• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

FMIC is going public

Fender Musical Instruments Corp. is going public. What that means is that its stock will be traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol FNDR and that we, the public, can choose to invest.

What it also means is that Fender will be required to tell us about its finances and business practices in detail every quarter. What they have disclosed is of interest to people who buy their products.

Here are some highlights from the initial filing:

-Fender doesn't make most of what it sells. 52 percent of its finished products come from independent OEMs in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

-Fender demands sweetheart pricing deals for the factories that work for it. Fender does NOT require all of the factories that build its products to prove, or even pledge, that they follow the labor and environmental laws of their home nation:

"With many of our OEMs we do business on a purchase order basis rather than pursuant to formal written contracts. ... Most of these contracts require our OEMs to provide us with a “favored nations” pricing policy whereby we get the benefit of any more favorable prices offered to other customers of our OEMs. In addition, our OEMs that use subcontractors cannot subcontract the manufacturing of our products unless we provide advance written consent and certain other criteria are met. Although some of our OEM contracts prevent the OEM from making or dealing in competitors’ products, others do not. In most of our OEM contracts, our OEMs represent to us that they are in compliance with local labor, environmental and safety laws. Although our supply chain employees occasionally visit our OEMs’ facilities, we do not require our OEMs to abide by any formal code of conduct as a condition of doing business with us."

-Fender paid a $79,000 fine in 2009 to the EPA for improper waste storage and employee training at its California plant.

-Fender made $700 million in sales last year and $19 million in profits last year.

-Guitar Center makes up roughly 16 percent of Fender's sales. Fender CEO Larry Thomas is a Guitar Center veteran.

-Surprisingly, 59 percent of Fender's sales still come from the 13,000 independent music stores that carry its products.

-A private equity group invested $60 million in Fender in 2002 and owns 43 percent of the company. That implies that Fender is/was worth $1.3-4 billion.

Here's a link to the filing. I'll dig in further when I have more time.

Invalid Link Removed
 
I know one thing. 'Pre-CBS' meaning before 1965 when CBS bought Fender, used to be a handle for a better quality instrument that sold for more on the used bass market. Didn't matter whether the bass was actually better quality or not.

All of you Fender bass owners are now in possession of 'pre-IPO' basses, and whether they're better that post-IPO basses or not, mark my words, they'll be worth more.
 
There are quite a few threads on this already, including this one, which as of this posting, shows up just a few threads below yours.

Here are some others:

Fender IPO
Fender to file an IPO!
Fender IPO
Fender are in trouble with debts?

Thanks for pointing out the other threads. However, I am a professional financial journalist and have covered a number initial public offerings, so I plan to do a little more thorough analysis. As of yet, none of the news organizations that have covered this have really dug into the filing or started to decode what it actually means. That's what this thread is for.
Stay tuned.
 
$19M profit on $700M sales? The execs must be taking some mighty big bonuses.

as I mentioned in another thread, this is the company that took the $475 MIM Fender Jazz Standard bass from 3 years ago and jacked the price up to $650 (or more? Memory is fuzzy) and then backed it down to $600-630 now. All street prices.

If someone can explain this to me in a way that doesn't mean "mismanagement," I'm all ears.

If the price was too way low and they radically adjusted for inflation...

If the price was too low and they were not making enough profit...

If they were short on cash and needed to cover their debts...

It all sounds like mismanagement to me. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

That's just reading the news. As a musician with experience in the market, these guys are selling the best instruments that 1962 has to offer, in 2012. Don't get me wrong, vintage is cool, but as an investment we need to see future profits. Fender isn't making any more 1957 Strats, they're making 2012 Strats. IMO, they don't even have a good selection of colors (compare to, e.g., Carvin or G&L or Musicman, or a plethora of off-shore companies).

Best of luck to FMIC. They really thrived under CBS, right?
 
Thanks for pointing out the other threads. However, I am a professional financial journalist and have covered a number initial public offerings, so I plan to do a little more thorough analysis. As of yet, none of the news organizations that have covered this have really dug into the filing or started to decode what it actually means. That's what this thread is for.
Stay tuned.

Please educate me here. The news says Fender is doing an IPO and part of the proceeds will be used to pay off loans. I don't have an MBA and I'm not an experienced investor type.

But if they took the loans, they expected they would be able to repay the loans without selling a percentage of the company, right? I mean, I may be naive, but is it normal to take on a debt load and then sell off part of the company to cover it?

It seems to me that the IPO is a "plan B" - because the first plan was to have enough cash on hand to repay the loans. Otherwise, wouldn't you just do the IPO in the first place and save all the interest and financial fees associated with the loans?

I'm asking because I truly don't know.
 
as I mentioned in another thread, this is the company that took the $475 MIM Fender Jazz Standard bass from 3 years ago and jacked the price up to $650 (or more? Memory is fuzzy) and then backed it down to $600-630 now. All street prices.

If someone can explain this to me in a way that doesn't mean "mismanagement," I'm all ears.

If the price was too way low and they radically adjusted for inflation...

If the price was too low and they were not making enough profit...

If they were short on cash and needed to cover their debts...

It all sounds like mismanagement to me. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

That's just reading the news. As a musician with experience in the market, these guys are selling the best instruments that 1962 has to offer, in 2012. Don't get me wrong, vintage is cool, but as an investment we need to see future profits. Fender isn't making any more 1957 Strats, they're making 2012 Strats. IMO, they don't even have a good selection of colors (compare to, e.g., Carvin or G&L or Musicman, or a plethora of off-shore companies).

Best of luck to FMIC. They really thrived under CBS, right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I remember when Fender jacked their prices into the strat-osphere. At the time, I thought, "This has got to kill their sales." Apparently, it did. It wasn't that long before the prices dropped back down because the market wouldn't support those prices. So they had to find a price point that would restore their volume to a point that it was profitable. That's how you know when the price is too high. Sales drop.

While we're here, I'll one again answer the question, "Are booteek basses worth it?" Since folks like Sadowsky, Fodera and many others sell every single bass they make, their prices are at least low enough, and may be too low. So the market has determined that their basses are "worth it."
 
$19M profit on $700M sales? The execs must be taking some mighty big bonuses.

That`s what I thought. That` a profit margin of roughly 3.5%. As an example, on an Am. Jazz around $1200, after the dealer gets a cut (20% ? I dunno - someone pipe in) - $240 = $960. Take away the 3.5% profit = $926.40. If it costs Fender $926 to produce, bring to market, and sell every Jazz, and they`re only pocketing $34, they have serious problems somewhere. My .02
 
That`s what I thought. That` a profit margin of roughly 3.5%. As an example, on an Am. Jazz around $1200, after the dealer gets a cut (20% ? I dunno - someone pipe in) - $240 = $960. Take away the 3.5% profit = $926.40. If it costs Fender $926 to produce, bring to market, and sell every Jazz, and they`re only pocketing $34, they have serious problems somewhere. My .02

The dealers usually pay about 50 percent of list for the instrument. Then they sell it for 70 percent of list (which is MAP). So that's 40 percent gross profit for the dealer. (Before you challenge my math, let's say the instrument is $1000 list. The dealer pays $500 for it and sells it for $700. That's $200 gross profit, which is 40 percent of $500.)

Anyway, do you think the manufacturer is willing to take 3.5 percent profit on something for which the dealer is going to get 40 percent profit? As I said, the profit they're declaring has to be after taxes and bonuses. Many companies operate at zero percent net profit.
 
The dealers usually pay about 50 percent of list for the instrument. Then they sell it for 70 percent of list (which is MAP). So that's 40 percent gross profit for the dealer. (Before you challenge my math, let's say the instrument is $1000 list. The dealer pays $500 for it and sells it for $700. That's $200 gross profit, which is 40 percent of $500.)

Anyway, do you think the manufacturer is willing to take 3.5 percent profit on something for which the dealer is going to get 40 percent profit? As I said, the profit they're declaring has to be after taxes and bonuses. Many companies operate at zero percent net profit.

Not challenging your math at all - thanks for clarifying. But say the $500 instrument - after interest, taxes , marketing, etc. and all other associated costs, Fender`s clearing $17.50 ?!? That was my point - not an efficient business model by a long shot.
 
Reading the S-1, I see a strategy not unlike Harley-Davidson for USA Fender instruments (heritage, lifestyle, co-branding). The biggest differences are that Fender makes things other than guitars (amps and PA equipment) and has subsidiaries that make things other than guitars (percussion, drum hardware) and that Fender makes lower-priced versions of its USA product in other countries. I wish the company well, but am not planning to invest.

The CEO is a guitarist which is important, if the management doesn't feel the lifestyle in its bones, this strategy won't work. I think Harley does this part right and is part of the reason it survived and thrived. HOG has actually outperformed the Dow since 2000. On second thought, maybe I will buy some Fender although the only FMIC products I own are a banged up CIJ Squier Strat that I bought for $50 at a second hand shop and a 10w practice amp.
 
I was taught that 37% profit on a product was a break-even - true?

It depends. When Price Club was around, they operated at about 2 pecent margin on sales. That's why their prices were so low. Who needs margin when you've got 17 million people paying 40 bucks a head to walk in the door - the "membership fee"?

The "break-even" point is a function of a myraid of factors. If management keeps overhead and salaries low, they can get by with lower margins, especially if they can attract greater volume.
 
I agree with the Harley comparison. If this is the angle they take, and that card is played savvy, they can be very successful. As far as the current CEO, he will now have to answer to shareholders. If he doesn`t perform, a suit will be installed in his place. As history has shown, that won`t be a good thing. And I still say that those numbers do not make for a good investment, granted it`s very little info and doesn`t present a complete picture of their finances. I`m also afraid that this will hurt quality of the instruments when the suits start implementing cost-cutting measures.