Category: Columns

Why I Think Okta Stock is Overvalued $OKTA

My firm recently began using Okta for security log-in purposes. In line with what Peter Lynch would recommend, when you hear about adoption of a product, go and check out their stock. Often times, Lynch would hear his children talking about a new toy, he’d buy the stock and profit as the rest of Wall Street caught up to the story.

While Okta is not a toy company, it is a hot topic for today’s investors. In my experience, I’ve seen Okta used as a security portal for employees in order to access the cloud where important files or information may be held. A benefit is that its simple to use and its multi-factor login creates a secure authentication process without multiple log-ins.  For its customer platform, you and I may be logging in to JetBlue’s website and everything looks right, but behind the scenes Okta is powering the customer experience and making it secure.

The bull case for Okta is that as Cloud adoption grows, so will security needs. We’ve all seen and heard about data breaches in the past, so it will clearly be a big focus in the future.

Peruse any one of Okta’s filings and it is clear they are bullish on the cloud and what it means for them. In fact, Cloud is mentioned 285 times in their S-1 and they note, “According to International Data Corporation, or IDC, in 2016, the Cloud Software market is expected to be $78.4 billion and the Custom Application Development market is expected to be $41.2 billion. We believe that our platform is well positioned to address a meaningful portion of these markets.”

Notice they don’t say that is their addressable market. The fact is, it is likely a fraction of that, but undoubtedly it will be big. This growth has started to show in Okta’s numbers. In the FY ended Jan-2016, Okta did just $86MM in sales and in the LTM period Jul-19, they did $487MM. That is a 64% CAGR!

As expected, Okta’s growth has started to slow. It is simply impossible to sustain that rate forever. Analysts expect however that it will grow top line ~30% through 2021.

Getting to the valuation:

Let’s just say we think Okta can grow at a 30% CAGR for the next 7 years. Their GP margins, given it is a subscription model mostly, grow at high incremental rates. I will assume 88%. Given security is a constantly evolving business, I will assume that R&D is fixed as a % of sales, but roughly half of sales and marketing is fixed vs. variable (and grow at inflation) and G&A and back office are 75% fixed (likely an assumption, honestly).

What we see above is that if everything goes right and they grow at a massive rate, the company is still trading at 20x EBITDA 7 years from now…. I don’t see why I would buy this when Facebook is growing 20% a year and trades at just 10.5x 2020.

So what do you need to believe? I would have to say investors are banking on AT LEAST 40% top line CAGR with massive EBITDA growth (negative to $1.4BN) and that still only gets you to 10.7x EBITDA…. looking 7 years out. To me, this is crazy.

While Okta has some benefits of being “entrenched” in its customer base, I don’t think switching costs are that high. My firm used something before we moved to Okta… we could move again if we deem we are more protected or offered more for the same price. This is a constant occurrence in Tech and especially in cyber security… constant cannibalization and forming something new and better… often at the expense of incumbents.

 

Hudson Q2’19 Recap: Earnings in-line with pre-release, negotiations with PNC continue. No change to thesis $HDSN

Hudson’s earnings were in-line with the pre-announcement. Unfortunately, there is no real update with the covenant relief. As stated in my last post, HDSN is in violation with its covenant with PNC. PNC can either bankrupt the company, likely taking a haircut on their debt or owning the re-org equity in a tiny company, or provide relief and continue to collect interest and possibly full payment. These discussion are ongoing, but I have a feeling PNC And the other lenders will choose option 2 over option 1.

As larger refrigerant manufacturer Chemours noted, refrigerant prices were impacted in Q2 by illegal imports into Europe. This pressured prices which eventually bled into US prices. As such, HDSN reported a 19% sales decline to to price, but a 12% increase in volumes. The volume growth is pretty good in the context of unseasonably cool Q2.

Moving to the forward look, the company noted this on its earnings call (my emphasis added):

As we move through the back half of 2019, we draw closer to the end of R-22 production. In June of this year, 3 largest allocation holders notified that customers that they have discontinued the sale of R-22. This information reinforces our belief that stockpiles are dwindling and that possibly, by the end of this cooling season, the industry may have worked through its stockpiles. Upon the elimination of R-22 to stockpiles, we expect that the R-22 market will operate within a traditional supply demand model and that the negative price influence we’ve seen during the past 2 seasons will be alleviated. It’s important to note that the pricing pressures of the last 2 seasons were created by the 3 largest allocation holders, which we believe related to market dynamics, that had nothing to do with R-22 demand in the U.S. rather we believe these pricing pressures were associated with shortfalls in other areas of our businesses.

Given the existing installed base of R-22 equipment and with the elimination of Persian production, we expect to see a shortfall in the supply of R-22, and we believe our ability to reclaim and resell R-22 creates a tremendous opportunity to position Hudson to address the anticipated supply shortage and become the leading producer of R-22. Currently, we’re seeing R-22 pricing of approximately $9 per pound, while this pricing dynamic has negatively impacted our 2019 selling season to date, we expect that the R-22 market will demonstrate more traditional supply-demand behavior once production has stopped, which will result in increased pricing for R-22.

In sum, management’s thesis is unchanged.

As for the debt, the company disclosed it will be getting a $9MM payment from Airgas for a working capital adjustment. That may seem small, but helps with some breathing room. PNC has been getting monthly details on HDSN’s performance so seems like it knew there would be a breach so hopefully conversations end soon.  Can’t help but like this statement:

We didn’t generate cash relative to our increased interest rates and debt services and so forth. So that really [indiscernible] get into what cash we generated, but the we had to have a little bit more borrowings during the period. We’re good at come out of that cycle though. We originally thought we would generate about $20 million of free cash flow. We’re not going to generate that level but certainly, with the cash award that we have with the Airgas, we’ll probably end up being in the mid-teens for the year. So you’ll start to see the dead coming down and the availability increase over the remainder of the year.

Mid-teens FCF on a $20MM market cap company… I’ll take it.

The company also mentioned its looking to tap new lenders in the 2H’19.

Certainly, we should and have publicly said that we will be looking to seek new lenders in this back half of ’19. That is our intention. But we also need to resolve the matter with the current lenders relative to a wavier and amendment to get that behind us

These likely will be more of the “special situation” type lenders, so may come at a price (and possibly new equity or some hybrid type of security that might include PIK interest to help cash flow, but I’m just hypothesizing here). This too is good news. No bankruptcy is good news.

Hudson Technologies delays 10-Q filing due to covenant negotiations. Disclosure seems positive, all things considered $HDSN

After close on Friday, Hudson filed a late filing notification with the following statement:

Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) was not in compliance with (i) the total leverage ratio covenant, calculated as of June 30, 2019, set forth in its Term Loan Credit and Security Agreement, as amended, with U.S. Bank National Association, as agent, and the term loan lenders (the “Term Loan”) and (ii) the minimum liquidity covenant under the Term Loan at July 31, 2019. The Company was also not in compliance with the minimum EBITDA covenant for the four quarters ended June 30, 2019 set forth in its Amended and Restated Revolving Credit and Security Agreement, as amended (the “Revolving Facility”), with PNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, collateral agent and lender, PNC Capital Markets LLC as lead arranger and sole bookrunner, and such other lenders thereunder.

 

The Company is currently seeking a waiver and/or amendment from its lenders under both the Term Loan and the Revolving Facility, which the Company is working to complete on or before August 14, 2019. As a result of the impact of foregoing discussions, the Company is not in a position to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the “10-Q”) on a timely basis. The Company is working diligently to resolve these matters and management currently believes that the Company will be in a position to file the aforementioned 10-Q not later than August 14, 2019.

This should be relatively in line with market expectations, given Hudson is trading at ~$0.50 which implies the market is expecting bankruptcy.

Although Hudson will not comply with its covenants, I think it is relatively positive language that was posted. Clearly, PNC is negotiating with the company. This makes sense. Does PNC really want to take this tiny company to bankruptcy? If it did, it probably would only recover some of its par amount of debt and would own the re-org equity of the company, which would be highly illiquid. Alternatively, PNC can give some leeway, allow the company to continue operations, and hopefully realize a full recovery.

I take it as a positive that they’ll have an answer by Wednesday, August 14th. My base case is PNC will require some debt paydown or higher rate in exchange for relief, but we shall see. Net, net – I “PNC” the light…

Hudson also noted:

For the quarter ended June 30, 2019, the Company’s revenues were $56.0 million, a decrease of 3% compared to $57.8 million in the comparable 2018 period. The Company recorded lower of cost or net realizable value adjustments to its inventory of $9.2 million and $34.7 million during the second quarter of 2019 and 2018, respectively. Due in part to the impact of the inventory adjustments referenced above, the Company’s preliminary net loss for the second quarter of 2019 was $13.7 million, or ($0.32) per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss of $30.6 million or ($0.72) per basic and diluted share in the second quarter of 2018.

The sales line is relatively in-line with my expectations. I was expecting ~flat sales, driven by 5% lower sales pricing, offset by higher volumes, but my guess is temperate weather reduced demand.

We know net loss is $13.7MM.  From this, we can bridge to what EBITDA likely was:

This seems less than ideal, but remember that PY was negative $2mm so all things considered, I guess we’ll call that improvement. It’s lower than my $5mm estimate, though. Hopefully the company drew down on inventory, which it still has $100mm in value of, to generate some cash and pay down debt. Recall the company repaid $30MM of debt in Q4 of last year, mainly driven by a release in W/C.

What will really matter is Q3 outlook. I presume pricing has not improved for refrigerants, but I also think Q2 was impacted negatively by weather (which was called out by Watsco and Lennox, among other building products names). If Hudson’s Q3 looks more favorable, perhaps PNC will be more lenient.

Deja Vu Part Deux: This Market Seems Eerily Similar to Recent Past $SPY $TLT $GLD $USO

“It’s like deja vu all over again” – Yogi Berra

With China letting the yuan slide and the U.S. labeling the country as a currency manipulator, it reminded me of something I’ve seen before. And not that long ago.

In my last post on this, I noted how similar this market felt to the 2015/2016 market. To briefly recap what I noted in that post:

  • Oil has tanked: Oil was $75 / bbl in last October and now is ~$54 / bbl today. That is nearly a 30% decline. It is also down ~8.5% in just the last five days.
  •  Earnings have been lackluster: While 76% of companies have beaten consensus estimates, they have been a number of earnings revisions lower and pre-released numbers that have guided down expected numbers. The blended earnings decline for the S&P so far has been -1%. If the rest of the market ends up being down, this will be the first time we’ve had 2 consecutive earnings declines since Q1’16 and Q2’16
  • People are concerned about China: This time it is a little different, but what hasn’t changed is that China is a black box and people are concerned this time that the tariffs are negatively impacting the economy there.
  • Interest rates plunged: Due to market concern and fear, the 10 year treasury hit 1.6% in early 2016. It is now at 1.7% after being at ~2.5% for the rest of the year. Notably, the S&P dividend yield also exceeds the treasury yield like it did back then.

Now, a new deja vu candidate has emerged. On Monday, China allowed its currency to dip to levels not seen in over a decade. But wait… Can anyone name when this headline came out?

The S&P declined 4% this day… So when did it come out? This news came out almost exactly 4 years ago in August 2015. Please read each of these articles and note how similar they sound to today:

The interesting thing about the devaluation concern now is that it is much less than the devaluation that occurred back then. It also continued to devalue against the US dollar throughout 2016, but people seemed less concerned:

Note: I nabbed this picture from the WSJ here

Should we prepare for a further sell-off? Or does last time teach us that this news was overblown? Did we narrowly skate by last time and this time is the real signal?

I tend to think that the market is most concerned about uncertainty, which causes this perpetual fear with China. It is a persistent unknown. Does it surprise me that a dominate export country is devaluing its currency (that was long pegged against the dollar) to entice more exports? No. Especially in light of the tariffs.

I think China clearly must be facing some pain, but the fact of the matter is that the US earns very little revenue from Chinese sales. We import from them, we don’t sell that much to them (in the context of earnings in the S&P, that is). I think further concern on China can and will eventually cause a real market correction, but I’ll likely be buying that dip based on US earnings likely being relatively resilient in that situation (outside of commodities, which could get crushed from lower infrastructure building in China).

Thoughts on Apple Given Tariff News $AAPL

AAPL reported Q2’19 earnings last week and they were pretty good. However, given the most recent tariff news, Apple’s stock has declined over 10% in two days. What is the market pricing in?

A simple way of expressing the markets new view is to say, “what is the change in stock price implying about EPS estimates?”

The price change in stock is therefore equal to the change in earnings estimates.

So the market is essentially pricing in a China impact of at least 11.7% to earnings. That could be from a 10% tariff or a retaliation against a US producer like Apple.

After skimming AAPL’s filings, I found that China represents ~20% of sales. Assuming this business is of similar margin to the whole company, that means that ~$10.8BN of net income comes from China, or $2.4 / share. Since the market is implying the earnings estimates need to come down by ~$1.5 / share, one could simply say that the market is implying 62% of AAPL’s China earnings are gone ($1.50 out of $2.40).

Obviously, it isn’t that simple (for example, the market could price in some slowdown in AAPL’s other regions due to a slowing global economy).

I will say though that this seems bold considering what Apple had said on its latest earnings call:

I sometimes like to do this math to gauge how realistic or unrealistic the market is being. Sometimes, like in the case of Bayer and the glyphosate liability, I think the market is pricing in sums that make no sense. Other times, it underestimates them.

Fortunately for Apple, they’ll be able to grow EPS in a lot of different environments due to their cash hoard. Here is a snapshot of their capitalization.

I think people often forget that Apple has a lot of long-term investments in marketable securities on its balance sheet. I would consider that cash for all intents and purposes because the company can (and does) sell some securities for attractive investments or to buy back stock.

Therefore, ~24% of Apple’s market cap is in cash right now. Let’s assume they use all that to buy back stock, but it comes at a premium. Let’s use ~30% premium which is around $250 / share.

At $250 / share, they can repurchase 842 million shares, which is a little less than 20% of the outstanding amount. If I assume net income is unchanged for 2020 (roughly $58BN), then EPS should go from $12.78 to $15.71. A 15x multiple on $15.71 is a $236 stock price, or 22% upside. A 17x multiple foots to 38% upside to $267. At 17x, this is ~1x above the S&Ps P/E multiple, but well deserved in my view given I think AAPL is an above-average company.

At this point, it seems like Apple is well positioned to either return capital to shareholders or invest cash for new projects. While others are concerned about the company and what lies ahead for its future, I think having so much cash at this point provides for a significant margin of safety.