purchase of a competitor.
OPST Income Statement
(Dollars in Thousands)
2015 (6 Mos) 2014 2013 2012
Net Sales 3,579 7,074 6,220 6,887
Cost of Sales 2,101 4,611 3,953 4,663
Gross Profit 1,478 2,463 2,266 2,024
Operating Exp. 596 1,219 1,100 1,031
Operating Income 883 1,244 1,167 923
Other Income 202 497 318 493
Pre-Tax Income 1,084 1,741 1,485 1,486
Taxes 423 627 541 541
Net Income 662 1,114 943 944
EPS 0.85 1.44 1.22 1.22
Gross Margin 41.3% 34.8% 36.4% 30.3%
Operating EPS 0.69 0.98 0.92 0.78
Cash/Share* 15.60 14.51 13.40 15.08
Share Price 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00
Net Share Price 3.40 4.49 5.60 3.92
Net Price/
Operating EPS** 2.45 2.30 3.05 2.51
* Cash balance in fiscal 2013 is lower due to a $.65 dividend and a $0.5 milliom increase in accounts receivable.
** Annualized for 2015.
As can be seen from the historical results, the Company has been consistently profitable, with
improving margins, consistent sales and a stable cash position. (In fiscal 2013 the Company paid
a $.65/share dividend and had a $0.5 million increase in accounts receivable.) The attractive
economics of the coating business are obscured by the large cash balance. We calculated a price
to earnings ratio excluding the cash and excluding the earnings on the cash. On this basis the
shares trade for 2.5 times operating earnings!
With the business unambiguously cheap, the issue becomes the cash balance. First, as of fiscal
year end 2014, the portfolio was conservatively invested with 29% in cash, 42% in fixed income
securities, 29% in preferred stock, and 5% in common stock. And the management has no
delusions that they are great stock pickers and want to aggressively invest their cash. Their
objective is to conserve capital. The second obvious question is, “What is the purpose of the
cash?” We have argued with management that the cash is in excess of the needs of the business
and should be used to pay dividends or buy-back shares. Management did pay a dividend in
fiscal 2013, but we should not expect this to be the primary use of their cash. The Board has
adamantly and confidently argued that they need the cash to protect the business from potential
cyclicality and to take advantage of business opportunities to expand their facilities or possibly
fund the purchase of a competitor. Although we don’t completely agree, after ten years with
management we respect their opinion and are confident that the cash will not be used frivolously.
In fact, the Company is currently expanding its facilities to accommodate larger glass. The
Company is spending $1 million to $1.5 million to purchase new machinery. As they put it, their
objective is to expand their market coverage while retaining their legacy business. They always
want to have product ready when the customer needs it or at some point you will be “designed-
out” of the next aircraft.
Management and Board
On first analysis the management structure may be cause for concern, but after ten years of
observing how they run the Company, we are much more comfortable. The Arthur John Kania
Trust owns 66% of the outstanding shares and thus controls the Company. The Board has only
three members: Arthur J. Kania (83) who established the trust for the benefit of his children;
Arthur J. Kania, Jr, (59) who has no operating role in the Company: and Anderson McCabe (59),
who is the CEO and runs the Company. The concern is that the two Kania’s are father and son
and McCabe is the older Kania’s son-in-law. This raises the obvious red flags, but we have found
no evidence that the Company has been run simply to enrich management and the Board. For
example, the CEO, McCabe, receives a total annual compensation of $194,000. The two Kania’s
receive $15,000 each of annual director fees. There are no options or share awards. The only way
management and the Board prosper is if all shareholders do well. The only concern we have is