2011 | 2012 | ||||||
Price: | 9.34 | EPS | $1.71 | $1.78 | |||
Shares Out. (in M): | 37 | P/E | 5.5x | 5.2x | |||
Market Cap (in $M): | 348 | P/FCF | 4.7x | 6.2x | |||
Net Debt (in $M): | 468 | EBIT | 139 | 146 | |||
TEV (in $M): | 817 | TEV/EBIT | 5.9x | 5.6x |
Sign up for free guest access to view investment idea with a 45 days delay.
We see excellent value in going long Metals USA (MUSA) equity, a relatively defensive stock that for several reasons has been ignored by the market, generates huge cash flow, and trades at a very attractive valuation. MUSA is the 12th largest steel distributor in the US and operates 45 service centers, mostly in the East Coast, the South and the Midwest.
Business Description
As a distributor, the company's business model is above all about inventory management: through its service centers, MUSA purchases steel and other metals on a wholesale basis from mills and foundries, which it stores in its service centers and then sells on short notice through low-volume transactions (the average transaction size is $3,100). MUSA's service centers provide added value to customers by processing the steel to suit the end-user's needs: the company operates machines that saw the metal, punch holes through it, carve specific shapes, etc. The more MUSA processes the raw steel, the higher price it can charge and the higher margins it will earn.
78% of MUSA's 2010 service center sales were derived from carbon steel products, while stainless steel and non-ferrous metals such as aluminum, brass or copper account for 22% of sales. The company reports three segments:
The Flat-Rolled segment is exposed to more early-cycle markets than Plates and Shapes, so demand has recovered quicker after the recession, driving higher growth in volumes and margins. Flat-Rolled accounted for 46% of EBIT in 1H11.
% of total |
|||||
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
1H11 |
|
Sales |
|||||
plates and shapes |
48% |
54% |
47% |
41% |
42% |
f-rolled and non-f |
44% |
41% |
44% |
52% |
54% |
building products |
8% |
6% |
8% |
6% |
4% |
EBIT |
|||||
plates and shapes |
65% |
71% |
N/A |
46% |
54% |
f-rolled and non-f |
35% |
33% |
N/A |
55% |
46% |
building products |
0% |
-4% |
N/A |
-1% |
-1% |
Segment margin |
|||||
plates and shapes |
10.4% |
14.7% |
-2.8% |
7.1% |
11.9% |
f-rolled and non-f |
6.1% |
8.9% |
3.4% |
6.7% |
7.9% |
building products |
-0.2% |
-7.2% |
-4.2% |
-0.7% |
-1.4% |
Plates and Shapes generally carries higher margins than Flat-Rolled due to a higher degree of processing and customization of the metal to customer specifications. In maximizing margins, it is obviously crucial to have a good grip on end-market demand and price in order to size inventories appropriately and avoid getting caught with high-cost inventory right before a downturn in metal prices. Margins are also directly correlated to overall steel prices, which explain the record margins achieved in 2008.
MUSA was a private company fully owned by Apollo Management funds from 2005-2010. After last year's IPO, Apollo still controls 64% of shares outstanding.
Valuation
Over the past twelve months, MUSA has traded about in line with steel mills like NUE and STLD, and underperformed service center peers like RS, WOR or RUS CN. Based on consensus numbers, MUSA screens as the cheapest US service center.
As of Sep 26th |
MUSA |
RS |
WOR |
ZEUS |
Market cap ($mm) |
$348 |
$2,652 |
$1,011 |
$188 |
EV ($mm) |
$817 |
$3,717 |
$1,393 |
$433 |
Net debt/EV |
57% |
29% |
27% |
57% |
11E P/E |
5.5x |
7.6x |
7.6x |
7.0x |
11E EV/EBITDA |
5.0x |
5.1x |
5.9x |
6.6x |
11E FCF yield to equity |
21% |
11% |
16% |
0% |
11E EBITDA margin |
8.6% |
9.3% |
8.5% |
5.4% |
What stands out is MUSA's ability to generate tremendous cash (which we define as Net Income - Capex + D&A), as the company spends no more than $9mm in maintenance capex, and charges nearly $25mm in D&A. This is a distribution business and obviously requires additional working capital for the business to grow, but if we were to assume zero growth from 2011, the company would essentially receive its current market capitalization in cash in 4.5 years.
Because 2012 earnings estimates haven't yet adjusted for the recent macro concerns, it's important to estimate what a more conservative level of earnings might be for MUSA. MUSA's top line and margins are largely driven by steel prices, and of course by volumes too. In essence, higher steel prices generally allow MUSA to charge a higher mark-up for processing and re-selling the metal.
Steel prices have been elevated in the past few quarters due to cost support from booming input prices (namely iron ore, scrap and met coal). If cost pressure were to ease, steel prices would likely follow. While market consensus is that iron ore prices should remain elevated for the next 4-5 years until new supply comes on-stream, any macro slowdown in China would likely force input and steel prices down.
We base our "normal" scenario on $650/ton hot rolled coil prices, which out of prudence is below the latest $698/ton. We also assume volumes 5% higher than 2011, which should be achieved through full-year inclusion of the Trident acquisition, the new warehousing facility for Lakeside Steel, and minimal (1-2%) GDP growth. Sell-side estimates currently assume closer to 7% volumes growth. On these assumptions, we arrive to $170mm EBITDA, which is below 2012 consensus of $181mm. With the stock at $9, this implies less than 5x EV/EBITDA, and most importantly, a 16% FCF yield to equity (after accounting for increase in net working capital).
We recognize the huge macro uncertainty, and have modeled two scenarios, one that assumes steel prices 14% below current spot, and a more severe "recession" scenario. Our "lower HRC" scenario results in $140mm EBITDA (implying current valuation of 5.8x and 22% FCF yield).
Our "recession" scenario couples the decline in HRC price with a 10% decline in volumes. Given that volumes typically track GDP growth, this type of a decline would indicate not just a deep recession, but also a reduction in end-market inventory levels that would only be temporary. 2009 shipments fell 28% from 2008, but then bounced 28% in 2010 (around 25% organically). Under this scenario, EBITDA of $77mm would compress EPS to $0.26, but cash generation through working capital release would be huge, covering more than 1/3rd of current market cap.
Normal |
Lower HRC |
Recession |
2006A |
2008A |
2010A |
2011E |
||
HRC price |
650 |
600 |
600 |
580 |
843 |
622 |
760 |
|
Volumes vs 2011 |
5% |
0% |
-10% |
|||||
EBITDA/ton |
114 |
98 |
60 |
104 |
170 |
80 |
111 |
|
Sales |
1,986 |
1,831 |
1,657 |
1,803 |
2,156 |
1,292 |
1,886 |
|
EBITDA |
170 |
140 |
77 |
140 |
242 |
85 |
163 |
|
EBITDA margin |
8.5% |
7.6% |
4.7% |
7.8% |
11.2% |
6.6% |
8.6% |
|
D&A |
24 |
24 |
24 |
|||||
EBIT |
146 |
116 |
53 |
|||||
Interest expense |
37 |
37 |
37 |
|||||
Pre-tax income |
109 |
79 |
16 |
|||||
Tax expense |
42 |
31 |
6 |
|||||
Tax rate |
39% |
39% |
39% |
|||||
Net income |
66 |
48 |
10 |
|||||
EPS |
$1.78 |
$1.29 |
$0.26 |
|||||
Shares out. |
37.3 |
37.3 |
37.3 |
|||||
Working cap change |
25 |
-14 |
-114 |
|||||
Capex |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|||||
D&A |
24 |
24 |
24 |
|||||
FCF to equity |
56 |
77 |
139 |
|||||
P/E |
5.2x |
7.2x |
35.3x |
|||||
EV/EBITDA |
4.8x |
5.8x |
10.6x |
|||||
FCF yield to equity |
16% |
22% |
40% |
So what is fair value for MUSA? Given the company's limited trading history, we turn to its closest peer RS for reference. RS has typically traded at 5-8x forward EBITDA, so we believe a 6-7x multiple for MUSA is reasonable. At 6.5x our "normal" EBITDA of $170mm, MUSA's EV of $1.1bn would imply a $17 stock, or 82% upside. We believe our "lower HRC" scenario is more than priced in, as a 6x multiple on $140mm EBITDA would imply a $10 stock.
Thesis
Above all, the market is overlooking MUSA's cash-generating capacity. On consensus numbers, MUSA is trading at a 21% FCF to equity yield on 2011 estimates, and 25% on 2012 numbers. We define FCF as (Net Income + D&A - Capex). In essence, if MUSA's business grew at a zero rate, you'd get your investment paid back in little over 4 years (in cash, not earnings). We would consider such a low FCF multiple justified if MUSA's earnings were expected to rapidly decline, or if the company allocated capital unwisely, but this is far from the case.
Risks
show sort by |
Are you sure you want to close this position METALS USA HOLDINGS CORP?
By closing position, I’m notifying VIC Members that at today’s market price, I no longer am recommending this position.
Are you sure you want to Flag this idea METALS USA HOLDINGS CORP for removal?
Flagging an idea indicates that the idea does not meet the standards of the club and you believe it should be removed from the site. Once a threshold has been reached the idea will be removed.
You currently do not have message posting privilages, there are 1 way you can get the privilage.
Apply for or reactivate your full membership
You can apply for full membership by submitting an investment idea of your own. Or if you are in reactivation status, you need to reactivate your full membership.
What is wrong with message, "".