Company Analysis: Dynamic Materials Corp


I’ve posted several times analyzing companies that I think are good investments.  You’ve seen the format, bear case, bull case, valuation, blah, blah, blah.  I realized along the way, that I may be giving you the impression that this investing thing is easy!  The reality is, for every company that I find that I would consider investing in, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of companies that I look at that I decide not to invest in.  So today, I’m going to highlight a company that I am not comfortable investing in and why.  This will probably be a regular feature at Bootstrap, so tell me what you think.  Then one of these days, I will finally post the attributes I look for in the “perfect investment”.

With no further delay, let’s look at our contender:

Company Overview:

Dynamic Materials Corp (BOOM) is a leader in the field of precision and explosive welding.  That’s right, they blow stuff up.  This company is a real man’s dream.  Explosive welding is a very specialized field in which dis-similar medals that cannot be joined by traditional means are welded together with the use of high explosives.  As you can imagine, this is a niche that is very hard to get into and has very high barriers to entry to licensing and permitting requirements.  Recently they acquired a German company which also performs explosive welding to broaden their geographic reach.

Common Sense Test:

Although the service they perform is fairly esoteric, it is fairly straight forward.  The business is understandable and the financials are straightforward and easy to understand – just the way I like them.

The Bear Case:

The majority of DMC’s revenue comes from the explosive metalworking component – about 90% of revenues.  The Oilfield Services and Precision Welding account for the remainder of the revenue.

The largest portion of the explosive metal working revenues is derived from oil processing and petrochemical processing.  In the current environment of falling oil prices and tough economic environment, demand for DMC’s services could be in decline due to temporary (or permanent) delays in capital expenditure by their customers.  This has weighed on the stock price and driven the price from a high in Dec 2007 of $60 to the current $29 per share.

Additionally, they have made a large acquisition that they may have problems integrating effectively.

The Bull Case:

DMC has some long term pluses in its favor:

  • They operate in a unique niche, with very high barriers to entry.
  • They have one of the coolest ticker symbols ever: BOOM – OK, that’s really not a good reason to invest in a company, but still, it is cool.
  • Over time, oil demand will keep rising, driving strong end user demand for DMC’s services.

Valuation:

On paper the DMC’s valuation is pretty good.  They generated over $2 per share in free cash flow in the last four quarters.  A conservative discounted cash flow analysis gives me a price per share of around $36.  That gives us a comfortable margin of safety of 20%.

However, as we look through the financials of DMC, we see the following on the balance sheet:


Goodwill & Purchased Intangibles represent the value of the businesses they purchased above the value of the physical assets.  In this case the values are assigned to things like “core technology” and “customer relationships”.  Goodwill and Intangibles are written off against operating income over time (amortized) similar to depreciation for capital expenses.  Unlike capital expenses, there is nothing physically real about the majority of Goodwill and Intangibles.  At the end of the day, this represents the amount of money that the company paid over and above all of the physical stuff like plants, equipment, velvet paintings hanging in the office, etc.  For DMC, the combined $110m in intangible assets almost equals the stockholder’s equity of $116m.  Meaning, most of what you own as a shareholder, is the “excess” capital they paid to purchase a business.

Generally, I don’t like to see a lot of intangible assets on the balance sheet.  When business get difficult, companies generally evaluate their goodwill for “impairment” meaning that the assets aren’t generating the return expected.  If there is impairment, the goodwill or intangible are written down and a hit on earnings is recorded.  This can devastate a company’s stock price when it happens.  Given the recent economic climate, I have seen this happen often to companies carrying a lot of intangibles.

Additionally, companies generally underestimate how hard it is to integrate a new acquisition.  It can take years to fully get departments to talk to each other and really leverage back office “synergies” that are supposed to drive savings.

Conclusion:

Despite the relative attractive valuation and long term prospects of the company, I would pass on adding DMC to your portfolio.  I think the recent acquisition makes for relatively high risk and the amount of Goodwill and Intangibles just scares me.  I think DMC is a good company in a great niche, but for the time being, I don’t expect it to make an attractive investment.

This one will stay on my watch list.  One scenario that may play out is that DMC is forced to write down the value of some of their intangibles in the future.  If that happens, the stock price may get temporarily depressed which would make this stock a better risk/reward proposition.

Let me know what you think of my analysis of DMC!


 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

  • 9/22/2008 6:39 AM Tony wrote:
    Goodwill is no longer amortized
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)
    ..."Goodwill is no longer amortized under U.S. GAAP (FAS 142).[2] Companies objected to the removal of the option to use Pooling-of-interests, so amortization was removed by Financial Accounting Standards Board as a concession. As of 2005-01-01, it is also forbidden under International Accounting Standards. Goodwill can now only be impaired."...

    I like the moat of this company, too.
    I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing it in.
    Reply to this
    1. 9/22/2008 5:38 PM Bootstrap wrote:
      Hi Tony,

      Thanks for the correction on Goodwill - you learn something new every day.  Drop me a line if/when you decide the DMC becomes a good buy.  I'd appreciate any updates.

      Best,
      Bootstrap

      Reply to this
  • 10/30/2008 11:28 PM Tony wrote:
    Not looking at the price movement since your last post, I’ve got questions on your valuation assessment.

    1.) You estimated $2 in free cash flow for the last 4 quarters. What the “maintenance” CAPEX figure did you use in your calculation?

    2.) What’s the growth rate and discount rate did you use in your $36/share discount cash flow analysis?

    3.) BOOM is a cyclical business. Last 4 years have been an up-cycle with progressively higher revenues.

    Revenue (mil)
    2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
    122.8 81.5 62 45.92 36.63

    Net income (mil)
    2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
    24.6 19.3 10.4 4.40 0.59

    In a down-cycle BOOM will NOT bring $2 in free cash flow, perhaps it will even slip into red as it did in 1999, 2000. So, it looks to me that some “normalized” figure should be used in DFCF valuation. I can’t estimate what cash flow will look like in the middle of the down-cycle. Do you have any thought on that?
    My guess BOOM will experience down-cycle from here. If it will happen, then looking at the down-cycle numbers and using numbers from past (now current) up-cycle it will be easier to estimate true free cash flow power of this business in both tough and favorable conditions.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/31/2008 5:04 PM Bootstrap wrote:
      Hi Tony,

      Thanks for the questions.  The original post was more about the goodwill/intangibles and if you would want to own a company who's biggest asset was another company they (potentially) overpaid for.  As a result, my valuation analysis was not as deep as it would normally be if I were putting capital on the line.  That said, here is my take on your questions:

      1) I took the cash flow - capex for the last four quarters directly from Yahoo Finance.  I did not try to make an assumptions about what was maintenance v. what was expansion capital (I would normally look at the last four 10q's and 10'k.).  Incidently, this probably makes the FCF more conservative since expansion capital could be delayed.

      2) I used a 15% growth rate and a 15% discount rate for 10 years.  Terminal growth of 3%

      3) Here you've hit the nail on the head.  Cyclical companies are really difficult to do DCF on because the earnings and cash flow ebb and flow.  In my opinion "normalized" earnings are not much good either; not only do the earnings change, but the P/E multiple investors will pay changes dramatically too.  For example, BOOM had a PE of 33 in 2003 when the EPS was $0.06 now it is 10.

      If I had to analyze this company, I probably wouldn't use a normalized earnings figure, but rather I'd try to figure out what the next "peak" cycle in earnings was likely to be and then put a reasonable multiple on that estimate.  Then you've just got to sit there and wait to hit the next peak.  This is really complicated by the fact that they have a large acquisition that will make this really hard because we have no historical information on the acquired company.

      This is just my opinion, but all that adds up to... too hard.  Its piling assumptions on top of assumptions.  If I tried to evaluate the investment merits, I'd just be guessing about the assumptions and in the end, that's more speculation than investment.

      Let me know what you think and thanks for the comments!
      Bootstrap

      Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.