David Iben put it well when he said, ‘Volatility is not a risk we care about. What we care about is avoiding the permanent loss of capital.’ So it seems the smart money knows that debt – which is usually involved in bankruptcies – is a very important factor, when you assess how risky a company is. We note that Rent-A-Center, Inc. (NASDAQ:RCII) does have debt on its balance sheet. But the more important question is: how much risk is that debt creating?
What Risk Does Debt Bring?
Debt and other liabilities become risky for a business when it cannot easily fulfill those obligations, either with free cash flow or by raising capital at an attractive price. Ultimately, if the company can’t fulfill its legal obligations to repay debt, shareholders could walk away with nothing. However, a more common (but still painful) scenario is that it has to raise new equity capital at a low price, thus permanently diluting shareholders. Of course, plenty of companies use debt to fund growth, without any negative consequences. When we examine debt levels, we first consider both cash and debt levels, together.
What Is Rent-A-Center’s Net Debt?
You can click the graphic below for the historical numbers, but it shows that as of March 2022 Rent-A-Center had US$1.40b of debt, an increase on US$1.33b, over one year. However, because it has a cash reserve of US$95.7m, its net debt is less, at about US$1.30b.
A Look At Rent-A-Center’s Liabilities
According to the last reported balance sheet, Rent-A-Center had liabilities of US$535.5m due within 12 months, and liabilities of US$1.72b due beyond 12 months. Offsetting these obligations, it had cash of US$95.7m as well as receivables valued at US$121.2m due within 12 months. So its liabilities total US$2.04b more than the combination of its cash and short-term receivables.
Given this deficit is actually higher than the company’s market capitalization of US$1.56b, we think shareholders really should watch Rent-A-Center’s debt levels, like a parent watching their child ride a bike for the first time. In the scenario where the company had to clean up its balance sheet quickly, it seems likely shareholders would suffer extensive dilution.
We measure a company’s debt load relative to its earnings power by looking at its net debt divided by its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) and by calculating how easily its earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) cover its interest expense (interest cover). The advantage of this approach is that we take into account both the absolute quantum of debt (with net debt to EBITDA) and the actual interest expenses associated with that debt (with its interest cover ratio).
Rent-A-Center’s debt is 3.0 times its EBITDA, and its EBIT cover its interest expense 3.2 times over. Taken together this implies that, while we wouldn’t want to see debt levels rise, we think it can handle its current leverage. Even worse, Rent-A-Center saw its EBIT tank 21% over the last 12 months. If earnings keep going like that over the long term, it has a snowball’s chance in hell of paying off that debt. There’s no doubt that we learn most about debt from the balance sheet. But it is future earnings, more than anything, that will determine Rent-A-Center’s ability to maintain a healthy balance sheet going forward.
Finally, a company can only pay off debt with cold hard cash, not accounting profits. So we always check how much of that EBIT is translated into free cash flow. Over the last three years, Rent-A-Center actually produced more free cash flow than EBIT. That sort of strong cash generation warms our hearts like a puppy in a bumblebee suit.
Our View
To be frank both Rent-A-Center’s level of total liabilities and its track record of (not) growing its EBIT make us rather uncomfortable with its debt levels. But at least it’s pretty decent at converting EBIT to free cash flow; that’s encouraging. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems clear to us that Rent-A-Center’s use of debt is creating risks for the company. If everything goes well that may pay off but the downside of this debt is a greater risk of permanent losses.