 

We like focusing on tech because once you filter through the 98% of startups who claim to be "revolutionary" and "disruptive," you may actually find some that truly are. And that means incumbents are realistically under attack and further that - particularly where there are unsustainable balance sheets - there will be a world of hurt sometime soon for a number of companies. In many cases probably much quicker than many management teams and restructuring professionals currently advising them realize.

Which brings us to 3D printing. Desktop Metal is a two-year old 3D industrial metal printing startup based in Burlington Massachusetts. It recently raised $45mm in new VC (at a $350mm post-money valuation) from an impressive and notable group of strategic investors, including Alphabet, BMW, GE, Saudi Aramco, Stratasys, and Lowes. The use of proceeds is to ramp up mass production of printers. 

That print what, you ask? Good question. Answer: metal components that its new investors would be interested in. BMW could use the printers for car parts, Lowes for in-house product, Saudi Aramco for oil-field services uses, etc. This article notes, specifically, that printed carburetor parts could be immediately deployed on the road. 

There are a number of 3D printing companies. And there has been a lot of hype around them and quite a bit of failure in the space. At some point, however, the technology will become cheaper and more dependable. Will it be Desktop Metal, specifically, that gets it there? Nobody knows. But when companies like BMW, GE and Lowes put their weight behind something, incumbents ought to take notice. If not, certain manufacturers may soon find themselves in distressed/restructuring circles before too long.

A Look Forward

Right before the holidays, Benedict Evans of the venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz released a fascinating presentation called "Mobile is Eating the World." It's a long presentation - roughly 31 minutes - but well worth reviewing if you have the time. We here at PETITION think there are a lot of nuggets within it relevant to the restructuring industry. After all, technological advancement and disruption help create the industry's client pipeline. Here is a brief summary with some editorial mixed in:

Overview

• We are halfway to connecting everybody. There are 5.5 billion people over 14 years old, close to 5 billion people with mobile phones, and about 2.5 billion smartphones. The latter number is quickly headed to 5 billion.
• Mobile has accelerated past the PC, which is now flat-lining at around 1.5 billion units.
• Each new technology follows an S-curve (creation-to-deployment) and is then passed by a new technology. Mobile is transitioning now from creation to deployment. 
• With this transition comes a new kind of scale. Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon ("GAFA") have 3x the scale ($450b annual revenue) that Microsoft and Intel had in their heyday ($150b annual revenue). Microsoft saw 14x growth when it was dominating tech in the 90s and subject to mass regulatory scrutiny; GAFA's growth is 10x that now. 
• In 1995, Microsoft was not even the biggest company on the stock exchange. Now Microsoft and GAFA are the top five companies on the exchange. 
• This size drives more capex: $1b of capex in 2000 vs. $30b of capex in 2015. Tech has so much more scale now: GAFA are giants of the ENTIRE economy, not just tech. 
• Which has implications: Apple is the 10th largest retailer in the world with $53b in revenue across e-commerce and 500 stores. Netflix has the fourth largest entertainment production budget in the world. Amazon has the sixth - even though its content is just a feature to drive its core product: Prime. These "tech" companies, therefore, are fundamentally impinging upon other industries. Another example: Google, Amazon and Apple are now making custom chips for their own products rather than sourcing externally from the likes of Intel. 

New Ways to Compete - Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

• The scale of 5 billion mobile users and the scale of GAFA are leading to new ways to grow and compete.
• And machine learning is steroids. As just two examples of the rapid progress in machine learning, image recognition has gone from a 28% error rate to 7% and speech recognition from a 26% error rate to 4%. This is all enabled by mass data and more powerful computing power. 
• And so everything in tech is being refocused from mobile to mobile+AI, particularly with the realization that there are cameras everywhere, capturing images that serve as data that are now more intepretable than ever.
• GAFA is rushing to build the engineering and cloud storage systems to enable optimization of this data. 
• Meanwhile, technology design is removing friction, questions and administration which, in turn, changes choices. Think Amazon Echo. So, better design and frictionless decision-making is feeding more and more data.
• All of this gives GAFA the power to (further) change other industries...

Example 1: E-commerce

• Everything the internet did to media will happen to retail, where there'll be a breakup of old bundles and aggregators (albums, magazines, newspaper, store, shopping district, mall). And so now we consume in different ways.
• So far ecommerce mostly just gives consumers stuff we already knew we wanted.
• E-commerce is 10-12% of US retail revenue, with Amazon representing at least 2-6% of that: but it mostly just gives you what you already know you want. Despite this limitation, Amazon is now the fourth largest apparel retailer in the USA: not online, OVERALL. Walmart, Macy's, TJ, Amazon, Gap, Kohls, Target, L Brands, Nordstrom, JC Penney (by '15 revenue). And those reading PETITION regularly know how well some of these names are faring - or NOT. 
• The internet lets you buy, but it doesn't let you shop. No real suggestion or discovery.
• To fill this gap, the first response to this is advertising and marketing which is $1 trillion a year, $500mm is ads (digital and Google ads).
• But now we ask the Amazon Echo to buy more soap and this means we may never make a brand decision again. This disintermediates the ad agency, Walmart and P&G, etc, and changes the whole chain of how something gets to you, the consumer.
• Meanwhile, new businesses can get something to you with way less investment.
• Machine learning can give you "scalable curation" based on the data that you feed it.
• Today you have to go to a store to know what you'd like without seeing it. Now you can use machine learning to give this to you.
• Data is working through retailing: supply chain and logistics moved to advertising and digital metrics and then demand based on data, social, etc. Walmart used logistics to change what retail looked like. Amazon now doing that with AI. $20b retail opportunity potentially disrupted. 

Example 2: Cars

• Cars are becoming like phones with all of the important aspects becoming commoditized and the key being the software.
• Removing the engine and transmission destabilizes the car industry and its suppliers - but it doesn't change how cars are used much.
• Autonomy, however, changes what cars are and changes cities.
• Electric is about the battery cost curve. Complex proprietary gasoline engines and transmissions disappear and replaced by simple commodity batteries and motors, 10x fewer moving parts: all aspects of auto manufacturing and energy use are implicated by this development. 
• Scale, design and brand still matter but the real value moves up the stack into the software and move to autonomy. Leading tech companies now spend as much on capex as car OEMs. 
• Where are we now on the 1-5 autonomy scale: we are at Level 3. Level 5 is 5-10 years away. Batteries and sensors increasingly are commodities. The key is the software and the AI-powered data to feed it.
• Once you have that and take the steering wheel and engine out you have totally new types of vehicles and new uses. Obvious impacts: oil production and safety (1.25mm annual road deaths). Second order effects: what happens to engine servicing industry, machine tooling industry, storage, gas stations, gasoline taxes, municipal parking revenues, police forces? What happens if there's no parking or congestion? What happens to housing, logistics, commercial real estate, trucking, ownership of cars, insurance? 
• And what incumbent companies and municipalities file for bankruptcy as a consequence? This is not science fiction: society will soon need to address these questions...