Resideo Technologies (REZI): A Somewhat Cheap, But Also Somewhat Unsafe Spin-off from Honeywell
This is a revisit of Resideo Technologies (REZI). My initial write-up of Resideo was done before the stock was spun off from Honeywell. Three things have changed since that initial interest post.
One: Honeywell spun-off Resideo. So, we now have a price on Resideo.
Two: I’ve created a five part scoring system – a checklist of sorts – for the stocks I write up here at Focused Compounding. This helps me more systematically order what stocks I should be writing up for the first time, re-visiting, etc. and what stock ideas I should make less of a priority. I’ll score Resideo using this 5-point checklist later in this article.
Three: Resideo released its first quarterly earnings as a public company. Management hosted an earnings call where they took analyst questions. They put out some earnings slides with that call as well. So, we have a bit of an update since last time.
I can tell you now that this third event is the least interesting. It’s the one I’ll spend the least time talking about. What matters most here is that we now have a price on Resideo stock and I can now score Resideo on my 5-point checklist. Let’s start with the checklist.
The 5 questions I’ll be asking are:
1) Is Resideo stock overlooked?
2) Do I understand the business?
3) Is this a safe stock?
4) Is this a good business?
5) Is this a cheap stock?
I score each question on a scale that goes: -1 (“no), 0 (“maybe”), +1 (“yes”).
Is Resideo stock overlooked? – Maybe (0). The answer can’t be a straight “no”, because this is a spin-off. Spin-offs, in general, lead to stocks being overlooked – at least at first – because shareholders of the bigger company (in this case, the very big company Honeywell) get shares in this much smaller company without doing anything. They may sell the stock without giving it a lot of thought. Also, this spin-off didn’t seem to be a huge focus for value investors and what I did read online from value investors often treated it as something of a throwaway by Honeywell. Basically, not a lot of people are writing about how this is a high quality business. They are writing about how this company is slow growing, fully mature, and includes the burden of paying Honeywell indefinitely to cover environmental liabilities. So, this isn’t a particularly focused on spin-off. But, it’s still a stock with a market cap over $2 billion. It’s listed on a major exchange. It did an earnings call with analysts. I didn’t hear questions from analysts at especially big firms. This is probably a pretty overlooked stock for a $2 billion to $3 billion market cap. But, in the world of the kind of stocks I often look at – it wouldn’t count as overlooked at all. I’ll split the difference and say Resideo “maybe” overlooked (0 points).
Do I understand the business? – Yes (+1). I owned a stock – George Risk Industries (RSKIA) – for about 7 years that sold a lot (often more than 30% of its total sales) to this company’s ADI distribution business. I have researched three of this company’s biggest customers in the business-to-business part of the “Products” business. I know a little about most of the products this company produces. I was able to gather information on the companies that eventually went on to make up Resideo over a period going back like 20+ years. This industry, this company, and its competitive position aren’t much of a mystery. I wouldn’t say I understand the environmental liabilities – but, I do understand they are capped (remember, Honeywell still has these liabilities – Resideo just pays Honeywell to fund the liabilities up to a capped level). I would say that, yes, I understand the business.
Is this a safe stock? – No (-1). Resideo’s management mentions their debt is rated “BB+”. And I’ve read the explanation of why the debt is rated that way. The company has said it is targeting a “modest” dividend in 2019 and 2 times gross financial leverage. The adjusted EBITDA number they put out would suggest the company can cover the environmental payments about 3 times over (Adjusted EBITDA of $470 million or more AFTER paying $140 million in environmental obligations). On top of that, the liabilities are capped. And the terms of the deal with Honeywell would not be quite as strict – in terms of payments while the company was distressed – as payments to a bank or bondholder would be. So, it would be wrong to simply capitalize the $140 million at 17 times or something (as if the Honeywell payments were really bonds that had a 5.9% after-tax yield) and pretend the company had like an extra $2.4 billion in debt. It doesn’t really have an extra $2.4 billion in debt. Resideo is safer than a company with 4-5 times EBITDA in long-term bonds (which is what the company would have if I capitalized the environmental obligations and then divided that capitalized obligation plus other debt by the hypothetical EBITDA the company would have before making those payments to Honeywell). I don’t think this stock is as risky as it would be if it really had 4 plus times EBITDA in debt. But, it’s also far from debt free. What about the actual debt? I said in my notes that Resideo would have debt/EBITDA of about 3 times if we assume EBITDA will be $400 million a year. Resideo is now saying that EBITDA will be greater than $470 million in EBITDA (the top end of their range). This is a company with a strong competitive position in a mature – and not very cyclical – industry with Debt/EBITDA of less than 3 times. But, it’s not that simple. In reality, they have to pay that $140 million each year. But, we’re also not counting that in the EBITDA. So, does that make the company safer or more dangerous than if it had neither that EBITDA nor that obligation? The payments to Honeywell are capped at $140 million a year in nominal dollars. The actual EBITDA of this business isn’t. So, if you assume that there is like $180 million of EBITDA being eaten up by that $140 million of obligation right now – the $180 million may well grow at a rate of 3% a year for the next 15 years leaving $280 million in 2034. Meanwhile, the $140 million can’t grow. It’s capped. It can only shrink if Honeywell’s environmental liabilities shrink. So, I’d say that right now Resideo is not especially safe. But, it should get progressively safer as a stock with every year that passes. It’s hard to bring myself to definitely say that such a well-established company in such a mature industry is not safe when the debt load is at a level that’s high but still at the high end of manageable for a typical U.S. public company. In fact, on a podcast where Andrew asked me about Reisdeo’s safety I said I would consider it a “maybe” in terms of safety – but just barely. As I write this, I would say I’m leaning a little more to the “not safe” side. This stock is “no”, not safe. But, it was a close call rating it. So: no, Resideo is not safe (-1).
Is this a good business? – Maybe (0 points). This is the question I find hardest to answer. The returns on capital, the gross profits divided by tangible assets, the margins – everything here says “yes”. Both sides of the business – products and distribution – are leaders. And the product economics of each business is above average. The gross margins on the product side are very high. But, this is a totally mature market in terms of the physical volume demanded. And then, perhaps because a lot of this manufacturing has moved out of the U.S. and to places like Mexico – I don’t see much evidence of product price inflation over the last couple decades. Unfortunately, the only periods I can compare with are shortly after NAFTA started till today. It’s very possible that this is leading me to underestimate how much these products can keep their prices rising with inflation. I’m going to score Reisdeo’s business quality as a “maybe” good business, because it seems to be a combination of 1) A definitely good business with 2) Seemingly no room to grow. Of course, the company will have growth cyclically, it might have growth in non-U.S. markets, and it might grow enough to keep pace with inflation. But, I see the odds of this business growing in real terms long-term as being very, very low. The existing business is undeniably a high return business. So, the return on capital will be great. But, how much capital can be reinvested in the business may be very low. Unlike the safety question where I was leaning towards “no”, here I am leaning towards “yes”. This is a good business. But, a good business with no growth prospects gets a “maybe” from me.
Is this a cheap stock? – Yes (+1). There are a few ways of looking at this. Let’s start with the fully leveraged basis. I said free cash flow – after all payments to Honeywell, interest payments on debt, etc. – might be around $200 million a year. The company has a market cap of about $2.6 billion (123 million shares outstanding at $20.85 a share) So, that would be equivalent to a P/E of 13 ($2.6 billion / $200 million in FCF = 12). A P/E of 13 is probably only about 2/3 of what a lot of stocks are priced at now. It’s only about 85% of what an average stock has been priced at in the past – however, stocks have been priced higher in the 21st century than they were in the 20th. So, it’s unclear whether we should say Resideo is trading at around 65% or around 85% of the “owner earnings” multiple a normal company would trade at. On a leveraged basis, I’d say you’re getting something like a 15% to 35% discount here. However, Resideo has debt. So, you shouldn’t just divide market cap by free cash flow. That may be an accurate assessment of your upside potential – if Resideo doesn’t pay down debt – but, it would underestimate the risk you’re taking as a common stockholder. The stock is cheap. It’s certainly leveraged. But, it is cheap. So, this stock may not be safe. But, it is cheap.
What about attempting to calculate an EV/EBITDA that adjusts for this leverage? In other words, can we try to come up with a single ratio that captures both the safety and cheapness of this company?
Sure.
So, EBITDA right now is projected to be $475 million for this fiscal years AFTER the environmental obligations. Resideo also gives guidance for BEFORE those payments. That guidance is for $615 million. As you can see from that, environmental payments are $140 million. We can capitalize these – roughly – as if they were 6% bonds, in which case we’d have $140 million times 17 (1/17 is about 6%) equals $2.38 billion. Let’s call it $2.4 billion. So, the capped annual environmental payments of up to $140 million a year to Honeywell can be treated as being equivalent to $2.4 billion in long-term debt. Really, this is probably penalizing Resideo too much. However, it’s a convenient line in the sand. Not many people are going to argue Resideo’s actual payments to Honeywell have a net present value greater than $2.4 billion. It’s probably some number much greater than zero but also much less than $2.4 billion. We’ll call it $2.4 billion here. Resideo took on $1.4 billion in debt after the spin-off. So, we can calculate the enterprise value – again, this is an OVER calculation of the true enterprise value – as being $2.6 billion market cap plus $1.4 billion in debt plus $2.4 billion in capitalized environmental payment equals $6.4 billion in “enterprise value”. Against this we have adjusted EBITDA – before environmental payments – of $615 million (which is the guidance for this year). That gives an EV/EBITDA of $6.4 billion / $615 million = 10.4 times. An EV/EBITDA of 10 doesn’t sound low. But, in this case it is. To illustrate, watch what happens if we include the market cap and debt – but not the capitalized environmental payments. We get $2.6 billion market cap plus $1.4 billion in debt equals $4 billion. EBITDA – AFTER environmental obligations – is projected to be $475 million. And, $4 billion divided by $475 million equals 8.4 times. Especially considering the recent corporate tax rate cut – and the low need for cap-ex at this business – an EV/EBITDA of 8 is very low. What’s the true EV/EBITDA here? It’s in the 8-10 times range. This is a cheap stock. It’s not a deep value stock or anything. But, the equity is certainly trading a bit below where I’d appraise it. There is, however, the issue of risk. The upside here is bigger – because of the leverage provided by the environmental obligations – than you’d normally have with a stock trading at 8 times EBITDA. However, the financial risk – again, because of the environmental obligations – is also higher here than it would be with a stock that has debt/EBITDA of $1.4 billion/$475 million = 2.9 times.
Really, this company is cheap but may not be safe.
Is Resideo better than most public companies? Probably. But, is Resideo riskier than most public companies? Also, probably. It’s possible Resideo is trading at about two-thirds of what I might appraise it at. It’s also possible Resideo is trading at closer to 90% of what I’d appraise it at. It depends on which method you use to appraise it. Probably, the best way to explain it is this: Resideo’s equity is trading at perhaps as little as 2/3 of what I’d appraise it at – but, Resideo’s equity is also sitting behind more debt than I’d be comfortable having in front of me as a shareholder. So, the equity is probably above average in terms of cheapness but below average in terms of safety.
I’ll increase my interest level in the stock from an interest level of 60% to a level of 70%. This is mainly due to information the company gave in the analyst call and to a lesser extent the earnings release. However, I still have no plans to buy Resideo for the accounts I manage. It is, however, worth mentioning that this is a stock I first rated at a 30% interest level, then increased to 60% on my first re-visit, and have now increased to 70% on my second re-visit. There are still plenty of stocks that interest me more than Resideo. But, each time I’ve re-visited Resideo, I’ve gotten a little more interested in the stock as a potential investment.
It’s still a pass for me.
Re-visit checklist score: 1 out of 5
Re-visit interest level: 70%