- Finally, insiders have sold the equivalent of 1x ttm revenues in last year only four months after ipo. A secondary offering this past month (with no money flowing to the company itself) so close to ipo implies, “why the desperation?” PANW has allowed insiders to circumvent the original lockup restrictions in place only 4 months before.
Date
|
Insider
|
Shares
|
Transaction
|
Value*
|
TBA, filed 10/17/2012
|
Many sellers
|
4,800,000
|
Current price is 52
|
$
249,600,000
|
10/22/2012
|
BONVANIE RENE- Officer
|
37,500
|
Sale at $60.48 per
share.
|
$
2,268,000
|
10/22/2012
|
BATRA RAJIV- Officer
|
185,500
|
Sale at $60.48 per
share.
|
$
11,219,040
|
10/22/2012
|
LANFRI WILLIAM A-
Director
|
30,000
|
Sale at $60.48 per
share.
|
$
1,814,400
|
10/22/2012
|
MCLAUGHLIN MARK D-
Officer
|
46,000
|
Option Exercise at
$10.77.
|
$
495,420
|
10/22/2012
|
MCLAUGHLIN MARK D-
Officer
|
46,000
|
Sale at $60.48 per
share.
|
$
2,782,080
|
10/22/2012
|
ZUK NIR- Officer
|
200,000
|
Sale at $60.48 per
share.
|
$
12,096,000
|
7/24/2012
|
BATRA RAJIV- Officer
|
202,000
|
Sale at $39.06 per
share.
|
$
7,890,120
|
7/24/2012
|
ZUK NIR- Officer
|
350,000
|
Sale at $39.06 per
share.
|
$
13,671,000
|
Total
|
$
301,836,060
|
More generally, secondary offerings close to ipo have been a reliable
predictor [i] of future price
declines. Examples with 30%+ declines from sale price include Bazaarvoice
Inc (BV), Zynga, Inc. (ZNGA). The rationale is that unlike planned insider
selling, insider selling that breaks lockup restrictions is a purposeful act – companies
have to ask underwriters to sell renegotiate the earlier restrictions.
Final valuation
Trading at over 4,000 times ttm earnings, comparing earnings
is not very meaningful because of the high stock compensation/expense. That by
itself is very telling, echoing the stock expense issues of the dot-com era. Valuations
make more sense on a revenue basis, on which PANW is still the most
richly-valued at over 14x ttm price to revenues.
Comparable Companies Analysis
("Comps")
|
|||||||
*Averages are unweighted
|
|||||||
*As of 11/23/2012
|
Market Cap ($bil)
|
($bil)
|
($bil)
|
($bil)
|
($bil)
|
||
Equity
|
Enterprise
|
Revenue
|
Revenue
|
Revenue
|
|||
Companies
|
Price ($)
|
MCAP
|
Value1
|
2011 (A)
|
2012 (E)
|
2013 (E)
|
|
CHKP
|
46.01
|
9.38
|
7.93
|
1.25
|
1.35
|
1.45
|
|
FTNT
|
19.06
|
3.05
|
2.67
|
0.44
|
0.53
|
0.62
|
|
FIRE
|
47.15
|
1.42
|
1.25
|
0.17
|
0.22
|
0.26
|
|
Average
|
4.62
|
3.95
|
0.62
|
0.70
|
0.78
|
||
PANW
|
55.41
|
3.79
|
3.47
|
0.12
|
0.23
|
0.39
|
|
Enterprise
Value /
|
Consensus
|
||||||
Revenue
Multiples (x)
|
Estimated EPS ($)
|
||||||
Companies
|
|
2012 (E)
|
2013 (E)
|
2012 (E)
|
2013 (E)
|
||
CHKP
|
6.36
|
5.87
|
5.47
|
3.17
|
3.48
|
||
FTNT
|
6.02
|
5.07
|
4.31
|
0.51
|
0.61
|
||
FIRE
|
7.55
|
5.71
|
4.74
|
0.81
|
1.00
|
||
Average
|
6.64
|
5.55
|
4.84
|
1.50
|
1.70
|
||
PANW
|
29.26
|
15.41
|
9.01
|
#N/A
|
#N/A
|
(above data), PANW is July vs Dec of other years[ii]
PANW is priced at 9x 2013 ttm revenues, a 100% premium to
all its competitors (9.01/4.84). The difference is even more absurd when
looking at earnings (which is not even meaningful). I believe this premium is unjustified
given the questions about PANW’s ability to replace CHKP products and renew revenue.
Risks
-Acquisition by CHKP or other competitor (~20-30% from
current levels)
-Acceleration of growth and monetization as PANW takes
market share from CHKP.
Implementation
-This is a highly
volatile stock, and can easily move 20-30% to the upside before the thesis
holds, and given the correction in the broader stock market, now is a time when
PANW is highly vulnerable to upward bursts (e.g. PANW two Fridays again).
Conclusion
While the picture remains incomplete, I believe there is a
compelling case to be short to the 20-25$ range. This is conservative, and only
assumes the market revalues the EV/Revenue premium vs. its competitors.
No comments:
Post a Comment