ADS - Alliance Data Systems

[vince]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

[tol1]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

[vince]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

[tol1]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Took you a great number of posts to comprehend an easy correlation. Let's return to the topic. Have a close look at, among others, ADS' balance sheet. I stand by it; overall, I am long SYF over ADS.

 

[vince]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Took you a great number of posts to comprehend an easy correlation. Let's return to the topic. Have a close look at, among others, ADS' balance sheet. I stand by it; overall, I am long SYF over ADS.

 

WOW!!! Have a close look at their balance sheet?  Im convinced now, thanks for your brilliant insights.

[cmlber]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Vince, you must have missed the famous Buffett quote, “Your goal as an investor should simply be to scatter plot companies by P/B on the X-axis and ROE on the Y-axis and buy the ones in the top left quadrant.”

[tol1]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Vince, you must have missed the famous Buffett quote, “Your goal as an investor should simply be to scatter plot companies by P/B on the X-axis and ROE on the Y-axis and buy the ones in the top left quadrant.”

 

cmlber, it is called irony. A fellow poster noted that ADS report a high ROE, hence would be the better stock vs SYF...

[tol1]

Switching costs vary by size of retailer. They are high for smaller retailers which is the market ADS focuses on. Still their two largest customers make up 30% of the card segment revenue. These customers probably have a lot more leverage and likely less profitable.

 

If it is purely private label card, then switching costs are not all that much. Citi (with exception of Costco) and Capital One can onboard a new retailer pretty efficiently. Where ADS has increased switching costs is by integrating marketing with cards. Epsilon and LoyaltyOne makes it a pain for smaller retailers to move their private label cards.

 

I don't think this is true.  Look at SYF.  Lowe's has been with them for ~40 years.  Most of their large retailer relationships are 10-20 years, and their ROE's are very high.  It's not a simple switch for the retailer.

 

Today's announcement does not necessarily imply SYF lost the WMT contract and it is WMT's obvious right ask for bids. But if SYF lost WMT as customer, this would be significant given the low penetration of PLCs at latter. SYF mgt have stretched how much they have invested in mobile capabilities in recent months. On top of that, I hope mgt do not bid for WMT at any ROA.

 

 

[vince]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Vince, you must have missed the famous Buffett quote, “Your goal as an investor should simply be to scatter plot companies by P/B on the X-axis and ROE on the Y-axis and buy the ones in the top left quadrant.”

 

cmlber, it is called irony. A fellow poster noted that ADS report a high ROE, hence would be the better stock vs SYF...

 

Just to be clear, that fellow poster was not me.  I simply asked how could someone be confident that ADS was fairly valued just based on book value.  Whoever read the exchange can judge for themselves how good the answers were

[cmlber]

Agreed. it’s not an asset light business like a software company. The economics should drive the valuation, not a fancy label from management.

 

ROE suggest the economics are very good and much better than SYF.

 

Misses the point vs P/B. On that basis ADS is fairly valued and SYF undervalued.

 

Can you explain your post please, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Returns on absolute level not meaningful, but rather vs the market price.

Maybe its me but im not understanding what u are saying and for sure i dont see anything to back ur claim up.  I believe u stated they are fairly valued on price to book.  How did you come up with that conclusion? How are you confident in that assessment?  And then maybe a good discussion can come from that

 

An absolute return does not mean anything. Do the following: scatter all ADS peers and check the P/B vs the ROE. That way you can see what firm is valued how on that basis. I recommend to read some basics on valuation.

Exactly as I thought, Lmao, good luck to you and your process, your gonna need it.

 

Vince, you must have missed the famous Buffett quote, “Your goal as an investor should simply be to scatter plot companies by P/B on the X-axis and ROE on the Y-axis and buy the ones in the top left quadrant.”

 

cmlber, it is called irony. A fellow poster noted that ADS report a high ROE, hence would be the better stock vs SYF...

 

Just to be clear, that fellow poster was not me.  I simply asked how could someone be confident that ADS was fairly valued just based on book value.  Whoever read the exchange can judge for themselves how good the answers were

 

Actually, nobody said that... all that was said was ADS’ ROE shows that it has a superior business, not that it is the superior investment at current prices.

[kab60]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

[tol1]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

 

What % of loan receivables and interest income are ADS' top 3 or 5 customers? Experienced leadership + insider O/S + cap allocation holds true for SYF as well btw.

[kab60]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

 

What % of loan receivables and interest income are ADS' top 3 or 5 customers? Experienced leadership + insider O/S + cap allocation holds true for SYF as well btw.

 

Don't think they disclose it. #1 is L Brands at 16 pct. of Card Service revenue and Ascena #2 at 13 pct. revenue. L Brands expires in 2019, so there's a bit of risk/opportunity (SYF has 20 pct. of total interest/fees up for grabs next year).

 

Overall the 10 largest customers account for some 52 pct. of revenues in Cards Services, whereas for SYF the five largest account for 53 pct. of total interest and fees.

 

Can't say definately which model is better, but from a high lever I prefer smaller retailers where ADS also delivers marketings solutions etc.

 

That said, I also think SYF looks interesting, which brings me to the point about capital allocation, insider ownership and management.

 

Didn't mean to say that SYF were disadvantaged, but I like how ADS' took advantage of the GFC to buy back shares on the cheap. Few companies did that (SYF wasn't public, so no record).

 

Not sure how one puts a number on that, but it makes me sleep better at night knowing that if a downturn hits (seems like one is long overdue), the companies I'm invested should be able to gain from it (not all of my investments but AZO, AN and ADS do). It makes it easier to just forget about macro and stay 100 pct. invested.

 

Also, there's some option value in LoyaltyOne. I think they should sell it if/when they dress it up a bit and it fetches a nice price. With ValueAct onboard I suppose they'll do it if it creates value.

[mwtorock]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

 

 

 

What % of loan receivables and interest income are ADS' top 3 or 5 customers? Experienced leadership + insider O/S + cap allocation holds true for SYF as well btw.

 

Don't think they disclose it. #1 is L Brands at 16 pct. of Card Service revenue and Ascena #2 at 13 pct. revenue. L Brands expires in 2019, so there's a bit of risk/opportunity (SYF has 20 pct. of total interest/fees up for grabs next year).

 

Overall the 10 largest customers account for some 52 pct. of revenues in Cards Services, whereas for SYF the five largest account for 53 pct. of total interest and fees.

 

Can't say definately which model is better, but from a high lever I prefer smaller retailers where ADS also delivers marketings solutions etc.

 

That said, I also think SYF looks interesting, which brings me to the point about capital allocation, insider ownership and management.

 

Didn't mean to say that SYF were disadvantaged, but I like how ADS' took advantage of the GFC to buy back shares on the cheap. Few companies did that (SYF wasn't public, so no record).

 

Not sure how one puts a number on that, but it makes me sleep better at night knowing that if a downturn hits (seems like one is long overdue), the companies I'm invested should be able to gain from it (not all of my investments but AZO, AN and ADS do). It makes it easier to just forget about macro and stay 100 pct. invested.

 

Also, there's some option value in LoyaltyOne. I think they should sell it if/when they dress it up a bit and it fetches a nice price. With ValueAct onboard I suppose they'll do it if it creates value.

 

best said.

[Saluki]

 

 

 

 

Can't say definately which model is better, but from a high lever I prefer smaller retailers where ADS also delivers marketings solutions etc.

 

 

This is a sample size of 1, but when I was in college in the 90s, I worked at a regional retailer in with about 30 stores. Our store card was issued by GE Capital  and Finance(now SYF). I was very impressed with how much more a  customer would buy on a store card, and how loyal they were.  Many times I would see someone come in for a $2k large screen TV, get issued a store card with 90 days no interest (24% after that!)and walk out with a $3k tv, speakers, cables, extended warranty etc.

 

The hardest part of the sale is getting the customer to actually come in the door, and if a credit card issuer can offer you services to get people in the door (or to spend more when they get there) it takes a lot of weight off the retailer's shoulders. For a smaller retailer that's a big lock in. 

 

Do you know how the phone company used to sell ads in the yellow pages in the old days?  If you were, say, a pizzeria, they would give you a "free ad" and give you a new phone number and phone. Usually, they place it next to your old phone.  After a few months, the salesperson comes to take out the new phone...the one that rings all the time with the orders. Then the pizza guy says "no! how much do I have to pay you to keep it?". 

 

The customer has a reason to keep using the card (I don't want to lose my airmiles etc.) and the retailer has a reason to keep using the card (the other cards charge the same, but I'm losing customers or getting smaller ticket sizes). 

 

[HJ]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

 

What % of loan receivables and interest income are ADS' top 3 or 5 customers? Experienced leadership + insider O/S + cap allocation holds true for SYF as well btw.

 

Don't think they disclose it. #1 is L Brands at 16 pct. of Card Service revenue and Ascena #2 at 13 pct. revenue. L Brands expires in 2019, so there's a bit of risk/opportunity (SYF has 20 pct. of total interest/fees up for grabs next year).

 

Overall the 10 largest customers account for some 52 pct. of revenues in Cards Services, whereas for SYF the five largest account for 53 pct. of total interest and fees.

 

Can't say definately which model is better, but from a high lever I prefer smaller retailers where ADS also delivers marketings solutions etc.

 

That said, I also think SYF looks interesting, which brings me to the point about capital allocation, insider ownership and management.

 

Didn't mean to say that SYF were disadvantaged, but I like how ADS' took advantage of the GFC to buy back shares on the cheap. Few companies did that (SYF wasn't public, so no record).

 

Not sure how one puts a number on that, but it makes me sleep better at night knowing that if a downturn hits (seems like one is long overdue), the companies I'm invested should be able to gain from it (not all of my investments but AZO, AN and ADS do). It makes it easier to just forget about macro and stay 100 pct. invested.

 

Also, there's some option value in LoyaltyOne. I think they should sell it if/when they dress it up a bit and it fetches a nice price. With ValueAct onboard I suppose they'll do it if it creates value.

 

Well made points. 

 

Counter arguments:  1) Neither L Brands nor Ascena are the healthiest of brands.  Look at their respective stocks.  2) The reason they were able to buy back stock was because they were not regulated as a bank  holding company, so no regulator can tell them what to do with capital when the business looks the scariest.  This structural advantage, however, comes also with disadvantages, prominently the ability to increase funding for receivable growth at a meaningful scale.  At $19 billion receivable, are they kind of at the upper bound of the size of their operation without tapping retail deposit funding, and by extension subjecting themselves to bank holding company regulations?  Previous generation credit card monolines have either been acquired by a bank holding company or became bank holding companies themselves as they got to this scale.  First USA, MBNA, Cap One, and today, Synchrony. 

 

Don't have a strong view on one stock vs. another.

[kab60]

Couldn't you guys take your argument somewhere else? Thanks in advance. Some of us are trying to make money. :)

 

The SYF/WMT thingie is one of the reasons I went with ADS over SYF (that and great capital allocation plus insider ownership and experienced leadership). I think smaller clients are stickier and have less bargaining power (that said, they still have some big accounts that would be bad to lose).

 

What % of loan receivables and interest income are ADS' top 3 or 5 customers? Experienced leadership + insider O/S + cap allocation holds true for SYF as well btw.

 

Don't think they disclose it. #1 is L Brands at 16 pct. of Card Service revenue and Ascena #2 at 13 pct. revenue. L Brands expires in 2019, so there's a bit of risk/opportunity (SYF has 20 pct. of total interest/fees up for grabs next year).

 

Overall the 10 largest customers account for some 52 pct. of revenues in Cards Services, whereas for SYF the five largest account for 53 pct. of total interest and fees.

 

Can't say definately which model is better, but from a high lever I prefer smaller retailers where ADS also delivers marketings solutions etc.

 

That said, I also think SYF looks interesting, which brings me to the point about capital allocation, insider ownership and management.

 

Didn't mean to say that SYF were disadvantaged, but I like how ADS' took advantage of the GFC to buy back shares on the cheap. Few companies did that (SYF wasn't public, so no record).

 

Not sure how one puts a number on that, but it makes me sleep better at night knowing that if a downturn hits (seems like one is long overdue), the companies I'm invested should be able to gain from it (not all of my investments but AZO, AN and ADS do). It makes it easier to just forget about macro and stay 100 pct. invested.

 

Also, there's some option value in LoyaltyOne. I think they should sell it if/when they dress it up a bit and it fetches a nice price. With ValueAct onboard I suppose they'll do it if it creates value.

 

Well made points. 

 

Counter arguments:  1) Neither L Brands nor Ascena are the healthiest of brands.  Look at their respective stocks.  2) The reason they were able to buy back stock was because they were not regulated as a bank  holding company, so no regulator can tell them what to do with capital when the business looks the scariest.  This structural advantage, however, comes also with disadvantages, prominently the ability to increase funding for receivable growth at a meaningful scale.  At $19 billion receivable, are they kind of at the upper bound of the size of their operation without tapping retail deposit funding, and by extension subjecting themselves to bank holding company regulations?  Previous generation credit card monolines have either been acquired by a bank holding company or became bank holding companies themselves as they got to this scale.  First USA, MBNA, Cap One, and today, Synchrony. 

 

Don't have a strong view on one stock vs. another.

I actually came across ADS after I took a long look at L Brands last year while searching the retail sector for stocks that had been hammered by the Amazon-effect. Didn't love the balance sheet and thought it too tricky to select winning brands, so ADS seemed like a nice way to play the space without too much single company risk. I think L Brands will do fine (maybe not as an investment), but either way retail is a tough biz, so ADS' customers will come and go like they always have I think.

 

Not sure how to handicap the bank risk. Any ideas?

[stahleyp]

Is it being hit today due to CFO retiring?

[Saluki]

Is it being hit today due to CFO retiring?

 

It must be, I did a time restricted  google news seach  and that's the only potentially negative article that has come out in the last 24 hours.

[bizaro86]

Could Wal mart switching be affecting the market's  perception of switching costs and their moat?

[dbuch]

As far as valuation goes, I think ADS seems cheap even if you simply consider it a financial company and forget the tech label which is a red herring. The average bank trades at 1x P/B but is lower growth and P/B is tied to ROE. If your earn 10% ROE and your cost of capital is 8% you should be 1.2x book. If you earn 25% and are expected to maintain that level you should be 3.5x.

 

ADS bank equity should be around $3.5B this year which I think is worth close to $220/share. All in debt of $17B versus $3B of bank equity is 5.7x which is well capitalized. If you value Epsilon and LoyaltyOne at 10x EBITDA that would be $90 a share or about $310.

 

Obviously it comes down to what you think happens to the growth of card services. If card services can continue to add portfolios and earn 25-30% ROE's then earnings will continue to rise rapidly every year. If you think L brands or some large retailer blows up and they can't replace the receivables fast enough or delinquencies rise to 9% or smaller retailers no longer see value in their SKU level marketing then the higher P/B doesn't make sense.

[flesh]

From the recent earnings presentation: Card Services

 

• YTD:

• IKEA – home décor

• Wyndham – hospitality

• Academy Sports – sporting goods

• Floor & Decor – home décor

• Adorama – consumer electronics (store/e-commerce)

• Appliances Connection – consumer electronics (e-commerce)

 

• Announced signing of $2.0 billion vintage plus signed-not-yet-announced of $2.0 billion vintage puts 2018 at $4 billion vintage (2x recent record years)

• 100 percent away from mall-based specialty apparel

 

• Credit quality continues to improve

• Q1: 6.7 percent → Q2: 6.4 percent → Q3: 5.9 percent

• Recovery rate: Q1: ~9 percent → Q2: ~15 percent → Q3: ~18 percent (higher than Q3, 2017 rate)

 

• Strategic Review of Businesses

• We believe current stock price does not reflect intrinsic value of our business

• We are evaluating which assets could thrive under a different steward, while also unlocking value for

stockholders

• We will have a crystallized game plan of “what & how” before year-end and will communicate this path at that time

• Overall, this will be an aggressive and significant effort

 

Aggressively prune clients in liquidation, bankruptcy or M&A

• ~50 percent already addressed; remainder to be addressed in fourth quarter

• Eliminates drag over next two years and frees up regulatory capital

• No renewal risk in 2019 safeguards our base

 

^^^The slate is being cleaned for 19'

[kab60]

Didn't think the results were particularly good, but they took a couple of smart steps in how to tell their story. Seems market was surprised by upcoming decision on Epsilion and Loyalty One but they actually said that on a recent investor conference. I was a bit disapointed they didn't announce anything specific as well as continued weakness in Epsilon, but I think both are temporary and card segment looks really strong. They expect to grow mid double digit there, so if they sell off the rest I think it would get a rerating  (plus a shitload of cash).

[peterHK]

I was also a little disappointed on results. They had said we'd hear about strategic direction on the Q3 call, and their "update" was effectively "more, later. Stay Tuned!".

 

I still think the company is an interesting special situation play with some catalysts coming up shortly.

[kab60]

I was also a little disappointed on results. They had said we'd hear about strategic direction on the Q3 call, and their "update" was effectively "more, later. Stay Tuned!".

 

I still think the company is an interesting special situation play with some catalysts coming up shortly.

I see it as a GARPy way to play the retail space where you might actually benefit from Amazon (forcing retailers to better know their customers but need to outsource) and you get those options thrown in.