MWK Q4 2020 Earnings

Think only a couple of folks on the board follows the company, but Q4 earnings released today

https://ir.mohawkgp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/m…

Revenue grew 61.9% YoY. For the full year revenue was up 62.3%, to $185.7 million
Gross margins were 45.6%, which was an improvement over 39.4% from 2019
EBITDA of $2.5m vs negative $(19.5) in 2019

Guidance for 2021 is $350 - $380 million, and EBITDA of $30 - 34 million, so looking at 100% growth in revenue YoY if they hit their guidance. They are projecting this growth based on recent acquisitions, product launches, $500 million in potential acquisitions in their target pipeline, and expansion into Europe.

Prior to the carnage of the past 2 weeks, MWK was valued at $1.4B at its peak, so 7.5 P/S, and 3.8 one year forward P/S, so still relatively cheap

Will post more notes later after I listen to the call

I don’t think this company will take over the world or anything like some of the other companies discussed around these parts, but the growth, small size and the cheap valuation is a good enough combination for me to continue to hold. Long with initial position of 6% in the 16-mid 20s range, since grown organically to 14%

27 Likes

The market doesn’t like the seasonality of the revenue.
What’s most important for MWK is the whole year revenue change over. As long as MWK can continune high growth rate for few years. The stock price should catch up. Valuation is still on the low side.

MWK, SLBG are the two most bullish stocks in my current portfolio.

6 Likes

The earning report is good, except for the Debt refinancing of 110 mm for 3 years with an annual rate of 8%. 8% is awfully high in current low-rate environment. I remember not log ago, OKTA got a rate of virtually zero. Why couldn’t they get a better deal? New stock issuance coming?

I took a decently in-depth look at Mohawk (MWK) several weeks ago, and wanted to share a few cautions now that they’ve reported Q4.

In Q3, they guided to a $175m - 185m range for 2020 revenue: https://ir.mohawkgp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/m…

…but raised the range to $180m - 190m in their Feb 4 presentation (page 18): https://ir.mohawkgp.com/static-files/b5122a4a-139b-4645-820b…

So even after raising, the 185.7m they hit was not technically a miss, but most companies easily beat the top end of their range. Really strange to me that MWK would be this aggressive (to raise the range even after the year was over), and that gives me reason to doubt they will exceed their 380m guide for 2021, even though they keep bumping it up.

Also, the gross margins leave little room for error. And I don’t really know how to value this company. Maybe bottom line eventually – hard to know when/what will materialize.

They also have a line on the Operating Expenses called “Change in fair value of contingent earn-out liabilities.” I’d suggest looking into that.

Klay points out their creditors are not giving them much love: https://discussion.fool.com/the-earning-report-is-good-except-fo…

Anyway, interesting company, but too many flags for me. I just wanted to provide a word of caution – this company is not nearly as proven as several of the more popular favorites here. I could say this for many others as well of course (including UPST which I have a small position in), but Mohawk happens to be the one I spent some time on.

I think the important thing is to keep these more speculative positions small. I’m not trying to tell anyone how to invest – make your own decisions. But this board is a valuable resource. If you’re invested in a growth company this board collectively ignores, I suggest repeatedly making your case here. If you can’t convince us, there might be a good reason.

Bear

50 Likes

Hi Bear,

Agreed on many of your points, disagree on a couple

I am also quite disappointed in their financing strategies. I know that physical inventories and cash for acquisitions have always scared traditional financing, which is why they may have opted to go for an alternative route. But I don’t understand why they attached warrants to the 8% loan. Perhaps the strike price is much higher than their previous warrants (which was priced at $16) which could justify the decision. But it seems like they could have just accomplished the same with an ATM offering. $9m a year in interest isn’t chump change for a company of this size.

The gross margins are also definitely a negative. I have no illusions about this company ever reaching the valuations held by the software companies discussed here. Would think 10 P/S is the absolute ceiling, even at 100% growth rate. If it ever reached even the mid 20s, I would probably be long out by then (unless something about the business drastically changed)

Something else that is a big red flag to me that I’ve been open with since the start is their basic business and also just the nature of their growth strategy. They are an acquisition focused company, that sell physical goods, even though they do launch new products as well. When I first introduced the company back in December, most of the posts on the thread were asking how this fits on the board because they are not software. Additionally, management hasn’t broken out organic versus acquired growth, which indicates to me that they are reliant on making good acquisitions to continue their growth. Fine at a small size but doesn’t seem like it can scale very well.

The change in fair value of contingent earn-out liabilities doesn’t bother me. That just means that their acquisitions are working out well. The earn out could be in cash or in stock (diluting the shareholders), but it’s common amongst roll up companies

Regarding your comment on beating expectations - that doesn’t seem like a flag to me in the least. Even if they miss their $380m guide by a few million, that’s still 100% growth, on a 3 forward looking P/S? Sign me up for more of that. I’ve never understood or agreed with the fascination on “they beat guidance!” - AT&T regularly beats its guidance because they work with their analysts to set low expectations, who cares?

And finally, on your point of not convincing the board to invest in the company - I don’t feel any need to do that. I share what I’ve done and my reasons for investing because others on the board are generous enough to do the same. I see the board as a collection of ideas and discussion, not a list of which companies we should be invested in. If it helps one other person on the board, that’s productive enough. I’m not offended at all if the majority passes on the company, it’s their money and they are acting in a rational fashion since as you correctly point out there are many flags.

I can offer a speculation on why this company is collectively ignored though. Over the past few years the board (and the knowledge base) has really leaned into the “software or bust” mentality, which is something I also mostly buy into, given the results, and the fact that the majority of my investments are also software related. So a CPG company that sells widgets, and seems to derive most of its growth via acquisitions? Not really the flavor of the board - so understandable. I reiterate that my investment thesis is not that the company is a dominate winner take all like the software companies we’re invested in, but that it’s tiny, cheap, hyper growth, and in a large TAM market.

14 Likes

Regarding your comment on beating expectations - that doesn’t seem like a flag to me in the least. Even if they miss their $380m guide by a few million, that’s still 100% growth, on a 3 forward looking P/S? Sign me up for more of that.

Not a red flag, I agree. Just a yellow flag that they gave a number after the quarter was over and didn’t beat it. Honestly I just find it kind of weird – not damning, just strange. I think it means they’re very aggressive with guidance which could mean they’ll eventually miss. Like you said, if they get even close to 100% growth, that’s great. Just a small point that they might be guessing more and/or being more aggressive than other companies.

And finally, on your point of not convincing the board to invest in the company - I don’t feel any need to do that.

I’m encouraging you to feel more need to do that. :slight_smile: Neither I nor anyone here are saying we’re better than you or our companies are more noble, or anything of the kind. But as long as I’ve been at this, I still feel much better after vetting my ideas against the braintrust of this board. I encourage you to do the same. Why wouldn’t you? You’ve got a great resource at your disposal!

I can offer a speculation on why this company is collectively ignored though. Over the past few years the board (and the knowledge base) has really leaned into the “software or bust” mentality…I reiterate that my investment thesis is not that the company is a dominate winner take all like the software companies we’re invested in, but that it’s tiny, cheap, hyper growth, and in a large TAM market.

Perhaps we agree here – Recall that I said I believe this company and others are fine speculations, but I feel like these positions should be kept small. Do you disagree? I’ve seen other investors post here that MWK and other tiny and speculative companies are roughly 20% positions for them. Yikes!

Bear

10 Likes

I’m encouraging you to feel more need to do that. :slight_smile: Neither I nor anyone here are saying we’re better than you or our companies are more noble, or anything of the kind. But as long as I’ve been at this, I still feel much better after vetting my ideas against the braintrust of this board. I encourage you to do the same. Why wouldn’t you? You’ve got a great resource at your disposal!

If you peek at my portfolio you’ll see lots of matches with the residents of the board, I would say more matches than not! There are a few exceptions (I’ve always been hugely down on FSLY and NET, but they have worked out as investments for many here), but for the most part I’m in alignment with everyone:

CRWD - 18%
ETSY - 17%
MWK - 13%
TDOC - 11%
PTON - 11%
CELH - 6%
ZS - 6%
ZM - 5%
MDB - 4%
TWLO - 4%
DDOG - 2%
TTD - 2%

Recall that I said I believe this company and others are fine speculations, but I feel like these positions should be kept small. Do you disagree?

No disagreement at all, I initiated a 6% position in the high teens/mid twenties, and haven’t added since, but I also don’t feel any need to trim, even though it’s grown to a 13% position, only because of the reasons previously discussed

I believe we’re more in agreement than not on this

2 Likes

I looked at MWK as well - even several times as it kept pretty well in recent sell off. I’m struggling to invest into it for the following reasons:

  1. Low gross margins
  2. Acquisition based business model. If I understand correctly they don’t even break down organic and non-organic growth as they are constantly acquiring new products. Their old products will finance purchase of new products/brands etc etc. Perhaps I’m just not used to this business model.
  3. Their long-term business model says contribution margin 18-20% is not far from the current 13-14%, meaning that not much upside left from margin improvement. Long-term EBITDA 13-15% which is relatively low.

I’m not saying it’s a bad company or each of those points kills a bull case per se. It’s a combination of these and other factors like this is a CPG company in a low margin business with probably hundreds competitors etc make me feel unease investing here. And we also have to compare each investment opportunity with other opportunities and decide on which will produce better results.

Those who invested in MWK in late 2020 or early 2021 made good returns, even very good returns and this may continue, but I was not able to develop confidence in the business which is necessary for investment. Especially considering huge volatility in our stocks.

Anyways, wish good returns to all MWK investors from our board.

Best,
V

Circling back on this, the conference call did not produce any worthwhile nuggets, but Jonah Upton, who it seems some folks on the board follows, did an interview with MWK’s CEO Yaniv Sarig that was posted today that did provide some answers to the issues raised in this thread
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlkyqX2PBTY

On the 8% loan (15:55): They are not concerned with optimizing cost of capital, as they have such a large pipeline of possible acquisition deals that they don’t want to slow down their possible growth and would prefer the cash on hand so they can make those deals. This does make sense to me but it’s still annoying that they agreed to such awful terms. On the other hand 4-5m in interest a year difference isn’t a huge deal if they can add 20-30% more revenue this year as a result of getting cash in hand faster, so I think it’s something to watch over the next few earning cycles.

On organic vs acquired growth breakout (18:05): The $350-380m does not include any of the projected deals currently in due diligence from their pipeline of companies with $500m revenue. So to Bear’s point, they will probably continue to guide up throughout the year, but not beat their guidance by much, if at all. Seems to be a plus in my view, since it’s radically transparent. On the other hand it still doesn’t seem like a strategy that is scalable to say $2B revenue. Would expect growth to rapidly slow within the next couple of years with this strategy as 1) there are only so many DTC brands looking to sell and 2) competitors such as Thrasio are also looking to buy and rollup these brands.

2 Likes