Titleist: Buy or Sell?
News

Titleist: Buy or Sell?

Titleist: Buy or Sell?

It looks like one of golf’s few remaining privately held companies is about to cross over to the dark side.

As was reported by Reuters yesterday, Acushnet (parent company to both Titleist and FootJoy) has hired Solebury Capital to advise on a potential IPO estimated to be worth something in the neighborhood of 1.8 billion dollars.

In It For the Short Haul

When Fila acquired Acushnet many casual observers assumed it was the latest incarnation of the adidas play. You know…big apparel brand buys an established company in order to get its foot in the golf industry’s door. adidas, PUMA…toss in frequent Under Armour rumors and the ubiquitous Nike, and the trends reveal that apparel brands are steadily becoming the golf equipment industry’s overlords.

Fila certainly seemed to fit that model.

As it turns out, however; while Fila likely owns the largest individual chunk of Acushnet, it was never in alone. Whether it was simply a matter of capital on hand, or to minimize individual risk, Fila has partners. Several other private equity firms own pieces of Titleist’s parent company. That little detail alone suggests that Fila likely never had any designs on being a serious player in the golf equipment industry. For Fila and friends, Acushnet was an investment property, and now, it appears, it’s time to cash out.

What Becomes of Titleist?

Fair or not, some of what has led to the current state of industry is being blamed on the very nature of publicly traded companies. As we’ve heard it told, the constant need to appease shareholders though unsustainable growth, and exponential increases in year over year returns, is the reason why companies like adidas (TaylorMade) and Callaway have accelerated releases, made rapid discount cycles the norm, and in the process, devalued their brands (and the consumer’s eBay resale value).

Some believe the equipment industry’s struggles can be traced directly to the need to answer to shareholders.

Like PING, Titleist’s privately held status is, in the eyes of some, one of the primary reasons why the company has been able to not only sustain, but steadily grow profits, without resorting to one year (or less) release cycles. Being privately held is one of the reasons why Titleist is able to be Titleist. Worth mentioning, having its logo on the ProV1 doesn’t hurt either.

With Acushnet prepping for an IPO, and given what we’ve seen from adidas and Callaway – brands that have done anything and everything to satisfy investors – many are already starting to wonder if a move to the publicly traded world will fundamentally change what it means to be Titleist. Its competitors have clearly felt pressured to do whatever it takes to grow profits; at times to the detriment of the larger industry and the consumer.

Can Acushnet avoid the same trap?

Buy or Sell Titleist?

It’s easy to argue against investing in any golf company right now. For most, profits are down. The game is in decline. Governing bodies are doing nearly everything they can to stifle innovation, and as senior golfers shuffle off this mortal coil, millenials are largely disinterested in filling the gap. When you’ve got an iPhone and a lacrosse stick, what do you need with golf? American golf (and the geography matters) is a game that has not yet found its new bottom.

On the flip-side, Acushnet may be the safest gambit in golf…maybe the only safe gambit. The company’s management has proven it knows how to run a golf company. The brand brings to the table consistent (though not meteoric) growth, reliable profitability, and with the ProV1, what must certainly be the single most valuable asset in all of golf. Toss in the steady – and at times industry leading – performance of the FootJoy brand, and even with the overall golf market in a downturn, Acushnet should get plenty of looks.

Buy or Sell?

As an investor, would you put your money behind the Acushnet brand?

For You

For You

Golf Wedges
Apr 16, 2024
Vokey WedgeWorks Low Bounce K Grind Wedge
News
Apr 16, 2024
It Was A Masters To Forget For LIV Golf
Golf Apparel
Apr 16, 2024
adidas Pioneers Next Generation of Lightweight Golf Garments
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Matt

      9 years ago

      If I were a significant investor in titleist, I’d want to see:

      1. Super game improvement line of equipment
      2. Shorter product release cycles
      3. Brand spinoffs (can they create value for me by selling footjoy?)
      4. share buybacks
      5. Merciless cost cutting
      6. More focus in Asia, less in US

      All of these things are bad for titleist loyalists. It will be cool to see their books though

      I’d be riding put options on this one

      Reply

      Middah Jack

      9 years ago

      If Titleist goes public will my Pro v1x go in the hole in fewer number of strokes?

      Reply

      Bruce

      9 years ago

      Giles stands behind the same eyewash that pours billions into financial pockets.
      First: financial transactions are a BUSINESS, not an industry. Industrial operations produce goods, like golf clubs.
      Second: I earned advanced degrees in engineering and worked in large corporate research and development for the past 40 years (I still consult). What companies call research now falls into two classifications: 1. what can you do, (right, wrong, or sensible) with funding from the government. This becomes a method for technically challenged managers to judge the value of given people. I never read a government report where the project failed or should be cancelled. 2. what can you do to solve an immediate problem in the manufacturing or field operations? Actual research does not happen in company complexes.
      Third; with any profit decline comes a cut to research. This is a great out for managers that change jobs every 2 years – the consequences of the cut come to play long after they moved on.
      Fourth: I invest (not trade) in stocks – a company must pay a minimum 3% dividend or I don’t buy. The financial business exerts immense pressure to deliver next quarter independent of the consequences. Titleist will be a different operation under this pressure. You can hold up Apple, and Boeing (how much of the plastic composite material work was government funded?) but additional examples will be difficult to identify.
      Finally, Titleist may have an effective management NOW, but miss Wall Street expectations for a few quarters and they are gone. Then what long term Giles?

      Reply

      Peter

      9 years ago

      With all due respect Bruce, the management of Acushnet will “show their stripes” soon enough after going public. They may or they not pay obeisance to the bankers who bring the company public by trying to “manage earnings”, i.e., do whatever it takes to meet the expectations of earnings for a particular quarter. If the company management clearly sets out its goals (and before sharing those goals the management and the Board of Directors for the company will agree on those goals and how to achieve them) and for whatever reason doesn’t “make the number”, the stock may go down in the near term but that will not necessarily put immense pressure on management to “produce or perish”. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I seriously doubt that Acushnet management will deviate from their strategic course because of a quarter’s earnings. The vision of management and the translation of that vision and strategy into a business plan that works is the key. Managements can and do get fired when they fall prey to the “gotta make quota, have to beat the quarter” mentality that may mean deviating from the long term strategic initiatives for growth. Do you think Warren Buffet gives a whit about Wall Street projections or ever has? Long term growth of book value has been his goal and the goal of every truly excellent business manager and leader. He and others like him (and there are many excellent owners and leaders of publicly traded businesses) provide clear explanations of their overall strategy and how they will measure their success (earnings per share, book vale growth, etc…).

      Lets wait and see what the management of Acushnet will say as they explain their strategy to prospective shareholders prior to the public offering. They will disclose all of the relevant financial information needed to understand their growth trends, expenses, profitability and even the potential for a dividend payment. I can tell you from my interaction with the management and operations people at both Titleist and Foot Joy, this is an unusually excellent company. I think you are making judgements based on your experiences with companies you have worked in and with that may simply, in the case of Acushnet, not necessarily apply. Let’s see what their expense control strategies may be and let’s see how the company historically has dealt with margin pressure. Having worked with and seen companies that most clearly work for long term goals and are not swayed by Wall Street banker’s expectations, I see similarities in leadership style and substance in the Acushnet management.

      That makes me think this offering may be an interesting event.

      Reply

      Bruce

      9 years ago

      Fine thoughts Peter. My experience with investing and working taught me the business world is not that rosey.
      The current owners have been in place sufficient time to “harvest” cash where they can, and then examine the books. Their determination is Titleist profits are too small to keep the business so they will apply some “lipstick” and send it to Wall Street. Invest your money if you like, but I see little good from the transaction. I will not chip in financial support.

      Regards Bruce

      Pete

      9 years ago

      Giles = guy I would hate to play golf with.
      Go back to you scotttrade

      Reply

      Sidvicius

      9 years ago

      2 great articles this IPO and Inside the Big Box.

      Hats off and Bravo to golf spy!!!!!!!!

      Please keep it up

      Reply

      Groundhog

      9 years ago

      As a retired Wall Streeter I can say unequivocally the ONLY thing that drives stock prices is growth. Publically traded companies C level executives receive most of their compensation from stock options which are only valuable if stock prices rise. There is no revenue growth in a stagnant industry, golf. SELL SHORT

      Reply

      Garry

      9 years ago

      Sell

      You want to be a millionaire??

      Be billionaire and buy Titleist

      Reply

      Tony

      9 years ago

      Couldn’t bare to read the long rants (and I’m in the hedge fund industry) but take an example outside of golf, say…Jet Blue. My how a great company turns to sh*t when they stray away from the very business model (or niche) that made them successful.

      Reply

      Regis

      9 years ago

      Not sure when I expect to shuffle off my mortal coil, but assuming you’re talking about anything other than a very short term investment, I would not recommend any investment in anything golf centered.

      Reply

      Peter

      9 years ago

      I think there are reasons to be public and reasons for companies to operate as privately owned. However, central to any successful enterprise is a quality good or service with distinct competitive advantages, and an excellent management team steeped in and engendering a culture of success. There are examples of wonderfully managed extremely successful companies focused on long term growth of the value of the enterprise.Berkshire Hathaway, Fairfax Holdings, Colgate Palmolive and a few names.

      What Acushnet share with these businesses is a similar focus on excellence of product, long term growth of the enterprise, and leadership that clearly holds these priorities and truly important to running the company well. They have instilled a culture amongst employees that pushes these principles and short term fluctuations haven’t persuaded management to change course.As a leading company on the golf business, I fully expect that regardless of ownership structure, Acushnet and the operating entities will prosper..

      Reply

      Golfwhiler

      9 years ago

      The proof of Tony’s point, Giles, is that when I read the first two paragraphs of the article my heart sank. IPO could be good news for owners, probably not for employees and brand loyalists.

      You can say all you want about good outcomes for becoming publicly traded, going public generally means that passion, principle, and that wonderful idiosyncracy that makes one company different from another, get flattened out or lost altogether.

      It will come down to which people have control and can keep it. Whether I live long enough to know the outcome, for now, I remain an experienced sceptic.

      I’m pleasantly surprised that Titleist survived basically intact after Fila acquired the brand. Let’s see if Fila cares enough beyond whatever payday comes to keep Titleist a “golf first” organization.

      Reply

      thirtydeucehcap

      9 years ago

      Buy! I’ll hang it up next to my share of the Green Bay Packers.

      Reply

      muscleback

      9 years ago

      sell

      Reply

      obo

      9 years ago

      My head is spinning… anyone have pics of the new Odyssey putters or the new Ping Anser irons?

      Reply

      Regis

      9 years ago

      Ha Ha ha. I’m with you. I consider myself fairly well read and if I have a weakness its on financial analysis. I picked up the gist of Josephs comment but Giles has My head spinning and I’m not sure if its my lack of comprehension or that his post is gibberish.

      Reply

      Giles

      9 years ago

      Then say this is for discussion. One needn’t go into great detail about how many different pieces of financial analysis affect a company’s success and growth. One could write about many variables using one sentence and a few commas. Instead you begin the article by making a statement that becoming publicly traded is a move to the “dark side”. Am I wrong or does that colloquialism imply a negative and in this article that someone has made a move to the evil side of the stock market. Am I wrong to interpret that you are then saying publicly traded is bad?

      You further write this, “Fair or not, some of what has led to the current state of industry is being blamed on the very nature of publicly traded companies.” You don’t describe in one sentence that it may not be fair. And you say that some believe that the golf equipment market is struggling because publicly traded companies must answer to shareholders. You make big statements and accusations but hide behind the fact that this article isn’t intended to be financial analysis. Please describe both sides of the issue and don’t hide behind a mirage saying this article isn’t what you think it should be. If some believe one way and others believe the opposite as a journalist then it is your obligation to cover both sides. How hard would it be to add a line like, “Perception could be wrong. Many publicly traded companies manufacturing consumer goods produce a profit, while creating very high quality products, and maintaining their consumer base. It may not be corporate structure as much as corporate philosophy that has caused the state of the golf equipment market.”

      Please don’t say you didn’t imply that becoming publicly traded was bad. You’ll find a response to that foolish statement in your first graph.

      Reply

      Giles

      9 years ago

      Becoming a publicly traded company doesn’t mean a company becomes a an entity that must “appease share holders”. What does that even phrase even mean – nothing. Yes, a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders but that responsibility means literally thousands of different things in practice and philosophy. Generally a company upholds their financial responsibilities to share holders through turning a profit which tends to increase the stocks value and/or paying quarterly or annual dividends (shares of the profit based on stock ownership). A company can also use the profits to buy up stock increasing the value of a stock and use any number of other tools to increase its stock value, cash on hand or decrease debt. Apple is an excellent example of a company that does what it wants with relatively little concern of the stock’s price. It holds an incredible amount of cash and has been criticized for not paying more frequent or larger dividends.

      Becoming publicly traded realistically offers no greater threat to a company than being bought by a private owner. Both can upend the management structure and business model. The most important questions in understanding how an IPO may affect a company is to understand what kind of stock is being offered (what voting rights go with the stock being sold versus that being held), what debt and interest rate the company is carrying and who will be the largest stock holder. You don’t ask or answer any of these question. You discuss Taylormade and to a lesser degree Callaway and the article assumes that those two business models are the response to being a publicly traded company. None of that is likely true.

      Private or public every company wants to maximize profits and there are many paths to doing it. Titleist is going public – why? The why may help explain how it will impact the company and the company’s products. You don’t discuss if going public will affect the board – the governing body – of the company. You don’t discuss Titleist’s debt or Taylormade’s. You also don’t discuss the affects of currency fluctuation on a company – something that is hurting TaylorMade – Adidas Golf. You don’t discuss any of these issues. Facebook went relatively unchanged in their business structure because there are still a few major stockholders controlling the company. Whenever you guys stray from evaluating a golf club to something bigger you oversimplify and write in hyperboles. This is a good idea for an article, but not flushed out with any depth describing what it means to really take a company public.

      You start out with the presumption that taking a company public is bad and then explain why you are right by using Taylormade and Callaway as examples of the norm and what to expect. That’s not journalism or helpful. It isn’t even a well grounded op-ed. You mention zero market forces impacting public and private companies. You simplify it to public bad private good and don’t explain in realistic reasons why. You either don’t understand all market forces or choose to ignore how they impact all companies seeking to make a profit.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      9 years ago

      Oh Giles…you’re my favorite. Once again you made up your mind about what an article should be and then launched your trademark diatribe when it wasn’t. Sorry man. I can only assume you’re in the financial industry, and so that’s where your bigger interest lie. Detailed financial analysis was never in the cards for this one.

      If you had read more closely you would have seen this article (which was barely as long as your rant) broken up in to 3 basic sections.

      1. Background
      2. Perceptions
      3. Hey, what do you guys think

      I never said publicly traded was good or bad, I simply said that the perception exists (and I think if you took time away from your rant to investigate you’d fine that legitimate or otherwise, it actually does) that much of what’s bad about the golf industry is driven by the need to make shareholders happy. We’re not necessarily talking about dividends, only that a given company turn a larger profit than the prior year. Again…perception admittedly (and intentionally) without the detailed analysis you apparently desire, because again, a deep analysis was never the point. We’re talking about an IPO that’s a solid year out, but the fact that Acushnet will likely go public is something readers care about. The minutia of everything else you listed likely isn’t – and if it is, they’ll visit their favorite financial site to get it.

      I will say that on more than one occasion representatives of a publicly traded golf company have reached out to ask us not to do one thing or another SPECIFICALLY because of how it might be perceived by shareholders. That doesn’t make it a universal truth, but it does suggest that appeasement may be a larger concern than it might be in other sectors. It’s also probably not a complete coincidence that Titleist and PING currently operate very differently from the other guys. Correlation is not causation, but it makes for an interesting discussion.

      But one last time…this wasn’t intended as the detailed financial analysis you apparently thought it was going to be. So again…sorry man.

      Reply

      fleeter

      9 years ago

      Giles should be the one apologizing….just sayin’!

      Joseph Dreitler

      9 years ago

      Giles has nothing to say about whether he is in the financial industry and defending the business model. Speaks volumes. Anyone with less than half a brain knows that in this country in 2015 (and for at least the last 15 years), the only driver of public companies is to do anything and everything to increase their share price. Otherwise, they get a Bill Ackman knocking on their door with language like this (lifted from his letter to Allergan’s Board “You are fiduciaries for a $50 billion asset. Your actions have wasted corporate resources, delayed enormous potential value creation for shareholders, and are professionally and personally embarrassing for you.”

      Hedge funds and pension funds with lots of money do nothing but look for ways to increase their returns and the quickest way to short term profits is to target a public company, make the management sell off assets, borrow money to leverage the company, distribute a big dividend to the short term shareholders, fire employees, cut costs, cut R&D, cut marketing, outsource everything, use cheaper materials, move manufacturing to Asia and when the stock goes up, they dump it and take their profits and move on to the next target. They don’t care about anything other than that because they are short term investors, so if the company goes bust in 3 years it doesn’t matter. If the company produces garbage, it doesn’t matter.
      I speak to enough executives in public companies to know that they don’t view Wall Street as its intended purpose – – a source of capital. It has become a one dimensional monster whose sole goal is to rack up profits from buying, selling and leveraging companies to make money for itself, not create anything for the economy.
      Am I crazy? Read Michael Dell’s story about Wall Street today. There is no long term strategic planning in any public company in the US, they all stumble quarter to quarter trying to meet their target price or fear the wrath of Wall Street.
      I have been a business lawyer for 36 years, likely longer than Giles has been on this earth and been involved, sadly, in a lot of deals, many of which made no sense and resulted as described above. Suspect that fate will happen to Acushnet and dear old Titleist. Sad really. Ping is the only hold out. Good for Ping and the Solheim family.

      Giles

      9 years ago

      I am in the financial industry. I cam to the financial industry after being a community organizer for nonprofits including homeless care facilities, a rape crisis center, an AIDS/ HIV resource center and advocate for the disabled. I also was a journalist when we had to measure stories with a tape measure before taping them to ensure both sides received equal space in an article. Back then we didn’t use superlatives like Joseph’s when he wrote, “There is no long-term strategic planning in any public company…” Not one, really!!! Boeing spend years and years producing the Dreamliner in the 1990’s. Is 20 years not enough to be considered long term strategic planning? Furthermore, Joseph, there has been a trend to bring more and more manufacturing back to the United States contrary to your statements i.e. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/more-manufacturing-coming-back-to-the-u-s/

      Superlatives don’t work, there is almost always at least one that defines the statement and undermines your argument. A balanced reporting approach protects an author from such criticism.

      Or as the author of this article wrote, It looks like a privately held golf equipment company is moving to the “dark side”. Then his retort is he didn’t say it was negative. Boeing spend years and years producing the Dreamliner in the 1990’s. Is 20 years not enough to be considered long term strategic planning?

      I loathe much about the financial industry, and about 50% of my work is Pro bono work for low income individuals – I define low as below the federal poverty line. There are a lot of things wrong with it. But there are also a lot of things in the industry that work.

      Yes shareholders sue, but they rarely win – more often companies settle if the lawsuit hinders a calculated move. In reality, it is very very difficult to prove in a court room that a board of directors violated their fiduciary responsibility because there is a wide range of practices to lead a company to being profitable. Even failing to make profits is not a failure of a boards meeting its fiduciary responsibility.

      Yes there is pressure to grow the stock price, but many of the factors behind a stock price are outside of the boards control. And again, there are many companies that produce very high quality products with the highest standard for materials. That is part of their business plan and often marketing.

      I don’t want to see Titleist become a part of a conglomerate traded publicly. I play Titelist, Ping and a couple other smaller companies products. I refuse to purchase Taylormade or Callaway, in part because of their business practices brought to my attention on this sight. But going public doesn’t spell doom for the Titleist brand. That is all I am saying. Stay away from the superlatives. Good journalism and good writing don’t need it.

      Very rarely are there absolutes where the word all should be used – Isaac Newton was probably onto something with that whole gravity thing. But Joseph and Tony aren’t right when they state that publicly traded equals the “dark side” or that no publicly traded company has long term forethought in mind with regards to business planing and strategy.

      Again, the reviews on this sight are amazing; drawing attention to the business practices of golf equipment companies is also valuable. Please write balanced articles even when those articles are opinion based. If some think publicly traded companies are the cause of the current state of the golf equipment market then by definition “some” must not think that way. Sprinkle in a bit about their views.

      I write at length to show I have thought about this and am not just saying, “You suck”. My goal is to hopefully encourage others to be balanced and reasonable on these kinds of issues, even when writing an opinion piece.

      Giles

      9 years ago

      One more thing, Joseph anecdotal evidence is a fallacious argument per logic standards. Its called a anecdotal fallacy in rhetoric practices. So your discussions with your many many executives literally prove nothing. Not that such discussions lack all value, but these discussions do not to prove or disprove an argument.

      John O'C

      9 years ago

      Simply not a good idea as an investor, Adidas stock is down from 90 last year to 55 this year, Puma is down from 226 to 167 this year, and with profits from golf equipment sales still on the decline the pressure to hit sales marks will only increase. That being said who wouldn’t be interested in a discounted Titliest Driver, albeit at the cost of long term company viability.

      Reply

      Fred

      9 years ago

      Certainly a well run company but in a small and getting smaller industry. tough to see where they can grow.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Wedges
    Apr 16, 2024
    Vokey WedgeWorks Low Bounce K Grind Wedge
    News
    Apr 16, 2024
    It Was A Masters To Forget For LIV Golf
    Golf Apparel
    Apr 16, 2024
    adidas Pioneers Next Generation of Lightweight Golf Garments
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.