This write-up appeared in the latest issue of the Oddball Stocks Newsletter. The newsletter is the premium version of this blog. The newsletter is published six times a year and is loaded with oddball stock write-ups that are exclusive for subscribers. Each issue highlights multiple oddball stocks, bank equities and includes a post by a guest writer. Subscribers also have access to a subscriber-only forum where we discuss ideas related to the newsletter.
If you're interested in finding investments far off the beaten path where the market isn't efficient you need to subscribe to the Oddball Stocks Newsletter. The cost is $590/yr. Subscribe here.
George Risk Industries Inc. (RSKIA) – The recent turmoil in the markets has hit small cap
stocks harder than the broader market and George Risk is no exception. The company is located in Kimball, NE and
manufactures a wide range of sensors and switches.
The company owns two small
manufacturing plants located smack dab in the middle of Nebraska. Both plants are relatively modest facilities
in very small towns.
George Risk, the grandfather of
the current CEO, Stephanie Risk, founded the company in 1965. Prior to Stephanie taking control her father,
Ken Risk, was CEO. All three have
managed to grow and expand the company.
I remember buying the stock
around six years ago in the $4 range.
The memory is clear because I was working on building a position in the
days right before and after our first son was born. It took a number of days to build a full
position, but it was possible. Shares
continued to rise with the company’s earnings and I sold out at over $7 a share
in 2012. It was a stereotypical oddball
investment. At the time of the initial
investment the company was selling for less than their net cash and securities,
was profitable and growing. All I needed
to do was buy and wait.
In the six years since I
invested in the company I’ve loosely followed their quarterly reports and
price. The price reached a high of $9.04
in 2014 but since then has fallen to $6.55 as the company itself has continued
to grow. When I purchased shares in 2010
revenue was $7.8m a year. In 2015 the
company earned $11.9m, a growth rate of 8.8% a year. This isn’t a high-flying growth stock, but
8.8% revenue growth is knocking the cover off the ball for a company that not
only traded below its net current asset value (NCAV), but net cash and
securities. Their revenue growth has
been great, but earnings growth has been even higher at 17.8% a year over the
past six years. Earnings per share have
doubled from $.26 in 2010 to $.59 in the TTM.
And yet, with this sort of
underlying growth the stock price has remained stagnant since 2012. The company is once again trading right at
NCAV, which is $32.44m, while their market cap $32.9m. So what’s the problem?
The company’s problem is that
they are successful in a small niche, but have almost no reinvestment
opportunities. The company has a 57%
gross margin and a 20% net margin, enviable margins for any business. Yet, there are few if any outlets for their
excess cash. They own simple facilities
and their intellectual property walks out the door each evening. The company dominates its niche, but is also
stuck in that same niche.
In turn, the majority of their
NCAV is stuck in cash and an equity portfolio.
Both cash and securities have continued to grow over time. When I initially researched the company I
thought the cash pile was a tax-efficient way for Ken Risk to grow a retirement
portfolio. He could build up a sizable
kitty inside the company and then live off the dividends in his golden
years. If that was Ken Risk’s dream,
however, it went unfulfilled as he died suddenly in 2013 and sadly didn’t get
to see his golden years. His daughter Stephanie,
the former CFO, took over as CEO in his absence.
If you would have asked me in
2010 if I thought the event of Ken Risk’s passing would unlock value I would
have said yes. Unfortunately, it
hasn’t. The underlying company continues
to operate as it has, but nothing else has changed, especially the share price.
Shareholders are right to be
worried about the cash and investment portfolio. It’s money the company controls, not
shareholders. A nice change is that the
company paid out more than 100% of their net income as a dividend in the first
six months of 2015. During that time
they earned $1.2m and paid out $1.7m in dividends. If they continue this they will slowly liquidate
and pay out their excess cash and securities holdings, but who knows if that
will occur.
The eternal question is whether
the company is worth more than their current price. I can understand why the market is pricing
the company the way it is. While the
operations are great they are small and stuck in a niche that they appear to be
unable (or perhaps unwilling) to grow out of.
The company is also saddled with all that excess cash and the investment
portfolio and the Risk family owns a majority stake in the company.
If management was serious about having the value of their business recognized by the market they’d pay out a dividend equal to 75% of their market cap. Subsequent to such a dividend shares would be trading at approximately $1.50, and a company with 17% earnings growth and $.59 per share in earnings wouldn’t trade at $1.50 for long. In such a scenario it wouldn’t surprise me to see shares rise to $7 or more, especially if earnings and revenue continue to grow. The only thing stopping this scenario is entrenched management that seems content with business as usual.
This stock does not look RISKA
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean?
ReplyDeleteIf I was the management I'd stop the dividend, act a bit funny, and slowly buy back the minority shares at discount. They clearly don't need to raise capital, and if they don't need to cash out quickly, why would they want a high valuation?
ReplyDeleteYou should send the CEO a letter suggesting they use the extra cash for value investing with a copy of the newsletter attached. You'd have a new subscriber and be fairly confident you'll make money on RSKIA.
ReplyDeleteI think the first comment was a play on the ticker, trying to make it look like "risky".
I've also been following them for a long time. They actually only pay
ReplyDeletea dividend once a year, so they are still paying less than earnings.
However they have been raising the dividend each year, and at the
most recent .34 level it's around a 5% yield - better than a poke
in the eye with a sharp stick.
I've been invested in some companies that followed your suggestion
of a large one-time dividend, and while it can give the stock a
good one-time pop, it usually dies down again afterward. Also, it
would make the company a bit less safe in my opinion - less of
a cash cushion for hard times. An alternative that I've thought
of for companies with this profile would be to keep the existing
cash, but commit to dividending out any new earnings above that level
that come in each year. At current prices this would be around an 8% yield -
this would also probably cause a revaluation of the stock, but without
sacrificing the security blanket of the cash reserves.
There's also a couple of little call options embedded in the business
that I think make it more interesting than the usual cigar butt stock -
for example, in past 10-K's they mention development of a fuel level
sensor for tanks and trucks to detect tampering/theft. This is a big
problem in parts of the world ...
Valuation looks to be $50-$60M ($10-12/share). What do you think?
ReplyDelete