Why Lululemon's Stock Is Down Over 33% in 2014

Lululemon logo from Lucky Luon headband. Image by Jason Michael under Creative Commons license.

One of the most difficult exercises in investing can be trying to determine if a formerly successful stock, having suffered an acute setback, has transitioned into a compelling value investment. Surely lululemon athletica's  (NASDAQ: LULU  ) shares warrant some inquiry in this vein. After all, despite a rough 2013 plagued by consumer missteps and supply chain issues, and despite reduced earnings expectations for 2014, the company is still profitable, with a very strong financial position, and a new CEO who is aiming to push international expansion. So why is the market so pessimistic on these shares?

A cautionary tale for management teams: don't overplay your strengths
Lululemon became a public company in 2007 and has enjoyed eight years of growth, propelled by its yoga apparel, which sells at a premium to competitors' offerings. Lululemon's pricing power has enabled it to enjoy a higher gross margin than its peers: Its annual 53% annual gross margin is well ahead of competitors such as NikeGap, and Columbia Sportswear, which posted recent annual gross margins of 44%, 39%, and 44%, respectively.

The relative comfort of its margins has enabled Lululemon to produce attractive earnings and cash flow. The company has an extremely strong balance sheet, with virtually zero debt and ample cash on hand. Just how strong is its balance sheet? Too strong, it turns out. Here's a chart of Lululemon's current ratio trend over the last five years. The "current ratio" is defined simply as current assets divided by current liabilities:

LULU Current Ratio (Quarterly) Chart

LULU Current Ratio (Quarterly) data by YCharts.

The idea that Lululemon can pay for its current obligations (due within one year) with current assets (i.e., cash and inventory) more than nine times over seems praiseworthy, doesn't it?

On the contrary, a high current ratio can reveal a company that doesn't invest its resources properly. A benchmark current ratio across industries is 1:0, meaning that at minimum, most corporations keep one dollar in current assets on hand for every dollar of current liabilities. A ratio of less than 1.0 is undesirable, as a company may not have enough ready money in its coffers to pay upcoming bills.

As a rule of thumb, a current ratio is optimal somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0 -- too much above 2.0 or 3.0 is a potential yellow flag that management isn't getting an appropriate return on the profits it converts to cash, or worse, that a company may not be investing in future growth. For Lululemon, this appears to be the case. The steep chart above demonstrates that as each year has concluded, Lululemon has stockpiled its cash.

Yet outside of this cash and inventory for its stores, the company doesn't have much in the way of assets to show for all its profits. Property and equipment at May 4, 2014 (Lululemon's fiscal 2014 first quarter-end) is only $271.3 million, net of accumulated depreciation, with the greatest part of this in land, office buildings, and leasehold improvements for stores.

Computer and software equipment is listed at only $107.8 million. This amount would include point-of-sale equipment in the company's stores, and software and computers at the company's headquarters and distribution centers. Compared to the size of the company's revenues, it seems a rather lean number. In addition, a note to the company's 2014 annual report relays that capitalized expenses for "software developed for internal use" is only $1.6 million.

This $1.6 million, a mere 1/1,000th of annual revenues, is a telling indicator of the company's technological prowess. Typically, such an item represents expenditures like payroll expenses, consultation fees, the cost of contract programmers, etc., that are added to the cost basis of the company's internally developed software. The spare investment in computer software and hardware in general, in combination with the tiny amount capitalized for customization and internal use software, reveals a company that may be woefully underinvested in the supply chain, inventory, and customer relationship management, or CRM, systems needed to keep pace day after day with worthy competitors such as Gap and Nike.

Perhaps this is why the company is spending $40 million on IT initiatives this year. New CEO Laurent Potdevin clearly sees that the company is lacking in crucial infrastructure. In the company's most recent earnings call, Potdevin readily admitted, on one of these fronts, that "[We've] never really used a lot of data in the history of Lululemon." Perhaps management formerly relied on its products' high demand and relative lack of competition, and didn't need the robust analytics that most companies in the fashion industry now see as a competitive necessity. Such is certainly not the case today.

Profits are what you make of them
Remember that high gross margin relative to peers? Lululemon's profits eventually made their way back to the company's bank account, as we've seen. But what if management had accepted a lower gross margin, hiring more specialists to oversee inventory and its supply chain? Perhaps better infrastructure in the way of technology and also people could have prevented the March 2013 recall of transparent black yoga pants, an event that proved to be a catalyst for present-day woes.

This is not to say that Lululemon has totally ignored investment in its future and the need to diversify revenue. The company launched its ivivva athletica line of activewear aimed at girls in 2009, and is selling an increasing amount of its products online. It's also ramping up international expansion in 2014 to spur growth outside of the company's core markets of Canada, the U.S., and Australia. But both ivivva and global growth are only in a nascent stage, while the company's same-store sales from its existing flagship yoga clothing and accessories are in decline. After more than four years, Lululemon has only 16 ivivva stores in operation, versus 247 under its Lululemon brand. And it will take another three years for the company to reach 20 total stores in Europe and Asia.

A recovery is possible, but not inevitable
Can CEO Potdevin execute a turnaround of Lululemon's fortunes? It's certainly possible, but Potdevin's success will depend on a number of conditions falling into place. The company will have to withstand potential pricing pressure from rivals. While expanding internationally and successfully growing ivivva, it will have to deliver on its technology investments and new product introductions to help turn around declining existing store sales. And Lululemon can't allow further blemishes from its supply chain that may again hamper the quality perception around its yoga apparel.

With 28.5% of Lululemon's outstanding share float sold short, one can surmise that short-sellers have also read the company's balance sheet and suspect that this emperor has no yoga pants. They are also particularly emboldened by a curious decision by Potdevin and the company's board to authorize $450 million in share buybacks over the next two years, an amount equal to 80% of the next two years' operating cash flow. After stockpiling cash for so many years, now is the time to actually keep dollars in the company coffers, both to invest in technology and store expansion and to be able to fend off any price challenge from competitors. The market's continued displeasure with Lululemon's shares probably indicates that it doesn't see the share buyback as a constructive use of resources.

To return to the question I posed at the outset, it's possible that at a 30%-plus discount from last year, Lululemon's shares represent a value investment. But risks abound, and a resurgence is by no means a given. If you're considering Lululemon as a value investment, a little patience and a review of next quarter's financials might be preferable to jumping in today.

Leaked: Apple's next smart device (warning, it may shock you)
Lululemon may have under-invested in technology, but Apple is one company that can't be accused of the same. Apple recently recruited a secret-development "dream team" to guarantee its newest smart device was kept hidden from the public for as long as possible. But the secret is out, and some early viewers are claiming its everyday impact could trump the iPod, iPhone, and the iPad. In fact, ABI Research predicts 485 million of this type of device will be sold per year. But one small company makes Apple's gadget possible. And its stock price has nearly unlimited room to run for early in-the-know investors. To be one of them, and see Apple's newest smart gizmo, just click here!


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 2:05 PM, nenhob wrote:

    @Asit

    So now LULU's problem is it just has too much cash? Oh how I wish I had this problem....

    With increasing revenues, a very easy comparable quarter underway (due to the recall), and a billion dollar's in cash, I applaud the buyback as the company is clearly in a transition period and what better way to return value to shareholder's while we wait for the transition to European growth (let's not forget a new CEO with tremendous European experience).

    This buyback isn't guaranteed, it is simply authorized and represents less than half of current assets and less than 1/3 of total assets. Sorry, but i don't buy death via buyback argument. Anywho, I was under the impression that buying back ~10% of the float was accretive to future earnings....

    With Target Research producing a survey highlighting the brand loyalty among LULU consumers, I think we have to ask ourselves if the LULU consumer is really concerned with the IT infrastructure or the boardroom quarrels. NKE and UA have neglected the female consumer while LULU has them returning more frequently than competitors.

    Credit Suisse has very recently highlighted a greatly improving supply chain, so perhaps we are already seeing the fruits of the new CEO's labor.

    Waiting may be prudent, but with LULU trading at a steep discount to NKE, UA, ADI.DE, yet growing faster (outside of UA) with 11% top line quarterly growth YoY, call me aggressive, but I do not need to wait for share price appreciation, or what technician's call 'confirmation'. Dived in a bit early at 48, doubled the position today.

    Also, just for the record, per earnings release... 'total comparable sales increased 1%'.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 3:18 PM, TMFfinosus wrote:

    Hi nenhob,

    Astute comment and a good framework for a bull case. Just to respond to a few of your thoughts:

    I wish I had too much cash as well.

    You're correct on authorized versus committed, but to be frank, I've seen very few companies in this environment (over the last three years) not follow through to the limit of the authorizations. Once a company announces, it becomes an expectation, just as you roundly applauded and are now expecting. Mgmt most of the time is afraid to not follow through.

    Agree with you on the accretiveness to float. And call me cynical, but well-timed, aggressive purchases on a good news week / earnings beat can help the company beat back the shorts, and I think this might be part of the reasoning to authorize this amount!

    You've got a point on brand loyalty and this could trump other issues. But as I state, LULU can't afford to have another supply chain snafu, and this is why they need to invest.

    I don't do technical analysis very well and wouldn't wait for "confirmation" either. It's up to the investor; some may want to wait for a trend, and give up a little gain for comfort.

    Finally, corporate same store sales (where I state "sales from existing flagship products") are down 4%, from the same release, but more importantly, management revised full year total comparable sales to "low to mid single digits" in March. So comps are definitely losing traction, although I grant you the meager 1% increase this quarter.

    Really appreciate the dialogue!

    Best,

    Asit

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 6:26 PM, nenhob wrote:

    @Asit

    Regarding current ratio, I think your above analyst is text book but intended for mature companies that have low growth and a business model/current strategy that is fairly solidified.

    Considering LULU is in it's adolescence and has tremendous uncertainty around it's future direction, I am very comfortable with the ratio and frankly would be more alarmed with a ratio near 2. I would even argue some of the most attractive growth companies have historically had very healthy current ratios as they have not yet needed leverage to maintain the desired growth rate.

    Also, a high current ratio is indicative of past management, I think it's a poor yardstick given we have a new CEO (whom is already deploying capital) and searching for a new CFO.

    Many authorized buybacks fail to get fulfilled 100% Regardless whether it does get fulfilled it provides the company with an easy option to increase future EPS if current growth objectives are not met (and plenty of capital as you have highlighted)

    Comps are currently flat but we continue to see store growth. I would argue, growth is still far from over even if comps are flat.

    We had one of the coldest winter's in recent memory and a quarter including Feb/Mar, same store sales did fall, but when factoring in the growth in online sales (which may have been facilitated by weather), 'total comparable' sales increased 1% on a per store basis (for athletic wear in a blizzard!) 11% on a gross basis factoring in new stores. I'm interested if the trend continues and in a way 'gambling' that it won't. Waiting is wise.

    I prefer fundamental analysis, but I am attempting to grow my inner technician. Waiting for a 'trend' is technical analysis and the foundation of Charles Dow. It hurts catching a falling knife, I think your advice is prudent and wise.

    I know I don't have all the answers (I actually liked the report, back in the tax payment and guidance was good, but I have my optimist glasses on) and you have greatly added to my knowledge and I thank you for that.

    Thanks for the feed back.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 6:50 PM, nenhob wrote:

    Regarding current ratio, I think your above analyst is text book but intended for mature companies that have low growth and a business model that is fairly solidified.

    Considering LULU is in it's adolescence and has tremendous uncertainty around it's future direction, I am very comfortable with the ratio and frankly would be more alarmed with a ratio near 2. I would even argue some of the most attractive growth companies have historically had very healthy current ratios as they have not yet needed leverage to maintain the desired growth rate.

    Also, a high current ratio is indicative of past management, I think it's a poor yardstick given we have a new CEO (whom is already deploying capital) and searching for a new CFO.

    Many authorized buybacks fail to get fulfilled 100% Regardless whether it does get fulfilled it provides the company with an easy option to increase future EPS if current growth objectives are not met.

    We had one of the coldest winter's in recent memory and a quarter including Feb/Mar, same store sales did fall, but when factoring in the growth in online sales (which may have been facilitated by weather), 'total comparable' sales increased 1% on a per store basis (for athletic wear in a blizzard!) 11% on a gross basis factoring in new stores. I'm interested if the trend continues and in a way 'gambling' that it won't. Waiting is wise.

    Even if comparables are flat, store count is still increasing

    I prefer fundamental analysis, but I am attempting to grow my inner technician. Waiting for a 'trend' is technical analysis and the foundation of Charles Dow. It hurts catching a falling knife, I think your advice is prudent and wise.

    I know I don't have all the answers (I actually liked the report f.e.) and you have greatly added to my knowledge and I thank you for that.

    Thanks for the feed back.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, TMFfinosus wrote:

    nenhob,

    So, as far as the current ratio is concerned, I disagree that it's a textbook point. I've actively used this as a gauge (ok, to be taken in context with the rest of the financials) both in public practice and in industry. Still use this with a couple of small companies that I work with today as a barometer. I know it seems like an academic exercise but somehow I've found it to be a telling indicator in the real world.

    But yes, as you indicate, let's see what Potdevin does about the company's capital structure, since he inherited this balance sheet, and didn't create it. I give him points for recognizing the need to invest.

    Ramping up store count could certainly help as long as it doesn't over-absorb demand.

    Great points again, & I look forward to engaging with you again in a quarter or two when we have a better sense of where LULU is going!

    Best,

    A

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 3028246, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/1/2014 9:09:42 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement