blainehodder Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Pretty much the same thesis as SWHC, but the premium company (at the premum price). Any insight? Are revenues sustainable or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarisapirate Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I would not touch that company, at these prices, with a 10 foot pole. A few years ago it was CHEAP with an obvious turnaround in place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ok22 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Why Ragnar...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AchilliesValue Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I don't understand the logic behind buying any firearms companies at the moment. Seems to me that your buying a cyclical company near the peak of the cycle. We currently have more firearms per person than any country other than Yemen. Where is the growth going to come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 That is my thinking as well. Growth seems impractical and simply maintaining these revenues level is a questionable prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 20, 2013 Author Share Posted August 20, 2013 I don't understand the logic behind buying any firearms companies at the moment. Seems to me that your buying a cyclical company near the peak of the cycle. We currently have more firearms per person than any country other than Yemen. Where is the growth going to come from? That is my thinking as well. Growth seems impractical and simply maintaining these revenues level is a questionable prospect. While this certainly has a potential to be true, as the FBI background checks seem to show an outlier spike, you have to keep in mind people have repeated essentially this same prediciton for 16 quarters or so. One thing I've thought about is that even if the original growth was from people rushing into the market due to speculation about regulation, they could easilly become return customers going forward. People either have zero guns, or many guns. Maybe all these new shooters will be sustainable. Maybe there isn't a bubble at all. Maybe the demand is just going up and the supply can't feed the gun thirst of the public? The one analyst who covers them has consistently predicted a top and been slapped by rising demand (which seems to have been limited by supply). Quarter Earnings Estimate Earnings Actual 1Q 2012 $.67 $.79 2Q 2012 $.80 $.88 3Q 2012 $.80 $.88 4Q 2012 $.82 $1.03 1Q 2013 $.94 $1.20 2Q 2013 $1.18 $1.63 RGR is building a new plant in NC for more than just political reasons. They are selling everything they can produce. Sometimes it is good to question what everyone seems to just "know", based on gut feel. Again, I am not saying the top isn't in, just trying to present a possible alternate path. Check out the forums! People seem to be legitimately into collecting RGR and SWHC products. Even of the new buyers, I havent seen anecdotes of real people buying because they are scared Obama is going to take their shiny toys away. Or maybe there is a massive bubble... just tossing out the counterpoint. On an unrelated note, what movie? "A gun rack? A gun rack? I dont even have, a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do with a gun rack?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ok22 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Reason to buy would be if you believe that RGR is making large market share gains that are larger than the reduction in demand. And a much more minor reason would be that even at a lower level of demand they are more efficient etc. and hence cash flow generation is stronger than in the past at the same level of revenue. What I am focused on trying to figure out is are they taking market share and how much more share can they take? That seems to have been the case in the last few years but will it continue? Their new product sales and % of revenue from new products and their greater sales growth vs. overall demand growth supports the share growth so far but share growth enough to offset demand normalization? Not sure it is as easy as using the NIC numbers to say that equates to equivalent reduction in RGR and SWHC sales. It is almost like thinking of RGR as AAPL vs. DELL/HPQ in the desktop/laptop world :) The RGR CEO and team and Board is definitely the best in the industry by a very wide margin. My current research indicates that RGR and SWHC each have about 3.5% share of total market. I was surprised that it was so low so looking to re-check and verify this data. If anyone has a better insight into share and share gain potential please share. Also as a poster pointed out, the demand will fall has been said for a few years now and it keeps going up or something (usually very sad unfortunately) keeps occurring that causes big spikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 22, 2013 Author Share Posted August 22, 2013 Quick Chart of the NICS data... looks like it is still growing rapidly, excluding the big spike in Dec 12. Excluding the big spike the general trend is higher by double digits annually. Meanwhile RGR growth has significantly outpaced the NICS data over a long period of time, so they are scooping up market share. The new facility enables 9 new products roughly. Seems to me like RGR will continue to grow earnings at 15%+ rates for years to come. So you have pretty solid growth combined with high returns on capital and a manager who understands how to allocate it...and a low price. Quote from the latest CC in response to acquisitions: Our single best return on investment is new products. If an acquisition comes along that somehow I can be convinced is going to be as attractive, we'll take a hard look at it. But historical they have all been grossly overpriced for what they could deliver. And it makes more sense to try to keep growing 30% to 50% a year organically. Thats what you want to hear. Fifer gets "it". Historical NICS growth is 12%ish/yr. 10 year revenue growth for RGR is 20%.... Even if NICS flattens completely which seems unlikely, you will win as RGR continues to take market share. I see very little data which shows this to be a poor investment. I see a ton of "gut feel" stuff that the sales have peaked. I prefer data. NICS.bmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ok22 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 blaine... Thanks for the data and insight filled post. Agree completely that RGR CEO really gets it and the data does indicate big share capture. How do you feel about SWHC? It is as cheap quantitatively. They also seem to be now copying the RGR taking share playbook. BUt given spotty history of SWHC, I am not sure how to think about SWHC's ability to take share. Is the SWHC "turnaround" and "new governance" real in your opinion? What does the same data that you shared for RGR say for SWHC? Would you buy both RGR and SWHC at current market prices or just one or neither? And like you I am trying to get beyond the conjecture and gather enough data to pull the trigger (groan) on these stocks in a meaningful way. Thanks. ok22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 22, 2013 Author Share Posted August 22, 2013 I prefer having Fifer allocating capital, therefore Im long RGR. RGR is better positioned to continue to eat market share. SWHC is essentially maxing out on capacity while RGR is taking the bolder approach of building out capacity. Seems to me that growth will flow to RGR in the future. SWHC is focused on buybacks which is okay when the stock is where it is, but if you believe growth is going to continue, RGR is far, far better positioned. New products have better economics than buybacks if they sell. RGR believes they will. I trust Fifer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYDemaray Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Aren't you guys at all concerned that at some point gun sales will crater? I've heard stories about guys buying 3 guns and burying two of them because Obama was re-elected. At some point, how many guns do you need buried around your property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Aren't you guys at all concerned that at some point gun sales will crater? I've heard stories about guys buying 3 guns and burying two of them because Obama was re-elected. At some point, how many guns do you need buried around your property? Anecdotal evidence. I've heard stories of people buying guns because, well, they like guns. They collect them. Smith/Wesson & Ruger are storied brands. They're in rap songs. I have no idea whether gun sales are at a peak, or whether this is just the "new normal". I can't predict that, nobody can. The question is, "Would you spend a billion dollars to manufacture guns under the "Ruger" brand to America?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYDemaray Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Anecdotal, yes...but this came from a supplier to the industry who felt demand was peaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 RGR delivers another great quarter: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/131105/rgr8-k.html Sales up 45% y/y, Units up 31%, Earnings up 64%. RGR continues to outpace NICS implying increased market share. I continue to be impressed by Fifer. This guy is a truly great manager. Looking forward to the earnings call. Stock still seems cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Anybody know why it costs 78% to borrow the shares? For retail investors, this makes the call options *much* more attractive than going long the common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I think attitudes towards shooting guns as a hobby are changing. Check out this Youtube video of a family shooting a MAC-10 machine gun (it's derived from a military weapon): http://youtu.be/Tkq2yK2mf0E Shooting assault weapons (uh... sporting weapons? sporting rifles?) is seen as wholesome. And it's not just white redneck males who are into it. Women, kids, and minorities are getting into shooting. I'm long RGR call options. Here's why: http://wp.me/p1mOGr-xW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I apologize for repeatedly bumping this thread, but it seems to me that the call options are crazy cheap here. Looking backwards, this has been an amazing business. This company has grown its earnings faster than some of the hottest stocks out there. In the past 5 years: - Revenues/share up around 25%/yr - EBITDA/share up around 51%/yr - Free cash flow/share up around 108%/yr (!!!) I have trouble naming companies with higher growth. This company has grown faster than many Web 2.0 companies. The P/E is a reasonable 14.00. On top of that, you can buy call options with implied volatility in the mid 20s. 2a- The short thesis against Ruger seems week. Why would you want to bet against the increasing popularity of guns? But let's suppose for a second that the gun market will contract. Ruger may still be well positioned to grow its earnings. This is one of the best managed companies in the field and Fifer may still grow profits/market share even if the overall gun market shrinks. 2b- Fifer is selling. On the conference call, he pretty much implies that the stock's valuation is high. I guess this is the biggest downside I see. If you compare Ruger to other stocks with similar growth rates, a P/E of 14 would be extremely low. Hot growth stocks will usually attract much higher multiples. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Where did he insinuate that re: overvaluation on the cc? I just read through it, I didn't pick up that flavor... I did get a hint that distributors think volume will slow down in 2014...also, the Q&A with Sophis Investments was a great read re: buyback policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Maybe he didn't exactly say overvalued. But... Andrea James - Dougherty & Company LLC, Research Division Okay. And then do you think you'd ever lever up or use stock to acquire Smith & Wesson? Michael O. Fifer - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director I would be delighted to acquire them with stock. I'm not sure they would be as delighted, but if you know something I don't, let's talk afterwards. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1812332-sturm-ruger-co-management-discusses-q3-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript Also: Michael O. Fifer - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director I can't remember if it was last year or a couple of years ago. I gave a talk at our annual meeting, where I went through very briefly some of the math involved with stock buybacks. And a lot of folks who have never actually run the math themselves have concluded that stock buybacks are good in terms of raising the price per share, but they forget that you've weakened the balance sheet when you do it. And it turns out that if you really run the math from the perspective of a shareholder who was there before the stock repurchase and wants to stay there long term beyond the stock repurchase, there's one and only one circumstance where that shareholder benefits, and that is if your trading multiple or their P/E multiple or EBITDA multiple or whatever, is trading below your historical average. So for example, if your historical average was 8 and you are trading at 5 or 6, that's a good time to repurchase shares, assuming your balance sheet can handle it. But if your trading multiple average is 8 and you're trading anywhere near 8 or above 8, then you are harming your shareholder to repurchase shares. And we kind of track that. I don't know exactly what our multiple is right now. But we kind of look at sort of a trailing 24- or 36-month average multiple. We've got it graphed out and look at where are we at with regard to that, and we're certainly in the zone of our historical average. And so therefore, it's not an optimum time to buy stock back now. Now if the market softens a little in '14 the way it softened a little bit in '10 and the stock market overreacts and drives our stock price down, I would imagine we would leap in with 2 feet. We've got the cash to do it. And we understand the math very carefully. And we are primarily interested in taking care of the shareholder who's with us today and will be with us tomorrow. And so the math all works. On the other hand, if we continue to grow and do fine, we'll just leave it outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Maybe I'm crazy but Ruger looks crazy cheap right now. Trailing P/E: 11.26 Will its earnings grow in the next few to several years? The company still has a massive backlog of orders. It cannot produce guns fast enough. Ruger recently opened a new factory and have yet to utilize all of the space there. They've also released new guns that are selling well. (Their old models are selling really well too.) The only way I see Ruger's earnings shrinking is if the gun market sees a devastating drop in sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Have you looked at Smith & Wesson? Looks cheaper to me with the same drivers and, IMHO, brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 RGR looks better managed to me. Here's a question about SWHC. In the 2013 10-K, they no longer break out "modern sporting rifles" into its own category. Look at page 34 of the YE2013 10-K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1092796/000119312513270582/d522688d10k.htm Versus page 25 of the YE2012 10-K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1092796/000119312512287910/d364692d10k.htm What's up with that? Modern sporting rifles have the highest political risk. They will likely be the first weapons that would be banned. Sales of those guns may also have surged because some people are trying to buy them before they get banned. *Technically it would be certain parts of the gun that would be banned; not the entire gun. So some people are stocking up on the parts that would be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Keep in mind if you are modeling future sales, the panic buying after the Newtown massacre not only increased the number of guns sold but also the price (Looking at Background checks, the majority of the panic buying occurred in the trailing twelve months despite the incident having occurred more than a year ago). SWHC and RGR have never had higher margins or ROE. And you can look at any gun forum and people after the newtown massacre will be complaining about higher prices. Also RGR and SWHC have gotten out of the California handgun business: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/26/smith-wesson-to-stop-selling-some-pistols-in-california-due-to-gun-law/ That should dent their bottom line looking forward. California gun owners as a percentage of US gun owners is about 5-8%. This still could be a company that grows at 10% a year and trades at a P/E less than 20 after all the normalization, but you have to believe that it can continue growing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Tuffett Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 RGR just released a horrendous earnings report, with revenue down ~25% Y/Y. It appears that America's appetite for guns, seemingly insatiable during the Obama Administration, is abating. https://ruger.com/corporate/PDF/ER-2019-07-31.pdf Modern firearms are quite durable. With more than 1 firearm per capita in the US, I've often wondered about the various drivers of demand. New models seem to play a significant role, even more so when they are fad-driven like highly customized ARs have been over the past 10 or 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now