I must say my attention drifted when I started reading about Savers. I read that part diagonally, skipping most paragraphs.
It might be because I have a short attention span, and after reading about Winmark I didn’t feel the mental energy to dive into a second company.
Or maybe because Winmark’s writeup is very concise whereas Saver’s is longer.
I don’t know how other readers felt?
Again you know how I (unfortunately) tend to nitpick. Your newsletter has become part of my Sunday routine. I enjoy reading it and I learn something every time. Today was no different. Thank you Devin!
Thanks so much for the feedback, Tian. I 100% agree. Winmark has a fairly straightforward story, and having been public for so long with such a visible track record, I figured condensing it was no issue. With SVV, we have 3 years of financials, 1 of which was an outlier (2020), which also distorts the bounce (2021,2022). I generally have little interest in IPOs, but thought it would be interesting to dig around more and add some obscure color to it--but I can see that as a reader it's probably much more arduous to read unless you approach this piece already having a deep interest in the industry.
Peter Lynch often explained he’d be excited finding companies with bland names operating in unknown or unsexy industries. That’d allow him to pick up shares below their fair value.
When I read “second hand”, my immediate impression was “dirty, poor.” And “Winmark Corporation” is pretty bland. You got my attention!
I love how you walk us through the thesis. First you describe the franchise business model, its impressive margins, and management’s stock ownership. Then you show the company is fairly valued based on conservative assumptions. Finally you analyze the EV/EBITDA multiple over time and conclude there’s downside risk.
I wish more financial analysis articles showed the same rigor!
Lawrence Hamtil recently joked that we need more companies with boring names. Can't remember examples, but things along the lines of "American Consolidated", "Western Prime", "American Prime", "Western Consolidated". The more plain, the better.
I have no problem admitting my Winmark thesis is (almost embarrassingly) dead-simple. Far from my most nuanced work, but with a resilient high-margin cash cow, there isn't too much to break down. Plus, the high (and long-term) insider ownership is always a great way to judge alignment.
Great work Devin. Thanks for introducing us to Winmark!
Thanks, SB.
Thank you. Interesting. You write very well)
Thanks for the compliment and taking the time to comment, Alex! Glad you enjoyed it.
Wow, such a detailled analysis. Hats off !
Thanks for reading, AS.
I must say my attention drifted when I started reading about Savers. I read that part diagonally, skipping most paragraphs.
It might be because I have a short attention span, and after reading about Winmark I didn’t feel the mental energy to dive into a second company.
Or maybe because Winmark’s writeup is very concise whereas Saver’s is longer.
I don’t know how other readers felt?
Again you know how I (unfortunately) tend to nitpick. Your newsletter has become part of my Sunday routine. I enjoy reading it and I learn something every time. Today was no different. Thank you Devin!
Thanks so much for the feedback, Tian. I 100% agree. Winmark has a fairly straightforward story, and having been public for so long with such a visible track record, I figured condensing it was no issue. With SVV, we have 3 years of financials, 1 of which was an outlier (2020), which also distorts the bounce (2021,2022). I generally have little interest in IPOs, but thought it would be interesting to dig around more and add some obscure color to it--but I can see that as a reader it's probably much more arduous to read unless you approach this piece already having a deep interest in the industry.
Thank you for being receptive to all feedback, Devin! Happy Sunday!
You too! Always deeply appreciative of you taking the time to provide feedback.
Peter Lynch often explained he’d be excited finding companies with bland names operating in unknown or unsexy industries. That’d allow him to pick up shares below their fair value.
When I read “second hand”, my immediate impression was “dirty, poor.” And “Winmark Corporation” is pretty bland. You got my attention!
I love how you walk us through the thesis. First you describe the franchise business model, its impressive margins, and management’s stock ownership. Then you show the company is fairly valued based on conservative assumptions. Finally you analyze the EV/EBITDA multiple over time and conclude there’s downside risk.
I wish more financial analysis articles showed the same rigor!
Lawrence Hamtil recently joked that we need more companies with boring names. Can't remember examples, but things along the lines of "American Consolidated", "Western Prime", "American Prime", "Western Consolidated". The more plain, the better.
I have no problem admitting my Winmark thesis is (almost embarrassingly) dead-simple. Far from my most nuanced work, but with a resilient high-margin cash cow, there isn't too much to break down. Plus, the high (and long-term) insider ownership is always a great way to judge alignment.
Hadn’t heard about Lawrence Hamtil, will look him up!