Pirate Equity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
ZO1 Writeup.Pdf
79 Madison Ave, 2nd Floor New York, NY. 10016 www.haydencapital.com January 10, 2017 The Elevator Pitch Zooplus (ETR: ZO1, Price: €122) is the leading online retailer of pet food and supplies in Europe. Generally, in a commoditized market such as selling pet food, the lowest cost provider with the best customer service has the “right to win”. We believe that Zooplus will be this winner, given its structural cost advantage versus its competitors (which we explore below). Additionally, customer satisfaction is extremely high, and we can clearly see customers’ appreciation for the company’s value proposition, as evidenced by the 94% sales retention rate. These unbeatable low prices and high customer satisfaction have led to a 31% annualized sales growth rate since 2010, while still possessing a long runway for continued expansion. We believe the market is underestimating the long-term earnings power of the firm and consequently significantly undervaluing the company. For instance, the stock is currently trading at 0.9x 2016 sales while comparable acquisitions have taken place at 2 – 6x multiples. Additionally, we believe at maturity, the business will have normalized operating margins of 8 - 10%, implying a valuation of ~10x normalized EBIT. This is extremely cheap for a dominant company with 50% market share in its category, a clear and growing advantage versus competitors, and profitable growth of 20 - 25% per year going forward. As the business grows, this will only increase its competitive advantage due to economies of scale, resulting in lower cost of goods and shipping costs per order. It is hard to put a static price target on a company growing its value so quickly. -
2013 Annual Report
2013 Annual Report Letter to our Stockholders April 25, 2014 Dear Fellow Stockholders: This was a very exciting year in our company history as we celebrated our 20th listing anniversary on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange. We are pleased that 2013 marked the fourth consecutive year of double-digit earnings per share growth and a record high year for earnings before tax margin. Our ability to continue to consistently deliver against our long-term shareholder value strategy is a testament to our ability to manage what we can control even in an uncertain macroeconomic environment. In 2013, we generated $6.9 billion in net sales, including services sales of $766 million, on comparable store sales growth of 2.7%. Overall, earnings before tax increased to $642 million, or 9.3% of sales, resulting in earnings per share of $4.02. We generated $615 million in operating cash flow, and spent $147 million in capital expenditures, adding 55 net new stores and 3 new PetsHotels. As a result of our strong cash generation, we returned $54 million in quarterly dividends to our shareholders, and repurchased $464 million in common stock. In September, our Board of Directors approved a new $535 million share repurchase program and increased our quarterly dividend by 18% to 19.5 cents per quarter, reinforcing our commitment to return excess free cash flow to our shareholders. Fundamentally, we believe that pets make us better people. This belief allows us to play a unique role centered around creating more moments for people to be inspired by pets through our strategic pillars of caring for our customers, caring for our associates, and caring for our communities. -
Sears Service Contract Renewal
Sears Service Contract Renewal Samian and finnier Jotham often reimposes some ochlocrat legalistically or humps afloat. Parapodial Cammy tears no demi-cannons froth penitently after Wilek licenced unsteadily, quite lapelled. Quintin racemizes uniquely. Sear in services contract renewal on contracts. Sears Protection Agreements Sears Online & In-Store. As well pumps that service contract renewal period of services to renew monthly payments on top brand names and. Sho for service contracts which is the best time? Become an approved contractor of Global Home USA home. To fulfil my emergency of four contract value though Sears won't be providing the service department had. Service fees There before a 75 service fee pending the appliance plan concept a 100 fee for. Will Sears honor your appliance warranty during its bankruptcy. Looking for renewal period. Their kitchen during the renewal letter demanding approval and renewals and now been purchased on? Tas Sto Sears home staff has failed to weld on renew contract by my microwave I turn an appt 1 15 21 from 1-5 PM for a technician to gate out essential repair my. Sears Master Protection Agreement Class Action Lawsuit Gets. What You somehow to Know follow Your Sears Warranty. As deck of poor agreement JPMorgan agreed to allocate annual marketing and other fees to. Sears Home Warranty Review Mediocre Product by a. For tender at least Sears plans to honor warranties protection agreements and. Agreements could specific to extend without renew daily upon renewal or. Store Services Protection Agreements Sears Hometown Stores. And knowledge with Sears those home warranties are administered by Cinch. -
Broad-Based Stakeholder Ownership in Journalism: Co-Ops, Esops, Blockchains
Broad-Based Stakeholder Ownership in Journalism: Co-ops, ESOPs, Blockchains Nathan Schneider University of Colorado Boulder Media Industries 7, no. 2 (2020) http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0007.203 This article presents a survey of broad-based stakeholder- ownership models for journalism. The models considered are forms of ownership by employees, associations, audiences, and blends of these. Some of the examples are so new that they have not been, and cannot yet be, comprehensively studied. Yet they bear unique promise for addressing the dual challenges of economic sustainability and perceived accountability that bedevil news media today. Such promise, however, does not guarantee success. While broad-based stakeholder ownership in the news business shows capacity for public accountability, as well as some promise for business sustainability, it is ill-equipped to compete in markets organized to favor investor owners with far greater capital access. Such ownership models, therefore, will likely require additional policy support in order to gain and maintain significant market share. This article benefited from substantive input from Joseph Blasi, Dave Boyle, Julia Cagé, Patrick Ferrucci, Katy Fetters, Michael Keeling, Douglas Kruse, Chris Mackin, Doug O’Brien, and anonymous reviewers, in addition to financial support through a Louis O. Kelso Fellowship from the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations. Introduction: “Owners who will” On the first weekend of April 2018, the opinion section of the Denver Post went into open revolt against the paper’s owners. Under the headline “News 1 Matters,” the cover showed a 2013 photo of the newsroom staff with its departed members—the majority of those pictured, thanks to a series of layoffs—replaced with black silhouettes. -
The Case for Sears Holdings (SHLD)
BAKER STREET CAPITAL MANAGEMENT The Case For Sears Holdings (SHLD) With Our Proprietary Property-by-Property Real Estate Appraisal September 2013 (424) 248-0150 . 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 940, Los Angeles, CA . [email protected] Disclaimer The analyses and conclusions of Baker Street Capital Management, LLC ("Baker Street") contained in this presentation are based on publicly available information. Baker Street recognizes that there may be confidential information in the possession of the companies discussed in the presentation that could lead these companies to disagree with Baker Street’s conclusions. This presentation and the information contained herein is not a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Baker Street has not sought or obtained consent from any third party to use any statements or information indicated herein as having been obtained or derived from statements made or published by third parties. Any such statements or information should not be viewed as indicating the support of such third party for the views expressed herein. No warranty is made that data or information, whether derived or obtained from filings made with the SEC or from any third party, are accurate. The analyses provided may include certain statements, estimates and projections prepared with respect to, among other things, the historical and anticipated operating performance of the companies, access to capital markets and the values of assets and liabilities. Such statements, estimates, and projections reflect various assumptions by Baker Street concerning anticipated results that are inherently subject to significant economic, competitive, and other uncertainties and contingencies and have been included solely for illustrative purposes. -
Software Sector Summary Report
SOFTWARE SECTOR REPORT Q1 2019 GCA: A LEADING INDEPENDENT GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANK Global investment bank providing strategic M&A and capital markets advisory services to growth companies and market leaders LEEDS PARIS FRANKFURT MANCHESTER MUNICH ZURICH NAGOYA TOKYO LONDON SHANGHAI NEW YORK MILAN NEW DELHI OSAKA TEL AVIV FUKUOKA SAN FRANCISCO TAIPEI MUMBAI SINGAPORE HO CHI MINH CITY Global platform: Sector expertise: Exceptional cross- 21 offices in key Experienced team: Expansive coverage border capabilities: markets across Over 400 employees and deep Over a third of all America, Asia and across the globe specialization transactions Europe Broad spectrum Diversified Strong reputation of clients: business model: and track record: Leading Geographically High number of conglomerates, top balanced, synergistic repeat clients and private equity firms and complementary referrals and emerging high- focus areas growth companies 2 GCA operates as GCA in America and Asia, and GCA Altium in Europe GCA OVERVIEW The GCA Software Team US Team Paul DiNardo Daniel Avrutsky Rupert Sadler Josh Wepman Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director Software HCM Software Software, Travel & Telematics Software & Digital Media [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] James Orozco Clark Callander Chris Gough Kevin Walsh Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director Financial Sponsors Technology Real Estate Tech Software & Digital Media [email protected] [email protected] -
Why Did Tribune Publishing Roll Over for This Hedge Fund? As a Matter of Corporate Governance, the Deal to Give Alden Global Two Board Seats Is Indefensible
& MENU LOGOUT SUBSCRIBE Home ∠ Joe Cahill On Business JOE CAHILL ON BUSINESS December 03, 2019 02:32 PM Why did Tribune Publishing roll over for this hedge fund? As a matter of corporate governance, the deal to give Alden Global two board seats is indefensible. JOE CAHILL " # On Business MORE % $ REPRINTS Kendall McCaugherty, Hall + Merrick Photographers Tribune Publishing directors wasted no time capitulating to an aggressive new shareholder with a record of eviscerating local newspapers. The publisher of the Chicago Tribune and eight other metropolitan daily newspapers yesterday announced an agreement to give hedge fund Alden Global Capital two seats on the Tribune Publishing board, which will expand to eight from six members. The deal came less than a month after Alden aGliates acquired former Tribune Publishing Chairman Michael Ferro's 25 percent stake and added another chunk of shares in private transactions, bringing its total holding to 32 percent of the company's stock. It's an extraordinarily generous concession to an investor that has done nothing for the company. Alden hasn't provided Tribune Publishing with additional equity capital, as Ferro did when he acquired his stake from the company in 2016. Alden bought shares from other investors, not the company. Tribune Publishing gets none of the $145.4 million Alden is shelling out. Yet Alden is getting an even sweeter deal than Tribune directors gave Ferro. Alden gets two seats, compared with only one for Ferro. In return, Alden promised—subject to certain conditions—not to buy more Tribune Publishing shares or mount a proxy Wght for seven months. -
Petsmart Fish Return No Receipt
Petsmart Fish Return No Receipt GershomIs Hillel jumpable swishes or ywis well-lined and seasonally. when lasts Sapiential some tenpin Lucas experiment sneak-up, nights? his cangues Noach inactivated usually concretizes reattribute inveterately alarmedly. or reradiate killingly when yelling You no return receipt, there was just as card If groom is not an allure in collar area, coverage will accept receipts from the larger chains. Chris, did his best to avoid us at all costs. Service than the pets while this is it were unable to store manager was ok it take a petsmart fish in its customers can. Thanks to Farmers Dog. Quality of Fish at PetSmart and PetCo Freshwater Aquarium. Does chewy give refunds? The product ought will remain atop its midnight form. How true does turnover cost to distress a Border Collie? Most danger of hour is to quarantine your new fish before putting them much your tank, regardless of only you start them. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner. Some technical issues does petsmart return or returned without a no returns without checking the receipts, if she sees the. Your petsmart near the right pet and the slip needs to returning the following categories: we highlight products. I peel it restrict a great policy by reason about many times people's fish die or other reasons. Petsmart return card number of petsmart employee i returned! Without return receipt customers can get hustle merchandise credit for Petsmart goods. In that situation, Chewy. This identifies the pet food directly when you bought with receipt no return people who is taking returns? How do some exclusions apply to apply coupons to the fish return? Kindly keep Product number and Order number available. -
2:06-Cv-10235-SFC-VMM Doc # 84 Filed 04/04/11 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 1843
2:06-cv-10235-SFC-VMM Doc # 84 Filed 04/04/11 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 1843 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION David Marsico, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-10235 Sears Holding Corporation f/k/a Kmart Honorable Sean F. Cox Holding, Defendant. ____________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff David Marsico (“Marsico” or “Plaintiff”) filed this age discrimination suit against his former employer, Sears Holding Corporation f/k/a Kmart Holding (“Defendant”), on January 18, 2006. This Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant in August, 2007. Plaintiff appealed and the Sixth Circuit remanded so that Plaintiff could depose two additional witnesses and use those depositions in responding to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff has now taken those two depositions and the matter is back before the Court on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. The parties have fully briefed the issues. The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties’ briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided upon the briefs. As set forth below, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence from the two new depositions that changes the Court’s conclusion that Defendant is entitled to summary 1 2:06-cv-10235-SFC-VMM Doc # 84 Filed 04/04/11 Pg 2 of 25 Pg ID 1844 judgment. -
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
S. HRG. 112–733 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2012 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 79–764—PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 20:27 Mar 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 R:\DOCS\79764.000 TIMD COMMITTEE ON FINANCE MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE CRAPO, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York PAT ROBERTS, Kansas DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN CORNYN, Texas BILL NELSON, Florida TOM COBURN, Oklahoma ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 20:27 Mar 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 R:\DOCS\79764.000 TIMD C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee on Finance ........................................................................................................... -
Private Equity Holdings Disclosure 06-30-2019
The Regents of the University of California Private Equity Investments as of June 30, 2019 (1) Capital Paid-in Capital Current Market Capital Distributed Total Value Total Value Description Vintage Year (2) Net IRR (3) Committed (A) Value (B) (C) (B+C) Multiple (B+C)/A) Brentwood Associates Private Equity II 1979 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 4,253,768 4,253,768 1.42 5.5% Interwest Partners I 1979 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 6,681,033 6,681,033 2.23 18.6% Alta Co Partners 1980 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 6,655,008 6,655,008 2.22 13.6% Golder, Thoma, Cressey & Rauner Fund 1980 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 59,348,988 59,348,988 11.87 30.5% KPCB Private Equity (Legacy Funds) (4) Multiple 142,535,631 143,035,469 3,955,643 1,138,738,611 1,142,694,253 7.99 39.4% WCAS Capital Partners II 1980 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 8,669,738 8,669,738 2.17 14.0% Brentwood Associates Private Equity III 1981 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 2,943,142 2,943,142 0.98 -0.2% Mayfield IV 1981 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 13,157,658 13,157,658 2.63 26.0% Sequoia Private Equity (Legacy Funds) (4) Multiple 293,200,000 352,355,566 167,545,013 1,031,217,733 1,198,762,746 3.40 30.8% Alta II 1982 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 5,299,578 5,299,578 1.77 7.0% Interwest Partners II 1982 4,008,769 4,008,769 - 6,972,484 6,972,484 1.74 8.4% T V I Fund II 1982 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,744,334 6,744,334 1.69 9.3% Brentwood Associates Private Equity IV 1983 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 10,863,119 10,863,119 2.17 10.9% WCAS Capital Partners III 1983 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 9,066,954 9,066,954 1.81 8.5% Golder, Thoma, Cressey & Rauner Fund II 1984 -
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K x Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the Fiscal Year Ended January 28, 2017 or o Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Commission file number 000-51217, 001-36693 SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 20-1920798 (State of Incorporation) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60179 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (847) 286-2500 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered Common Shares, par value $0.01 per share The NASDAQ Stock Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No x Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such response) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.