You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Open letter to Bell Equipment

The company has the potential for greatness.
The cost to replicate Bell’s ADT platform suggests the company would be a bargain buy for a global manufacturer even at six times its current share price. Image: Supplied

We are concerned shareholders of Bell Equipment.

Bell is a South African manufacturer with much to be proud of: technical sophistication in articulated dump trucks (ADTs), an enviable position in the South African aftermarket, a passionate engineering team.

In 2000, Bell’s pioneering advancements in ADT technology attracted a 31% shareholding from John Deere, which Deere retains to this day.

Until 2012, Deere and IA Bell (the Bell family trust) jointly controlled the board, and Bell benefitted from the oversight of two world-class organisations. Not coincidentally, Bell’s returns on capital during the ‘Deere years’ averaged a healthy 13%.

But since Deere’s departure from the board, capital allocation has been rudderless.

Read: Bell Equipment vs its shareholders

Five-year returns on capital have fallen to 6%, meaning that each rand retained in the business has left shareholders worse off than if they had invested in South African treasuries.

Haphazard expansion

A haphazard expansion has seen Bell’s days of inventory swell from 150 in 2012 to a bloated 240 today, the difference representing R1.5 billion – 2.5 times the company’s market capitalisation. Gearing approaches 50%. Nor is this underperformance due to South Africa’s woes; rival Barloworld has hoed the same rows while consistently exceeding its cost of capital.

Unfortunately, Bell’s board has been unable to formulate a strategy to increase returns.

With the exception of Gary and Ashley Bell, its members are without relevant industry experience. And despite Deere’s presence as a strategic shareholder, Deere has not been allowed to contribute its expertise at board level since 2012.

Dismissive board

Bell’s lead independent director John Barton and his non-independent peers have not taken shareholder concerns seriously.

Shareholders at a half dozen different investment funds requested a call with Barton in December, were put off until January, put off yet again until March, and were then told Barton would make himself available to answer questions at the company’s annual results presentation in May – a presentation he then failed to attend.

Most recently, Barton used the excuse of a negative press article to cancel all communications with shareholders who dare complain.

Despite the board’s dithering, Bell has the potential for greatness.

Manufacturing is being moved to Germany, allowing Bell to more efficiently cater to the northern hemisphere, where 70% of ADTs are sold. A beachhead has been re-established in the US. Even the Bell family has been buying shares for the first time in years.

We suspect the family sees what we see.

Potential

And what do we see?

We see that the cost to a global heavy equipment manufacturer to replicate Bell’s ADT platform would exceed Bell’s net asset value (NAV), suggesting that Bell would be a bargain to an acquirer even at five to six times the current share price.

We see that the South African dealer segment would also be valuable to an acquirer; dealer businesses enjoy network effects that are difficult to replicate, and dealer businesses around the world generally trade for multiples of book value.

We see that in an outright liquidation of equipment and working capital, Bell would be worth several times its current share price.

Lastly, we see that with a proper capital allocation framework, Bell could once again exceed its cost of capital as a standalone company.

Under such a framework, we believe Bell could release up to R1.5 billion in excess working capital, or two-and-a-half times the current market capitalisation.

Repairing the damage of the last five years will take work, and lengthy discussion with Bell employees and shareholders brings us to the conclusion that this work needs to be undertaken by new management.

Current management has done little but lard the balance sheet with unproductive assets, alienate engineering talent, and snub investors who have sought to hold them to account. Complaints from top talent are so strident that we have served the company with a Promotion of Access to Information Act request to learn more about internal HR surveys undertaken recently.

Where to now

We continue to watch with interest to see if Barton’s peers among the independent directors will discharge their fiduciary duties.

But to the extent they are unwilling to act, we believe shareholders must do so.

We therefore make two suggestions:

  • Deere and IA Bell, as holders of 70% of Bell shares, must reassert themselves at board level. Their expertise is necessary to install management capable of running what is essentially a multinational technology company.
  • We also request that Bell begin a strategic review of all options to crystallise value for shareholders. We know that Bell is worth NAV. The Bell family, recently purchasing shares on the open market, has said sotto voce that they know it.

When Bell listed on the JSE in 1995, investors large and small joined its customers and employees in depending on it for good governance. The difference between that governance is the difference between public shareholders realising R6 and realising NAV of R36.

Kerem Aksoy is chief investment officer of Glacier Pass Partners in New York. Carson Mitchell, managing member at Shipyard Capital Management LLC, splits his time between Puerto Rico and South Africa. They have been Bell Equipment shareholders for more than three and four years respectively, and together own two million shares in the company.

COMMENTS   10

Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.

SIGN IN SIGN UP

Having worked with Barloworld ( CAT ) in the 70’s and 80’s ) one develops a certain passion for erathmoving equipment. Bell seems to function niche markets ( forestry , some regions like KZN and then the minute ADT market in SA ). Mining : What about LHD equipment ? Mining remains a major segment in SA.In rest of Africa, you hardly see Bell . It is not easy to judge what went wrong …too many thinks like after sales service , downtime etc could potentially play a big role. Propose a complete business audit before you invest anymore . Markets “feel good ” at times but unless you have a portfolio of products that deliver added value ( interchangeable spares ) , you will be stuck with an expensive capital invested business

To the JSE; shareholders of listed companies depend on your intervention when directors behave in an evasive way. The likes of John Barton are reputational risk Harvard’s for the bourse. If a director cannot account to major shareholders and continually excuses himself from meetings or does not engage, the JSE should question his fitness to be on a board.

JSE we need you.

No fear, no favors, no exceptions and no holy-cows.

“With the exception of Gary and Ashley Bell, the board members are without relevant industry experience.” I wondered what Hennie van der Merwe was doing there. He was CEO of Trencor …..and the rest is history. (the 5-year share price is down >90%)

I like Bell and have dabbled but me no touchy now. A little birdie may have also told me that Bells and maybe old directors and connected Zululand chums were quietly doing very good business (for themselves of course) with the company. The birdie may have it completely wrong of course.

Yip, Paul, methinks those company helicoptor pilot’s saw a lot less in-field breakdowns than they did private lawns, at shareholder expense obviously!

Another KZN bites the dust? Must be a weather thing!

Another KZN COMPANY bites the dust? ……..

A lovely open letter Kerem and Carson.

Essentially this company was a shining star up to around 2012. Since then murphy’s law has prevailed- “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong”.

For me, the final FFS was when the company was defrauded by it’s Congo division exactly when we were expecting some backslapping and payback for the essential intra-African expansionary effort sorely lacking in so many SA manufacturers profiles.

I agree with your back-to-the-drawing-board notions and cross my fingers value can still be unlocked from this previously well tee’d up SA gem fetcher.

B’Jaisus, Mary and Joseph- so mote it be!

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

NEWSLETTERS WEB APP SHOP PORTFOLIO TOOL TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: