sharetrader
Page 3 of 86 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1287

Thread: Kathmandu IPO

  1. #31
    An Awesome Cool Cat winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    25,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J R Ewing View Post
    I am having some difficulty reconciling the $60 mil EBITDA with the $8 mil profit. There is $20.9 mil debt servicing on a debt of $187 mil, but where is the other $32 mil of EBITDA?
    The 08 accounts had EBITDA at $37.9m - less D and A of $4.3m less I of $21.0m less tax of $4.6m gave NPAT of $8.0m

    It was quoted above that F09 EBITDA would be $42m which sort of implies maybe NPAT around $11-$12m

    Where did you $60m EBITDA come from JR?

    They had better do a magic -- say EV of 6 times EBITDA would give a valuation of $250m but heck last accounts said about $200m of debt ... which doesn't leave much for equity does it

    Better make it 10 times EBITDA then to make it respectable ... easy as

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    The 08 accounts had EBITDA at $37.9m - less D and A of $4.3m less I of $21.0m less tax of $4.6m gave NPAT of $8.0m

    It was quoted above that F09 EBITDA would be $42m which sort of implies maybe NPAT around $11-$12m

    Where did you $60m EBITDA come from JR?

    They had better do a magic -- say EV of 6 times EBITDA would give a valuation of $250m but heck last accounts said about $200m of debt ... which doesn't leave much for equity does it

    Better make it 10 times EBITDA then to make it respectable ... easy as
    There is an article on stuff that says:

    "Kathmandu is understood to produce (EBITDA) of about $60m." In the same paragraph it talks of the $8m after tax profit. That is hard to reconcile - perhaps the $60m is a forecast?

    As you point out they will need to get this EBITDA well above $38m in order to leave significant equity based on a rational multiple of 5 or 6. I wonder how much of the capital raised is going into debt reduction and how much is going to the existing shareholders?

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    17

    Default Hauraki Private Equity

    Kathmandu is owned by three Private Equity Funds (GSJBW's Hauraki No.2 (25.5%) and Trans Tasman Fund 07 (24.5%) and (I think) 50% Quadrant). I invested $100,000 in the first of these over the period 2004 - 2007. Their first investment was Norfolk Group which was floated a couple of years ago on the ASX at about $1.90 a share. A lot of the same questions and issues that are outlined above were asked and mulled over then, but the bottom line is that over 2007-2008 I received deposits in my bank account totalling about $220,000. The return so far on the investment is 10x and they still own 20% (the share price incidentally is about $0.78 at the moment but has ranged between $2.20 and $0.21 since the float from memory) and there are a couple of other groups building stakes. The second investment was Bild NZ (Acrow Scaffolding and Dominion Constructers) but they have lost their shirt on that one. The third, Vision Senior Living Retirement Villages is looking somewhat dicey but management seem to be over the moon over the success of Kathmandu (especially the roll-out of stores in Britain). I disagree strongly with some of the earlier comments. I love fossicking through their stores and their stuff is high quality and attractive. Moreover, the brand appeals to the young and wealthy and their stores (often off the beaten track) are very well patronised, especially during the sales where there can be standing room only. The model needs to be considered also as they are a little different. They have control over everything from design, manufacture to in-store sales (and soon to go on-line). While I appreciate the concerns expressed about IPOs in this environment, especially by Private Equity, I am not complaining. I expect an IPO on the ASX and while the environment is much different to when Norfolk was floated, the power of high leverage and good luck may result in another windfall. There are other ways to make money than sharetrading but Private Equity involves risk, good fortune and willing buyers in an IPO with nowhere else to put their money.

  4. #34
    Muppet Placebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lower Hutt, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Hi Cycat,

    Good post, some good observations. I am left wondering how you, as an investor in Hauraki, are left feeling with them in effect selling off the family silver, leaving themselves only with (in your words) investments they have "lost their shirt" on and "looking somewhat dicey".

    I wonder how other private equity funds fare, what their success rates are. If they are like this, can you really blame them for ramping and spinning the living hell out of the stuff they take back to the market?
    Marriage isn't a word. It's a sentence

  5. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    17

    Default Private Equity Funds

    To get involved with a Private Equity Fund usually requires a fair amount of money. In the case of Hauraki No.2 the minimum contribution from memory was $20,000 but in the case of a later one I am aware it was in the region of $500,000 and for 'selected' clients only. It is an area of high risk and patience. In the case of Hauraki No.2 we are halfway to the wind-up deadline of 10 years. Prior to Hauraki No.2 the Hauraki No.1 fund was wound up after about 6 years and returned an impressive result to investors. A typical fund will take on about 4 - 10 investments. The attrition rate is high and on average about 20% of investments go down the gurgler, but it often requires only one to perform well and you get the money back. This was the case with Norfolk and the No.2 fund. There are lots of funds about, especially Australian ones, but in NZ the Direct Capital and Pohutukawa funds have done well (the new Maui Capital group may also be worth following). When committing money to these funds you have to be prepared to lose the lot, but you are also gaining access to the talents of the 'get rich quick' boys. These people are generally multi-millionaires who have come up through the investment banks and who move ruthlessly and single-mindedly to maximise their investments. Their ambition and greed becomes your gain or your loss. These people are far too talented to limit themselves to mundane jobs such as executives in the big name companies and prefer the thrill of the chase. Placebo asks how I feel about the 'family silver' ie. Kathmandu, being flogged off. Well, I feel real good, because I might just get that part of my money back and maybe some more to boot. The intention when Kathmandu was bought was to add value to it and then screw the investing public off in an IPO within a medium time frame (a la Guiness Peat). It may be a case of 'buyer beware' but as one of the sellers I have no qualms or regrets about it. Meanwhile, can I interest you in a retirement apartment ?

  6. #36
    Member glennj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Westland based now.
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I see in the Hauraki No2 report;
    "Kathmandu is currently finalising its full year result to 2009, which will represent an approximate 50% increase over FY08."
    Looking even better than expected.

  7. #37
    Muppet Placebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lower Hutt, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cycat64 View Post
    To get involved with a Private Equity Fund usually requires a fair amount of money. In the case of Hauraki No.2 the minimum contribution from memory was $20,000 but in the case of a later one I am aware it was in the region of $500,000 and for 'selected' clients only. It is an area of high risk and patience. In the case of Hauraki No.2 we are halfway to the wind-up deadline of 10 years. Prior to Hauraki No.2 the Hauraki No.1 fund was wound up after about 6 years and returned an impressive result to investors. A typical fund will take on about 4 - 10 investments. The attrition rate is high and on average about 20% of investments go down the gurgler, but it often requires only one to perform well and you get the money back. This was the case with Norfolk and the No.2 fund. There are lots of funds about, especially Australian ones, but in NZ the Direct Capital and Pohutukawa funds have done well (the new Maui Capital group may also be worth following). When committing money to these funds you have to be prepared to lose the lot, but you are also gaining access to the talents of the 'get rich quick' boys. These people are generally multi-millionaires who have come up through the investment banks and who move ruthlessly and single-mindedly to maximise their investments. Their ambition and greed becomes your gain or your loss. These people are far too talented to limit themselves to mundane jobs such as executives in the big name companies and prefer the thrill of the chase. Placebo asks how I feel about the 'family silver' ie. Kathmandu, being flogged off. Well, I feel real good, because I might just get that part of my money back and maybe some more to boot. The intention when Kathmandu was bought was to add value to it and then screw the investing public off in an IPO within a medium time frame (a la Guiness Peat). It may be a case of 'buyer beware' but as one of the sellers I have no qualms or regrets about it. Meanwhile, can I interest you in a retirement apartment ?
    Ha ha! Nice Cycat. Appreciate the candid response
    Marriage isn't a word. It's a sentence

  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glennj View Post
    I see in the Hauraki No2 report;
    "Kathmandu is currently finalising its full year result to 2009, which will represent an approximate 50% increase over FY08."
    Looking even better than expected.
    That could equate to an EBITDA for 2009 of $60m. Assuming a multiple of 6, and that debt is still $187, that gives an EV of $173m.

    Obviously you would need to look at how they got to the EBITDA figure, a 50% increase over the last twelve months is (as you say) "better than expected".

    I would be keen to see the proposed debt post IPO...

  9. #39
    Member Yossarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J R Ewing View Post
    That could equate to an EBITDA for 2009 of $60m. Assuming a multiple of 6, and that debt is still $187, that gives an EV of $173m.

    Obviously you would need to look at how they got to the EBITDA figure, a 50% increase over the last twelve months is (as you say) "better than expected".

    I would be keen to see the proposed debt post IPO...

    I think in your example the EV is $360m - i.e. value excluding debt. cheers

  10. #40
    An Awesome Cool Cat winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    25,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
    I think in your example the EV is $360m - i.e. value excluding debt. cheers
    I think you both know what you meant to say but not quite clear

    Say EBITDA $60m ... EV on a multiple of 6 is $360m

    If as JR assumes debt left in the business is $180m then they could float the equity for $180m (say 180 million shares for a $1) and everyhting would look respectable and attractive

    Easy as ... nice round numbers and only 50% debt in the floated as well

    But I think they will want a higher valuation of $360m

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    I think you both know what you meant to say but not quite clear

    Say EBITDA $60m ... EV on a multiple of 6 is $360m

    If as JR assumes debt left in the business is $180m then they could float the equity for $180m (say 180 million shares for a $1) and everyhting would look respectable and attractive

    Easy as ... nice round numbers and only 50% debt in the floated as well

    But I think they will want a higher valuation of $360m
    Yes, that's what I meant to say. My thoughts are that a $60m EBITDA would be a strong result compared to the previous year, and that in a difficult trading environment.

    Hard to see too many takers at a multiple of 10 or thereabouts...

  12. #42
    Guru Dr_Who's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,613

    Default

    There is an article in the NBR about Goldman Sachs JBWere fund in trouble. Is this the same fund in Kathmandu? I am not a subscriber, so dont have access to the article.
    Having got ourselves into a debt-induced economic crisis, the only permanent way out is to reduce the debt either directly by abolishing large slabs of it, or indirectly by inflating it away.

  13. #43
    An Awesome Cool Cat winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    25,850

    Default

    Think it is about some retirement village outfit they have a large interest in deeply in braech of banking convenants which is affecting the whole fund if they have to pump heaps of cash in

    Don't know if it is the same fund which owns Kathmandu

  14. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    , New Zealand.
    Posts
    578

    Default

    Papers reporting that it will be floated in next month or so.....but Mr Solly Lew said he had examined the outdoor equipment and clothes retailer Kathmandu, which is pursuing a public float, but had no interest in the group.

    guess it will just have to be Mum and Dad who front up, poor people.

  15. #45
    Guru Dr_Who's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,613

    Default

    Went down to Nood furnitures cos they have a sale on. Nood is one of JC's new stores. Found a couch that we like, it was 50% off. Ask if they deliver and was gonna put in a buy order until I was told that I have to wait 3-4 months for delivery!!!

    I mean WTF? Hello anyone home? How can you make a client wait 3-4 months in todays competitive environment?

    The Nood furnitures are very nice. In the Freedom furniture range. Trendy and funky.
    Last edited by Dr_Who; 23-09-2009 at 07:18 AM.
    Having got ourselves into a debt-induced economic crisis, the only permanent way out is to reduce the debt either directly by abolishing large slabs of it, or indirectly by inflating it away.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •