Attached files
file | filename |
---|---|
EX-99.1 - EXHIBIT 99.1 - Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. | a991saucq32017earningsrele.htm |
8-K - 8-K - Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. | a8-kearningsreleaseq32017.htm |
Q3 2017 Financial Results
November 3, 2017
Safe Harbor
2
The information made available in this presentation contains forward-looking statements which
reflect the Company’s current view of future events, results of operations, cash flows,
performance, business prospects and opportunities. Wherever used, the words "anticipate,"
"believe," "expect," "intend," "plan," "project," "will continue," "will likely result," "may," and
similar expressions identify forward-looking statements as such term is defined in the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Any such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties and the Company's actual growth, results of operations, financial condition, cash
flows, performance, business prospects and opportunities could differ materially from historical
results or current expectations. Some of these risks include, without limitation, the impact of
economic and industry conditions, competition, food and drug safety issues, store expansion and
remodeling, labor relations issues, costs of providing employee benefits, regulatory matters,
legal and administrative proceedings, information technology, security, severe weather, natural
disasters, accounting matters, other risk factors relating to our business or industry and other
risks detailed from time to time in the Securities and Exchange Commission filings of DRH.
Forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date made and, thus, DRH
undertakes no obligation to update or publicly announce the revision of any of the forward-
looking statements contained herein to reflect new information, future events, developments or
changed circumstances or for any other reason.
Who We Are
NASDAQ: SAUC
IPO: 2008
Market capitalization $43M
Largest Buffalo Wild Wings Franchisee
› Leading operator
› Strong cash generator
› 65 BWW locations
› Recent share price $1.62
› 52 week range $0.70 - $4.12
› Insider ownership 50%
› Institutional ownership 17%
› Shares outstanding 26.7M
3
Pure play franchisee with scale and track record of accretive acquisitions
Market data as of November 1, 2017 (Source: S&P Capital IQ); Ownership as of most recent filing
Third Quarter Key Information
Sales of $39.3M, down $2.4M vs. last year
Negative impact from Hurricane Irma and revenue deferral related to new loyalty program
Same Store Sales off 4.35% (-2.73% YTD)
Adjusted EBITDA of $4.3M, 11.0% of sales
Restaurant-level EBITDA of $6.2M, 15.9% of sales
Strong cash from operations and FCF
Net cash from operations of $3.3M, up from $2.1M last quarter; LTM free cash flow of $8.3M
Cost of sales up 180 basis points vs. Q3 2016 as wing prices were high throughout the quarter
Lower margin on higher restaurant-level costs, particularly cost of sales
Difficult comps due to 2016 Summer Olympics; overall slower traffic environment, particularly in July and August
4
Sales
S-S-S
EBITDA
Margins
Cashflow
Sales and Traffic
5
Average Check and Traffic Trends
6
NOTE: Average check is predominantly driven by price but is also influenced by product mix and, to a lesser extent, average guests per check.
2.6% 2.9%
5.5%
5.9%
7.7%
4.1%
1.3%
0.8%
-2.2%
-2.7% -1.8%
-5.4%
-0.3%
-3.7%
-4.4%
-4.3%
-7.9%
-1.6%
4.3%
3.0%
-3.1%
-2.7%
0.9% 1.1%
2.2%
0.2%
0.6%
-2.5%
-1.8% -2.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-3.3%
-4.3%
2.0%
-1.9%
-6.3%
-5.0%
-10.0%
-4.1%
1.1%
-3.0% -3.2%
-2.0%
1.7% 1.7% 3.3%
5.7%
7.1%
6.6%
3.1% 2.8%
-0.2%
0.2%
1.4%
-1.1%
-2.3%
-1.8%
1.9%
0.7%
2.1%
2.6% 3.2%
6.1%
0.1%
-0.7%
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
2014
Q1
2015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
2015
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Q4
2016
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Q3
2017
Jul
2017
Aug
2017
Sep
2017
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
YTD
2017
SSS%
Traffic %
Avg Check %
Higher check averages during the quarter helped to partially offset slower summer traffic,
particularly in July and August
Same-Store-Sales Performance
7
Our Q3 2017 SSS % underperformed relative to BWLD and other BWLD franchisees
as a result of our regional mix
• Casual dining same store sales were negative across all regions of the United States in Q3 2017
- Over half of DRH restaurants are located in the weakest regions of the Plains states and Florida
- Over half of BWLD locations are located in the strongest regions of the United States
- Over half of BWLD franchisee locations are located in moderate performance regions
Distribution of Locations and
Casual Dining Relative SSS Performance by Region
Heat Map of Casual Dining
Regional Relative SSS Performance
Sources: BWLD 2016 10-K, DRH data
Note: Distribution data based on 2016 YE portfolios for BWLD and BWLD Franchisees, for illustrative purposes. Excludes international.
West/Southwest
Plains
Midwest
Southeast
Better Worse
CDR Relative
Region Performance BWLD BWLD-FR DRH
West/SW 37% 19% 0%
Southeast 14% 11% 0%
NE/Mid-Atlantic 14% 20% 0%
Midwest 19% 38% 49%
Florida 5% 4% 28%
Plains 12% 8% 23%
Weak SSS % 51% 30% 0%
Weaker SSS% 32% 58% 49%
Weakest SSS% 16% 12% 51%
Q3 SSS % -2.3% -3.2% -4.4%
Distribution of Locations by Region
Q3 Sales Bridge ($M)
8
Sales declines were driven by Hurricane Irma, the impact of changes in promotional activity, the
Blazin’ Rewards® loyalty initial deferral and a decline in traffic; offset by a new restaurant opening
and higher average ticket
*Promotional activity includes successful T Mobile promotion in 2016, change to less favorable promotion for National Wing Day in 2017,
anniversary of ½ price wing Tuesday offset by Blitz offerings in 2017
**Clinton Township, MI significantly impacted by a major sinkhole that, since 12/27/16, has been blocking access to the restaurant (“Fraser
Sinkhole”); University Park, FL access blocked for much of FY 2017 by new diamond interchange construction (I-75 & University Parkway)
$42.1
$41.9
$41.6
$41.2
$39.3
$0.3 $0.6
$0.2
$0.3 $0.1
$0.3
$1.9
$41.6
$0.8
$0.6 $0.1
Q3 2016
Revenue
NRO Avg Ticket Mc Gregor vs.
Mayweather/
2016 UFC
*Promotional
Activity
IRMA **Construction Cape Coral
Honeymoon
College Football
Schedule
Loyalty Program
Deferred Rev
Traffic/Other Q3 2017
Revenue
Sales Driving Initiatives: Delivery
9
Delivery and Carry-Out Sales as % of Total
The delivery channel continues to show strong growth and to date we see no evidence that
delivery sales cannibalize higher margin carry-out business
Delivery Drives Incremental Sales
38 locations now offer delivery service through
third parties (up from 26 last year)
2017 delivery sales are expected to reach
$1.5-$2M
Average delivery check is 13% higher than
dine-in and 17% higher than carry-out
20.6%
19.3% 19.5%
20.4%
21.9% 21.4%
20.3%
1.9%
2.7% 2.8% 3.1% 2.7%
Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017
% of Carry-Out Sales % of Delivery Sales
Sales Driving Initiatives: Blazin’ Rewards® Loyalty
10
Blazin’ Rewards Members
Roll-out began in St. Louis market in mid-2016 and ramped up with remaining locations in
Q1 2017, with the average loyalty check currently 17% higher than non-loyalty –
targeting 20% attachment by the end of 2017
*Loyalty Attachment Rates
* Loyalty attachment rate = loyalty checks as a percentage of total checks
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2016 2017
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2016 2017
Sales Driving Initiatives: Promotions
11
Testing New Promotions Half-Price Wing Tuesday vs. BOGO
The Tuesday wing promotion has proven to drive significant traffic throughout all dayparts on an
otherwise low volume day; we’re testing a BOGO offer in captive markets with promising early results
* Excludes July 4th holiday
** Check Count may not be a good proxy for traffic given the nature of the BOGO promotion
*** COS % excludes waste and cost that is not attached to a menu item (i.e. fryer oil)
Offering BOGO Traditional on
Tuesdays in select markets:
• Throughout Michigan (just rolling out SE-MI)
• Most of Florida
Planning to offer BOGO boneless in
Chicago and northern Michigan
markets
Testing new promotion in one of the
Florida markets in November:
• The original price per piece Tuesday
promotion
Margins and EBITDA
12
Quarterly Restaurant EBITDA Trends
13
1 – On June 29, 2015, we acquired 18 locations in the St. Louis market to add to our existing 44 units, which had a dilutive AUV of $2.3 million
2 – FF = Franchise-related fees which includes 5.0% royalty and 3.0 – 3.15% NAF (national advertising fund)
Record high chicken wing prices coupled with sales deleveraging placed added pressure on recent margins
AUV ($M) $3.1 $2.8 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.8 $2.5 $2.4 $2.8 $2.8 $2.6 $2.6
21.8% 20.6% 19.4% 20.3% 21.5% 20.0% 19.6% 16.5% 19.0% 16.6% 15.9%
21.2% 20.4% 19.4% 17.1%
5.5% 5.9% 6.4% 6.6%
6.5% 6.8% 7.0%
7.2%
6.5%
7.1% 7.6%
5.2% 6.2% 6.8%
7.0%
8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
8.2% 8.1% 8.1%
8.1%
8.0%
8.1% 8.2%
8.0% 8.0% 8.1%
8.1%
12.6% 13.4% 13.0% 12.7%
11.5% 12.1% 13.3%
14.0% 12.3% 12.9% 13.8%
13.2% 12.9% 12.7%
12.9%
23.3% 23.9% 25.1% 24.8% 24.4% 25.2% 24.7% 25.0% 24.7% 25.5% 25.4%
23.8% 24.4% 24.8%
25.2%
28.8% 28.1% 28.1% 27.6% 28.0% 27.9% 27.4% 29.2% 29.4% 29.9% 29.2% 28.5% 28.1% 28.1% 29.5%
KEY Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 YTD
2017
C
O
S
LA
B
O
R
O
PE
X
FF2
OCC
R
ES
T.
EB
IT
D
A
1 1
EBITDA Impacts
14
$6.1
$6.2
$0.7
$0.8
$0.3
$0.1 $0.1
$8.1
$0.1
Q3 2016
Restaurant-Level
EBITDA
Sales
Impact
COS Irma Impact Labor Occupancy Opex Q3 2017
Restaurant-Level
EBITDA
Cost of sales, driven by record high chicken wing prices, accounted for over 40% of the year-over-
year decline, followed closely by the impact of slower traffic and Hurricane Irma – related closures;
operating expenses were held in check despite the sales headwinds
Cost of Sales Impacts
15
Historically high traditional chicken wing costs and lower wing yields, coupled with the Tuesday
wing promotions, were responsible for a 209 bp increase in cost of sales in Q3 2017 vs. Q3 2016
29.2%
0.30%
27.4%
2.09%
Q3 2016
COS %
Traditional Wings Food/Beverage/Other Q3 2017
COS %
28.8%
28.1% 28.1%
27.6%
28.0% 27.9%
27.4%
29.2% 29.4%
29.9%
29.2%
28.5%
28.1% 28.1%
29.5%
21.7%
20.1%
20.4%
19.5%
20.3%
20.9%
19.5%
23.5%
24.0%
24.9%
25.3%
18.4%
20.4%
21.1%
24.7%
$1.89
$1.77
$1.80 $1.79
$1.92 $1.92
$1.70
$1.95
$2.02
$2.03
$2.14
$1.53
$1.81
$1.87
$2.06
Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 YTD
2017
Total COS % Wing Cost % of Total COS Wing Cost/Lb
COS Trends and Wing Impact
16
NOTE: Wing prices shown are the average price paid per pound of fresh, jumbo chicken wings – including distribution costs
of approximately $0.29 per pound
Traditional wing costs hit record highs in Q3 2017 but have recently begun to moderate;
wings as % of total COS spiked to 25.3%
Historical Wing Prices
17
$ / lb. Fresh Jumbo Northeast Chicken Wing Spot Prices
Source: Urner Barry Comtell™ UB Chicken – Northeast Jumbo Wings
NOTE: Logistics cost to restaurants is $0.29 / lb. over the spot price
Volatile fresh wing spot prices have ranged between $1.41 and $2.16/lb. since 2015; prices have
declined for 5 consecutive weeks since peaking in mid-September, now at $1.90
Total Labor Trends
18
NOTE: OH = Overhead labor costs including payroll taxes, FUTA, SUTA, health benefits and retirement plan.
Bonus is typically between 1.0-1.2% of sales.
Hourly and total labor costs continue to be held in check as we push productivity initiatives
as a means of offsetting wage inflation
23.3% 23.9%
25.1% 24.8% 24.4%
25.2% 24.7% 25.0% 24.7%
25.5% 25.4%
24.4% 24.8%
25.2%
12.5% 13.2%
13.8% 13.3% 13.1% 13.6% 13.3% 13.6% 13.1% 13.8% 13.6% 13.2% 13.4% 13.5%
5.6%
6.0%
6.4%
6.4% 6.2%
6.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6%
6.8% 7.1%
6.1% 6.5%
6.8%
5.2%
4.7%
4.9% 5.2% 5.1%
5.1% 4.8% 4.8% 5.1%
4.8% 4.7%
5.0%
4.9%
4.9%
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 FY 2015 FY 2016 YTD
2017
Hourly Labor % of Sales Mgmt Labor % of Sales Bonus & OH % of Sales
AUV ($M) $3.1 $2.8 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.8 $2.5 $2.4 $2.8 $2.6 $2.6
Adjusted EBITDA Trends
19
21.8%
20.6%
19.4% 20.3%
21.5%
20.0% 19.6%
16.5%
19.0% 16.6% 15.9%
21.2% 20.4% 19.4% 17.1%
4.3%
8.0%
5.8% 5.1%
5.0%
5.7% 5.7%
5.8%
5.3% 5.2% 4.9%
5.1% 5.7% 5.7% 5.1%
Key Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 YTD
2017
G&
A
R
ES
T.
EB
IT
D
A
AUV ($M) $3.1 $2.8 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.8 $2.5 $2.4 $2.8 $2.8 $2.6 $2.6
G&A expenses have seen ongoing reductions, partially offsetting the impact of lower store –
level margins on higher cost of sales
G&A Run Rate Trending Down
20
G&A costs continue to trend down as cost savings initiatives take effect; despite top-line
softness, Q3 2017 G&A was below the targeted 5% of net sales
NOTE: Q3 G&A Expense excludes Bank Amendment Fees ($0.34)
$2.38 $2.37 $2.36
$2.07
$1.92 5.7%
5.8%
5.3% 5.2%
4.9%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.6%
5.8%
6.0%
Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 *Q3 2017
G&A $ G&A %
Exhibits
21
EBITDA Reconciliation
22
EBITDA Reconciliation cont.
23
Restaurant-Level EBITDA represents net income (loss) plus the sum of non-restaurant specific general and administrative expenses, restaurant pre-
opening costs, loss on property and equipment disposals, depreciation and amortization, other income and expenses, interest, taxes, and non-recurring
expenses related to acquisitions, equity offerings or other non-recurring expenses. Adjusted EBITDA represents net income (loss) plus the sum of
restaurant pre-opening costs, loss on property and equipment disposals, depreciation and amortization, other income and expenses, interest, taxes, and
non-recurring expenses. We are presenting Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, which are not presented in accordance with GAAP, because
we believe they provide an additional metric by which to evaluate our operations. When considered together with our GAAP results and the reconciliation to
our net income, we believe they provide a more complete understanding of our business than could be obtained absent this disclosure. We use
Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA together with financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, such as revenue, income from
operations, net income, and cash flows from operations, to assess our historical and prospective operating performance and to enhance the understanding
of our core operating performance. Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are presented because: (i) we believe they are useful measures for
investors to assess the operating performance of our business without the effect of non-cash depreciation and amortization expenses; (ii) we believe
investors will find these measures useful in assessing our ability to service or incur indebtedness; and (iii) they are used internally as benchmarks to
evaluate our operating performance or compare our performance to that of our competitors.
Additionally, we present Restaurant-Level EBITDA because it excludes the impact of general and administrative expenses and restaurant pre-opening
costs, which is non-recurring. The use of Restaurant-Level EBITDA thereby enables us and our investors to compare our operating performance between
periods and to compare our operating performance to the performance of our competitors. The measure is also widely used within the restaurant industry
to evaluate restaurant level productivity, efficiency, and performance. The use of Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA as performance
measures permits a comparative assessment of our operating performance relative to our performance based on GAAP results, while isolating the effects
of some items that vary from period to period without any correlation to core operating performance or that vary widely among similar companies.
Companies within our industry exhibit significant variations with respect to capital structure and cost of capital (which affect interest expense and tax rates)
and differences in book depreciation of property and equipment (which affect relative depreciation expense), including significant differences in the
depreciable lives of similar assets among various companies. Our management team believes that Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA
facilitate company-to-company comparisons within our industry by eliminating some of the foregoing variations.
Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are not determined in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered in isolation or as an
alternative to net income, income from operations, net cash provided by operating, investing, or financing activities, or other financial statement data
presented as indicators of financial performance or liquidity, each as presented in accordance with GAAP. Neither Restaurant-Level EBITDA nor Adjusted
EBITDA should be considered as a measure of discretionary cash available to us to invest in the growth of our business. Restaurant-Level EBITDA and
Adjusted EBITDA as presented may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies and our presentation of Restaurant-Level
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA should not be construed as an inference that our future results will be unaffected by unusual items. Our management
recognizes that Restaurant-Level EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA have limitations as analytical financial measures.