You are here: Home » the Blog » Companies Analyzed (Generals) » On Buying Harley Davidson

On Buying Harley Davidson

By Joe Ponzio on August 27, 2007  |  26 comments

The two most important factors that go into buying companies are moat and margin of safety. You could, and likely will, be wrong on your future owner earning projections. You may be overly optimistic or overly cautious and end up buying too soon or passing on a great opportunity.

Your moat helps promote consistency. Your margin of safety helps minimize losses. Still, there's a business in there and we need to look at and understand it as well. Such is the case with Harley Davidson.

I don't know how popular Harley Davidson is outside the U.S. (I never saw any in Europe when I visited), but it is a staple of our society in the U.S. Nothing says 4th of July like 500 hogs piercing our ears as they cruise down the street.

Justin had put this comment out there:

I've been using your spreadsheet with a few companies to try and get a feel for how it works. For HOG, for instance, I get a per share value of $91.28. The median growth in FCF, however, was a hefty 16.1%.

While continued growth for the next ten years at that rate is possible, of course, in my judgment (best guesstimate based on my research, really, I'm no pro) it seems likely that the growth of HOG may be slowing.

I'm sure there is no pat answer for my question, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. I would like to lower my estimation of the growth of FCF for HOG over the next 10 years, to build in a more comfortable margin of safety, but I don't know what factors to consider to come to an appropriate estimation. I've plugged in various percentages to see how that affects the per share value, but I don't know how to evaluate which one I should use.

First...The Numbers

HOG has grown considerably over the years. Owner earnings have been through the roof and shareholder equity has chugged along more than 22% a year for 15 years. CROIC has been on the rise too, tripling to a healthy high teens and better. It's no wonder that HOG has been growing.

Next...The Chart

If you look at the below chart, you'll see the stock price (market cap) of Harley Davidson vs. its intrinsic value (using a 15% discount rate). The intrinsic value uses the actual results of operations for the past years, and assumes 13% growth for years 1-10 and 3% growth for years 11-20. Here's the PDF of the chart.

Harley Davidson Intrinsic Value vs. Market Cap

It looks as though, using the above assumptions, Harley Davidson is fairly priced right now. To generate a high return on HOG, you'd have to be spot on in your assumptions and Harley would have to meet or outperform your expectations.

Finally...The Business

Is Harley Davidson a wonderful business? I think so. Still, I see a problem: Capital Expenditures eat up about 40% of owner earnings. That has been lower in recent years; but, back in the late nineties, CapEx was eating up as much as 80% of owner earnings.

Here's the potential problem: If Harley Davidson goes through a few lean years (as most businesses do in their natural cycle), their capital expenditures will still be relatively large. If that proves to be the case, owner earnings will suffer.

The Result

Harley Davidson is a wonderful, growing company. That will probably continue to be true. Still, there is no margin of safety and we don't know how CapEx will eat into owner earnings in the future. High CapEx businesses are generally bad investments (think auto manufacturers and airlines) because they have massive costs and little moat. Harley has high costs but a very nice moat.

In my opinion, Harley Davidson is a cost-heavy business and I wouldn't buy. There are plenty of other companies out there that have similar financials, but lower CapEx. When times turn rough, those low-cost businesses will tend to weather the storm a little more easily and will generally begin growing sooner than their high-cost counterparts.

Changing The Assumptions

If we were to change our assumptions, we'd end up with a different picture. For example, if we slap a 9% discount on our valuation, HOG appears to be at a 30% margin of safety. Then again, with a 9% discount rate, we need a 50% MOS.

This game of "fudging the numbers" can be played to justify the unjustifiable. That is precisely why we need to look into the business as well. No matter how much you play with the data, you need to have the reasoning as well. When tough times come for Harley Davidson again, as they tend to come for all businesses from time to time, it will still have to shell out money for its CapEx.

Don't go with your gut—go with your data and reasoning.

Written by Joe Ponzio on August 27, 2007

Joe Ponzio is the managing partner of the Ponzio Investors Funds and owner of Ponzio Capital Inc, a registered investment advisory and deep value portfolio management firm. The author of F Wall Street (the book and the website), his articles have appeared in hundreds of financial media, including Financial Planning Magazine, CNBC.com, Yahoo! Finance, and Reuters. He has appeared numerous times nationally on both radio and television, and has presented at universities and seminars across the United States.

Read more articles like this online at www.fwallstreet.com.
To learn more about Joe's portfolio management services, visit www.ponziocapital.com.
The Discussion
Justin' gravatar

Justin
Aug 27th, 2007

Thanks Joe. I didn't consider how the high CapEx affects the business. Every time I read your blog, I learn something else. It's a rewarding experience.
jay S' gravatar

jay S
Aug 27th, 2007
5 comments

I agree with Justin on always learning something new everytime I get to Joe's site.
Superb analysis as always, and one of the best sites by far !

HOG has been on my radar for a while as well, and i agree its better to wait for a 20% correction before getting in, though one may argue that a great business at fair value is also a good bet.
This moat is really phenomenal, I read about an entry strategy into China and India, where despite their never having been there, they already have iconic status amongst the high net worth set. I'll try to find the news item and post it here. Jay
Rod T' gravatar

Rod T
Aug 27th, 2007
1 comment

Joe,

I tried running some numbers on Weyerhaeuser (WL). I am admittedly overwhelmed by these accounting numbers but this company appears to be priced at a substancial discount. (Share price $67.09 vs value of $169.37)

What am I missing?

Thank you,
R
Hi all - thanks for the feedback!

Jay—I agree that it is better to pay a fair price for a wonderful business than to pay a wonderful price for a fair business. Still, I am concerned about HOG's capital expenditures when the growth cycle slows for a bit.

Is HOG a good place for money? Probably. Is it the best place? Probably not—at least not at the narrow MOS.

Rod—Weyerhaeuser Company (WY). The problem with a company like this is that there is no barrier to entry for competitors. Anyone with a plot of land and a chainsaw can steal some market share. Weyerhaeuser will have to forever beat down its pricing to stay competitive, and that's a tough way to make money.

On top of that, they've benefitted greatly from a booming real estate market. That appears to be coming to an end. As it does, we may see Weyerhaeuser head back to its sporadic, unpredictable, pre-boom business.

With little or no moat and no consistency, there is no way to reasonably predict the future owner earnings, and hence determine today's value and an ideal purchase price. In the end, I think Weyerhaeuser is a little too speculative for me.

Remember: There's a business behind that stock. Analyze the business first. After you've done that, and if you absolutely have to own it because it is a wonderful business, then determine the value and see if you can buy it. Hope that helps!
musicwhiz' gravatar

musicwhiz
Aug 28th, 2007

Hello, I am from Singapore and stumbled upon your blog while searching for good investment sites. Your blog is one of the few of very good quality and I think we share the principles with regards to investing (i.e. value investing). I will continue to read your blog and hopefully provide comments, even though some of your articles are from an American perspective (e.g. 401k plans, in Singapore they are called CPF plans).

I welcome you to visit my value investment blog at http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com Thanks !
Glenn' gravatar

Glenn
Aug 28th, 2007
13 comments

Joe,

I previously saw the HOG comments posted by Justin and was going to jump in at that time but got distracted. I appreciate your additional analysis of HOG. The company has been on my mind for a couple of years but til recently I never had the necessary tools and experience to value the stock. I am going to accept the analysis done by Justin and yourself as accurate and my input has to do with two items, namely a) demand and b) capital expenditures.

A) It appears to me HOG has made the transition in the last couple of years from being perceived as a company that caters to the motorcycle "gangs" of America to a company that now caters to the general public. Bikes that are made in America are very popular with a very wide spectrum of the population. In addition we have the baby boomers who are nearing retirement and have some discretionary income to play with. When you add to that the probability that high fuel prices are here to stay, it all equates to a healthy demand for HOGs in the forseeable future.

B) I am under the impression that "capital expenditures" are basically determined by company management, on an annual budget basis. Hence, management has the option and flexibility to increase/decrease capital expenditures as they see fit. Don't you see HOG adjusting their capital outlay during lean years to keep a strong and healthy balance sheet?

When I consider HOG, the two thoughts that come to mind are "great product" and "high demand". For me an investment decision becomes more focussed on the ability of management to efficiently run the company and adequately reward shareholders. I am still sitting on the fence on this one. Your analysis and straight forward honest input is greatly appreciated. I will give your comments a good deal of consideration as I consider an investment into HOG as compared to other investment options that are available.

Glenn
Glenn,

I agree that HOG is no longer the "biker-only" motorcycle. It has done a wonderful job of transition its image from "biker" to "biker or red-blooded American". If they can continue that trend into other countries, they'll do extremely well.

The problem is with the CapEx. True - management sets the CapEx budget each year. Still, CapEx is based on the company's projected sales, volume requirements, and need to maintain or take a competitive position. If HOG chooses to scale back on CapEx, how will they produce and sell as many bikes (or bike products)? If they can't sell as many, the price per unit will go up. If the price goes up, hobbyist bikers may turn to the more economical Honda, Yamaha, or other competitor. (Harley people will always be Harley people)

Take a look at the muscle car/American car phenomenon of the late 20th century (in the US). Until the late 1980s, you bought American, or you settled on foreign until you could buy American. By the 1990s, American cars and foreign cars had to compete fiercely for market share. Today, well, look at many of our American car makers and their respective market share.

The more HOG scales back CapEx to increase owner earnings, the more strain it puts on its existing plants, properties, and equipment. Too much strain, and they'll all have to be repaired or replaced - and we would see massive CapEx for a year or more in the future.

In the end, it is generally this for that. If they slow CapEx, their production, revenue, and earnings will likely follow. If they speed up CapEx, they run the risk of overspending owner earnings and finding themselves paying for CapEx they don't need.

I'm not saying HOG is a bad investment...I'm simply saying it may not be the best. And that is my goal here: find the best.
Glenn' gravatar

Glenn
Aug 28th, 2007
13 comments

Joe,

In your view is the problem with CapEx a fault of management or is it an offspring from company survival and the desire/need to remain competative? If a fault of management, what recourse do you think the HOG management should take to remove the CapEx concern and improve investor interest and confidence? In other words, what will it take for HOG to become one of the "best" investments available to us.

I have one additional concern with respect to HOG. Do you know if "Made in America" includes the manufacture of all the individual bike components as well as assembly? The competition could eventually gain an advantage if they are outsourcing their manufacture and/or assembly to foreign soil where parts and labor are less expensive than here at home. I hate to see it happen, but I think your comments regarding the muscle car/American car phenomenon reveal to us the power of economics over ideals.

Glenn
CapEx is a function of the business. Some industries have higher relative CapEx. Simplify the businesses for clarity. Auto manufacturer - huge CapEx. Can't survive without those robotic arms and plants. Real estate appraiser? In business with a pen and a notepad (and a tablet PC if they're really high tech).

How can HOG become one of the "best"? I don't know if it can simply because, dollar for dollar of revenue, lower CapEx businesses will generally generate higher owner earnings, and hence grow faster. The only way for HOG to overcome that is to grow at a super high rate and constantly minimize expenses.

Can it be done? Sure. Don't get me wrong: I love Harley Davidsons (I ride, though not lately). They have a heck of a moat and will probably continue to get the business. Just make sure that your data and reasoning tell you that HOG is the best place for your money...not just a place where you'll probably get some growth.

I'm not sure about the answer to your second part. Because of the CapEx concern, I knew I wouldn't be buying HOG today before I valued it. You can check the annual reports at the SEC to see if you can uncover that info.

Hope that helps!
Justin' gravatar

Justin
Aug 29th, 2007

Great discussion guys.

Joe, I'd like to hear what you think about the psychological side of being an investor, if you run short of ideas. I read a quote the other day that made me laugh. One guy said he could tell he was probably going to make money on an investment if he felt like he was going to throw up when he bought. Now, I'm not in for that extreme. I like a little higher comfort level when I buy, but I think he was referring to staying steady or buying as the price dropped. Anyway, fascinating stuff.
Sanjay Shetty' gravatar

Sanjay Shetty
Sep 12th, 2007
24 comments

Hi Joe,

I've been trying to analyze a company which in the tech GPS space, its a market leader called Garmin (ticker GRMN). The only issue being that data for this company is available for 7 years only. The question I have is, is less than 10 years data ok in case your understanding of the business is good? Secondly if the answer to the first question is a yes, could you possibly help run thru this company in an Excel sheet, as I'd like to understand how you would look at multi-year data etc. Thanks a ton. It's great to see your responses to everyone's queries :-)
A fan of Phil Town? I know he loves Harley, Garmin, Whole Foods, and Walgreens and see a number of visitors coming. I'll take a look at it.

Can you use 7 years? Absolutely. You can use two. Remember: The past is supposed to tell us whether or not the business is consistent, but we are buying the future. No matter what has happened in the past, if your data and reasoning tell you that the future will be a certain way, you can value and buy the business.

I recently did this with Thompson (TOC, 1999-2006) only to find that (a) I don't have a ton of confidence in my valuation, and (b) the business is slightly overpriced according to my semi-confident valuation.
Sanjay Shetty' gravatar

Sanjay Shetty
Sep 15th, 2007
24 comments

Yeah I got really kicked up about stocks post reading Phil Town's book. Quite a few things which I didn't understand were simplified by his book, however valuation or determining intrinsic value of a stock was something I was not completely convinced about. Frankly I'm a novice so I have no way of judging whether his method would work or not, however wherever I've applied them as of now, it has worked. I've been doing simulation trades :-)

I'm kind of liking your posts as well, reading every one of them, infact did my own analysis of MHP using your methods. Would love to share it with you, not sure how I can mail you the Excel I've worked out though...

Anywyas looking forward to hearing your take on Garmin, I'm a geek so I like all my gizmo's and feel I understand it's products, just need to make sure that this company will last out. Looking forward to your Excel analysis on Garmin. Thanks for all your posts.
Sanjay Shetty' gravatar

Sanjay Shetty
Sep 18th, 2007
24 comments

Hi Joe,

Instead of sending you the entire excel sheet, I've pasted below my analysis of MHP.
Company Valuation:
Total Value $25,526
Per Share Value $69.58
Desired Discount 25%
Purchase Price $52.18
Current Price $47.81
Actual Discount 31%

For the first 10 yrs I've grown the FCF at 15.2% followed by 5% for the next 10 years.
Median values for:
Shareholder Equity 10.8%
Free Cash Flow 15.2%
CROIC 29.0%

Let me know what you think.

Regards,

Sanjay Shetty
I blog at http://indiainvestor.wordpress.com
Looks great. Now the real question: Is MHP a wonderful business that can reasonably be expected to grow owner earnings at 15.2%? If so, it looks like you are in business!
Dan' gravatar

Dan
Sep 21st, 2007
1 comment

Hi Joe and all,

As a Harley rider and HOG stock owner, I see all of the same points of concern as you, with an added wrinkle.

Harley's moat is legendary and the numbers have backed up the story. We have, if we are old enough, witnessed the public perception of Harley's move from "biker gang's brand of choice" to the brand of choice for aging boomers. The shift appeared to be subtle when experienced year by year, but in hindsight and over 2-3 decades this was a major shift in perception and a marketing coup worth of still more ledgend.

Now I see another shift in perception and while I can't know that it will continue I strongly suspect it will. The shift I see is toward more sophisticated bikes, bikes that ride smoother, have less vibration, are cheaper to maintain, require less maintenance and a higher level of reliability. I see fellow boomers that are trading in their hogs for BMW's and other sleeker bikes. I see other boomers who are skipping the "Harley phase" altogether and opting to buy into the sleeker bikes without ever considering Harley.

If we now move from the boomers' perceptions and buying choices to the younger generations, I see this trend greatly magnified. How many 25-yr olds do we see in the Harley showroom? I, for one, see very few. I see them at the Honda dealer, trying to choose the color of their new cafe racer (or cruiser, or moto-cross, or ... whatever, but it's still a sleeker bike.)

If my trend-spotting is right -- it could be completely wrong) -- then Harley's moat in the U.S. is very much in question, leaving Harley's foreign sales to pick up any slack. Not being attuned to China (for example) motorcycle riders' perceptions of Harley vs. sleeker brands, I am not willing to project future sales for any other countries. At the very least developing countries have, or will have, the same choices as American riders: Harley, BMW, Honda, Victory, Yamaha, etc. And Harley's are not exactly common in Europe either.

HOG prices have fallen considerably lately and as an investor that gets my attention. Throw in the fact that I am a Harley fan and Harley rider and it has been tempting to scoop up more Harley shares. Then my practical side takes over and I have to admit to myself the trends mentioned above.

In addition to high CAPEX (I agree it's a major concern) I have serious doubts about the future demand for Harley. Yes, the moat is high but I detect the possibility of a leak. I think Harley might be a fine investment and might produce fair returns buying at today's price. But might is not good enough and I think there are much better investments out there in companies whose moats are not so much in doubt.

It scares me when I agree with an expert, but today that's exactly where I find myself. There are better investments out there with less risk.

Good discussion!

Dan
paolo' gravatar

paolo
Sep 27th, 2007
5 comments

Hi Joe:
Your analysis on JNJ is excellent, and thanks for providing your calculations in Excel. Yours is the most in-depth analysis I've seen anywhere.

I was using the spreadsheet to value MCO and had a question and an observation:

Question: MCO's shareholder's equity has been negative from 1997-2003 primarily due to share buybacks. This results in a very high CROIC and shareholder equity growth for all periods is 0%. Calculation-wise, those results are correct, but do I need to consider anything else? (I can send you the spreadsheet if you want - let me know your email address)

Observation: On FCF, I tried to use Morningstar data, but for some periods it was 0 so I had to go to the 10-K's cash flow statements. I noticed Morningstar's FCF includes discontinued operations in operating activities, but excludes it for cap ex. Also, Morningstar excluded "additions to intangibles and computer software" in cap ex, which was a way bigger number than additions to "fixed assets." Personally I think disc ops should be excluded completely, and since MCO is a service company, intangibles should be included as cap ex. For a preliminary calc, relying on Morningstar is OK but for those very serious about buying a stake, I recommend going directly to the cash flow statement for accuracy.
There is no better place to go than the horse's mouth - the SEC's EDGAR database where companies have to report their financials. You never know when a Morningstar (or other) data-entry person might mistype a number.

Take a look at today's post about Shareholder Equity. If that doesn't answer your question, let me know and I'll try to clarify a bit.
freedombanker' gravatar

freedombanker
Oct 29th, 2007
2 comments

Hi Joe,

Great site and thank you for sharing your VI POV!!!

Can you explain how do you construct the graph of Market Cap vs. Estimated Intrinsic Value ?

Do you go back to 93 and estimate IV based on FCF and Owner Equity ? What do u mean by "actual results from operations" ?

Do u have any excel with this graphical capability ready, you can share with us.

Thank you in advance.

Best Regards

Gustavo
Tom' gravatar

Tom
Oct 31st, 2007
1 comment

In response to Dan.

I completely agree. In addition, the average age of the Harley rider is increasing and unlike cars, how many new bikes will be bought by riders in their 60's? At 55 I may be riding my last sports bike and moving over to a 700 lb. Harley is not in my future.
A lot has been written about the disposable income of the retiring boomers. I would guess that Harley will receive much less of that cash than is currently assumed by extrapolating their past growth rate forward.
FreedomBanker: I had a spreadsheet that calculated both intrinsic value and stock price for the historical periods, but Morningstar just changed the site on me. We may have collectively been hitting it too hard for data.

The graph is pretty simple — get the historical prices (from Yahoo! Finance), you know how to calculate intrinsic value — plot one over the other.

Tom: Thanks for the baby boomer input!
John Maracho' gravatar

John Maracho
Nov 27th, 2008

How can i create the chart of price and value?
Thanks
John
John,

Excel is your friend! You can download the historical prices from Yahoo! Finance. Then, go through the past annual reports to try and calculate intrinsic value for each year.

Once you've done that, it's a matter of merely creating a chart in Excel. It takes a little work; but, it gives a great perspective.
Amit' gravatar

Amit
Feb 13th, 2009

Sanjay, I know this is old... but I thought you might want to check out the source of those owner earnings. They came from unsustainable profits in useless rating products from which MHP's S&P division was the main generator of cash in the whole business.

The textbook business eats cash and margins are low although it does enjoy a moat. It has other businesses with very low margins as well which I wonder about...


You can't deny though, if you have faith in MCO , then you can certainly have faith that MHP will generate owner earnings in the future as long as things remained as they did in the past. (I think this market has opened to competition now).
Ron' gravatar

Ron
Aug 6th, 2009

Hi Joe,

I was wondering why you consider Harley Davidson a high CapEx stock and not WalMart?
If my calculations are correct, WalMart's CapEx in some years doubles even triples
the FCF. Are there other numbers to consider besides CapEx and FCF?
Also, what would you consider a good inventory turnover in relationship to profit margin?
Thank you Joe for your great website and your wonderful book!
Jim' gravatar

Jim
Oct 19th, 2009
1 comment

in my opinion, corporate culture is important in valuing. HOG ' culture need to be considered well.
Join The Discussion

Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010

Remember me on this computer
To help keep the F Wall Street website free from comment spam, we require that you have javascript enabled to post a comment. Please turn on javascript and refresh this page to load the comment form.

Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street

Submitting Your Comment

Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!

Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street

Thank You For Participating!

Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.

» Buy F Wall Street at Amazon.com

Excel 2007|Excel 2003
(ZIP, 168kb) (ZIP, 138kb)

Search F Wall Street

Powered by Google

Subscribe to F Wall Street

E-mail or RSS updates. And it's free!

Enter your e-mail address below

Sun @ 1:14AM | View comment
mike said,

ROIC is not based on earnings. it's just EBIT * (1-t) / invested capital. The flaw with ROIC...
What The Heck Is CROIC?

Thu @ 8:00AM | View comment
Cale Smith said,

New Ponzio Capital site looks great, Joe, and good to see you back posting!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash

Wed @ 5:50PM | View comment
kalidasa said,

in correction to an earlier post, it is Sham Gad(www.gadcapital.com) or www.shamgad.blogspot.com
Hedge Funds and the Early Buffett Partnership

Tue @ 3:29PM | View comment
Joe Ponzio said,

I think it got overheated. I still feel like it's a good long-term holding (if the buy price is right)....
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?

Tue @ 2:48PM | View comment
Nutrisystem Coupon said,

Dude, what happened to this stock? You would think in January this stock would be jumping through the roof...
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?