I’m always on the lookout for solid values but it takes a really solid value for me to pull the trigger and actually buy something.
I’m also a firm believer that research is the keystone of a good investment and I simply haven’t had time lately to get the research I want done on stocks that look interesting.
That’s one of the reasons why I only own three individual securities and keep most of my money in index funds and ETFs. It’s simply easier to buy ETFs when you have no time to research individual stocks.
Thankfully, I have gotten to a point where my work allows me ample time to do research on individual stocks and plan to start investing more in individual securities. This is the first of what I hope will be many articles that will discuss my analysis of a stock and my decision regarding a potential purchase.
If you’ve read my blog before, you know that my asset allocation plan has a 10% allocation to small-cap stocks so I’m willing to take additional risk in search for long-term results. All of my small-cap holdings are in mutual funds that spread the risk across a massive group of securities but that recenlty changed as I initiated a position in George Risk Industries Inc.
Let’s talk about George Risk.
If you’ve ever read anything by Peter Lynch or Benjamin Graham then you’ve read about boring stocks in boring industries that no one seems to follow or care about. You’ve also read about how those boring stocks can often be some of the best investments you can make.
Most companies you hear about every day get a lot of coverage and can move up and down quite a bit based on market opinion. Stocks can fall in and out of favor rather quickly and prices can shift dramatically based on market opinion and coverage.
George Risk isn’t one of those companies. This is a company that nobody follows, one that does business in a low growth boring industry and seems to continue chugging along without much interest from anyone.
When I first ran into this company and looked into it after hearing about it on some old podcasts, I saw that George Risk Industries Inc.(GRI going forward) is a company that the market seems to have no opinion on and sometimes those can be quite interesting.
GRI is a tiny American company located in Nebraska that employees around 145 people. They design, manufacture, and sell computer keyboards, push-button switches, burglar alarm components and systems, pool alarms, and water sensors.
The company is majority owned by the Risk family and insider ownership makes up nearly 60% of the outstanding stock. Stephanie Risk is the current CEO after taking over after the death of her father Ken Risk in 2013.
The majority of their business is in the security burglar alarm sector and security switch sales made up 80% of their net revenues for the last fiscal year(ending April 2016). They have ~1000 customers and receive about 50% of their revenue in that sector from two key ones, ADI, a division of Honeywell, and Tri-Ed Distribution.
Their keyboard business has around 800 customers and they mainly work on small custom orders there as they can’t compete with the larger more automated companies that work in that area.
GRI also has a substantial amount of cash and marketable securities which contribute substantially to the bottom line via investment income and made up 22% of income in fiscal year 2016 and 24% of income in fiscal year 2015.
Are you excited yet? Let’s take a look at how the market is valuing this company right now.
GRI is a small company with a market cap of $42.5M and just under 5M shares outstanding.
The stock price as of 5/14/2017 is $8.44 which represents an increase of 12.53% in the last 52 weeks, a return that lags the S&P 500. The stock has actually lagged the S&P 500 for the last five years even when including dividends which shows how little value the market has been assigning the stock. That’s not a good thing when you consider the additional risk you take with a small-cap company. It has lagged any comparative small-cap index as well.
The poor performance interesting me when I started looking at the financials. If you’re read anything by Benjamin Graham or delved deep into the field of value investing, you’re familiar with a concept of a net-net which is basically a company that’s valued solely on the basis of its net current assets.
When I speak about current assets, I mean cash, cash equivalents(investments) and the liquidation values of inventories minus any liabilities.
The idea is that the business has an intrinsic value based on those assets and anything selling close to, at or below that value makes it an interesting prospect especially if we’re talking about a company that produces cash flow and earnings.
I became interested in the concept of net-nets after reading Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor but found that most of the ones I could find in the small-cap space were not consistently profitable and there was a reason they were valued below current assets as those current assets were likely to be a lot lower in the near term as negative profits ate away at them.
That’s where GRI is different in that it’s a profitable company that fits some of the criteria of a net-net although at current valuations, it’s not a net-net by definition.
Let’s take a look at the financials.
GRI is profitable and has been profitable since 2012. It is a company that generates FCF every single year, issues dividends at an increasing pace and has slowly reduced the # of shares outstanding. These are all good things and become better when you consider how much you would actually pay for the FCF producing company when you account for other assets.
One thing that immediately stands out to me is the $31.4M in cash and marketable securities which is one of the main reasons I was initially drawn to this company.
We’re talking about a $42M market cap company that has $31.4M in cash and marketable securities. The company also has 2.5M in inventories and 2M in receivables as well, all of which would have liquidation value in a net-net analysis but due to the difficulty of valuing those, I ignored them for the purposes of my analysis.
As of 5/14/2017, GRI’s stock price is $8.44. When you consider the $31.4M in cash and marketable securities which can fairly be valued at 100% of their balance sheet total, I’m essentially paying $2.08 for the rest of the business because the cash + investments per share on the balance sheet amount to $6.36 per share(see below).
Is this a business that’s fairly valued at $8.44 or $2.08 when you remove the cash + marketable securities from the price?
On an EPS basis, I’m paying 13.84 or a forward 13.61 based on conservative assumptions for fiscal year 2017 earnings. Do note that the estimates for 2017 are my own since there are no analysts that follow this stock.
That seems rather high when you consider this is a stock with an increased risk that comes with small-cap stocks. You also have the consider the lack of growth in EPS since 2014.
However, am I really paying a 13.6 P/E here if I purchase this stock at today’s prices? I don’t think I am because the true net cost of the business excluding balance sheet value is $2.08. That means that I’m really paying a 3.35 P/E against 2017 estimates.
The beauty of this business is that it’s a company that generates consistent and predictable cash flow and has a solid balance sheet with 0 long term debt.
Based on a starting point of 2.61M FCF and a growth of 0% for the next five years, I believe the FV of the company outside of cash is about $7.20 which isn’t too far from the current stock price but that doesn’t account for the balance sheet. That means when I add the value of the company to the cash and investments on the balance sheet, I get a fair value of $13.56.
That represents an upside of 88% from the $8.44 closing price and is a pretty damn great valuation when you consider the valuation on the rest of the market right now.
That seems pretty great right? Why the hell isn’t everybody buying this stock then?
The bull case here is simple. The valuation is solid on a business that seems to continue to chug along and generate FCF on a pretty predictable basis.
The business is somewhat cyclical and will be tied to the housing market since that’s what drives security system sales but the company continued to earn money during the 2008 crisis and didn’t stop the dividend during those years.
The 13.56 valuation prices this to a 21.8 P/E which is expensive for a low growth business like this one but when accounting for the balance sheet value, you’re down to a 11.6 P/E at that price level which is reasonable especially in these low interest rate market conditions.
I’m not opposed to buying a heavily insider owned business that has shown such consistent results for 3-4x earnings after adjusting for cash.
If I were to take a leap and make a safe estimate for inventories and accounts receivables, I’d get a balance sheet value closer to $7 so I’m basically paying just north of $1 for a business that earns money. That’s not bad at all.
There company also pays a dividend which has been consistent and grown for the past few years and includes a special dividend in 2013. There have also been stock buybacks that have reduced the # of shares outstanding.
I also think I was rather conservative on my 2017 earnings estimates and we could see a number that’s slightly higher there which means some of these values may be understated.
If I just look at these numbers then it seems like a great value at current prices. It’s a boring low growth business but it makes money, pays a dividend, has a great balance sheet and continues to be fairly valued.
There is absolutely no catalyst for growth here. The company has and will probably continue to grow at a 0-2% rate if the investor is lucky and the stock market simply doesn’t care about companies like this.
George Risk’s price has been in the $6-$9 range since 2012 and while the valuation looks good on paper, it’s looked about the same for a number of years and there have been better entry points in the past few years than there are today, some as early as last year when the stock traded back into the $6 range.
That means the market hasn’t wised up to the value of RSKIA in all those years so why should it now? The stock has lagged the S&P 500 and any comparable small-cap index by a decent margin due to the fact that the market values growth more than anything these days and an S&P 500 index fund is much less risk than a 42M small-cap company.
The revenue they generate is highly concentrated with most of the money coming from the security switch division and half of that money coming from two key customers. Losing either of the two key clients but especially ADI(40%+ of security switch revenue) would mean the business value would decline rapidly.
RSKIA’s keyboard division is a small portion of their business and their keyboards look like they would feel old in the 90s as far as design goes(http://www.grisk.com/data-entry-peripherals.php) so there’s likely a limited marketplace for that kind of design aesthetic.
The company does mention new products and technology during most of its quarterly or annual reports like adding wi-fi support, smart phone support and the like but it’s clear that they’re behind on the modernization aspect on both sides of the revenue ball. The amount spent on R&D/Engineering each year is low which doesn’t bode well for improvements and I don’t think that Kimball, NE is a hot spot for technology research nor does it attract the best talent in that realm.
The stock is 60% owned by insiders which can be great but the truth is that the insider owners(risk family, trust and others) has recently used the company as a dividend payment generator and has shown little interest in reinvesting back into the business to grow earnings. That’s great for income but not great for stock appreciation.
It’s a very small company so there are additional risks that come with it like late fillings, lack of data in accounting and conflicts of interest. That’s to be expected in this realm but the investor does have to do additional due diligence on small stocks like this to make sure nothing looks super frightening.
They have been late on filings a few times and have some odd practices like renting one facility from a director of a company and keeping a lot of their cash at a bank where one of the directors is a principal shareholder. They also keep their marketable securities with an unnamed third party broker which is another question mark.
Speaking of those investments, the company has 30M+ in cash and investments which could be used to purchase something, expand or research in a way that would generate more value than just paying out a dividend.
Perhaps the company is too small to look for such a venture and feels that the cash is best used to buy back stock and pay dividends. There is an active stock purchase program that started in 2008 that calls for a buyback of 500k shares and the company has utilized that along with the dividend payments to return money to shareholders in lieu of growing the bottom line but that hasn’t generated shareholder returns in excess of the market the past few years so it’d be nice to see some changes.
Equities make up nearly 50% of their cash and investments which is relatively high and while that does help prop up the EPS, it does add additional risk to the portfolio in a downturn especially if management and/or the third party broker sells at an inopportune time.
The other issue is that the stock is very thinly traded and trades on the OTC markets. There are often days where the stock doesn’t trade at all since there no sellers and no buyers and the average volume is less than 1000 shares changing hands any given day. Most of that average is driven by spikes where tens of thousands of shares change hands on certain days(like after earnings) as most days see little trading volume.
That means a higher bid/ask spread than a large company and a potential to have to sell at a lower than market price if money is needed quickly.
Despite the negatives, George Risk is an interesting company when looked at through the lens of a value investor.
On paper, this company looks like a solid value despite the shortfalls. The shortfalls aren’t small and included revenue concentration and a stale product line combined with management’s seeming lack of interest in growing earnings. That lack of growth is one of the reasons the market has discounted this stock for so long but I wonder if that will continue forever or if the valuation will eventually catch up if the company keeps chugging along and earning money even if the growth isn’t there.
The company made it through 2008 relatively unharmed and continued to pay out the dividend while earning money. They didn’t panic and sell equities in 2008 when stock market values dropped so that was also good to see when you look at the fact that 50% of their cash and investments are in equities.
The benefit of buying a stock like this is downside protection. If I think that the stock has $7 in current assets less liabilities on it’s balance sheet and can buy it for $8 then theoretically my downside is pretty limited unless those current assets begin declining for some reason. That $7 in current assets doesn’t even account for the long-term assets the company has although I find it hard to value commercial real estate in Kimball, NE but I would think it has a non-zero value.
That thesis didn’t really hold true in 2009 where the stock dropped as low as $3 despite nearly $4 in cash and marketable securities valuing the business at -1$ but that was a housing downturn. That was a crisis that directly correlated to their business and the stock market didn’t act that rationally during that time with a lot of companies, some much larger than this dropping to near liquidation values.
There was a real fear that the company and other companies would fold due to the mortgage crisis and the market valued things as such back then. The fact that the company didn’t take on debt, continued to pay out the dividend and made money during the time speaks highly of the business.
There have been points during the past few years where the company has been priced more attractively than today. In February 2016, you could have had this stock for around $6.50 which was less than a dollar above cash and investments but that was during a wide ranging stock market dive that didn’t last very long and showed values in much larger and profitable companies.
The main concern on my mind is that they fall behind technologically and can’t catch up. Losing ADI as a customer would be a disaster but they’ve had a long relationship with them which gives some credence to the idea that it might continue for the foreseeable future.
I do wish that they spent more money on R&D and expanding their business in some way and it’s likely that the stock value will continue to be undervalued until management does something to change that. I’d prefer more investments in the business to guarantee more long term viability even if it comes at the expense of raising the dividend or issuing a special dividend.
The dividend is nice and has grown since 2010 and the company still maintains a healthy payout ratio of 56% but I can see the dividend growth slowing to a crawl or stopping if earnings don’t increase in the next few years. Last year’s bump was 3% and I can see similar growth this year. At current levels the yield is 4.1% and is easily supported by the cash balance and earnings.
It’s true that there have been times where this stock was a true net-net and traded at or below their net current assets and it’s possible that it will trade at that level again. That would mean a price point in the $7 dollar range if you consider inventories and receivables.
I do believe that the strong balance sheet sets a floor for the stock that’s not too far below the current price level unless the business flops and they start bleeding cash but I don’t see that happening any time soon. It’s an obvious risk with how concentrated their revenue is so it’s not a company I would bet a huge % of my portfolio on unless I was feeling particularly risky.
At the current price point, an investor is paying $2 for the business portion of RSKIA which is just north of 3x earnings and that’s not bad at all.
I generally aim for 30% below FV so would consider any price below $9.49 an attractive entry point based on my free cash flow valuation.
I found myself a bit behind on my small-cap allocation with last month’s update so I recently initiated a small position of 200 shares at $8.10 to cover that gap. That’s a very small portfolio of my overall portion and will add $70 in forward dividend income to my portfolio to be paid out in September.
I will potentially purchase more if the price drops closer to the $7 range I mentioned above if I have space in my portfolio for a small-cap company.
I would strongly suggest using a limit order as the bid/ask spread can be wide and you can potentially buy at a better than market price if there’s a seller out there willing to fill your order.
This isn’t a stock that I will be putting a put a huge percentage of my portfolio in due to the illiquid nature of it meaning it may take a few days to buy or sell at the price you want if there are no traders on the other side willing to take that price.
I didn’t buy this expecting amazing short term results but feel like the stock can eventually produce solid returns based on the metrics I saw. It’s possible that the stock market will keep ignoring it for quite some time which means lackluster returns that will likely continue to lag the market. This is more of a trial of the Benjamin Graham school of investing for me than something I expect to pay off immediately. The plan is to hold this for a couple of years and revisit again to see if anything has changed in my thesis. If the price drops to $7 or below, I might revisit this again and add more shares if the valuation hasn’t changed and my asset allocation has space for a small-cap stock.
I believe it’s certainly a worthwhile company to look at if you are looking for a value stock in the small-cap space and have some room for a riskier bet in your portfolio. I do think the risk here is much less than other companies in this market cap range but it’s still there.
Let me know your thoughts on RSKIA. Have I missed anything in my analysis that you feel should be discussed?
I plan to do more of these analytical posts so let me know what you thought about it and where you’d like to see more detail(or less) or if you have any suggestions for companies to analyze. I generally don’t spend a ton of time on the small-cap space and most of my future posts will likely be much larger companies.
Disclosure : I am long RSKIA. I have no business relationship with the company discussed above and am not a licensed investment professional. You should not buy or sell any of the companies discussed in this article without your own analysis and diligence and/or consultation with your investment or tax professional as investments may decline in value.
Sources : Fidelity(https://tinyurl.com/nxjcp79), George Risk(http://www.grisk.com/), SEC(https://tinyurl.com/myvr7ep)
Time in the market is a financial and personal lifestyle blog that should not be relied upon as a guidepost for financial, legal, personal, etc. choices. The views on this website do not reflect anyone’s views but my own and perhaps my dogs. Financial products such as stocks have a potential for loss and any investments should me made with the guidance of a qualified investment professional and your own kick ass due diligence. The author of this blog does his best to keep the content accurate and unoffensive but can’t guarantee that any authors of comments will follow the same guidelines. Please be aware of any local, cultural or country specific laws and beliefs that may prevent you from reading this blog as I am not aware of them. The contents of this blog are personal views with no intent to harm, defame, libel or offend. I also may accidentally link to content that is offensive or harmful but do not condone such content and would do so only inadvertently. Please contact me if you’d like to use any of my content.