Re: Google vs. Your Boys (but really about amazon)

We had a very pleasant lunch, as we always do. He is an old and good friend. He was amused by my unhealthy fixation with Amazon. And so he sends me this gentle barb a few days later:  Google is coming! [Links to WSJ article.] 

Uh-oh, a threat to Amazon's AWS cloud computing service. I get these challenges with some frequency from people that have learned of my obsession. I love them. Not so much because it offers a chance for debate and I consider myself the superior debater. I'm not. It's more because the challenges keeps me honest. 

It reminds me of the verse from Rudyard Kipling's "If": 

...If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting, too...

It's the only way to keep a kernel of intellectual integrity in his game of investing...look for challenges to your theses. Not to fight back and counterpoint the opposing argument, but for the strength and the wisdom the challenge could bring, giving you the opportunity to improve your models, test your reasoning. It's possible to find something nearing sublime in approaching the debate with philosophical detachment, shunning dogma as best as our bloated egos allow.

Unfortunately, our tendency is to seek out those of like-minded opinions, forming echo chambers for our views and doubling down on the risk of our wrongness being compounded in a confirmation marketplace.

Below is my reply to my good lunch friend:

Thanks for passing this on, T. I'm fascinated by this impending convergence of the major tech giants. They're all sitting on these enormous and valuable assets, mainly large customer bases and some combination of tech gear, tech infrastructure, and customer captivity. As a sort of manifest destiny, they are all compelled to extend and expand the use of their infrastructure...those assets. It's inevitable, as if the combination of management ego and economic drive for higher profits, creates a siren's song for the businesses to expand. I've started calling it the growth imperative, a set of behaviors I've noted in other industries, too.

So it becomes interesting with Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. [See The Great Tech War of 2012 by Farhad Manjoo in Fast Company back in October 2012.] Their markets, as they expand, are overlapping more and more. They must compete, not only to grow, but also to make sure one of the competitors doesn't gain some advantage that allows them to attack their core markets....sort of like offense is the best defense.

A theory I've considering works something like this: cloud computing is a huge market that Amazon entered early and has pretty much controlled. Amazon is taking great pains to commoditize the industry - making the services non-branded - so it will be defined by who can offer computing at the cheapest price to customers. Amazon has demonstrated its willingness to make AWS (its cloud computing) cheaper and cheaper, having lowered prices 20 times since launching. Jeff Bezos has thrown down a gauntlet and dared others - IBM, Microsoft, a slew of tiny players, and now Google - to follow. Amazon has said it will make it all about price.

That creates a fascinating dynamic, and this is where the theory part kicks in. What company can afford to offer cloud computing the cheapest? Both Amazon and Google have deep cash reserves, so they can duke it out on low price there while subsidizing any losses with their own cash. That could be a painful war, and we must ask who would win.

My bet would be with Amazon, and for a simple reason...Amazon has demonstrated both an indifference to how the stock market perceives it as it pursues long-term dominance of an industry, and it has demonstrated a capacity to suffer while its stock price is getting killed because it is losing money in pursuit of dominance. Jeff Bezos frequently says he's comfortable being misunderstood for long periods of time.

So let's consider this like a game theory scenario...you have two giants pressing on the gas, hurling their dragsters at each other in a business that one of them (amazon) is willing to define by price. They will both take losses. The more they fight, the deeper those losses will be, and the more likely their stocks will tank as long as the war persists.

Jeff Bezos is fond of saying something to the effect of ..we want to sell the same thing as everyone else, but because we run more efficiently than they do, we can sell it cheaper. So if they want to have a price war, they'll go broke 5 percent before we do.

He's signaled to the world his intentions and his willingness to be a fanatic in pursuit of them. Now, how crazy is google willing to be as it enters the cloud computing market? How deep is its capacity to suffer? And remember, there's a lot of catching up to do since Amazon has been in the market since 2006.

In this game theory game of chicken, my vote is with crazy Jeff Bezos. That dude's a fanatic!

Scale Advantage and The Great Coke Scandal

Profits are good. And our profitability bias - that preference to own, to cover, to work for, to partner with companies that turn a profit - is a pretty good filter to apply when evaluating a business for whatever reason. But the best companies sometimes forego profit in the short-term, investing capital more heavily than perhaps is absolutely required or plowing back what might have been profit to increase their expenses in certain areas that provide advantages over the competition. 

It's not as if they don't recognize that everyone prefers they were profitable. It's that they understand that delaying the gratification of immediate profits, when those dollars are spent wisely on honing the defenses of the business, can lead to much greater profits down the road. And, more importantly, it can lead to profits that are protected against the encroachment of bigger-smarter-richer competitors that want nothing more than to steal away its customers.

Profits can be very nice, but they do not necessarily make for the best businesses.  The best businesses couple profitability with sustainable competitive advantages that protect future profits. And when a dilemma requires companies to sacrifice either profits or competitive advantages, the best ones watch out for their long-term interests. They sacrifice profits and keep investing in their defenses.

Of the major categories of competitive advantage - strong brand, legal protection, captive demand, and scale - the one with the longest lasting benefits is scale. This is where the size and efficiency of your operations allow you to produce an offering for less than your competitors, so much so that no rational actor would dare attack your position. 

When combined with other forms of competitive advantage, scale makes for the deepest defenses of all.

The Curious Case of the Coca-Cola Secretary

In late-2006 a secretary at Coca-Cola headquarters conjured up a lurid plot. Working with two ex-convicts, she contacted arch-rival Pepsi and offered Coke's most sensitive trade secrets in exchange for large sums of cash. The cabal believed Pepsi would be eager to steal a glance of secret Coke recipes, that such information would somehow help the competitor in its never ending battle with Coca-Cola to win the cola wars. 

Pepsi wasn't so keen on the scam. In fact they called up the FBI immediately and were glad participants in an exciting sting to catch the crew in the act and send them away on federal charges. Besides questions of basic human decency, why would the Pepsi executives not be eager for the patented trade information offered up by the secretary?

At best, the secret Coke recipe is one part honest-to-god competitive advantage based on a particular mixture of ingredients to produce a specific taste. And it's nine parts marketing ploy, a wink at its audience to suggest Coke is so delicious that the company must keep the secret recipe behind locked doors (lest a competitor produce a beverage with the same flavors and thereby steal away all its customers, of course). The public loves the mystery that comes of a secret formula!

Coca-Cola's competitive advantages are far less grounded in the legal protection of patents and formulas defended as trade secrets than they are a potent combination of brand and economies of scale. The company has spent billions over the years on savvy marketing, creating a Pavlovian tie between the sound of fizz escaping from an opened bottle and a person salivating in anticipation of her refreshing drink. But more importantly, they have made the product omnipresent. You are probably never more than a few steps away from the opportunity to buy a cheap Coke the moment the urge hits you, whether that urge is induced from a commercial or your own thirst. 

This is an example of scale applied to distribution. Its products are everywhere, and making that happen is a far more impressive business feat than inventing a tasty carbonated beverage in the basement of an apothecary's shop. 

Coca-Cola has the benefit of scale in production costs, advertising, and distribution. They can produce a mind-bending amount of product for mere pennies per unit, with all the fixed costs being spread across  enormous production volumes. They can then buy national and international ads, reaching consumers all over the globe, inculcating them on the idea that Coke is it. And their distributors move tons upon tons of cases each day, spreading the cost of stocking shelves over all those bottles.

The benefit of investing to create all this scale means Coke can charge a pittance for each bottle of product, a dollar or two that most consumers will never miss, while still turning a very tidy profit. What would it take for a competitor to make a reasonable return at a comparable price point? Richard Branson tried in the mid-1990's with Virgin Cola, even pricing below both Coke and Pepsi in hopes of stealing only a sliver of their customers. The cola incumbents ramped up their advertising budgets in every market they thought Branson might have a reasonable chance of establishing a toe hold, and they leaned hard on their customers to keep shelf space off-limits to the upstart. Branson couldn't even get most grocery stores in his native UK to give his drinks a shot. When you can't gain entry through basic distribution channels, you must know your future is grim. Price doesn't even matter.    

Any other competitor would run into the same challenges trying to surmount the advantages provided by Coke's scale. As a last resort of scale, Coke could always fall back to its balance sheet - it has plenty of cash - and fight a price war to makes its products much cheaper than any alternative, gladly exchanging short-term profits to ensure it maintained long-term advantages. The profits will come back if the defenses remain strong.

And so we get a good chuckle out of the misguided secretary, hoping to make a buck selling Coca-Cola's most valuable secrets. In reality, Coke's competitive advantages are hidden in plain sight.  A big piece resides with its brand...but the bulk sits with its scale, the end-product of years of foregoing billions in additional profits in return for high volume production capabilities, wide reaching advertising, and a scaled distribution infrastructure.

My Contribution to the Facebook Noise

All eyes are on Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as the stock is scheduled to debut on the NYSE this Friday. They have lips flapping as pundits and gurus are shouting over each other to get their opinions noted on whether this business is worth your investment dollars. Allow me to add to the din by expanding on my previous post, Whom Does Management Serve?

Zuckerberg has garnered plenty of criticism for pocketing the majority of voting rights, ensuring that he will have total and complete control over every aspect of the business, not the least of which is strategic direction. And he's not shy about saying has his own plans for the company which is likely to be at odds frequently with investors looking for financial results. 

Facebook's Registration Statement (filed in February with the SEC) contains a letter from Zuckerberg outlining his priorities. Some excerpts...

Facebook was not originally founded to be a company. We’ve always cared primarily about our social mission, the services we’re building and the people who use them. This is a different approach for a public company to take, so I want to explain why I think it works...

Simply put: we don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services. And we think this is a good way to build something...

These days I think more and more people want to use services from companies that believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits.

By focusing on our mission and building great services, we believe we will create the most value for our shareholders and partners over the long term — and this in turn will enable us to keep attracting the best people and building more great services.

We don’t wake up in the morning with the primary goal of making money, but we understand that the best way to achieve our mission is to build a strong and valuable company. This is how we think about our IPO as well.

Here we have a CEO telling the world, in no uncertain terms, that maximizing profits is not his priority. He has a bigger and different vision for the world. As investors we should be aghast, right?

Before addressing that, let me admit that I have no idea what Facebook is worth as a business. It's probably a fair amount, but my prevailing model used to understand social media companies is MySpace.  It was the pre-Facebook darling, beneficiary of young eyeballs and the power of the network effect. As such, it was scooped up by News Corp for a fat price. And shortly thereafter all the eyeballs left. Quickly and unceremoniously. That fickle bunch decided Facebook was the place to do all the stuff they had previously done on MySpace. And now MySpace is a shadow of its former self.

We're assured that Facebook is superior, having solved all the problems that plagued MySpace and left subscribers willing to entertain an alternative. That would never happen to Facebook, we're assured. Maybe. But I'm not comfortable with the possibility, and so it's a clear pass for me.

That being said, I'll confess the utmost admiration for the move Zuckerberg pulled to consolidate control. And if Facebook is going to live up to its potential, it will come at the hands of the founder. He has a vision for it that extends beyond share price. I think that's essential for a business. They lose their soul when they get too eager to please shareholders.

If I could get pass the MySpace hang up, I would assess the following in determining if Facebook was a good investment...

First, is it participating in a large and/or growing market for the services it offers? I believe it probably is. It has a lot of room to add new users and expand the ways members utilize it today. 

Second, does it have a profitable economic model? (i.e., Do its revenues exceeds its costs and expenses and can it produce earnings in excess of its costs of reinvested capital?) Most likely, yes. It's profitable now, though throwing tons of cash back into growth. That user base must have some economic value, and the management minds at Facebook will likely discover the right method for tapping into it. 

Third, does it have competitive advantages in place that protect its market share and margins from encroachment? That's the part that I just don't know, and I don't think I could wrap my head around that issue even if I decided to spend a lot of time researching it.

If the answers to these questions were yes, and I believed Mark Zuckerberg had the ability to drive its success by focusing on the long-term value of Facebook as it serves as social connector for the world...but that in continuing to build it in that model, he was likely to face the ire of investors that would prefer profits now rather than wait...

Then I would celebrate Zuckerberg cornering control the way that he did. As a long-term investor, I would celebrate a CEO that openly denigrates profit decisions in favor of investing in the long-term competitive advantages of the business. And I would relish the fact that profit-takers would have no voice in the decisions guiding the business.

I would appreciate that the characteristics that make Facebook a franchise will be stronger five or ten years hence, and that I would therefore own a piece of a much more valuable pie.

But there are a lot of "ifs" to be satisfied first.

Pricing Power Part III: Amazon.com As Vehicle For Low Price/Scale Cost Advantage

The first form of pricing power is the ability to raise prices or continually charge a premium (featured in this post). The second is the ability - and willingness - to lower them. We discussed the general benefits (here). Now we will look at how it applies to Amazon.com specifically.  

*****

In November 2011, Wired Magazine featured a Jeff Levy interview of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Here is an excerpt:

Levy: Speaking of pricing, I wanted to ask about your decision to include streaming video as part of Amazon Prime. Why not charge separately for that? It’s a completely different service, isn’t it?

Bezos: There are two ways to build a successful company. One is to work very, very hard to convince customers to pay high margins. The other is to work very, very hard to be able to afford to offer customers low margins. They both work. We’re firmly in the second camp. It’s difficult—you have to eliminate defects and be very efficient. But it’s also a point of view. We’d rather have a very large customer base and low margins than a smaller customer base and higher margins.

*****

Blake Masters has done the world a significant favor by blogging his class notes from Peter Thiel's lectures. Thiel was a founder of PayPal and now runs the Founders Fund. He was profiled in this New Yorker piece last November (2011).  The class is CS183: Startup, and the notes are a fascinating read. You can access the blog posts here.

In talking about competitive advantage, Thiel had this to say:

For a company to own its market it must have some combination of brand, scale cost advantages, network effects, or proprietary technology...Scale advantage comes into play where there are high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Amazon has a serious scale advantage in the online world. Walmart enjoys them in the retail world. They get more efficient as they get bigger. 

Plenty of businesses have achieved scale sufficient to make them lower-cost producers than competitors that don't have the demand to manufacture as much of a similar product. These businesses can do a variety of things to press their scale cost advantage, one of which is to lower prices to a point where the competitors cannot follow suit and still maintain an adequate return on investment. But the scale advantaged business can also charge a premium, sinking its cost advantage into (for example) marketing campaigns that build a brand around the product.

To offer low prices, the company has to make a conscious decision that it will not exploit its advantage by charging a premium and using the scale cost advantage to make its margins even fatter. It must commit itself to a bigger vision of what can be accomplished by lowering price even when your advantage doesn't demand it.

*****

As we explored in our previous post (here), several retailers have built advantages around themselves by being low-cost low-price. But to date, their ambitions have been fairly limited to the retail industry. In many ways this makes sense...we encourage management to stick to its knitting, focus on its core, avoid (as Peter Lynch labeled it) "diworsification." A&P, Walmart, Costco and Home Depot have all demonstrated the scale cost advantage in retail.

Amazon is doing the same thing in web retail, and it has the additional advantage of an even lower overhead structure than the traditional retailers by virtue of being web-based instead of store-based. For example, Walmart has about 10,150 stores world wide that produced $444 billion in revenue last fiscal year. That's an average of $44 million per store. Costco has 600 warehouses that generated $89 billion in revenue. That's $148 million per warehouse. Amazon runs 70 fulfillment centers and generated $48 billion in revenue for an average of $685 million.

That's a tremendous amount of volume run through each warehouse. It clearly creates an advantage in fixed costs. It's a key component of how Amazon works "very, very hard to be able to afford to offer customers low margins."

It's predicated on the simplest of assumptions: when given the choice between a high price and a low price, consumers would prefer to pay the low price.

But it paints an incomplete picture to see Amazon only as a retailer; to think about low-price pricing power in terms of offering products at a cheaper price than other retailers. Amazon has a broader base of business operations and much wider ambition for where it can apply its low-cost low-price model.

*****

So what is Amazon? Let's try this interpretation on for size...

AMAZON IS A VEHICLE FOR APPLYING SCALE COST ADVANTAGE TO ANY INDUSTRY WHERE HEAVY VOLUME OF LOW MARGIN SALES CAN OVERCOME HIGH FIXED COSTS TO GENERATE SATISFACTORY RETURNS.

Retail is but one application of this Amazon business model, albeit a very important one. Retail has allowed Amazon to create an infrastructure that has progressed, adjacency by adjacency, into new product categories, new geographies, and new services. Leveraging, along the way, its technology, procurement, and fulfillment capabilities to facilitate the growth.

(Retail has also provided it a large cushion of cash, that large and growing pot of cash Amazon gets for getting its receivables much more quickly than it must write checks for its payables or other commitments.  That's about $10 billion - which will continue to grow as long as Amazon keeps selling products quickly - that Amazon can use for whatever purposes it wishes. And that capital carries with it no cost (as would debt), no dilution (as would issuing new equity), and no demands from Wall Street (as often happens when you ask outside sources of capital for money to finance your initiatives).)

Where else can the model apply beyond retail?

Consider the following exchange between Levy and Jeff Bezos in the Wired.com interview quoted above:

Levy: Young startups all tell me that even if Google offers them free hosting, they still want to use Amazon. Why do you think that is?

Bezos: We were determined to build the best services but to price them at a level that customers couldn’t match, even if they were willing to use inferior products. Tech companies always have high margins, except for Amazon. We’re the only tech company with low margins.

Has Bezos put the technology world on notice? What happens when Amazon exports this scale cost advantage from web retail into technology's fat profit domains, lowering prices for customers by sticking to its low-cost low-price approach to business?

*****

Below, a letter from the Amazon.com homepage at the launch of several new Kindles. See Bezos strike the steady drum beat of that message he shared in the Wired.com interview...

Pricing Power Part II: Lowering Price As Competitive Advantage

The first form of pricing power is the ability to raise prices or continually charge a premium (featured in this post). The second is the ability - and willingness - to lower them.

*****

It's easy to understand the model of charging high prices for your products and services when you're able. We grasp the concept as an elementary principle of business, and its logic flows naturally: if you can charge a higher price, you gather a higher margin. More gross margin dollars give you the walking around money you need to pay competitive salaries for the best talent, to hire the best sales force, to build the most recognizable brand, and to plow money back into research and development. Then you should have plenty left over to pay the tax man, and whatever remains either goes back to shareholders or is plowed back into the business in a way that increases its value over time.

It's far less intuitive to grasp how charging a lower price is another form of pricing power that belies competitive advantage. Our first impulse is to think that lower prices lead to lower margins, leaving less to cover operating expenses and even less to drop to the bottom line.

That's all true. But not always. Certain complicating factors can arise: like customer price sensitivity affecting demand...and increased demand driving greater market share...and greater market share producing higher sales volume...and high sales volume creating scale advantages.

As we stated in regards to businesses that can charge high prices for their offerings (this post):

Having the ability to charge high prices can be very nice. Of course you must ask WHY you can charge the high price and whether the cause is defensible and durable for the long-term...or whether it's fleeting and likely to dissipate with time.

*****

I'm no business historian, but my survey-level reading leads me to this abbreviated chronology of the "low price as advantage" strategy.

Begin With The Great A&P 

First, notwithstanding the travails of their business in the current generation, A&P stumbled first upon the idea of using low prices to generate high volume. In the book The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America, author Mark Levison attributes this simplest of quotes to co-founder John A. Hartford:

We would rather sell 200 pounds of butter at 1 cent profit than 100 pounds of butter at 2 cents profit.

A&P's founders uncovered the basic tendency of grocery shoppers to buy a lot more when prices are lower. As long as the grocery store could afford to charge less it would steal market share from the traditional mom-and-pop grocers. A&P used that philosophy as the cornerstone of its expansion and grew into the largest and most powerful retailer the world had know up to that point. 

Lesson learned: Grocery shoppers are price sensitive, preferring to pay less when offered the choice.

A New Level With Walmart

Second, Sam Walton applied the exact idea to the discount general store with results that have forever altered the retailing industry. From his book, Sam Walton: Made in America:

Here's the simple lesson we learned...say I bought an item for 80 cents. I found that by pricing it at $1.00 I could sell three times more of it than by pricing it at $1.20. I might make only half the profit per item, but because I was selling three times as many, the overall profit was much greater...In retailer language, you can lower your markup but earn more because of increased volume.

The amazing thing to Walton was that this idea was nothing novel. It should have been just as apparent to Kmart and Target (which were founded the same year as Walmart) and other discounters that should have had advantages over the Bentonville upstart. Again, from his book, Walton provides this explanation of why he got the pricing edge: 

What happened was that they didn't really commit to discounting. They held on to their old variety store concepts too long. They were so accustomed to getting their 45 percent markup, they never let go. It was hard for them to take a blouse they'd been selling for $8.00, and sell it for $5.00, and only make 30 percent. With our low costs, our low expense structures, and our low prices, we were ending an era in the heartland. We shut the door on variety store thinking.

The fact that they did not (or could not) adopt the idea even while witnessing Walmart's mind-boggling growth is testimony to how difficult it is for a business to adapt itself to a low-margin model. It seems you must start with the philosophy or you'll just never get it. 

Lesson learned: I don't believe I need to rattle off statistics on Walmart's success using low price as a competitive advantage. Discount shoppers are price sensitive, preferring to pay less when offered the choice. A business that can institutionalize the practices of EDLC-EDLP (see more here) has a competitive advantage over those that cling to high margins when selling the same or similar products. Indeed, the former will move into town eventually and steal market from the latter. History has provided ample evidence of that.

Refined For Home Depot and Costco

Third, unlike all the time that past between A&P demonstrating the earliest success story of the model and Walmart taking it to new heights, contemporaries of Sam Walton gleaned lessons from the concept as they launched their own retail operations. Most notable are Home Depot and Costco. Each has its own twist on the model...

Home Depot does it in categories where Walmart never could compete effectively. It decimated local hardware stores and various home improvement wholesalers in every market it built stores. (You can read the Home Depot story in the founders' book, Built From Scratch. For anyone studying the low price retail model, this book is as important as Sam Walton's.)

And Costco took the idea to its absurd logical extension by somehow intuiting that shoppers would be so enamored of lower prices that they would buy in huge bulk quantities from a much smaller overall selection of goods. Its gross margins are only 11 percent, and its operating expenses are only eight percent of revenue. Contrast that to Walmart's 24 percent and 19 percent performance respective metrics!

(Speaking of Costco, CNBC will be airing its documentary The Costco Craze tonight. If you can't tear yourself away from the NFL Draft, you can click here to see clips and excerpts.) 

Lesson learned: Shoppers are price sensitive in more categories than grocery and discount. They will give their business to the low price seller across a variety of retail lines.

Bringing It To the Web: Amazon.com

Fourth, Amazon.com enters the retail fray with its web only offering in 1994, declaring early that it would stand apart with its selection of goods and its commitment to selling them for less. More about Amazon in the next post.

*****

In my truncated chronology of retailers using low prices as their form of pricing power as competitive advantage, each iteration built on the lessons provided by its predecessors, tweaking them to fit its particular circumstance and incorporating its own wrinkles for improvement. Amazon is no exception.

The premise is this...

There is an abundance of products and services whose customers possess some degree of price sensitivity. All other variables being equal (or close enough), they will give their business to the low price provider. This price sensitivity creates the potential for shifts in market share.

The companies that commit themselves to being the low price providers in these categories will win additional customers, and often at the direct expense of competitors (though also through increased overall purchasing habits and the general expansion of their market size). They will generate higher sales volume. They will turn inventory more quickly (sales velocity). 

To use terminology from Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, being able to afford selling products and services at low prices means having a lower rate of operating expense. The higher your operating expense, the more you must mark-up your products to generate the gross profits you'll need to cover that overhead. Conversely, when you run a lean operation that squeezes out expenses, you don't require as much gross profit. You can afford to lower your prices.

With lower prices (and each time you lower them further), you initiate a virtuous cycle: lower prices mean high sales volume; higher sales volume means better bargaining power with your suppliers; better bargaining power means lower sourcing costs; and lower sourcing costs means you can afford to lower your prices even further. 

Lather...Rinse...Repeat.

And the virtuous cycle works for equity investors in the businesses. While your net profitability appears low (as a percent of revenue anyway, e.g. Walmart at five percent, Amazon at five percent and Costco at three percent), your return on invested capital is quite high. This is a superior measure of profitability anyway. It means you can generate high earnings against your asset base. It might cost you $10 million to build, equip, and stock a new store, but each store does $50 million in revenue, generates a $12 million in gross profit, has allocated expenses of $9.5 million and so generates $2.5 million of earnings contribution...or 25 percent ROIC on that $10 million initial investment. 

Your sales velocity hits a critical mass in which you're able to sell your inventory more quickly than you pay for it or have to pay your employees for their labor. You obviously pay the bills and paychecks eventually, but as you get a bigger gap between receiving cash and paying it out, it becomes a free source of capital. As long as you keep selling high volumes at high velocities you can use this pile of cash  to invest in your business, make strategic acquisitions, or pay out to shareholders in the form of dividends or share repurchases. 

You could also use it to lower prices even further.

You've created expectations among all your stakeholders that you abide to a low-cost-low-price model. (Indeed, expectations and habits are hard to change. This is probably why so few businesses have ever successfully transitioned from the high-cost-high-price model to low-cost-low-price.) Employees recognize what this means for perks and as a workplace culture. Suppliers know to bring their lowest prices and work with you to make them lower. Customers expect you to have the lowest price and feel less need to comparison shop. And investors come to understand what your model means for them and so gear their expectations accordingly. (Well, theoretically at least.)

*****

There is a high degree of fanatical devotion to being the low-cost-low-price provider. It has to be this way because there's just a natural tendency to make life easier on the people running the business by raising prices when you're able. For the true devotees, this is heresy. As soon as you look for excuses to raise prices - to cover those growing expenses - you find yourself on a slippery slope.

Walmart protects against it by talking incessantly about the need to keep costs low since the company's founding. From Charles Fishman's bestseller The Wal-Mart Effect:

'Sam valued every penny,' says Ron Loveless, another of Sam's early, legendary store managers...'People say Wal-Mart is making $10 billion a year, or whatever. But that's not how the people inside the company think of it. If you spent a dollar, the question was, How many dollars of merchandise do you have to sell to make that $1? For us, it was $35. So, if you're going to do something that's going to cost Wal-Mart $1 million, you have to sell $35 million in merchandise to make that million.'

Costco talks about being the lowest price provider for every good it sales as a matter of life or death for the business. It's fanatical about maintaining the ability to mark items up only 15 percent, and if it can't sell something for less than the other warehouse clubs or Walmart, it has been known to drop the product altogether...even Coke in this highly publicized price showdown a few years ago.

Amazon is said to leave one empty chair at each meeting as a powerful symbol that the customer is represented in all decisions...always.

These forms of devotion can come across as corny at best and cultish at the extreme. But the madness has a purpose. It reinforces the ideal, creating a culture committed to the idea of low-cost-low-price, spurring workers to pursue it with vigor day-in day-out.

Why? Because it is a competitive advantage. A huge one.

*****

This essay is meant to weigh the two approaches to pricing power as a competitive business advantage. The first - the ability to raise prices or charge a premium - is not the advantage in and of itself but rather a reflection of an advantage. In the example of Apple, the root advantage is some combination of brand cachet, innovative products, sleek designs, and content that confines purchasing to the iTunes ecosystem. The company has done a remarkable job with this. But I ask the question of what they must continue doing to maintain the advantage. The economics of the business, where revenue is primarily tied to selling more and more products each year, suggest they must stay on the crest of the innovation wave. Constantly. With little to no interruption. If they disappoint their customers with new releases, they risk losing the advantage very quickly to a pack of hungry competitors just a step or two behind.

(Yes, this point - that what Apple does is VERY difficult to sustain - remains just as true today as it was last week when I posted about them...no matter the intervening news about Apple's profit rising 94 percent. I'm not calling an end to Apple's streak of success. I'm remarking how difficult it is to sustain and that one must consider whether it can continue the streak indefinitely and what might happen when the streak does end. Consumer electronics is a TOUGH business.)

The second approach to pricing power - having the ability to lower prices - really is an advantage on its own. Yes, it reflects efficient operations, strong procurement practices, and cultural devotion. But you don't have to provide customers with many reasons to accept your lower prices. If you can do it, a large subset will come to you. 

If you raise prices or continue charging a premium? You must justify it - always - with some benefit that your competition can't match. 

Aeropostale (ARO): Part One - The Assumptions

We started building a position in Aeropostale in late-October but I'm just getting around to writing about it now as I'm revisiting the thesis and thinking through potential risks. Let's just jump in...

Assumption 1: The Mall Continues to Deliver Captive Market of Teenage Consumers

The mall is now and will remain fertile sales territory for retailers peddling wares to teenagers. While the traffic counts might ebb and flow a bit, these temples for commerce seem to have staying power with the teen demographic. In short, we assume they will continue going to malls and doing so with varying amounts of cash in their pockets.

Assumption 2: Mall-Based "Value" for Teen Clothing is a Distinct Market Niche

There is (and will continue to be) an important role for the value option for clothes in the mall. Indeed, it is a distinct market niche - as compared to full-price teen clothing retailing or value options outside of the mall - with its own set of unique properties and dynamics to consider.

If a business can offer acceptable alternatives to the full-cost, popular brands - and do so at significantly lower price points for similar lines of apparel - it will find eager buyers among teenagers and their parents. If nothing else, this is the point Aeropostale has proven in its 25 or so years of operations.

But it's a very difficult niche to fill. It requires a significant degree of operational precision from mimicking the popular designs, to executing quick supply chain turnaround, to driving inventory at incredibly high velocity in stores to overcome high rent expense.

ARO fumbled its way into this niche, as its history attests. It was a concept spun-off from a private label Macy's sponsored for affordable teen fashion. But it took more than a decade of trial and error (and continual capital investment) to truly understand the market opportunity and to refine the business operations to allow the company to exploit the niche through efficient operations.


Assumption 3: ARO is (and Will Remain) the Most Efficient Operator


The ARO business model can feel like a high wire act requiring constant operational precision to pull it off. Its gross margins hover around 35 percent versus about 65 percent for full-cost competitors like Abercrombie & Fitch. That means ARO must keep its operating expenses extraordinarily low (about 20 percent of revenue) to produce operating income comparable to full-cost competitors that spend upwards of 50 percent on SG&A.

The fat gross margins of the high-cost fashion brands hide all sorts of sins in bad inventory decisions, too much high-rent floor space, and expensive design departments. With 65 percent gross margins, you can make mistakes and get away with it. It's much more difficult to do that with 35 percent gross margins.

ARO chose this path and has spent years honing its operations to thrive in it. But the high wire act requires constant operational refinement with little room for error. We assume that ARO can continue as hyper-efficient operators of its business.


Assumption 4: ARO Will Face Pricing Challenges & Must Have Resources to Survive Battles

Assumptions one and two posit that ARO has a business whose market is not going to just suddenly disappear. Assumption three is an article of faith that ARO can keep on the same track that has provided its success to date.

Even though we assume ARO is not a direct competitor of the full-cost retailers (in some ways I'm mincing terms here, but let's go with it), that does not mean its immune to the problems they will inevitably face with their own inventory choices. In other words, ARO has to possess the financial wherewithal to lose sales when the full-cost brands miss on their merchandise selection and are forced to clear inventory at fire sale prices.

Indeed, this is the exact scenario ARO has faced for the past several quarters. When Abercrombie and American Eagle have to clear inventory, the value buyers go upstream for the deals. The full-cost brands try to avoid this, but it happens and most recently it has persisted through multiple selling seasons. Their businesses are hurting and the ripple effect has hit ARO.

ARO must have a very conservative balance sheet with little to no debt and sufficient cash resources to weather multiple seasons of bad sales. It's painful. But at some point it goes away and the selling environment normalizes. If ARO survives the onslaught, it rebounds nicely to previous levels of sales and earnings levels.

ARO saw its cash balances dwindle over the past year as it was forced to clear inventory at a cash loss then turnaround and buy more inventory for the following season. Management suspended its share repurchase program to conserve cash. They doubled-down on expense management. And while they never experienced an accounting loss, they benefited from maintaining sufficient cash on hand and no long-term debt.

They were positioned to weather the storm (which, frankly, may continue into the foreseeable future) and will have to maintain a similar philosophy for the inevitability of the full-cost retailers having inventory trouble again at some point.


Assumption 5: ARO Seems Protected Against New Value Entrants Into the Malls 

While I believe the occasional pricing challenges from the full-cost brands is the bigger threat, we must also consider the possibility of new value-based competition trying to elbow its way into this niche mall market.  I believe the ARO business works in part because it enjoys exclusive access to the niche. If a viable value competitor emerged, ARO would be a much less attractive long-term investment.

This exercise is about considering ARO's competitive advantages against new players. The over-arching barrier to entry is, I think, ARO's low-cost + low-expense + high-volume model. This is not the most attractive market to build a business (as discussed previously, the margin for error is incredibly slim) especially when a successful incumbent exists and would not cede market share without a fight.

That being said, I see these categories for hypothetical entrants...

A. The Fanatical Entrepreneur (see this previous post)

An entrepreneur with a fierce Sam Walton streak decides to start from scratch to compete for the value-minded customers in ARO's niche. It's easy to assume a rational businessman would take little interest such a venture. The margins are too thin. The infrastructure costs are too high to reach profitability without inviting a counter attack from ARO - an attack ARO is much better positioned to endure.

A rational agent is much more likely to compete with full cost brands, doing battle on fashion tasktes in hopes of commanding premiums, rather than fight it out with ARO on low price and efficiency.

Even a well-financed fanatic would struggle. My cursory analysis of the early ARO years suggests that the company needed almost ten years and more than 150 stores before it reached scale and enjoyed profitability. And that was in an ideal competitive environment (i.e., it wasn't going toe-to-toe with a competitor all too eager to do it grievous harm).  At $500,000 per mall store in capex investment, the fanatic would have to be prepared to put to work somewhere in the area of $75 million of capital over a period of up to ten years before seeing profit.

Conclusion: Low risk due to low probability of a competitor - even a fanatic - succeeding in this.

B. The Adjacent Mover

It's much more likely that an existing value retailer - already structured to operate with thin margins and high volumes - would attempt an adjacent move into the teen market to compete. Indeed, this is modus operandi for clothing retailers that are saturating their core brands...they look for a new "concept" store to open new markets and drive growth while taking advantage of existing infrastructure for back office, management experience, supplier relationships, etc to reach profitability quickly.

Gap did this with Old Navy (though in off-mall real estate), Abercrombie with Hollister, American Eagle with Aerie, and ARO is in process of doing it with P.S. for Kids.

While we have to view this as a constant threat, there still exists the protection of how unattractive margins would be for taking this investment risk. There is no obvious player well-positioned to do this, but I see it as the biggest threat for a new entrant.

Conclusion: Moderate risk but low probability due to ARO's entrenched position and likelihood to fight back.


C. The Desperado

Call this a corollary of the Fanatic...the Desperado might be a full-price clothing retailer whose very existence is threatened because it business model doesn't work in its current market. It knows clothing and teenagers, but can't manage to stay at the cusp of new fashion trends. It has infrastructure. It has real estate. It has seasoned management. But it needs a new model.

Would it choose to go up against ARO? I'm skeptical. Again, the margins make the market less attractive. Plus the need to maintain such efficient operations would cast doubt on any management team unable to compete in a wider margin business.

However, it was truly desperado, it might make a stab at it...transitioning its mall real estate quickly, leveraging its existing suppliers, and using current technology. And while its long-term prospects would be dubious, it could certainly make ARO's job harder for a time.

I suspect the outcome would be similar to the full-price brands dumping inventory into the value niche through clearance sales. It would be painful for ARO, but conditions would eventually normalize.

Conclusion: Moderate risk but low probability of it happening.

Okay, there are the core assumptions in a painfully long post. Next we'll look at some ways to think about valuing ARO.

The Fanatic - An Investing Construct

The Fanatic, as profiled in this previous post, is a construct to apply to all investing opportunities. Two vantage points to consider:

Vantage Point One - Is the business you're evaluating run by a fanatic? 

This presents its own set of opportunities and challenges that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say, investing with fanatics requires that you possess a deep conviction in the upside of the opportunity for market growth, the fanatic's ability to win that growth, and his ability to win it in a way that provides suitable returns on capital over the long-term. 

As the profile suggests, fanatics will not show many traits of shareholder friendliness while engaged in the thrall of winning market share from the competition. 

Vantage Point Two- Can the business you're evaluating survive attacks by the fanatic? 

This the more common construct you'll use in evaluating investment opportunities. It forces you to understand the deepest competitive advantage of any business by forcing your thinking process outside the simplistic world of rationally-motivated agents. 

A rational agent competitor will work through MBA uber-logic in determining whether and how to compete with your business.

Ponder this...

A. How protected is your potential investment in the face of a capable fanatic using a workable business model and backed by financial resources? Assume he is willing to run through his capital in his attempts to gain an initial toehold and that he will not be bought out...he is shooting for market dominance. How can your business win against him and/or limit his damage?

B. How much pain can your potential business endure in its fight against the fanatic? If the fight involves a price war, how deep is your advantage? Are other shareholders willing to forego the immediate gratification of earnings growth in order to invest in protection against the fanatic, or will they run for the exits and force down the share price?

Imagine you are Kmart when Sam Walton comes along. Or Barnes & Noble facing off against Jeff Bezos. What are some other examples?

The Fanatic - A Profile

How does a business compete against a true fanatic?

+

A fanatic with a winning model?

+

A fanatic with access to resources?

The fanatic is, by definition, either oblivious to criticism - so convinced his path is correct - or he is constitutionally impervious to its effects.

He is NOT a rational player who sticks to conventional rules or employs conventional tactics. He has a higher threshold for pain, does not keep banker's hours, and revels in keeping foes off balance. 

The fanatic chooses a path, making appropriate corrections as he proceeds, and sticks to it with stubborn resolve.

The fanatic is unrelenting in pursuit of his goals. He ignores short-term pain while maintaining focus on the long-term vision.

At first competitors ignore him. They are attacked constantly by quirky entrepreneurs. 99 percent of them fall away on their own, collapsing because of flaws in their models or from being starved of resources needed to establish their businesses. Established competitors have neither the time nor the inclination to worry about the upstarts.  

However, the fanatic's long-term vision (or model) is correct. 

He flies under the radar long enough to establish a toe-hold. He now has some staying power. 

Competitors take notice. They hope to stop him with overwhelming force. His model is exposing flaws in their own, but they have neither the time nor the inclination to change that which brought so much success in the past.

The fanatic has access to resources. He can survive attacks. He can grow his business. And he does not play nice when competing. 

Competitors try to buy the fanatic. But he is not a rational player. He believes he is building something great.

The fanatic steals market share and expands the market. He reaches scale and benefits from the economies. He plows all available capital back into the business, paying no dividend, never buying back stock. 

Competitors are back on their heels. They now need better resources to compete. They come to regret the idea of total shareholder returns. 

Competitors test their resolve and contemplate angering their institutional investors...In the interest of beating the fanatic, they ask, can we break our long-standing trend of quarter-over-quarter EPS growth to increase our marketing spend or to hire the people we need or to invest more maintenance capital into the business?  Investors say no.

Competitors contemplate reducing their long-standing dividend payments. Investors say no.

Competitors contemplate suspending their buy-back initiatives. Investors say no.

All the while, the fanatic is unrelenting in his attack.