Does Parlux Smell Fishy?http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2003/08/15/does-parlux-smell-fishy.aspx Bill Mann
August 15, 2003
Man, I love our discussion boards (free trial required). Drifting around some of my favorite places, I came across a gem on the Martian Chronicles board. Christian Bojlesen has been researching fragrance manufacturer Parlux (Nasdaq: PARL ) . He posted some pretty impressive numbers, but prefaced his next remarks with "and then things get truly sickening."
Parlux, which currently trades at about $3.40 per share -- for a total market capitalization of about $30 million -- is the contract manufacturer for name brands Perry Ellis (Nasdaq: PERY ) , Fed Hayman, and Jockey, though nearly 70% of revenues are tied to Perry Ellis.
A modest proposal
Keep in mind this is not a big company. As of the latest proxy, Parlux had 8.5 million shares outstanding. In the past six years, the company has repurchased more than 9 million shares on the open market, cutting the total outstanding by more than half. Someone who has held on to Parlux since 1997 has seen his stake in the company effectively double.
Fat lot of good that's done: The stock is almost precisely where it was in 1997. Over the same period, per-share book value has grown by 32%, to $5.79 per share, less than $1 of which is intangibles. So, why is Parlux trading so far below its tangible book value?
Ilia Lekach should be asking himself the same question. This past May, he led a group seeking to buy Parlux for $4 per share. Lekach, the board of directors (save one member), and Parlux were slapped with a class action shareholder suit almost as soon as Lekach uttered the words "take private." The takeover group, called Quality King, was unable to get bank financing and dropped its bid.
Management-led efforts to take a company private drive me bananas. They represent the point of sharpest contrast between the interests of insiders and those of minority shareholders. Think about it: When you're buying something, you want the price to be as low as possible. So, why not behave really badly, drive the stock price down, practice horrible corporate governance, and then offer to buy the company at a "premium" to a severely depressed price -- caused in no small part by, well, you.
How bad does this smell? Let me count the ways.
Here's a few simple suggestions:
Be really careful with related party transactions. Lekach is also the largest shareholder and chairman of E Com Ventures (Nasdaq: ECMV ) , which owns retail chain Perfumania. Perfumania is one of Parlux's largest customers, representing 17% of total revenues. That in itself, while slightly disturbing, is no big deal. What is a big deal is that of the company's $15.7 million in trade receivables, 72% is tied to Perfumania. A further $8.9 million of Parlux's revenues involve another company with close familiar relations to Mr. Lekach.
This isn't new. In 1999, Parlux developed a receivables balance of nearly $30 million due from Perfumania. Perfumania offset this in part by issuing 1.5 million shares of its stock at 90% of current market price to Parlux. Were this transaction between unrelated parties, it wouldn't be that big a deal. That both parties are controlled by the same guy naturally raises questions:
For whose benefit are any of the transactions between these companies? And why on earth would Parlux grant another insider-controlled (read: related) company substantially more lenient collection standards? For E Com's part, they say that they believe "that our purchases of merchandise from Parlux were on terms no less favorable to us than could reasonably be obtained in arm's length transactions with independent third parties." Yes, that's great for E Com shareholders, but what about Parlux?
And interestingly enough, shareholders of E Com Ventures have been put to by Lekach as well. E Com loaned money to Lekach, who then settled the debt in January 2002 by making payments in the form of 1 million shares of stock from a third company he controls, air taxi provider Nimbus Group (AMEX: NMC ) . Seeing as Nimbus is a development-stage company just converted from a failed dot-com the previous September, this doesn't seem like that great of a deal for E Com shareholders, though it may have worked out just fine for Lekach.
By the way, I can't pass this up. In Nimbus' most recent quarterly report: