DSW, Inc. - University of Oregon Investment Group
Transcription
DSW, Inc. - University of Oregon Investment Group
February 27, 2015 Consumer Goods DSW, Inc. Ticker: DSW Recommendation: Hold Current Price: $37.35 Price Target: $29.68 Investment Thesis Key Statistics 52 Week Price Range Being the only company in the industry that operates a designer shoe warehouse store with their level of quality and variety, DSW is in a unique position to capture and maintain market share in this industry. DSW’s shortcomings in 2013 with regards to predicting women’s trends and failed experiments may have weakened consumer confidence in their products. DSW Omni-channel strategies and recent changes made to accelerate women’s footwear will help drive revenue going forward DSW’s success is dependent on its ability to predict trends and its failure to do so will deteriorate consumer confidence in their brand. $23.45 - $41.11 50-Day M oving Average $36.22 Estimated Beta 1.01 Dividend Yield 2.00% M arket Capitalization 3.30B 3-Year Revenue CAGR 6.25% Five-Year Stock Chart Trading Statistics $50.00 Diluted Shares Outstanding 94.59 Average Volume (3-M onth) 1.12mm $40.00 Institutional Ownership 86.00% $35.00 35,000,000 $45.00 30,000,000 25,000,000 $30.00 Insider Ownership 100.00% EV/EBITDA (Forward Comps) 11.0x 20,000,000 $25.00 15,000,000 $20.00 $15.00 Margins and Ratios 10,000,000 $10.00 5,000,000 Gross M argin (Forward Comps) 32.99% $5.00 EBITDA M argin (Forward Comps) 10.66% $0.00 2/1/2010 Net M argin (Forward Comps) Debt to Enterprise Value 5.27% 2/1/2011 Adjusted Close 2/1/2012 50-Day Avg 2/1/2013 2/1/2014 200-Day Avg 0 2/1/2015 Volume 0.00 Covering Analysts: Phoebe Hsieh [email protected] 1 University of Oregon Investment Group University of Oregon Investment Group Business Overview Figure 1: DSW Store Jerome Schottenstein and the Nacht family founded the Schonac Corporation in 1969. Their original goal was to manage leased shoe departments in different retail operations. From there, they opened the first DSW store in July of 1991 in Dublin, Ohio. They wanted to create a place where brand name shoes could be bought at an everyday value price, or in their words, “designer shoes at warehouse prices.” In 1998, Value City Department Stores, owned by the Schottenstein family, purchased DSW. In December of 2004, Retail Ventures, Inc consolidated many of Value City’s subsidiary brand and later, Retail Ventures retained 60% of DSW’s outstanding shares. DSW went public in 2005, after changing their name from Schonac Corporation to DSW, Inc. In 2011, RVI Merged with DSW and they have been operating as DSW ever since. Today, they operate in 433 stores, 431 in the United States and 2 in Puerto Rico. DSW Source: Google Images Figure 2: 2013 Revenue Breakdown by Segment Women’s DSW’s women’s shoe department is their largest portion of their revenue. In 2013, women’s shoes accounted for 65% of revenue. Recently, women’s retail has declined slightly, but has been compensated by the increase in men’s shoe sales. In the future, women’s sales will remain the main driver of revenue for DSW but the men’s retail is expected to increase their contributions. After a dismal year for DSW Women’s, its corporate governance decided to make some pivotal changes in management structure and assortment in an effort to turn sales around in this segment. Men’s DSW Men’s has historically made up about 15% of total revenue. Recently, men’s shoes has had increasingly positive response in the industry, boosting that number up to about 17%. As men increasingly view DSW as an optimal place to purchase footwear, I predict that men’s shoes will be a growing revenue driver going forward. 7% 12% 16% Designer shoe warehouse is the primary operation that DSW conducts. This segment provides designer shoes at great values in over 400 stores nationwide and in Puerto Rico. Their goal is to provide a vast selection of shoes that cater to ever consumer base at an everyday price. They also bring to the market a vast selection of accessories and handbags for consumers to enjoy. 65% Women’s Athletic Men’s Accessories and Other Source: DSW 10-K Athletic Shoes Athletic footwear typically makes up about 12% of DSW’s revenue. As DSW focuses on becoming a more premier footwear brand for everyday wear shoes, I predict this segment to decline slightly to accommodate higher end footwear. Their strong competitors in the athletic footwear industry, such as Nike and Foot Locker will also stand to draw customers from this segment. Accessories and Handbags Accessories and handbags are DSW’s clever footwear counterparts, making up about 7% of revenue annually. After a failed luxury accessory test online in 2013, DSW will be continuing their experiments in their other sub segments. Their failed test is a strong indication that their accessories are not quite ready for expansion and I have reflected this in my model by decreasing revenue contribution from this segment slightly in the future. UOIG 2 University of Oregon Investment Group Figure 3: Shoe Retail Market Share 4.8% 4.8% 65% 7.1% 7.1% 6.1%6.1% 65% 11.6%11.6% 70.4% Affiliated Business Group A sub segment of DSW is the Affiliated Business Group (ABG). Their directive is to enhance shoppers’ experiences by partnering with other retailers to help build and promote their individual businesses. They conduct operations including product supply and in-store experience enhancement in order to extend DSW’s reach past their own doors. Although they do not directly break out the ABG segment in their financial statements, ABG accounts for roughly 3-5% of sales year over year. 65% 70.4% Industry Overview Source: IBIS World Figure 4: Percent Change in Per Capita Change in Disposable Income The footwear and shoe industry is a vast and highly concentrated industry. They can retail items from running shoes to gladiator sandals and can be located within a larger retailer, or in their own establishment. As per capita disposable income increases and unemployment continues to decline, the industry is in an optimal position to grow and strengthen. As an industry that is heavily impacted by changes in consumer spending and consumer confidence, macroeconomic factors pose challenges and sometimes increased risks as these factors can be largely unpredictable. Macro factors Consumer Confidence: Consumer confidence is one of the main economic drivers impacting retail today. As spending generally relies on consumer expectation of future economic conditions, consumer confidence is an important measure to consider when evaluating retail companies. Consumer confidence is expected to increase at a decreasing rate going forward, which could stand to slow growth in the shoe retail industry. Source: IBIS World Figure 5: Competitor Revenue Growth Disposable Income/Consumer Spending: Shoes in many cases, can be considered a luxury item. Disposable income and consumer spending, therefore, can greatly affect customers’ ability to afford new shoes on a recurring basis. As per capita disposable income continues to rise, people may be more inclined to purchase more pairs of shoes. This can adversely or conversely affect DSW depending on how strong their brand equity is. Consumers who have a higher disposable income may prefer to buy higher end shoes from more premium retailers such as Tory Burch. However, if DSW can achieve its goal of increasing their brand awareness and customer loyalty, customers, even with a higher disposable income, will shop at DSW but at a higher capacity. Competition Although DSW is a unique shoe retailer with innovative ideas, there is strong competition in this industry from online retailers and large department stores. Recently, an increase in online shoe and clothing retailers has shifted a lot of the market towards digital. In an industry that is already heavily saturated with competition, online merchandisers only further deteriorate market share from those already in the industry. Some may argue that in store retailers offer the invaluable choice of trying on shoes before buying them, but many online retailers counter this by providing free returns or exchanges to customers. The strongest competitors in the footwear industry include DSW, Brown Shoe Company, Payless, and Foot Locker. Although those competitors dominate as Source: Financial Statements UOIG 3 University of Oregon Investment Group standalone shoe retailers, the industry also faces tough competition with retailers who sell more than just shoes, including Nordstrom, Macy’s and J.C. Penny. Figure 6: DSW Store Online retailers are arguably DSW’s strongest adversaries at this time. Online retailers have the unique capability of supplying a wide variety of shoes and facing small set up costs because they do not have to build physical brick and mortar stores. This eliminates the largest barrier to entry facing the market, enabling those retailers to decrease costs. Much of DSW’s future success will be greatly dependent on its ability to maintain market share and predict trends accurately. Strategic Positioning Strong Supplier Relationships Source: Google Images Figure 7: Customer Revenue Contribution DSW prides itself in its strong supplier relationships. They merchandise directly from around five hundred domestic and foreign vendors. Most of their domestic vendors import merchandise from overseas and their top three vendors make up around 19% of net sales. These relationships are the main way that DSW is able to control costs in order to maximize their margins. These relationships will put them in an optimal position for negotiations and cost reduction going forward. Brand Recognition DSW is known nationally for selling high quality designer shoes at extremely affordable prices. They use this as a tool to provide value to their customers as well as retain customers. As men’s footwear gains traction, DSW hopes to use their already strong foothold in the women’s department to boost sales and expand of their men’s shoe department. Their effective branding strategy has led them to hold a significant portion of the market share in this industry. Wide Product Offering Source: DSW 10-K The intention of DSW is to provide the widest assortment of footwear to their customers in order to fulfill each individual’s tastes and preferences. They want to cater to every consumer in every market, offering brand name, designer, and private brand footwear. Many of their competitors such as Nordstrom and Macys carry a healthy selection of footwear, however, neither have the variety of selection that DSW does. A typical DSW store carries up to 23,000 pairs of shoes in 1,600 styles as well as a healthy assortment of handbags and accessories. Accurate Trend Prediction Figure 8: DSW Men’s Ad DSW history is indicative of the company’s competence when it comes to predicting trends. The fact that they provide shoes of every variety, catering to every consumer, lowers the risk that they will be unsuccessful as a whole. When they have fallen short of expectations in any way, management has been proactive with finding ways to mitigate pit falls. They struggled in this area in 2013, but are optimistic that they will be able to more accurately predict trends going forward. DSW Rewards Source: Google Images The DSW Rewards Program is designed to incentivize customers to make DSW their primary footwear destination. Points are correlated to dollars spent and accumulated points can be converted into discounts. 90% of DSW’s sales were conducted by DSW card holders in 2013. Their hope is to increase customer retention rates through increased discounts and rewards for their most loyal customers. UOIG 4 University of Oregon Investment Group Figure 9: Men’s Revenue Contribution Business Growth Strategies DSW Men’s DSW men’s has historically made up around 16% of DSW’s total revenue. Recently, there has been increased demand for men’s footwear at DSW and they hope to capitalize on this opportunity to expand further into this segment. The response to trends and the various products offered in the men’s department has been increasingly positive and if this continues, the men’s department may be poised to become a strong driver of revenue going forward. This segment has enormous potential for growth and DSW could stand to benefit from this shift in the long run. Source: UOIG Projections Figure 10: Omni-channel Distribution DSW App/Online Realizing that ecommerce is expanding rapidly, especially in the retail industry, DSW intends to follow the trend by focusing more of their efforts on their online retail. They launched an expansive online luxury accessory test in 2013, but it proved to be unsuccessful. Since then, they have made efforts to sell more online and even create a smartphone application where customers can track their purchases, make new ones, and track their rewards points all from their mobile device. They want to bring the most optimal shopping experience to their customers and at this point, consumers are interested in ecommerce. In order to accommodate this request, DSW is bringing customers free shipping and returns, as well as in store fulfillment through their Omni-channel distribution. Although this is a step in the right direction, most other retailers are already invested in ecommerce and smartphone applications, begging the question of whether DSW is a little late to the game. Omni-channel Distribution Source: Google Images DSW is launching a new Omni-channel strategy with fresh new ways to deliver their products to consumers. They recently launched shoephoria, a system that provides them the ability to fulfill out-of-stock orders from their fulfillment center. They also launched a new charge-send drop ship capabilities allowing them to sell product online while fulfillment takes place out of their suppliers’ warehouse. If proven successful, these methods could prove to be pivotal as it allows DSW to control inventory in a more efficient way than ever before. Management and Employee Relations Michael R. MacDonald, President and CEO Figure 11: Michael MacDonald Executive Salary Michael MacDonald has over 30 years of business experience in retail, enhancing various spaces including merchandising, marketing, operations, and finance functions. He served in various roles at Shopko Stores from 1998 to 2009, including Chairman and Chief Executive Office from May 2007 to March 2009. He then left when he was appointed President and CEO of DSW, Inc. Jay L. Schottenstein, Chairman of the Board Mr. Schottenstein serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. He served in many executive roles at Schottenstein Stores Corporation since 1976 and served as CEO of Retail Ventures from 1991 to 1997. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of directors at American Eagle Outfitters, and Schottenstein Stores Corporation. He was CEO of DSW from 2005 to 2009 and now serves as a director at American Eagle Outfitters in addition to his present position at DSW. Source: Morning Star James O’Donnell, Inside Director UOIG 5 University of Oregon Investment Group James O’Donnell has an extensive background in retail and consumer goods. He was a member of the Board of Directors of The Gap from 1987 to 1992 and holds various other executive positions at Coleman Capital Advisors, Computer AidedSystems and Lyte. He also served as CEO, and COO at American Eagle Outfitters. Today, O’Donnell is an inside director and member of the Technology Committee at DSW and a strategic advisor for American Eagle Outfitters. Figure 12: Joseph Schottenstein Executive Salary Joseph A. Schottenstein, Inside Director Joseph Schottenstein has served in many executive capacities at the Schottenstein Property Group, a privately held company that develops shopping centers in the United States. He has also served as a Manager of Indigo Nation until 2004 and currently serves as an inside director and member of the Technology Committee at DSW. Management Guidance Source: Morning Star Management guidance has been rather scarce historically. However, the seldom times that they do set expectations, they usually achieve or surpass them. Although their projections to grow stores by about 3% every year for the next five years may seem bullish, they have not closed any stores in the past two years and do not anticipate doing so in the future. Management predicts that with the positive response to men’s footwear this past year, the men’s section as DSW will continue to grow and expand with potential to become a strong driver of revenue. Portfolio Strategy Because I believe DSW is not a strong investment at this time, I will not be pitching DSW to any portfolios. Recent News “DSW Announces Management Changes” 01/29/2015 Figure 13: Revenue Projections Source: UOIG Projections This article discuss the new management changes that DSW has put in place as of February 2, 2015. They decided to promote several key executives in order to “strengthen company organization, establish a single pyramid in charge of all customer touch points, increase bench strength, and balance workload in those parts of the organization that are undergoing significant change.” Carrie McDermott, current Executive Vice President was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Ms. McDermott has been an employee of DSW for over eight years. She will add to her responsibilities, DSW site operations, the Shoephoria call center, and marketing, making the customer service experience more streamlined throughout the business. Bill Jordan, current Executive Vice President and General Counsel was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer. He has been with DSW for nine years and will add Information Technology to his responsibilities. Finally, Harris Mustafa, Executive Vice President of Supply Chain, was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Supply Chain Officer. After eight years at DSW, the company believes Mustafa is best suited for their new omi-channel initiative and extra responsibilities as the company evolves. “DSW Enhances Shareholder Returns” 02/18/2015 UOIG 6 University of Oregon Investment Group Figure 14: One Year Stock Price DSW has increased their quarterly dividend by 6.7% to 20 cents from 18.75 cents per share, in an effort to enhance shareholder returns. The new dividend will go into effect on March 31, 2015. Catalysts Upside Source: Yahoo Finance Continued growth in DSW’s men’s department could be a strong driver in revenue going forward Omni-channel strategies focused on making shopping more convenient for customers could increase incentive to shop at DSW as opposed to less convenient retailers Reorganization of executive roles may serve to strengthen leadership Everyday value prices and strong quality assurance will increase customer retention Downside Figure 15: Foot Locker Logo Inability to accurately predict trends will have an adverse effect on revenue and stock price Merchandise manufactured abroad proses risks such as economic and/or political instabilities; international discourse could increase shipping costs, delays, or stoppages. Increased consumer spending could drive customers to purchase higher end shoes from higher end specialty retailers rather than DSW Deceleration in consumer confidence could slow growth in the retail industry Comparable Analysis Overview Source: Google Images Comparable companies were screened for a variety of different metrics, specifically focusing on companies with similarities to DSW in terms of product offering, markets, market cap, growth rates, capital structure, margins, and shared risk factors. After these metrics were evaluated, I assigned weightings based upon which companies I felt like satisfied the various criteria the best. Foot Locker (FL) - 40% Foot Locker Inc., is an American sport and footwear retailer in about twenty countries worldwide. A household name when it comes to athletic shoes, Foot Locker is the ultimate sports footwear destination for those looking for a wide variety of choices. Figure 16: Steve Madden Logo Foot Locker operates in a different segment of the footwear industry with a different focus, however Foot Locker offers the strongest value in terms of a comparable. It is similar to DSW in terms of the fact that it has a similar market cap, little debt, and rather similar margins as well. They have similar growth rates and are susceptible to similar risks as DSW, including accuracy of trend predictions, and supplier relationships. Steve Madden (SHOO) - 35% Source: Google Images Steve Madden is a large shoe retailer for men, women, and children online, in stores, and through wholesale. They sell a variety of shoes from sandals to stilettos, but they do not sell athletic footwear. Their main objective is to offer the most fashionable style shoes to the market. UOIG 7 University of Oregon Investment Group Figure 17: Brown Shoe Co Logo Steve Madden is one of the strongest comparable companies to DSW quantitatively and qualitatively. Not only do they offer arguably identical value to customers and cater to the same consumer base, but they also operate stores extremely similarly to DSW, with less variety and a bit higher price. The two companies are also extremely in line with regards to margins, share a similar capital structure and risk as well. They do not have the same objectives in terms of offering shoes at an everyday price, but they do price their shoes at a reasonably cost for the average middle class American. Although their growth expectations and plans for growth differ quite a bit from DSW’s, I believe Steve Madden is a strong comparable to DSW. Brown Shoe Co (BWS) - 20% Brown Shoe Company is a global footwear company that owns and operates a variety of brands. They are the shoe conglomerate responsible for the brands Famous Footwear, Naturalizer, Life Stride, Dr. Scholl’s, Ryka, Via Spiga, Sam Edelman, Vince, Franco Sarto, Fergie, and Carlos. Source: Google Images Brown Shoe Company is an interesting comparable because it caters to much of the same consumer base that DSW does- mid to high end shoes that are affordable and comfortable. They are a small cap company with similar product offering but they do vary from DSW a bit in terms of margins. All things considered, I do believe that qualitatively they are a very beneficial comparable to DSW. Sketchers (SKX) - 5% Figure 18: Sketchers Logo Source: Google Images Sketchers is an American shoe company that operates over 731 stores globally. Sketchers offers a variety of shoes ranging from athletic to work shoes, however they only retail their own brand of shoes unlike Brown Shoe Company or DSW. Recently, Sketchers has been trying to increase their customer base by widening their product offering and catering to consumers with special footwear needs, such as orthopedics. I wanted to evaluate Sketchers as a comparable because they have similar market caps and they both operate in the footwear industry. They are however, expected to grow faster than DSW and have a bit higher margins. That being said, I believed it to be reasonable to give Sketchers a 5% weighting in my analysis. Phillip Van Heusen (PVH) – 0% Phillip Van Heusen is a large cap American clothing and accessory company which owns various brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, and Heritage and licenses various other brands such as BCBG Max Azria and Geoffrey Beene. Figure 19: PVH Logo Although PVH is not a shoe retailer, they do cater to a similar consumer base. I originally saw this company as an interesting comparable to evaluate. However, upon further research I realize that quantitatively they do not offer any significant value, and qualitative value is minimal as well. Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Revenue Model Source: Google Images Because DSW is in the retail industry, revenue per year for DSW is calculated based on revenue per square foot and total square footage. For 2014-2023, management guidance was used to project total stores. Management has previously spoken about their average square feet per store to be favorable around 22,000 square feet per store and I anticipate that they will continue to keep average UOIG 8 University of Oregon Investment Group square feet per store around that number. I project revenue per square foot to increase at a constant rate of 3% from 2016 into perpetuity because despite the lack of guidance or historical consistency, I believe that 3% is a reasonable estimate based upon correlations between historical increase in revenue and store openings. When DSW opened a great amount of stores one year, their increase in revenue was much less than when they focused their attention on their current stores rather than rapid expansion. For my second revenue model, I wanted to project sales by segment in order to give the other analysts an idea of what DSW plans to do in each segment going forward. This was largely based on conversations had during earnings call transcripts and historical performance. Due to lack of management guidance and information, I decided to take a relatively bearish stance with regard to revenue, having it increase at a decreasing rate going forward. Figure 20: Cost of Goods Sold Projections Source: UOIG Projections Operating Expense Figure 21: Beta Calculations WFM Beta SE Weighting 0.19 0.00% 1.03 0.08 40.00% 3 year weekly 0.95 0.18 0.00% 3 Year Daily Vasicek- Comps 0.93 5.00% 3 Year Daily Vasicek-ETF 0.70 5.00% 3 Year Daily Hamada 0.93 0.00% 3 Year Daily Hamada- Comps 1.04 5.00% 3 Year Daily Hamada-ETF 0.68 5.00% 3 Year Weekly Hamada 1.08 0.00% 5 year daily 1.07 1 Year Daily 0.75 1 Year Daily Hamada-Comps 1.13 3 year daily 0.00% 0.08 Source: UOIG Projections 5 Year Daily Hamada 1.46 40.00% 0.00% Operating expenses consist of expenses relating to store management and payroll costs, advertising, ABG operations, new store advertising and other costs as well as corporate expenses. DSW is actively engaged in making revenue boosting improvements in their company. In 2013, they experimented with expanding their luxury accessory line online and were unsuccessful. They have spoken about doing more product line experimenting and making other potential improvements that would increase operating expense. 2014’s operating expense was projected based on management guidance and I predict that going forward, these experiments will yield results and operating expense will marginally decline into perpetuity. Capital Expenditures Capital expenditures are connected with DSW expansion, improving ecommerce, remodeling existing stores, and growing infrastructure. Capital expenditures are set to increase this year as DSW is projected to open 39 new stores and continue to open stores at a strong rate going forward. DSW is also investing in their ecommerce, ramping up their smart phone application, in an effort to increase customer retention. Weight Average Unlevered Beta Beta 1.01 Beta Source: UOIG Projections DSW’s beta was calculated using various linear regressions in comparison with the S&P 500. I also used the Hamada and Vasicek methods to compare DSW against its comparable companies in order to obtain a series of betas to evaluate. I placed the most emphasis on my three and five-year daily betas because of their low standard of error and the five-year reflected a longer period of time. I took out of consideration betas with standard errors above 0.1 and weighted my ETF betas 5% each. Figure 22: Beta Sensitivity Table Implied Price Undervalued/(Overvalued) Adjusted Beta Terminal Growth Rate 31 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 0.82 34.93 36.66 38.74 41.28 44.45 0.92 31.12 32.41 33.93 35.75 37.96 1.02 28.00 28.99 30.13 31.47 33.06 1.12 25.41 26.17 27.05 28.06 29.24 1.22 23.22 23.82 24.50 25.28 26.18 Source: UOIG Projections Cost of Goods Sold DSW’s cost of goods sold are set to go up in 2015 due to their experimenting with product lines. Management has not been very forthcoming with information pertaining to their experimentation unless it has failed or succeeded. I anticipate that their experiments will run through 2014-2015 and eventually slow down. Because much of their footwear is manufactured abroad, they have opportunities UOIG 9 University of Oregon Investment Group to decrease cost of goods sold even further by increasing their overseas manufacturing. Tax Rate Figure 23: Final Valuation Final Implied Price Price Target Weight DCF $30.56 50.00% Forward Comparable Analysis $28.79 50.00% Price Target Current Price Overvalued $29.68 $37.35 (20.54%) Source: UOIG Projections DSW’s tax rate has been relatively consistent historically, ranging from about 38%-40%. They have not disclosed information regarding whether or not they will be doing anything to decrease their tax rate going forward, nor have not put any international expansion plans into place, so they will not have the opportunity to take advantage of a lower tax rate. For those reasons, I took the average of the historical tax rates and standardized them into perpetuity. Recommendation Given DSW’s slowing growth and unsuccessful product tests, a reasonable overvaluation has been identified in both the DCF Assumptions and Forward Comparable Analysis. For those reasons, I recommend a HOLD for all portfolios. UOIG 10 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 1 – Relative Valuation Comparables Analysis ($ in millions) Stock Characteristics Current Price Beta Max $110.26 1.38 Min $28.39 1.01 Size Short-Term Debt Long-Term Debt Cash and Cash Equivalent Non-Controlling Interest Preferred Stock Diluted Basic Shares Market Capitalization Enterprise Value 0.09 199.01 858.00 127.80 151.67 9,079.01 8,571.01 82.50 48.81 1,251.66 1,368.17 136.00 372.00 67.38 3,114.03 2,885.97 Growth Expectations % Revenue Growth 2014E % Revenue Growth 2015E % EBITDA Growth 2014E % EBITDA Growth 2015E % EPS Growth 2014E % EPS Growth 2015E 20.80% 11.74% 20.40% 12.00% 43.20% 22.70% (1.10%) 2.30% (15.70%) 2.00% (13.00%) 7.60% Profitability Margins Gross Margin EBIT Margin EBITDA Margin Net Margin 52.67% 12.06% 14.34% 8.11% 32.99% 5.17% 7.26% 3.10% Credit Metrics Interest Expense Debt/EV Leverage Ratio Interest Coverage Ratio Operating Results Revenue Gross Profit EBIT EBITDA Net Income Capital Expenditures Multiples EV/Revenue EV/Gross Profit EV/EBIT EV/EBITDA EV/(EBITDA-Capex) Market Cap/Net Income = P/E 0.15 1.03 - - Median Weight Avg. $53.22 $42.00 1.09 1.09 DSW Fl SHOO BWS SKX PVH DSW Foot Locker Steve Madden Brown Shoe Co Sketchers PVH Corporation $37.35 1.01 40.00% $53.22 1.01 35.00% $34.34 1.01 20.00% $28.39 1.38 5.00% $60.35 1.19 0.00% $110.26 1.09 0.00 101.09 441.40 45.04 96.61 4,405.82 4,110.55 112.02 94.59 3,460.46 3,348.44 136.00 858.00 151.67 8,012.95 7,290.95 180.28 127.80 67.38 2,270.29 2,217.82 199.01 82.50 48.81 1,251.66 1,368.17 0.09 137.75 372.00 6.10 51.86 3,114.03 2,885.97 85.00 593.00 83.13 9,079.01 8,571.01 2.80% 4.10% 3.10% 4.70% 19.30% 12.20% 4.98% 6.34% 0.47% 6.44% 10.84% 12.13% 7.62% 11.74% 10.92% 8.28% (13.00%) 15.00% 9.40% 4.10% 10.80% 4.70% 21.40% 9.40% (1.10%) 9.80% (15.70%) 8.80% (10.70%) 12.20% 2.80% 3.70% 3.10% 4.40% 19.30% 14.80% 20.80% 10.60% 20.40% 12.00% 43.20% 22.70% 1.10% 2.30% 1.40% 2.00% 3.40% 7.60% 40.62% 11.15% 13.33% 7.30% 35.94% 10.21% 12.12% 6.74% 32.99% 8.28% 10.66% 5.27% 33.48% 11.15% 13.54% 7.30% 34.89% 12.06% 13.33% 8.11% 40.62% 5.17% 7.26% 3.10% 44.29% 9.94% 11.78% 7.16% 52.67% 11.41% 14.34% 7.62% 0.02 0.14 - 0.04 0.28 - 0.15 1.03 - 0.05 0.40 - 0.01 0.07 - - 0.02 0.14 - - $8,366.10 $4,406.45 $954.70 $1,199.49 $637.44 $288.33 $1,409.20 $491.67 $137.50 $187.89 $82.52 $20.04 $2,913.73 $1,290.59 $289.60 $343.31 $208.52 $53.19 $4,081.15 $1,427.07 $425.93 $515.57 $279.29 $106.84 $2,848.29 $939.76 $235.77 $303.69 $149.98 $113.93 $7,276.14 $2,436.16 $811.20 $985.11 $530.90 $216.91 $1,409.20 $491.67 $169.93 $187.89 $114.28 $20.04 $2,658.96 $1,079.94 $137.50 $192.99 $82.52 $52.00 $2,913.73 $1,290.59 $289.60 $343.31 $208.52 $53.19 $8,366.10 $4,406.45 $954.70 $1,199.49 $637.44 $288.33 1.6x 4.5x 14.2x 11.8x 17.6x 23.1x 0.5x 1.3x 9.0x 7.1x 9.4x 14.2x 1.0x 2.2x 10.0x 7.4x 9.7x 15.1x 1.1x 3.1x 10.7x 8.9x 10.9x 16.8x 1.2x 3.6x 14.2x 11.0x 17.6x 23.1x 1.0x 3.0x 9.0x 7.4x 9.5x 15.1x 1.6x 4.5x 13.1x 11.8x 13.2x 19.9x 0.5x 1.3x 10.0x 7.1x 9.7x 15.2x 1.0x 2.2x 10.0x 8.4x 9.9x 14.9x 1.0x 1.9x 9.0x 7.1x 9.4x 14.2x Multiple EV/Revenue EV/Gross Profit EV/EBIT EV/EBITDA EV/(EBITDA-Capex) Market Cap/Net Income = P/E Price Target Current Price Overvalued Implied Price $34.43 $32.39 $27.73 $29.85 $22.97 $26.59 $28.79 $37.35 (22.91%) Weight 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% UOIG 11 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 2 – Discounted Cash Flows Valuation Discounted Cash Flow Analysis ($ in Millions) Q3 Q4 2/1/2015E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2015E 2015E 2015E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E $2,368.7 $598.9 $587.1 $669.9 $693.2 $2,549.1 $701.5 $709.9 $718.3 $718.6 $2,848.3 $3,057.5 $3,251.3 $3,453.9 $3,665.8 $3,850.1 $4,034.5 $4,226.5 $4,410.1 % YoY Growth 4.08% 9.55% 13.71% 11.08% 11.53% 4.91% (0.40%) 4.45% 5.83% 21.13% 7.62% 17.13% 20.92% 7.22% 3.67% 11.74% 7.35% 6.34% 6.23% 6.13% 5.03% 4.79% 4.76% 4.35% Cost of Goods Sold 1,047.5 1,088.4 1,208.4 1,319.1 1,475.3 1,565.3 394.6 398.3 434.5 457.5 1,684.9 463.0 475.6 466.9 503.0 1,908.5 2,044.9 2,170.4 2,301.3 2,437.9 2,555.6 2,672.9 2,794.8 2,910.7 71.60% 67.91% 66.31% 65.16% 65.34% 66.08% 65.88% 67.85% 64.86% 66.00% 66.10% 66.00% 67.00% 65.00% 70.00% 67.01% 66.88% 66.75% 66.63% 66.50% 66.38% 66.25% 66.13% 66.00% (6.6) (4.9) (5.4) (6.1) $415.4 $507.6 $609.0 $699.8 28.40% 31.67% 33.42% 336.3 440.8 396.1 22.99% 27.51% 21.74% % Revenue Depreciation and Amortization % Revenue % Net PP&E Earnings Before Interest & Taxes % Revenue Interest Income % Revenue Income from Discontinued Ops % Revenue Non-Operating Income % of Revenue Earnings Before Taxes % Revenue Less Taxes (Benefits) Tax Rate Net Income % Revenue Net Working Capital - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $776.4 $803.4 $204.4 $188.8 $235.4 $235.7 $864.2 $238.5 $234.3 $251.4 $215.6 $939.8 $1,012.6 $1,080.9 $1,152.6 $1,227.9 $1,294.5 $1,361.6 $1,431.7 $1,499.4 34.57% 34.39% 33.92% 34.12% 32.15% 35.14% 34.00% 33.90% 34.00% 33.00% 35.00% 30.00% 32.99% 33.12% 33.25% 33.37% 33.50% 33.62% 33.75% 33.87% 34.00% 448.6 481.8 497.9 126.8 118.6 138.9 144.4 528.6 157.1 142.0 165.2 171.7 636.1 679.6 719.3 760.5 803.4 839.8 875.8 913.1 948.2 22.16% 21.34% 21.02% 21.16% 20.20% 20.73% 20.83% 20.74% 22.40% 20.00% 23.00% 23.90% 22.33% 22.23% 22.12% 22.02% 21.92% 21.81% 21.71% 21.60% 21.50% 48.3 51.2 57.8 64.1 16.4 17.6 16.8 13.1 57.4 17.2 17.3 17.3 17.6 67.9 76.7 84.7 92.6 100.6 107.3 114.1 120.3 125.8 2.53% 2.56% 2.71% 2.73% 2.99% 2.51% 1.89% 2.25% 2.45% 2.43% 2.41% 2.45% 2.38% 2.51% 2.60% 2.68% 2.74% 2.79% 2.83% 2.85% 2.85% 13.07% 18.47% 18.77% 18.12% 17.80% 18.61% 4.63% 4.92% 4.59% 3.57% 16.76% 4.37% 3.88% 3.48% 3.20% 17.28% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% 17.47% $42.8 $20.0 $164.7 $200.0 $236.8 $241.4 $61.3 $52.6 $79.7 $78.2 $278.2 $64.2 $75.0 $68.9 $26.2 $235.8 $256.3 $276.9 $299.5 $324.0 $347.4 $371.6 $398.3 $425.4 2.93% 1.25% 9.04% 9.88% 10.49% 10.19% 10.23% 8.96% 11.90% 11.28% 10.92% 9.15% 10.57% 9.59% 3.65% 8.28% 8.38% 8.52% 8.67% 8.84% 9.02% 9.21% 9.42% 9.65% 0.8 13.6 13.5 11.8 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - .05% .85% .74% .58% .04% .03% .01% .02% .03% - .01% - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.4 2.3 3.2 2.6 4.7 3.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.1 3.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 4.2 4.9 5.2 5.5 6.2 0.1 6.9 7.2 7.5 .23% .14% .18% .13% .21% .14% .17% .12% .12% .16% .14% .17% .15% .15% .12% .15% .16% .16% .16% .17% .00% .17% .17% .17% 0.00% 59.88 6.63 (4.86) 1.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.74% .36% (.24%) .06% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1.13) (2.37) 1.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (.08%) (.15%) .08% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44.3 66.2 162.5 185.9 241.9 244.0 62.2 53.2 80.3 79.3 281.5 65.4 76.1 69.9 27.1 240.0 261.2 282.1 305.0 330.2 347.5 378.5 405.5 432.9 3.03% 4.13% 8.92% 9.19% 10.71% 10.30% 10.39% 9.07% 11.99% 11.44% 11.04% 9.32% 10.72% 9.74% 3.77% 8.42% 8.54% 8.68% 8.83% 9.01% 9.03% 9.38% 9.59% 9.82% 17.38 12.06 59.97 (58.07) 95.43 92.71 23.57 20.82 31.79 31.8 108.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 90.0 98.0 105.8 114.4 123.8 130.3 141.9 152.1 162.3 39.25% 18.22% 36.90% 31.23% 39.45% 37.99% 37.89% 39.12% 39.59% 37.00% 38.35% 34.40% 29.57% 32.17% 83.07% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% $26.90 0.5 Current Liabilities - 2.65% Add Back: Interest Expense*(1-Tax Rate) % Revenue - 46.7 36.3 Current Assets - 2.92% Add Back: Depreciation and Amortization % Revenue - 36.3 Net Margin Operating Cash Flow - 2.48% Interest Expense % Revenue 2014E 2015E $2,257.8 Operating Expenses 2013A 11/2/2014A $2,024.3 Gross Margin 2012A Q2 $1,822.4 Gross Profit 2011A 8/2/2014A $1,602.6 - 2010A Q1 $1,462.9 Change in Fair Value of Derivative Instruments 2009A 5/3/2014A Total Revenue % Revenue 2008A $54.12 $102.56 $244.01 $146.44 $151.30 $38.64 $32.40 $48.50 $47.49 $173.57 $42.91 $53.59 $47.44 $4.58 $149.98 $163.26 $176.34 $190.63 $206.39 $217.17 $236.56 $253.45 $270.58 3.38% 5.63% 12.05% 6.49% 6.39% 6.45% 5.52% 7.24% 6.85% 6.81% 6.12% 7.55% 6.60% 0.64% 5.27% 5.34% 5.42% 5.52% 5.63% 5.64% 5.86% 6.00% 6.14% 46.7 48.3 51.2 57.8 64.1 16.4 17.6 16.8 13.1 57.4 17.2 17.3 17.3 17.6 67.9 76.7 84.7 92.6 100.6 107.3 114.1 120.3 125.8 8.5 8.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 $63.71 $112.00 $159.34 $303.36 $204.78 $215.77 $55.03 $50.04 $65.46 $60.61 $231.14 $60.07 $70.85 $64.77 $22.20 $217.90 $239.96 $261.00 $283.22 $306.94 $324.49 $350.69 $373.72 $396.42 4.36% 6.99% 8.74% 14.99% 9.07% 9.11% 9.19% 8.52% 9.77% 8.74% 9.07% 8.56% 9.98% 9.02% 3.09% 7.65% 7.85% 8.03% 8.20% 8.37% 8.43% 8.69% 8.84% 8.99% 297.5 317.6 381.9 492.2 508.6 476.6 507.5 516.8 562.8 523.8 590.0 599.2 604.1 577.5 543.2 618.2 663.6 704.7 747.7 793.6 832.4 872.3 913.8 953.5 20.34% 19.82% 20.96% 24.31% 22.53% 20.12% 84.74% 88.02% 84.02% 75.57% 23.15% 85.41% 85.10% 80.40% 75.58% 21.70% 21.70% 21.68% 21.65% 21.65% 21.62% 21.62% 21.62% 21.62% 156.0 223.1 261.3 275.9 273.7 283.6 306.8 350.7 343.5 337.5 337.5 291.9 320.5 360.3 393.7 393.7 404.0 422.9 442.1 461.7 484.0 506.2 529.3 551.2 10.67% 13.92% 14.34% 13.63% 12.12% 11.97% 51.23% 59.73% 51.28% 48.70% 13.24% 41.61% 45.15% 50.16% 54.78% 13.82% 13.21% 13.01% 12.80% 12.59% 12.57% 12.55% 12.52% 12.50% $141.50 $94.52 $120.61 $216.27 $234.92 $192.92 $200.73 $166.08 $219.33 $186.25 $252.46 $307.30 $283.59 $217.20 $149.47 $224.49 $259.54 $281.85 $305.62 $331.93 $348.48 $366.13 $384.56 $402.32 % Revenue 9.67% 5.90% 6.62% 10.68% 10.41% 8.14% 33.51% 28.29% 32.74% 26.87% 9.90% 43.80% 39.95% 30.24% 20.80% 7.88% 8.49% 8.67% 8.85% 9.05% 9.05% 9.08% 9.10% 9.12% Change in Working Capital 113.2 (47.0) 26.1 95.7 18.7 (42.0) 7.8 (34.6) 53.2 (33.1) 59.5 54.8 (23.7) (66.4) (67.7) (28.0) 35.0 22.3 23.8 26.3 16.6 17.7 18.4 17.8 81.0 21.8 52.3 76.9 99.8 83.8 25.2 21.6 26.6 34.7 108.1 35.1 35.5 35.9 28.7 113.9 122.3 130.1 138.2 139.3 146.3 149.3 152.2 154.4 5.54% 1.36% 2.87% 3.80% 4.42% 3.54% 4.20% 3.68% 3.97% 5.00% 4.24% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 3.80% 3.80% 3.70% 3.60% 3.50% ($130.5) $137.2 $81.0 $130.8 $86.4 $174.0 $22.0 $63.1 ($14.4) $59.0 $63.5 ($29.8) $59.1 $95.2 $61.2 $131.9 $82.6 $108.6 $121.3 $141.3 $161.6 $183.8 $203.1 $224.3 (28.65) 55.57 87.82 83.44 85.89 92.28 97.31 Capital Expenditures % Revenue Unlevered Free Cash Flow Discounted Free Cash Flow 57.84 55.28 68.82 102.00 103.96 105.84 EBITDA $79.14 $66.74 $212.93 $251.21 $294.60 $305.49 $77.60 $70.17 $96.54 $91.29 $335.60 $81.38 $92.29 $86.19 $43.84 $303.69 $333.02 $361.60 $392.07 $424.54 $454.73 $485.77 $518.60 $551.27 EBITDA Margin $0.05 $0.04 $0.12 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 $0.12 $0.14 $0.13 $0.13 $0.12 $0.13 $0.12 $0.06 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.13 EBITDA Growth ($0.35) ($0.16) ($0.75) ($0.10) ($0.07) ($0.49) $5.93 $0.10 $0.09 $0.08 $0.08 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.06 $2.19 $0.18 $0.17 $0.04 $0.38 ($0.05) $2.68 ($0.76) $0.13 UOIG 12 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 3 – Revenue Model Revenue Model ($ in Millions) Total Stores % Growth Total Square Feet % Growth Average Square Feet Per Store % Growth Revenue Per Square Foot Q1 2008A 2009A 2010A 2011A 2012A 2013A Q2 5/3/2014A Q3 8/2/2014A Q4 11/2/2014A Q1 2/1/2015E 2014E Q2 2015E Q3 2015E Q4 2015E 2015E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 298.0 305.0 311.0 326.0 364.0 394.0 408.0 410.0 431.0 433.0 433.0 438.0 443.0 448.0 448.0 448.0 463.0 478.0 493.0 508.0 518.0 527.0 536.0 543.0 15.06% 2.35% 1.97% 4.82% 11.66% 8.24% 3.82% 0.49% 5.12% 0.46% 9.90% 1.15% 1.14% 1.13% 0.00% 3.46% 3.35% 3.24% 3.14% 3.04% 1.97% 1.74% 1.71% 1.31% 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.3 8.1 8.7 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.5 10.8 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.8 11.9 9.88% 1.34% 1.93% 4.55% 11.40% 6.98% 3.82% 0.49% 5.12% 0.46% 0.46% 1.15% 1.14% 1.13% 0.00% 0.00% 3.35% 3.24% 3.14% 3.04% 1.97% 1.74% 1.71% 1.31% 22.6 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.3 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 (4.50%) (.99%) (.04%) (.26%) (.23%) (1.16%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 216.7 234.3 261.4 277.7 278.1 272.7 66.7 65.1 70.6 72.8 275.2 72.8 72.8 72.9 72.9 291.4 300.2 309.2 318.5 328.0 337.8 348.0 358.4 369.2 22.80% 8.10% 11.56% 6.25% 0.12% (1.94%) (3.41%) (2.46%) 8.54% 3.00% 0.94% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 5.89% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Stores Opened 41.0 9.0 9.0 17.0 39.0 30.0 14.0 2.0 21.0 2.0 39.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 Stores Closed 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenue $1,462.9 $1,602.6 $1,822.4 $2,024.3 $2,257.8 $2,368.7 $598.9 $587.1 4.08% 9.55% 13.71% 11.08% 11.53% 4.91% 0.28% (1.98%) % Growth % Growth - - - - - - 7.0 - - $669.9 $693.2 $2,549.1 $701.5 $709.9 $718.3 $718.6 $2,848.3 $3,057.5 $3,251.3 $3,453.9 $3,665.8 $3,850.1 $4,034.5 $4,226.5 $4,410.1 14.10% 3.48% 7.62% 1.21% 1.19% 1.18% 0.05% 11.74% 7.35% 6.34% 6.23% 6.13% 5.03% 4.79% 4.76% 4.35% Revenue Model ($ in Millions) Women's Shoes 2009A 2010A 2011A 2012A 2013A 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 965.5 1,057.7 1,202.8 1,336.1 1,467.6 1,656.9 1,822.9 1,956.8 2,080.8 2,141.4 2,272.8 2,348.6 2,501.4 2,620.4 2,734.3 % of Sales 66.00% 66.00% 66.00% 66.00% 65.00% 65.00% 64.00% 64.00% 64.00% 62.00% 62.00% 61.00% 62.00% 62.00% 62.00% % Growth 0.00% 9.55% 13.71% 11.08% 9.84% 0.00% (1.54%) 0.00% 0.00% (2.00%) 0.00% (1.00%) 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 219.4 240.4 273.4 303.6 361.2 433.3 512.7 580.9 650.3 759.9 806.5 885.5 927.9 972.1 1,014.3 % of Sales 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 16.00% 17.00% 18.00% 19.00% 20.00% 22.00% 22.00% 23.00% 23.00% 23.00% 23.00% % Growth 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 2.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% Men's Shoes Athletic Shoes 0.00% 190.2 208.3 236.9 242.9 270.9 305.9 218.7 215.3 208.1 214.1 227.3 234.9 250.1 262.0 273.4 % of Sales 13.00% 13.00% 13.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 11.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% % Growth (1.00%) 0.00% 0.00% (1.00%) 0.00% 0.00 0.00% (1.00%) (1.00%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Accessories and Other 87.8 96.2 109.3 141.7 158.0 152.9 109.4 117.4 124.8 128.5 136.4 140.9 125.1 131.0 136.7 % of Sales 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 7.00% 7.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% % Growth 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (1.00%) 0.00% 0.00% 298.0 305.0 311.0 326.0 364.0 433.0 448.0 463.0 478.0 493.0 508.0 518.0 527.0 536.0 543.0 15.06% 2.35% 1.97% 4.82% 11.66% 18.96% 3.46% 3.35% 3.24% 3.14% 3.04% 1.97% 1.74% 1.71% 1.31% $1,462.9 $1,602.6 $1,822.4 $2,024.3 $2,257.8 $2,549.1 $2,848.3 $3,057.5 $3,251.3 $3,453.9 $3,665.8 $3,850.1 $4,034.5 $4,226.5 $4,410.1 4.08% 9.55% 13.71% 11.08% 11.53% 4.91% .28% (1.98%) 14.10% 3.48% 7.62% 1.21% 1.19% 1.18% .05% Total Stores % Growth Total Revenue % Growth UOIG 13 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 4 – Working Capital Model Working Capital Model ( $ in millions) Total Revenue Current Assets Accounts Receivable Days Sales Outstanding A/R % of Revenue Inventory % of Revenue Prepaid Expenses Days Prepaid Expense Outstanding % of Revenue Deferred Income Taxes % of Revenue Total Current Assets % of Revenue Long Term Assets Net PP&E Beginning Capital Expenditures Depreciation and Amortization Net PP&E Ending Total Current Assets & Net PP&E % of Revenue Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Days Payable Outstnading % of Revenue Accrued Charges Days Charges Outstanding % of Revenue Dividends Payable % of Revenue Total Current Liabilities % of Revenue 2009A 2010A 2011A 2012A 2013A 2014A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 5/3/2014A 8/2/2014A 11/2/2014A 2/1/2015E 2014E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2015E 2015E 2015E 2015E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E $1,462.9 $1,602.6 $1,822.4 $2,024.3 $2,257.8 $2,368.7 $598.9 $587.1 $669.9 $693.2 $2,549.1 $701.5 $709.9 $718.3 $718.6 $2,848.3 $3,057.5 $3,251.3 $3,453.9 $3,665.8 $3,850.1 $4,034.5 $4,226.5 $4,410.1 6.9 1.7 0.47% 244.0 16.68% 24.8 26.9 1.69% 21.9 1.50% $297.5 20.34% 5.4 1.2 0.34% 262.3 16.37% 20.8 17.2 1.30% 29.1 1.82% $317.6 19.82% 12.4 2.5 0.68% 309.0 16.96% 29.9 27.6 1.64% 30.5 1.68% $381.9 20.96% 16.9 3.0 0.83% 334.4 16.52% 24.4 19.9 1.21% 116.5 5.75% $492.2 24.31% 26.8 4.3 1.19% 393.8 17.44% 20.6 15.6 0.91% 67.4 2.99% $508.6 22.53% 26.6 4.1 1.12% 397.8 16.79% 34.1 25.0 1.44% 18.1 0.77% $476.6 20.12% 22.8 3.5 3.80% 420.0 70.12% 44.4 32.2 7.41% 20.4 3.40% $507.5 84.74% 27.9 4.4 4.74% 415.0 70.68% 51.6 40.0 8.79% 22.3 3.80% $516.8 88.02% 26.5 3.6 3.96% 486.3 72.59% 26.6 17.6 3.97% 23.5 3.51% $562.8 84.02% 31.6 4.2 4.00% 450.6 65.00% 34.7 7.1 5.00% 6.9 1.00% $523.8 75.57% 31.6 4.5 1.24% 450.6 17.68% 34.7 23.9 1.36% 73.1 2.87% $590.0 23.15% 31.3 4.1 4.46% 498.1 71.00% 52.6 30.8 7.50% 17.2 2.46% $599.2 85.41% 33.2 4.3 4.67% 496.9 70.00% 56.8 36.8 8.00% 17.2 2.43% $604.1 85.10% 27.3 3.5 3.80% 502.8 70.00% 30.2 16.8 4.20% 17.2 2.40% $577.5 80.40% 23.4 3.0 3.26% 464.6 64.65% 37.9 20.3 4.00% 17.2 2.40% $543.2 75.58% 32.0 4.1 1.12% 478.2 16.79% 39.0 22.4 1.37% 68.9 2.42% $618.2 21.70% 34.3 4.1 1.12% 513.4 16.79% 41.9 22.5 1.37% 74.0 2.42% $663.6 21.70% 35.6 4.0 1.10% 545.9 16.79% 44.5 22.6 1.37% 78.7 2.42% $704.7 21.68% 36.9 3.9 1.07% 579.9 16.79% 47.3 22.7 1.37% 83.6 2.42% $747.7 21.65% 39.2 3.9 1.07% 615.5 16.79% 50.2 22.8 1.37% 88.7 2.42% $793.6 21.65% 40.1 3.8 1.04% 646.4 16.79% 52.7 22.9 1.37% 93.2 2.42% $832.4 21.62% 42.0 3.8 1.04% 677.4 16.79% 55.3 23.0 1.37% 97.6 2.42% $872.3 21.62% 44.0 3.8 1.04% 709.6 16.79% 57.9 23.1 1.37% 102.3 2.42% $913.8 21.62% 45.9 3.8 1.04% 740.5 16.79% 60.4 23.3 1.37% 106.7 2.42% $953.5 21.62% 233.4 81.0 36.3 278.0 $575.5 19.00% 278.0 21.8 46.7 253.1 $570.6 15.79% 253.1 52.3 48.3 257.1 $639.0 14.11% 257.1 76.9 51.2 282.8 $775.0 13.97% 282.8 99.8 57.8 324.7 $833.3 14.38% 324.7 83.8 64.1 344.4 $821.0 14.54% 344.4 25.2 16.4 353.3 $860.8 58.98% 353.3 21.6 17.6 357.3 $874.0 60.86% 357.3 26.6 16.8 367.1 $929.9 54.80% 367.1 34.7 13.1 388.6 $912.4 56.06% 342.3 108.1 57.4 393.0 $983.0 15.42% 393.0 35.1 17.2 445.2 $1,044.4 63.47% 445.2 35.5 17.3 498.0 $1,102.1 70.15% 498.0 35.9 17.3 551.2 $1,128.7 76.75% 551.2 28.7 17.6 597.6 $1,140.7 83.16% 393.0 113.9 67.9 439.0 $1,057.2 15.41% 439.0 122.3 76.7 484.6 $1,148.2 15.85% 484.6 130.1 84.7 530.0 $1,234.7 16.30% 530.0 138.2 92.6 575.6 $1,323.3 16.66% 575.6 139.3 100.6 614.3 $1,407.9 16.76% 614.3 146.3 107.3 653.3 $1,485.7 16.97% 653.3 149.3 114.1 688.4 $1,560.7 17.06% 688.4 152.2 120.3 720.3 $1,634.1 17.04% 720.3 154.4 125.8 748.8 $1,702.4 16.98% 92.9 32.4 6.35% 63.1 22.0 4.31% $156.0 10.67% 119.1 39.9 7.43% 104.0 34.9 6.49% $223.1 13.92% 148.2 44.8 8.13% 113.1 34.2 6.21% $261.3 14.34% 148.9 41.2 7.36% 127.0 35.1 6.27% 98.86 4.88% $275.9 13.63% 150.5 37.2 6.66% 123.2 30.5 5.46% 98.86 4.38% $273.7 12.12% 167.9 39.2 7.09% 115.7 27.0 4.88% 98.86 4.17% $283.6 11.97% 148.5 34.6 24.79% 158.3 36.9 26.43% $306.8 51.23% 192.3 44.4 32.76% 158.3 36.6 26.97% $350.7 59.73% 185.2 39.2 27.64% 158.3 33.5 23.64% $343.5 51.28% 198.9 40.0 28.70% 138.6 27.9 20.00% $337.5 48.70% 198.9 43.1 7.80% 138.6 30.0 5.44% $337.5 13.24% 151.0 30.0 21.52% 140.9 28.0 20.09% $291.9 41.61% 191.3 37.0 26.95% 129.2 25.0 18.21% $320.5 45.15% 208.1 41.0 28.97% 152.2 30.0 21.20% $360.3 50.16% 218.7 40.0 30.43% 175.0 32.0 24.35% $393.7 54.78% 218.7 41.8 7.68% 175.0 32.0 6.14% $393.7 13.82% 219.2 39.1 7.17% 184.9 33.0 6.05% $404.0 13.21% 232.6 39.1 7.15% 190.3 32.0 5.85% $422.9 13.01% 246.7 39.1 7.14% 195.5 31.0 5.66% $442.1 12.80% 261.3 39.1 7.13% 200.4 30.0 5.47% $461.7 12.59% 273.9 39.1 7.11% 210.0 30.0 5.46% $484.0 12.57% 286.5 39.1 7.10% 219.7 30.0 5.45% $506.2 12.55% 299.5 39.1 7.09% 229.7 30.0 5.43% $529.3 12.52% 312.0 39.1 7.07% 239.2 30.0 5.42% $551.2 12.50% UOIG 14 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 5 – Discounted Cash Flows Valuation Assumptions S Discounted Free Cash Flow Assumptions Tax Rate Risk Free Rate 37.50% Terminal Growth Rate % Equity 3.00% 1.96% Terminal Value Beta Market Risk Premium Considerations 4,968 1.01 PV of Terminal Value 1,416 6.45% Sum of PV Free Cash Flows 1,475 100.00% Firm Value 2,891 % Debt 0.00% Total Debt 0 Cost of Debt 0.00% Cash & Cash Equivalents CAPM 8.46% Market Capitalization WACC 8.46% Fully Diluted Shares Terminal Risk Free Rate 2.71% Implied Price $30.56 Terminal CAPM 9.21% Current Price $37.35 Terminal WACC 9.21% Overvalued Final Implied Price Price Target 112 2,891 95 (18.17%) Weight DCF $30.56 50.00% Forward Comparable Analysis $28.79 50.00% Price Target $29.68 Current Price $37.35 Overvalued (20.54%) UOIG 15 December 5, 2014 University of Oregon Investment Group Appendix 6 – Sensitivity Analysis Implied Price Undervalued/(Overvalued) Adjusted Beta Terminal Growth Rate Terminal Growth Rate 31 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% (0) 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% 0.82 34.93 36.66 38.74 41.28 44.45 0.81 (2.73%) (2.73%) 5.58% 16.88% 33.13% 0.92 31.12 32.41 33.93 35.75 37.96 0.91 11.25% 11.25% 22.93% 39.58% 65.25% 1.02 28.00 28.99 30.13 31.47 33.06 1.01 11.25% 11.25% 22.93% 39.58% 65.25% 1.12 25.41 26.17 27.05 28.06 29.24 1.11 (2.73%) (2.73%) 5.58% 16.88% 33.13% 1.22 23.22 23.82 24.50 25.28 26.18 1.21 (22.75%) (22.75%) (18.17%) (12.33%) (4.63%) Adjusted Beta Implied Price Undervalued/(Overvalued) Terminal Growth Rate 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% (0) 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% 0.07 30.5 30.5 32.2 34.4 37.3 0.07 (19.77%) (19.77%) (15.19%) (9.35%) (1.65%) 0.08 29.9 29.9 31.6 33.8 36.7 0.08 (18.16%) (18.16%) (13.58%) (7.74%) (0.04%) 0.08 29.3 29.3 31.1 33.2 36.1 0.08 (18.16%) (18.16%) (13.58%) (7.74%) (0.04%) 0.09 28.8 28.8 30.5 32.7 35.6 0.09 (19.77%) (19.77%) (15.19%) (9.35%) (1.65%) 0.09 28.3 28.3 30.0 32.2 35.1 0.09 (22.75%) (22.75%) (18.17%) (12.33%) (4.63%) WACC WACC , possibly consider doing an intermediate growth 31 rate 2.3% Terminal Growth Rate Implied Price Undervalued/(Overvalued) Terminal Growth Rate 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% (0) 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% 26.45% 6.09 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 16.45% 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 0.85 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 6.45% 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 0.75 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 16.45% 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 0.85 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 -0.94 26.45% 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 -0.95 Market Risk Premium Market Risk Premium Terminal Growth Rate 31 Implied Price Undervalued/(Overvalued) Terminal Growth Rate 2.2% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% (0) 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 3.8% 4.5% 0.58 28.75 28.85 30.56 32.75 35.62 0.58 -22.7% -22.7% -18.2% -12.3% -4.6% 0.48 28.75 28.85 30.56 32.75 35.62 0.48 -22.7% -22.7% -18.2% -12.3% -4.6% 0.38 28.75 28.85 30.56 32.75 35.62 0.38 -22.7% -22.7% -18.2% -12.3% -4.6% 0.48 28.75 28.85 30.56 32.75 35.62 0.48 -22.7% -22.7% -18.2% -12.3% -4.6% 0.58 28.75 28.85 30.56 32.75 35.62 0.58 -22.7% -22.7% -18.2% -12.3% -4.6% Tax Rate Tax Rate Terminal Growth Rate 31 UOIG 16 University of Oregon Investment Group December 5, 2014 Appendix 7 – Sources BWS Filings Damodoran DSW Earnings call transcripts DSW Filings FactSet FL Filings Google Images IBIS World Market Watch Morning Star Press Releases PVH Filings SHOO Filings SKX Filings Yahoo! Finance UOIG 17 University of Oregon Investment Group December 5, 2014 UOIG 18