Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Dear PepsiCo Management: Thank You

The Science of Hitting

The Science of Hitting

215 followers
On Wednesday morning, PepsiCo (PEP) reported third-quarter earnings, which beat estimates and closed up nearly 3% as a result. Last month the company spoke at the Barclay’s Back to School Consumer Conference, where they discussed the current headwinds they are seeing in the business and the economy. My key take away from the conference was this quote from CFO Hugh Johnston:

“The environment we currently operate in will not remain challenged forever. Commodity markets will rebalance and the developed market consumer will recover. The decisions that we make today will determine how we'll participate in that future recovery.

We have a fantastic portfolio and we worked hard over the past ten years to get our portfolio to this point… Our portfolio is positioned in attractive, global growth segments.

We believe the mix of our businesses across segments and geographies will produce consistent solid revenue growth, attractive and expanding margins… and strong cash generation and returns to shareholders.”

Heading into the conference, the chatter around PepsiCo was about a potential split up between the snacks and beverage business; here’s a quote from Bernstein Research analyst Ali Dibadj (from a phone interview): “There’s a large chunk of the company that’s just suffering, which is the North American beverage business, and that’s dragging down the rest of the company, which is doing okay; the point of the split is that you’re not getting the benefit of being together.”

Our first argument: no benefit from being together. Let’s look at what Mr. Johnston had to say during an interview on CNBC this morning:

You know, in all candor, I really don't see a lot of value in the idea. Let me start by saying, we turn over every stone to try to unlock value for shareholders; that is the purpose we have as management is to unlock that value for shareholders. As we look at things like emerging markets where we have the businesses combined across both the value chain as well as in the front and in trucks and with customers, and even in North America where we've got combined back office, combined R&D, combined procurement, even combined selling… I do know that splitting up the two businesses would create a lot of additional costs; the benefits to me are completely unclear so looked at it and just frankly don't see a lot of merit in the idea.


The go-to market benefits and the position of power that PepsiCo holds as a dominant partner for retailers is severely weakened by separating the two businesses and bringing in unnecessary redundancy costs. A great example of the benefits from the combination of the two businesses is in Russia, as noted during the Q&A on the third-quarter call:

I have to say we're delighted with the performance of our business; competitively, very strong. We've continue to manage our pricing carefully to protect gross margins, and to continue to drive revenue growth. And that's across all of the diverse categories in which we operate. Now, clearly, there will be a few more challenging months still ahead in Russia, and this is where scale [and strength] of your operating businesses really, really counts. At more than 2x the scale of our nearest competitor, with this very diverse operating model across a diverse set of categories, and really just a tremendous Power of One model both in terms of the supply chain that we operate across that geography, the strength of our go-to-market systems, both in traditional trade and organized trade… We've continue to make investments in Russia, but we have emphasized in our investments in go-to-market systems and our selling capability. We've expanded significantly the number of routes in 2011. We put more than 250 new routes to support that very broad-based business. We've continued to invest very strongly in coolers and racks, because driving our single-serve business, driving our traditional-trade business and having a platform to leverage all of those categories across is critical to our long-term future.


Another example from the call is in the convenience store channel, where PepsiCo is the company behind 11 out of the 15 top products sold. John Compton, the CEO of the PAF division, had this to say: “It's nice to have 11 out of the 15 top new items in the C&G channel, but that led PepsiCo to be the largest dollar growth contributor to the channel. So we are very important to the C&G store business, and they're pleased with our growth year-to-date.” The point is clear: accounting for a significant portion of a retailer’s sales is a competitive advantage, one that PepsiCo has and will continue to use to their benefit.

The second problem I have is that splitting up the business does not create value for long-term shareholders; on the other hand, it would certainly generate fat fees for bankers. In the many articles I have read on the topic, here is what are listed as the two rationalizations for the split: First, the stock has lagged Coca-Cola (KO) and Dr. Pepper Snapple (DPS); second, that the sum-of-the-parts valuation comes in anywhere between $70-90 a share (depending on who you ask), which means that it should be done.

On the first point, I don’t know what to tell you; if you won’t buy a cheap stock because it underperformed a competitor or an index over some time period, you are likely not a value investor, and have no interest in names like PEP, WMT, MSFT and BRK.B. This difference in philosophy may keep you from buying a great company like PepsiCo until the price confirms your beliefs (where I’m from, that’s called “dumb money”).

On the second point, I only have to go back three short months. In July, PEP was trading above $70 a share, in line with the lower end of valuation estimates (Mr. Dibadj is at $72); since then, the stock has fallen 10%, a bit more than the mid-single digits on the DJIA and S&P 500. This is a frequent occurrence in equity markets, with prices jumping between levels of over and under optimism, often based on short-term issues (like commodity inflation, a weak economy, etc); splitting up businesses with clear advantages from being together as one for the sake of short-term profits is irrational.

When Bill Ackman brought the axe to Fortune Brands, it made sense; there were no clear advantages from selling golf balls, tequila and shower faucets under one roof. The same is not true at PepsiCo, where the benefits are seen in all aspects of the business. For investors in PEP common, be thankful that management has shot down analysts' call to destroy long-term shareholder value by splitting up the snack and beverage businesses for the sake of a short-term payout.

About the author:

The Science of Hitting
I'm a value investor, with a focus on patience; I look to buy great companies that are suffering from short term issues, and hope to load up when these opportunities present themselves. As this would suggest, I run a fairly concentrated portfolio by most standards, usually with 8-10 names; from the perspective of a businessman rather than a market participant / stock trader, I believe this is more than sufficient diversification.

I hope to own a collection of great businesses; to ever sell one, I would demand a substantial premium to the average market valuation due to what I believe are the understated benefits to the long term investor of superior fundamentals and time on intrinsic value. I don't have a target when I purchase a stock; my goal is to replicate the underlying returns of the business in question - which if I've done my job properly, should be very attractive over many years.

Rating: 4.0/5 (40 votes)

Comments

Rommel Acosta
Rommel Acosta - 2 years ago
Good one, thanks.
Charteroak_2000
Charteroak_2000 premium member - 2 years ago
They own like 1/3 of the soda/chips aisle in most stores - splitting it up will put them at a disadvantage when working with stores for shelf space... They should go forth faster internationally - start selling more potatoe chips, etc internationally alongside their soda - keep redeploying investment capital internationally and follow what KFC has done (they don't grow so much in north america, but are in China) !
The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 2 years ago
Significantly more than 1/3 of the chips aisle, but your point still stands; thanks for the comments Carteroak and Rommel.
andynichol
Andynichol - 2 years ago


The recent debate by analysts over the pros and cons of PEP stock just illustrates to me the fickle nature of both the same said analysts and the markets that follow their comments! I can't seem to find an analyst anywhere that doesn't think PEP is a good medium/long term stock and investment opportunity - so why don't investors follow this sentiment and load up on a PEP stock which at $61.89 must be one of the best bargains around! Can you enlighten me??
Charteroak_2000
Charteroak_2000 premium member - 2 years ago


It seems a bargain to me..., and I've bought some....I think they are distracted by "Healthy Snacks" which they should realize is "De-Worsifying " their business model in my opinion. Leave that for another company to pursue..Sure, try to make some improvements to make chips/snacks healthier (possible?), but once someone there realizes that they are on the wrong track and makes the correction there I think the company and the stock will do fine over the medium/long term. There have got to be hundreds of millions of people who have never had potatoe chips I'm sure...!!!
The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 2 years ago
Andy: you answer your own question - "good medium/long term investment opportunity" - my personal opinion is that most people are only concerned with one thing: this year's earnings. I recently read an interview with Donald Yacktman (11.2% of his portfolio is in PEP), where he basically said PepsiCo's valuation makes no sense to him at this point; by my calculation, the current valuation prices in something like 6% growth in FCF per annum over the next decade, for a company that generated 10.8% EPS growth per annum from 2000-2010, during a period of declining CSD volume and a particularly tough economic environment in the final years. In my opinion, this is an opportunity to by a good business with dominant market share and a sustainable competitive advantage at a discount to intrinsic value.

Charteroak: I partly agree with you, to the extent that I only want them branching off into categories where they have a realistic expectation for dominating the category as they've done in salty snacks. They are looking at a JV with German dairy company Theo Muller Group in an attempt to enter the U.S. Yogurt market; If it goes through, I'll be interested to see the details, because I'm skeptical about it at this point.

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK
Hide