About Me

My photo
This is written with serious investors in mind, though sometimes they're just drafts in progress. I'm a former reporter, private investigator and institutional equity analyst who digs deep to find niche undervalued and undiscovered securities. I manage money for individuals, institutions and family offices via my business Long Cast Advisers. This blog is part decision-diary, part investment observations and part general musings about Philadelphia sports. It should not be viewed as a solicitation for business or a recommendation to buy or sell securities.

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Thoughts on PESI from LCA Y/E Letter

Perma Fix (PESI) is one of the newer holdings in the Long Cast Advisers portfolio. I wrote about it in our year-end letter (link) and wanted to just focus on it here for interested followers. 

PESI operates in the nuclear waste remediation business through two segments.

The Treatment segment (62% of TTM revenue) is an asset heavy operator of low level and mixed low level radioactive waste facilities in Tennessee and Washington and a liquid waste facility in Florida. (Can go here and search by site ID for RCRA information or the links below for the company’s self reported information.)

Tennessee. Diversified Scientific Services (DSSI). Site ID: TND982109142
Washington. Perma Fix Northwest (PFNW). Site ID: WAR000010355
Florida. Perma Fix of Florida (PFF). Site ID: FLD980711071

Treatment is a capacity utilization business where volume growth offers operating leverage and non-linear margin expansion once fixed costs are scaled. 

Historical financials understate the true earnings power of this segment for two reasons: 1) TTM results are negatively impacted by closure costs for a facility ("M&EC") that is now closed. Excluding those costs, which are one time in nature, proforma margins are in the ~30% range. 2) PESI has never operated a strong Services component but now that one is growing, it can feed additional volume to treatment facilities, where incremental margins are +70%. In short, I think the earnings trajectory in Treatment may shift positively.




Concurrent with the closure of M&EC the company exchanged pf'd shares for common at $4.80, which served to simplify the capital structure. Furthermore, with the closure, the company received $5M from its insurer that had been held in collateral associated with insuring the facility, a benefit to the balance sheet and w/c. 

The Services segment (38% of TTM revenue) is a variable cost model. It’s essentially boots on the ground in Tyvek suits with picks and shovels plus engineering expertise, et al. This segment is benefiting from a turn-around under relatively new CEO Mark Duff, appointed in 2017, having replaced the founder who had run the company for decades. The growth in services has the multiplier effect of increasing waste volume to Treatment.




An interesting part of the Services turnaround in my mind is that the Mr Duff actually once ran and grew this exact business. A look at old filings and self reported biographies indicates that in the mid-2000’s until 2010 he was President of a company called “Safety and Ecology” where he grew revenues from $50M to $80M. He was running it when it was sold in 2008 to what appears a fairly schlocky public rollup called Homeland Security. He was gone however by 2011 when SEC was sold to PESI, which failed to sustain its growth (ie drove it into the ground).

After SEC, Duff was a project manager at the Paducah Gas Diffusion site, first for LATA-Kentucky and then for the Shaw Group / CBI JV that took over the site when that contract changed hands. Now he’s back at the original SEC and two years into a turnaround that is taking shape.

I'm writing a fairly abbreviated summary here. A lot of information is disclosed in the financials. One of the aspects that worried me during my d/d related to the growth in fixed price work on the Services side. Any company that goes into a new business under f/p terms is asking for trouble. However, as I understand it, this is not hard dollar / low bid / fixed price rather it's fixed unit price so there is limited risk of taking a loss on a services contract. 

And IMHO the pros > cons. The company has a lot of attributes I find attractive and various tailwinds to support growth. It is easy to understand and has a long operating history accessible for analysis. Its primary customers (DOE, DOD cleanup sites, et al) are spending money and re-letting contracts after a long lull, including potentially large contracts on which PESI is rumored to be a named sub-contractor.

Finally, large legacy contractors like Fluor and AECOM are selling / have sold their managed services businesses to private equity, who in turn I think are mostly attracted to the outsourced IT programs. This could create potential disruptions for themselves and opportunities for smaller companies like PESI, especially given its newly installed but experienced management team.

At current prices - after Friday's sell off - the company is valued at ~$90M EV. It trades at 1.5x TTM revenues, 6x TTM gross profit and 18x pro-forma EBITDA (after adding back one-time closure costs). This looks expensive, especially given AECOM sold their managed services division for 12x EBITDA. Some of the multiple is driven by rumours of the large contract I mentioned above. 

If we apply 12x EBITDA to just the Services segment, this implies the Treatment business trades for 1.5x sales and that’s hard to fathom. PESI’s Treatment business is one of three named contractors on DOE contracts to handle low level waste. The others are Energy Source and Waste Control. Those two tried to merge in 2015 a deal valued at 8x sales that deal was blocked on anti-trust grounds. I’m pretty sure 8x is not the right sales multiple for PESI’s treatment but in an environment like we have today, with increased volumes concurrent with high barriers to entry, it is likely worth more than the multiple inferred by comparative valuations on the Services business.

Regarding the sell off, I think the contract everyone is waiting for was supposed to be awarded by the end of January. It wasn't. Why not? There's a protest on a separate contract at the Hanford site, which is pushing out the schedule for other contracts. Overall, if they win the contract, it’s revolutionary but even if they don’t, the increased spending in general will lift all boats in the space. (But it would be better if they won). 

Historical figures are only good as a baseline and investors will make money on future results. What can this company look like in an environment where a large customer is spending again, there's some competitor dislocation and a relatively new management team that for the first time has Services experience? 

I think for the long term shareholder, it offers a wide success pathway and ample opportunity for returns even though current multiples don’t screen for value. But you should do your own homework. I'd be happy to hear what you find and I am always open to critique. 

-- END -- 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

It all started with a song (LCA 3Q19 letter)

Five years ago Halloween I decided to start my business, and it all started with a song.

I was a month into a job at a hedge fund, a job I'd wanted for a very (very) long time but quickly realized wasn't going anywhere. And up on Spotify popped “When I Paint My Masterpiece” …

“Someday everything is gonna sound like a rhapsody,
When I paint my masterpiece

Someday, everything's gonna be different,
When I paint my masterpiece”

… and when I noticed that I was getting choked up, I realized I had already taken my first steps towards entrepreneurship. I was pretty terrified.

Two years earlier, I’d left behind a career as a sell side analyst, seeking a buyside role. While looking, I continued to invest on my own and gave voice to things I'd long thought about; consulting, public service, volunteering, parenting, etc. (Parenting is by far the hardest and the pay sucks but it's oddly rewarding for the rare moments your "bosses" offer gratitude).

Over that time, I'd met a handful of folks who’d started their own funds, some starting with $2M and growing it to +$25M (and beyond), others who had started with $2M and grew it to $1M (or less), everyone unanimously telling me it was the greatest experience they’d ever had. And everyone encouraged me to do it.

But I thought I needed experience first - took me a while to realize that was fear talking - so I got a job as an analyst, a job that lasted a month and a song.

That night I had dinner with a friend who'd started a few years earlier his own (incredible) architecture firm. He was like, “oh, yeah. It’s fucking terrifying. But go get your LLC and see where it goes.”

And that's what I did.

I had three primary tenets when I opened my business:

1. I want to solve a problem for my clients, not for myself. I wasn't doing this for validation, or to justify my existence. I needed to get a return on capital while offering something different and hopefully better than other available solutions.

2. I want to be available and accessible to traditional hedge fund investors as well as to people who don't normally have access to deeply researched, unique and unusual portfolios.

3. I decided back then (and I still say now), that if I saw signs of failure I’d stop and do something else. Failure doesn't just mean bad returns, which is inevitable from time to time, but failure to deal with stress, with OPM, with down periods and up periods, with the administrative rigmarole, with the professional aspect that you get up and do it even on the days you don't want to. Etc.

And now I'm four years in and I remain committed to those three tenets. There's still much to learn and my awareness is growing. I'm developing a deeper list of ideas, an important tool of portfolio managers, and continuing to keep my mistakes manageable. I've written about other thoughts in LCA's 3Q19 letter.

At the start, a lot of folks told me I'd fail. That's fine; failure is the baseline. Entrepreneurship is hard. I respect anyone of any stripe who starts their own business, including the oddly large cohort of folks around where I live with CBD infused pet food businesses.

Here's a sampling of things other entrepreneurs have said to me over the years ...

A friend who started a brewery: “my head is exploding every day.”
An old camp friend who is a serial entrepreneur and is one of the most upbeat humans I've ever met: “I look optimistic b/c I have to, but it’s so fucking hard”
A fellow fund manager whose daily mantra is "this shit is hard.”

... starting out takes a lot of support and persistence, some experience and undoubtedly some luck. If you're thinking about it, don't let fear hold you back.

-- END --

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Sunday, August 18, 2019

this shitty week in small caps, 2Q19 ($CTEK)

This might be a particularly urban experience, but do you ever order in from a restaurant where you've never actually eaten, then you drive by it and see a hole in the wall with dirty floors and it looks gross? I wonder how it changes the perspective of the food. If it's good, maybe you stick with it? Maybe it tastes worse next time? Or maybe nothing changes b/c it's good for what it does.

There's something about that perspective shift that resonates to me as an investing experience, especially after a tough week like this for so many small caps for myself and many of my peers also focused on this wee end of the market cap.

Cynergistek (CTEK) is a large holding of ours that debuted its new CEO, Caleb Barlow, on its recent 2Q19 earnings call.

When Mr Barlow's hiring was announced in July, the stock was at $4.80. Already declining going into the quarter on "rumors that a closing fund was liquidating" the stock fell out of bed during the earnings call when the retiring CEO Mac McMillan indicated that due to tough comps and delayed client contracts, sales in the back half would be down y/y.

The press release, filed the prior day, said nothing of this guidance as management chose instead to surprise investors ("surprise!") on the mid-day conf call. Now as of this writing it's at ~$3.05 trading for not much more than Book Value Less Goodwill & Intangibles.



Investors furthermore have no idea what last year's comps even look like. Earlier this year, in March, the company sold its large "Managed Print Services" division, a ~$60M sales per year business, leaving behind a smaller pure play IT svcs / cyber security consulting company with only $20M in sales. However, the company has still not filed pro-forma segment financials for this standalone pure play IT svcs company.

They've really thrown this new CEO into the fire! It's an unenviable environment I think brought on by amateur-hour preparation for the quarter and amateur hour thinking about capital markets messaging.

Or is this actually a gross restaurant? It's time to double down on research, (but it's also natural to rationalize).

CTEK has two lines of business ...

"Managed services" is a "relationship based" multi year services / consulting business to audit, manage and implement network or internet security procedures, mostly at healthcare institutions. This business has been slowly growing and is expected to continue to grow, sequentially and y/y. It is close to a recurring revenue and I think the company's primary focus.

According to the most recent 10Q this segment has $25M in backlog, up from $24M last year.


The second is "professional svcs" more simply a staffing company for IT security people, which is in a tight labor market. This is a lumpier business.

... the culprit for the quarter was the staffing business, which had a robust 2H18 that will not repeat in 2H19. Are customers taking their remediation work elsewhere? Has something changed with access to labor? Is it really just hard comps and management did a poor job messaging it? The contract business is growing.

I'm looking for answers - there's definitely a ton of competition in the space - but I believe a culprit is poor messaging during an interstitial handoff to the next CEO.

This is a sub $50M mkt cap company trading at 1.5x sales. It's on track to do ~$20M in sales this year. At ~40% gross profit margins equals $8M in annual opinc. The overhead is too large, with cash OpEx (S&M plus G&A) running at about $12M per. So they're losing close to $1M per quarter and have $10M in cash, no debt.

If they can grow and scale the cash OpEx, we win. They do this by delighting customers and offering hard to find employees interesting projects to work on.

If not, and they don't royally mess up, I think this could sell for $8 in a private transaction, assuming 15x multiple on $4M per year in EBITDA (after stripping out pubco costs and much of the G&A). But that assumes they're growing. I hear the new CEO is a "good guy" who knows how to solve problems.

But if they're really messing up, this cheap investment can always get cheaper still. And the thing is, the company has a long pattern of messing things up.

Going back five years, the company was named Auxilio and it was a standalone managed print services business to hospitals. Auxilio tried to expand into IT svcs with acquisitions in '14 and '15, spending about $5M in total. On both acquisitions, there was little realized growth and goodwill was written down within a year.

An activist Chairman got involved in 2016 to help it further and in January '17 it acquired Cynergistek, Mac McMillan's IT services / cyber security consulting firm, for ~$28M (1.2M shares of stock, a $9M seller's note and $15M cash funded by debt). A valuation of ~7x forward EBITDA of $5M, which never materialized.

The combined company changed its name to Cynergistek. The Auxilio CEO, who was expected to stay on, bolted to build a PE financed roll up in the managed print services space.

Mr McMillan, Cynergistek's founder who'd just sold his company and had eyes on retiring took over to run the company. In that process, he recognized that the two lines of business - MPS and IT security - brought together by the activist Chairman and touted as a winning pair, were actually way too much for this small levered company to manage.

In 2019, with urging at least from this shareholder, the company sold the MPS business back to its former CEO for $28M, enough to pay off the debt associated with the initial Cynergistek purchase.

... so in a way, Mr McMillan had his own private IPO sponsored by legacy Auxilio shareholders. Meanwhile, those legacy shareholders (if any have stuck around) own at roughly the same EV a smaller unprofitable IT services company instead of a larger low margin MPS business.

That history, I realize, offers ample reason to stay away. We all should want to avoid brain damage. But I also think knowing why people stay away is sometimes part of the reason to own it at the right price.

To be clear, some of that reason is that as a standalone they're not (even close) to as profitable as expected. This is doing 40% GP margins and still losing money on excess overhead. But at Book Value excluding Goodwill and Intangibles, for a company in a high demand space with low fixed costs, it could be a great price b/c IF they're getting the business right and satisfying customers, it can generate significant FCF.

It's still too soon to tell but I think the odds are favorable. In talking with folks who work in healthcare IT, I hear that demand is very high for the services they offer, though competition is also very tight.

As a small company investor, I buy when the ingredients are still in the kitchen and I think the chefs have know how, knowledge and time to bake the cake and still throw a good party somewhere down the line. That approach has to be based on due diligence to offer solid evidence of management capabilities. I've done some of this, it's always on going, and have heard independent positives about Mr Barlow. Not an empty suit at IBM. Understands the industry.

I've also worked in enough kitchens and prepped for enough parties to know that there are often points when you think "this is never coming together." And while the stock makes it look that way, certainly it makes it look like I've made an investment mistake, I think the mistake here is around transparency and disclosure, and I hope it's only made once. A lot of this could have been avoided if the company had just published the pro forma #'s calling out y/y comps offering more visibility rather than a surprise.

Beyond that, there were no surprises - little new information on the call - the core business remains too small relative to the overhead. They want to grow into big shoes. They have $10M in cash and so about two years to turn profitable. McMillan supposedly isn't selling his stock. If the operations are right and the new guy can grow, this is a steal.

Or this could be a terrible investment. The new CEO has zero pubco experience and running a tiny division at a large corporate is very different than running a tiny business. The activist Chairman is a poor look for a company that needs capital market and industry savvy. (This is the same person btw who once tried to open a business in California with someone who was barred from doing business in California, how's that for judgement). I can go on with the things that worry me about CTEK.

I'm reminded here momentarily - and apologize for closing on this tangent - of the time I thought it wise to write down all the things that worried me about my kids, just to get it out of my head. When I got to seven single space pages, I decided maybe it wasn't the best use of my time. The fact is, in life and in investing, there are always more ways by volume to go wrong than to go right.

-- END --

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Friday, August 2, 2019

"Mike Wallace is Here" + LCA 2Q19 Letter

I recently saw the documentary "Mike Wallace is Here" which was a rather impressive overview of his career and his impact on journalism. He started outside the field of journalism, as an actor and pitchman, but he found his calling in hard hitting 1:1 interviews, starting at Night Beat, and he developed his style at a time when most such interviews were fluff pieces.

Certain interviews were iconic, such as this one with General Westmoreland. Some were absurd enough to spawn spoofs like this one about fake novelty joke items on SNL

But two things mentioned in the course of documentary struck me as relevant today.

1. The idea that healthy independent journalism is a reflection of a healthy democracy.
2. The reflection of the interviewer as a surrogate for the viewer.

On this latter point, an un-aired clip from his mid-1980's conversation with Oprah Winfrey was particularly interesting. Despite their differences in styles and presentations, and there's a tangible iciness between them (typical, I think of Mike Wallace interview; Morley Safer interviewed him later in life and asked him "why are you such a prick?") both Wallace and Winfrey said they both felt like surrogates for their viewers.

I think this stuck out partially b/c it reinforces the reality that there are many (many) pathways to success - Winfrey and Wallace followed very different paths - but each one "got there" on the basis of their own identity, voice and style.

But it also reinforced part of what I see as my motivation for writing here: If it interests me, it might interest someone, and I want to promote that community of curious investors. It's partly also why I write letters to management (if I have questions, issues or concerns, so likely does someone else) though on those occasion I am much more tangibly a surrogate for my clients, to whom I act as a steward of their capital.

On that note of capital stewardship, I recently posted my 2Q19 letter on my firm's website, which includes a few comments on long time holdings QRHC, CTEK, DAIO, SIFY and INS.

I always welcome the (non-spam) feedback from this growing community.

-- END --

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

A Brief Response to $INS Short Report

When I was a kid, one of the dad-things my dad used to say was "consider the source." If I came to him upset b/c so-and-so said something nasty, he'd say "well consider, the source." It meant ... should I take them seriously? Are they a legitimate conveyor of information? Should I really care what they think?

I continue to spend a lot of time "considering the source" though we live in a day and age when it's meaning has been turned inside out. On the rare occasion that I'm on a long drive by myself, I listen to Investors Field Guide and recall one recent and recommended episode ... "I met our guest Michael Mayer because of twitter. I followed and enjoyed one of several pseudonymous accounts that he maintains to experiment with ideas. His various accounts have wide followings" ... which I've been struggling to reconcile with the lesson to "consider the source". How do you value a source if you don't know who it is?

There've always been authority shaping mechanisms of one kind or another (the emperor, the church, the university, the paper of record, a bigger gun, etc.), which would exclude scrappy folks like Mayer and me for no other reason than our lack of access or pedigree.

Now however, an anonymous twitter account with interesting content and a lot of followers can carry the same weight as the emperor or church or university or paper of record. It's cool b/c without gatekeepers anyone can put up a blog (yay me!) and in an ideal world it expands meritocracy. But our world is far from ideal. Do I really need vaccines? I'll go online and see what it says.

Just from an observation of human nature, which tends to not change and oft strays from ideal, I have this gnawing fear that once we've exhausted questioning the legitimacy of everything we'll revert to the authority shaping mechanism of the bigger bone, sword or gun until we re-recognize that having some kind of organized system that kind of works is less exhausting than fighting all the time.

If it's not obvious by now, I'm the pessimist in my family, which bugs the shit out of my wife but is helpful with investing. This work requires holding two opposing ideas in our heads at the same time - success AND failure - in order to weigh, consider, inspect and decide, from all different angles.

And there isn't a single investment I've made where I didn't think early on or even at times throughout that whatever it is, it could be a total fraud. Part of my checklist is to conduct due diligence seeking signs of fraud - balance sheet imbalances, board composition, etc. - but just b/c you don't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there. Schiller's "Financial Shenanigans" delves deep into these issues and is a must read for anyone putting money into any individual stock.

Which brings me to a recent short report on INS posted by ... I don't know who ... some man or woman operating under  a corporate name who seems to have posted a bunch of short pieces on various public companies.

The report had legitimate concerns for sure, but no news.  The red flags it raised are front and center to anyone who reads a proxy and 10k on day one of their due diligence and does a bit of digging on day two. INS has a large client that is the target of legitimate short sellers. Parker Petit is on its board. It uses a regional accounting firm with limited pubco experience.

Everyone has their own comfort threshold and for some investors, these issues might equal a "hard pass". We all have to find and trust our own filters. But causation and correlation are two different things and those issues don't make the company a fraud just as the road that goes from my door to John Gotti's doesn't make me a member of the mafia.

No doubt, the issues raised in that report should be on anyone's list of considerations when evaluating the stock. On balance I felt - and still feel - that this a wonderful business and a wonderful investment opportunity. Others may disagree.

But a legitimate short thesis identifies frauds, broken business models and industries in terminal decline and this report fell way short of that, likely b/c INS doesn't fall into any these categories. Ultimately, the report resolved to a valuation short, plain and simple and as Manny Gerard once cautioned me, valuation shorts are really just a form of technical analysis.

As the report concludes ...

"If INS were to revert to a valuation of around 2-5x trailing sales, a multiple typical of Indian outsourcing businesses such as Syntel and Wipro as well as larger processing companies such as First Data, the stock would be worth roughly $5 to $12 per share (70%+ downside)."

... which is just silly. Those companies aren't growing organically +30% / year. Those companies haven't self funded their own development with internally generated cash flow for 15 years. Those companies aren't as parsimonious with expenses as INS is (few are). Those companies have probably issued more shares in the last year than INS (which doesn't dilute shareholders) has in its float.

However, buried in the "pants on fire" effort to raise red flags, there is a legitimate and critically important comment that's essential for perspective ...

"... if Apple gathered a full 27 million accounts over the first 3 years, equal to the entire number of American Express basic consumer cards-in-force in the U.S. ... "

... boom. The rest of the comment made little sense to me, but just that data point alone is a 100% appropriate response to the momentum traders who've pumped this stock up its triple waterfall.

CEO Dr. Strange has long explained that licenses are paid at certain thresholds on the number of active accounts. How likely is it that INS' big new customer (rumored to be Goldman Sachs / Apple) will have more active accounts in year one, or year two, or year three, etc. than American fucking Express? Put me down for "zero probability".

It's too bad the author didn't focus on that point, b/c it's a legit and important perspective to keep in mind. That doesn't make this a $12 stock however. There's evidence to suggest that behind the current large customer are more large customers, and if you consider the pathway and the TAM and comparable valuations of say PAYS it's not hard to get excited.

As I've written, I think there's a wide pathway for this company to do $100M in annual revenues at some point over the next five years not b/c their rumored customer is going to issue X0M credit cards but b/c they have a good system and good experienced people and a good platform to challenge the 40% EBITDA margin oligarchy that hasn't substantially invested in this area of their business over the last X years. (In my experience, PE owned companies like FDC don't make long term investments).

Take this FWIW. I know this blog ain't Forbes or Fortune. I don't have a CFA or an MBA from a prestigious university. This blog doesn't have a douchy Greek name. I don't rub shoulders with the twitterati and I still cry at the end of Cars.

I realize my 10-years experience as a sell side analyst means little to most people and that anyone can open an investment mgmt business. I never got past the gatekeepers at a variety of hedge funds and in this world each of us is our own gatekeeper. The only authority shaping that goes on here is what's occasionally punched out at a keyboard, which I hope includes a little original research and an interesting idea or two.

The goal here has always simply been to be an open book of lucid thoughts on the world of small company investing, following in the footsteps of others' who've done the same.

I've been spending less time here b/c investing resolves to IP and I owe it to my growing base of paying clients to save it for them. But it frustrates me when someone smacks down a good idea for no good reasons just as much as it frustrates me that others light up good ideas with poor reasoning. I can only advise others to work hard, read deep, figure out your own filters and stay skeptical.

I'll close with a brief anecdote: My wife is the optimist in our family. Years ago when we were still dating she came home from deposing a genteel older man noteworthy for two things: He made her a perfect homemade cappuccino and he told her "every relationship needs someone chipper". It's her most of the time, though I step it up when she's feeling down. Still, as a couple of NL East fans who hate the Braves, telling that story is the only time in our house we say "chipper" without screwing up our faces.

-- END --

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

LCA's 1Q19 review ($INS, $CTEK, $QRHC)

I posted LCA's 1Q19 results on my website here. It includes brief discussions of three portfolio holdings: INS, CTEK and QRHC. As I wrote in the email that went out ... 

"Cumulative returns on accounts managed by Long Cast Advisers increased 20% in 1Q19, net of applicable fees. This was better than the baseline market indices. Returns for separate accounts managed by LCA ranged from 17% to 26% for the quarter. 

Since inception three years ago, LCA has returned a cumulative 96% net of fees, or 22% CAGR, ahead of the baseline market indices. Because our portfolio is comprised of just a handful of typically very small businesses, it is expected that returns will vary considerably from the baseline.

High returns certainly brings a lightness to the step but a strong quarter like this is really a cautionary tale on small sample sizes, the marginal impact of outlying events and the ability for anyone to look smart doing something right just once in every while. To me, it just illustrates why investors need focus on process, experience, differentiation and repeatability."

If I can simplify what I've learned in my first three years running a growing investment mgmt firm ...

you gotta pick the right stocks
you gotta own them at the right weighting
you gotta find clients who appreciate your worldview
you gotta have enough assets to make it all meaningful
and you gotta manage the administrative burden with an eye on time and costs

... it's complicated but the effort to get it right is energizing. 


It remains my desire to grow LCA thoughtfully and incrementally with just a handful of new clients per year. If you would like to talk about my process, experience, differentiation or repeatability, please drop me a line. I very much appreciate those that have and the partnerships made along the way. 

-- END --

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIOR RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.

Saturday, April 6, 2019

the full monte: a compendium of unanswered letters and emails to QRHC CEO & Chairman

It's been on my mind to share all my unanswered inquiries to QRHC. 

I'm sure they do not represent my finest moments - I've failed in getting many of these questions answered - but I try to be an open book and here at least offer my mind state on the stock, with the hope that others can learn and maybe someone else can ask these questions. 

I continue to reflect on what I could have done differently. I think too often I shot from the hip and maybe was overly aggressive. But don't think it's all on me. For ~$350k in annual comp it's fair to expect the CEO of a publicly traded company to answer reasonable questions from a large shareholder. I think when a management team or Board don't answer reasonable questions it ultimately reflects most poorly on them. 

In this case in particular, it also reinforces criticism I've received on the CEO's mgmt style, namely not wanting to hear about or address bad news. 

I met with the company on Oct 26, 2017, in non deal roadshow. seemed normal. The CEO gave a rebuke when I asked about the lack of insider buying (along the lines of 'what I do with my money is my business'). I'd also raised an initial issue with Glassdoor Reviews and was told along the lines of 'I take that seriously and i'm offended by negative things people write.' I was told he was heading back to TX for the annual Halloween party, a teamwork building and morale boosting kind of thing.

I followed up with this email from that never rec'd a response, including questions from two other investors I brought to the meeting ... 

... mgmt took my many questions on the 3Q17 conf call, November 14, 2017 (the one where they had "far out" guidance). I thought they were generally good questions. 

From Nov '17 to March 2018, CEO responded to two or three simple emails about conferences I could attend to learn more about the industry and a potential visit as I'd expected to be passing through the Woodlands. 

Then came 4Q18 (April 2, 2018) when they started walking back from "far out guidance" of just a few months earlier. These questions were unanswered ... 


... Concurrently I'd sent CEO this direct email ... 


... I was told they didn't see me on the queue and would call soon. Two days later, nothing. It's likely I was frustrated when I sent this, subject line "Glassdoor reviews" ... 

"Ray - 

Your reviews - especially the most recent ones - seem to indicate a pattern of lack of organizational expertise. 

Given how hard it is to even schedule a phone call with you, or for either of you to pickup the phone and return a call to a shareholder with 160,000 shares, I'd have to say I share their experience ... and their concerns. 

/Avi"

... I was told then by IR that had really pissed off the CEO, so I wrote him an apology ... 

... I figured at some point they'd get back to me. A week later I followed with another email, cc'ing their IR "jeff" ... 


... still nothing. 

I don't think I'm asking anything inappropriate. I'm not brow beating the CEO for the way he runs his company. I'm not prodding him to do anything unethical. I am not suggesting any steps simply to raise the stock price. I want this business built on a solid foundation of scalable service and delivery and I think these are fair and important questions related to those issues.  

So I decided to go write to the Chairman. This is a fairly tepid ask from a April 2018 letter. I probably should have asked more, but I just wanted to gauge their appetite for small steps towards success ...  

... I got a message through IR: Not interested. 

In May, this went out, a request to address tech investments on the upcoming call ... 

... The next week I followed with another note to the Chairman, suggesting a director who could help unlock value. (It looks like we might actually be getting that with the prospective new chairman as per the SEC filing on March 15th) ... 


... still not getting any engagement. I think by June I realized I've nothing to lose b/c they're not responding no matter what I ask, so I sent this fairly passive aggressive email about technology ... 

... it's just an effort for them to indicate that they'll take seriously an issue that I understand is at the heart of the business. Guess what? No response. 

And neither to these questions after 2Q18 ... 

... nor this after 3Q18 ... 

... after which I sent an email to their IR ("Dave") cc'ing the Chairman. I'm told the Chairman forwarded it to the CEO, and it didn't go over well ...

... from there on, I basically gave up trying to get in touch with them. 

After the filing about the potential new Chairman, I regrettably wrote these separate emails to the Chairman and CEO, over excited and shooting from the hip and trying desperately to paint myself as if i'm "on their side". That was stupid. I feel a bit sick about it ...  

  ... and to the CEO ... 

... I'm throw up a little reading it. Those were wrong. 

The guidance snafu aside, the company hasn't done a bad job to date - they've transitioned to CF+ by shrinking and changing their revenue stream - but topline growth is hard and they just seem to have zero visibility in their business, which I think comes down to a lack of solid IT. 

Former employees I've talked with indicate a small company with IT systems that don't communicate well and data still rolling into excel. I also get a sense from those I've talked with that the CEO is an exceptional salesperson but has the cliched management weakness of surrounding himself with people who agree and limited interest in dissenting opinions. My proximate experience supports this view. 

It's not an uncommon model. It''s definitely hard to find "five tool executives" in small cap land. But this is where the Board needs to step in to make sure the CEO is surrounded with people who can fill holes. 

I view all of these as fixable problems, which is why I hope the agreement with Dan Freidberg is seen through to completion as I hear he could really help focus the company on the technology piece that's been worrying me most. However, I have no insight into why the offering is taking so long. We'll have to see. 

At 0.3x revenues, mid-teen GP margins and 2x gross profits, I think there's an opportunity for value creation, either organically and with good tech so they can scale SG&A or by a sale to a company that has good tech and wants volume to feed their system. It's not the greatest business in the world but it's one that solves a recurring need for customers and when done right should generate cash that can be reinvested at high rates of return. Time will tell if this view proves correct. 

-- END -- 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PAST HISTORY IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RETURNS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR BUSINESS NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES. I HAVE NO ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT NOR DO I HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO UPDATE READERS ON ANY CHANGES TO AN INVESTMENT THESIS IN THE COMPANIES MENTIONED HERE, WHICH I MAY OWN.