|Shares Out. (in M):||0||P/E|
|Market Cap (in $M):||2,421||P/FCF|
|Net Debt (in $M):||0||EBIT||0||0|
Avis Budget Group (CAR) is a spin-off in the Joel Greenblatt
tradition. The neglected runt of the
litter of Cendant companies, it is underfollowed, underperforming
(temporarily), and undervalued.
The following company description is pasted from its web site:
Avis Budget Group operates two of the most recognized brands
in the global vehicle rental industry through Avis Rent A Car System, LLC
(Avis), Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. (Budget) and Budget Truck Rental, LLC
(Budget Truck). Avis is a leading supplier to the premium commercial and
leisure segments of the travel industry, and Budget is a leading supplier to
price-conscious car rental segments. We believe we are the largest general-use
vehicle rental operator in each of North America,
To get this one right I believe you only need to be, as Keynes would say, vaguely right rather than precisely wrong. My buy case has three basic parts:
suffers from a classic spin-off discount.
Leaving aside how the business performs, there should be upward stock
price momentum from this fact alone.
Some of this has already occurred, but I believe there is more left.
2) CAR is a pretty good business with very good management, which has been underperforming recently, as measured by profit margins. Its problems are correctable, and in the future margins are likely to improve.
margins improve by 2008, the stock is very cheap at today’s price. Even if margins don’t improve, the current
stock price is low enough that you do OK from a free cash flow yield
perspective, giving you a margin of safety.
Taking each part in turn:
Avis Budget Group (CAR) is a spin-off “plus”: When Cendant completed its
well-publicized and well-marketed breakup last year, CAR was not even what you
could call a spin-off; it was a leftover, attracting very little attention. In addition, it was removed from the S&P
500 Index soon after the breakup, and even traded below $2 a share before a
one-for-ten reverse split. Management
is newly liberated from the sprawling, messy, distracting Silverman empire, and
will now be compensated based directly on CAR’s success (their long-term
incentive grants are struck at a split-adjusted $24.40). So if nothing else, CAR scores highly on the
checklist of non-fundamental reasons a spun-off company tends to trade at a
a) CAR’s fleet is highly weighted towards “program” vehicles, i.e. vehicles sold by manufacturers (mostly GM in CAR’s case) and subject to repurchase at contractually agreed prices, as opposed to “risk” vehicles, which are purchased outright and later sold in the used car market. The cost to purchase program vehicles is rising, which as yet CAR has not been able to pass on to its customers.
I will also add the likelihood that Avis Budget management was distracted and hindered by being a part of Cendant, especially after the spin-off was announced. I will also point out that CAR management’s stock-based compensation awards were priced based on CAR’s trading price on the day following the spin-off, so they profited from a low initial price. For 2006 management projects pretax earnings of about $165mm on revenues of $5,800mm, for a pretax margin of 2.8%. This compares to pretax margins of 6.6% in 2005, 8.2% in 2004, and 4.7% in 2003 (the five-year average is 5.9%). For this industry and company, pretax income is a pretty good proxy for free cash flow, for the following reasons:
A reasonable good case is that the company gets its margins back up towards historical levels, something management believes it can do. To accomplish this it must stop the deterioration in the truck rental business, and be able to offset higher fleet costs with higher prices.
In numbers, my good case looks like this:
Revenue of $6,500mm
margins of 4%, producing op inc of $260mm
A reasonable bad case is that margins stay where they are. In numbers:
of $6,200mm (growth is a little lower than the good case)
Operating margins stay at 2.8%, producing op inc of $174mm
Historically, car rental companies have traded at free cash flow yields of 6%-10%. Capitalizing the good case at 8.0% produces a share price of $32.02 ($260mm / 8% = $3,250mm of equity value, divided by 101.5mm shares outstanding = $32.02). Why a 8.0% discount rate? I don’t know, but I think low prevailing interest rates, the fact that future growth won’t require shareholder investment, and the all-purpose “private equity put” make it conservative enough.
For the bad case, in order to arrive at the current stock price of $23.86 as of 1/23/08, your discount rate works out to about 7.2%. In other words, if the bad case occurs and the stock stays where it is, then you tread water for a year but end up owning a growing “equity bond” yielding 7.2%, which is OK for a downside case.
I believe the right probability distribution is to say there is some small chance of a complete catastrophe (i.e. a terrorist attack) that hits travel very hard (call this the “very bad” case). My bad case is well less than 50% likely, and I’d put the likelihood of the good case or better at about 50%, with the rest of the distribution in between my good and bad cases. I don’t have a huge conviction about these probabilities; they are impressionistic rather than realistic. Again, I believe I only need to be vaguely right.
It comes down to a bet on management and its ability to raise prices and stabilize the truck rental business.
|Entry||01/23/2007 11:59 PM|
|What was the FCF Yield implied by the takeover of Hertz as well as current trading levels? Thanks|
|Subject||free cash flow|
|Entry||01/24/2007 01:46 PM|
|your 2.8% margin is pretax, right? so why are you using that as a proxy for free cash flow? is there an nol or something here that makes cash taxes zero?|
|Entry||01/25/2007 06:33 PM|
|Are margins compressed industry wide or is this a budget-avis only problem. Also, if you have any insight, how did enterprise get such dominance in the off airport market (I was just looking @ their investors presentation) and how durable might that market share be (will avis-budget be successful in taking some of it). Anyway thanks for the idea.|
|Entry||02/01/2007 09:29 PM|
|The margin compression is really an Avis Budget specific problem, for the reasons I stated.|
Re Enterprise: There was a long Fortune article on Enterprise a few weeks ago. It's an interesting family story, and the company is certainly one of the finest private companies in the country (the kind of company that would want to sell to Berkshire, and that Berkshire would want to buy). I think its off-airport dominance can be attributed to a heavily customer-focused culture, as well as to the relationships it has formed (backed by a proprietary IT system) with insurance companies who refer replacement vehicle business to Enterprise.