Geox S.p.A. : the FY 2016 results undermine the ongoing turnaround.

The FY 2016 results are under the expectations of the analysts' estimates and of the targets of the business plan. The revenues grow by 3% (vs the CAGR of the BP, about +6.5% or +5.5% with the lower range of the guidance). Of course, the margins are really under pressure : the gross profit decreases, the same both for the EBIT and for the net income. The results should be considered net of extraordinary items. However, the business is not proceeding well and the cost savings policy is not giving the desired results.

We have an increase of four percentage points, with regard to the cost of sales margin (from 48% to 52%). Overall, there is a great margins erosion. About the expectations, they were estimated stable or slighty higher compared to the FY 2015 results. 

See the link to read about the related press release and compare it with the consensus. 

On many fronts, they are disappointing, more so after the good trend of the 9 months 2016 (appreciated by the market at the time of the release) and a fortiori with the good progress of the triennium 2013-2014-2015 (appreciated by the market with an excellent stock market performance from 2 to 4 eur/share). 

In my opinion, the management's credibility is in doubt for the above reasons. The market is discounting it. Secondly, in particular :

1) They failed the previous business plan ;

2) With insight, the change of the CEO is probably regarded as a rupture ; I would have appreciated more if the management had much clarified about that. Instead, substantially, they only confirmed what it was said before, in the press release ; 

3) The results are now under the targets of the current business plan ; 

4) The 2016 was supposed to be a transitional year but the results marked a strong deterioration ;

5) The loss of the profitability in the first half of the year 2016 had to be compensated along the second half of the year but we have a clear decline of the margins. 

Press release, first half 2016 results

Press release, 9M 2016 sales

They should work well over the next two years of the plan, to regain credibility, also focusing on the new CEO and on the new markets, like China. The small margins are the great problem ; they must work in that direction (improvement of the margins). Otherwise, the market will probably dislike with a bad price performance ; the decrease of the stock is the evidence, after the earnings release  (the negative impact was partially offset by the good performance of the FTSE-mib ; Geox, beta of about 0.80/0.90). 

Chart from Investing.com

The local banks : Banca Popolare di Sondrio and Credito Valtellinese.

Throughout history, CVAL and BPSO have been the subject of more comparisons because of geographical proximity, the similarity of the business and other aspects.

It has spoken repeatedly of a possible marriage between the two banks (http://www.ilgiorno.it/sondrio/cronaca/2012/11/12/800989-Fusione-Credito-Valtellinese-Banca-Popolare.shtml ; https://www.investireoggi.it/finanza-borsa/bper-creval-popolare-sondrio-ipotesi-fusioni-due-scenari-possibili/ ; http://www.milanofinanza.it/news/creval-pop-di-sondrio-mercato-scommette-su-fusione-201406021112394411), due to the strong similarity.

However, in my opinion, in the M&A sector, the most important thing is to create adding value and synergies. If you match together two equal businesses, you don't generate synergies. 

The result of the merger is only the same firm but greater : that is not a complementary business but a substitute. Of course, the common aspects can be used for a major geographical control and for the lower competition, in this way. Nevertheless, in the long-run, you need to grow/to acquire new markets and customer segments, you need to implement new services. By focusing only on geographical matter and/or on the classical commercial bank, you will not reach those goals, most likely. 

Nowadays, the market is changing, costantly. We must be able to meet the challenges and we have to be more flexible : the banking sector (like the past) is dead ; the new banking sector is integrated, inevitably. 

About the latest news, the hypotheses seem to be oriented more to BPER and UNIPOL, after the press relase http://www.gruppocreval.com/media/comunicati_en/CV-CS-Nomina-Advisor-ENG.pdf.

See the link below : http://www.milanofinanza.it/news/equita-in-caso-di-fusione-con-bper-il-premio-va-al-creval-201701231129545256.

Because of the above reasons, I would consider these options more positively. 

M&A apart, it is interesting to compare the numbers (FY 2016). For further info, see the links : 

http://www.gruppocreval.com/media/comunicati_en/2017/CV-CS-Risultati-FY2016-ing.pdf ;

http://www.popso.it/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/EN/IDPagina/2100.

The direct (+4.76%) and indirect (+0.61%) funding grows where for CVAL, we have a decrease, -2.7% and -4%, compared to the same period. The same, with regard to loans and receivables with customers (-8.5% vs +5.49%).

The capital ratios are equal, substantially : CVAL, CET1 11.8% vs 11.09% (BPSO) and Total Capital Ratio 13% vs 13.58% (BPSO).

About the organisational data, there is an improvement for Banca Popolare di Sondrio : 128 new hires and 5 new branches. Credito Valtellinese got worse : number of employees (-1.65%) and number of branches (-4.37%). 

With regard to the credit risk, the credit quality of BPSO is better, of course. The following table shows the comparison.

BPSO has far fewer NPLs and it has higher coverage. The coverage ratio expresses a prudent policy of the bank and a lower potential risk, the higher the coefficient. The cost of the policy is better than CVAL.

Finally, about other financial information, the cost to income ratio shows the better operating efficiency of BPSO, 55.31% vs 69.7% (CVAL). Speaking about the income margins, for both, there is a drop in margins, thanks also to an unfavorable macroeconomic context. However, for BPSO, the decrease is balanced by a cost savings, like administrative (+2.53%) and personnel expenses (+0.44%) vs CVAL, +4.22% and +17.34%. Secondly, there are minor net adjustments for BPSO.

Overall, clearly, at the end of the comparison, BPSO is the favorite. On the other hand, we should not forget the M&A factor that could change the scenario (market price and business) for CVAL, positively.
In fact, CVAL is well set to grow by external lines (like announced) while BPSO seems to continue through the autonomous growth. 

Cementir Holding S.p.A. : the new acquisitions boost the business.

The last uptrend of the stock is due primarily to the preliminary consolidated results at 31 December 2016 : results over the expectations of the analysts. The good results are related to the new acquisitions of Sacci and Compagnie des Ciments Belges that worsened the net financial debt.

On like-to-like basis, the results would have been stable or decreasing. 

Cementir Holding, Investor Relations, Press Releases

From this point of view, the growth through acquisitions is a focus for the business.
According to me, it will be the likely growth engine for the coming years.
History is there to prove it. The strategy is always the same : organic and external growth thanks to the numerous acquisitions over the years, with a low dependence on the domestic market (about 10% of the revenues). See the image below.

Cementir Holding, Group Profile

The outlook is substantially conservative, EBITDA of around 215 EUR million. The business is still suffering unfavorable FX and geopolitical troubles (Turkey). However, the management is well set to make the difference with a cost saving policy and with the strong implementation of the integration just closed (Sacci and CCB).

Cementir Holding, Investor Relations, Press Releases

About the fundamentals, the price is pretty interesting although the expectations could be flat/conservative (mainly, about the margins). With the 2017 expected results : P/S 0.65 X ; EV/SALES 1.07 X ; EV/EBITDA 6.20 X ; P/E 12 X ; P/B 0.7 X.

Reuters Consensus

About the chart, the downtrend from 7 EUR/share is over. For some time today there is a lateral trend but the last performance with volumes is a good signal that could invalidate the trading range (3.30-5.05). It needs a continuation with the break of area 5/5.30 (FIBO level 38.2%).

Charts from Investing.com

Charts from Investing.com

In the meantime, the uptrend is too strong in a short time : about +30% with five trading sessions. The volatility is high (in the high range of the BB), RSI is overbought, there is a gap down to cover. There will be a physiological price correction, probably.

Charts from Investing.com

Charts from Investing.com

January effect.

The January effect is a calendar anomaly that occurs during the month of January. It provides a general increase in the average returns of the stocks during the first middle of the month.
A fortiori, it is true for the small caps more than mid and large caps.
It refers to a statistical behavior and in this way, the exceptions may exist. Anyway, the effect is consistent over the years and for the majority, it is relevant.
If we had an efficient market, it should not exist. Until proven otherwise, the market is not efficient (at least, not totally) and we have market phases where it exists and market phases where it disappears.

There are multiple reasons for that ; the main explanations are the following : it is a psychological matter because January is the first month to begin a good investment program or it is the result of the tax-loss selling , with regard to the end of the previous year.

For further info, see the links :
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/januaryeffect.asp ; http://www.investorhome.com/anomcal.htm ; https://tradingsim.com/blog/january-effect/ .

Currently, it would seem to prove the rule. For the first days of January, FTSE ITALIA small cap index have performed better than mid and large cap.

Chart from Investing.com

The following table shows some best performances (5 days), among the small caps stocks. The effect seems to occur this year.