Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Recommended For You

Comments (12)

SmallCapKing profile picture
I can't express how disappointed I am in this article. I'm a small-cap fund manager and have had tons of analysts pitch me ideas, so I know how to scrutinize them. I've been interested in analyzing $FLWS now that I'm on my own, so I was excited to see this write-up. Unfortunately, the article is clearly avoiding the key point!

I don't know whether the stock is a buy or sell - thus the reason for me reading it - but I do know that $FLWS has been a COVID beneficiary as the article points out (no debate there). However, flaw #1 is ignoring that fact that pre-COVID, $FLWS had put up these EPS for the prior 5 years - 34c, 44c, 44c, 44c, 52c. Sales growth was minimal, averaging low single-digits. SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT POST-COVID v. PRE-COVID??? How can this not be much more directly addressed? It's the whole freakin' buy thesis! Note that pre-COVID, on the numbers I mentioned, the stock traded pretty regularly around $10, until a spike to $20 in early FY19 before reverting to $12. Then COVID came, the numbers surged, and the stock took off. Therefore, if there's no significant change post-COVID (permanently higher sales, much improved margins), it's a fair bet that the stock at $27.30 now (down from close to $40) is still too high by probably 50%. I confess to having no idea why this stock has earned a 25x P/E in the past, but let's assume that makes sense. To justify that current price, $FLWS has to maintain $1 in EPS (twice it's pre-COVID norm). And to hit the $40 mentioned in this article, they have to maintain the current rate of around $1.60. But I see no evidence or deep comments to suggest any of this is possible. What I do see is a thinly-veiled attempt to try to get people to create a Reddit-like short squeeze. (Hey, I don't short and I don't like them either, but give me a break. That's hardly a thesis.)

I would also tell everyone who is not a professional that sell-side "analysts" have no credibility in the professional world. They are not incentivized to make us money. They make money by pleasing management so they can get the next deal, and by generating trades in stocks. Thus, their price targets mean nothing. They put price targets in place with modest upside and then just increase them again... and again... and again as they're hit. There's no thought. They use the logic in this article - let's find another company we can create a comparison too that will justify a higher price. Or they use an asinine metric like price-to-sales. Speaking of poor comparisons, since I'm a large owner of $KIRK, I can't begin to fathom why this article tried to compare $FLWS and $KIRK. I guess one could say that $KIRK benefited from COVID, but the $KIRK story is about permanent margins expansion that began pre-COVID. The difference is that post-COVID, $KIRK is a much, much better company than before (with operating margins of 4-5% v. about 0% before) while $FLWS... well, we don't know - that wasn't addressed. Anyway, the use of the comparisons here were poorly chosen. And since we don't want to compare $FLWS against its anticipated growth, since it's likely negative short-term given the COVID bump, we have to rely on either prior multiples (which gets you that 25x) or normalized growth (which would probably justify only 15x).

I'm curious if there's anything sustainably better about $FLWS post-COVID v. pre-. Guess I'm starting from scratch.

I'd apologize for my tone, but making money in stocks demands solid 360-degree research. To post less here by not spending at least 50% of the article (let alone not 10%) on THE most critical aspect of the story is a disservice to readers who might invest on this recommendation in my obviously not so humble opinion.

I share real research, insights, and advice from decades of professional small cap money management experience on my Twitter feed at @SmallCapKing2 (don't forget the '2'). Follow me there.
@SmallCapKing u missing point. this story is like home depot knocking out all the little hardware stores. less and less floral stores and big upside for flws if they can execute.
SmallCapKing profile picture
@gamesetmatch So when did that start? They certainly weren't doing it during their 5-year stretch of flat earnings. And $FLWS has been around a long, long time. In fact, if I understand their business correctly, they can't even operate without the mom-and-pop florists.
@SmallCapKing that is a good point. i do not understand there model exactly and do not know if there have there own greenhouses and distribution . If my theme holds it could be a buy from here. Not a lot of competition and could be a big winner long term. I do need to learn more about there model for sure.
40x pre covid eps with mid single digit long term revenue growth

I guess this is what value investing has been reduced to these days . . sigh

At this price you are betting that flower buying habits have mostly changed forever . . . not sure
Buyandhold 2012 profile picture
Who sends flowers on Valentine's Day?

Not me.

On Valentine's Day I just cut a few flowers from my yard, stick them in a vase, and leave them on the kitchen table for my wife.

Then she spends half an hour rearranging them and adding baby's breath.
Disagree with this article? Submit your own. To report a factual error in this article, . Your feedback matters to us!

About FLWS Stock

SymbolLast Price% Chg
Market Cap
Yield (TTM)
Rev Growth (YoY)
Short Interest
Prev. Close
Compare to Peers

More on FLWS

Related Stocks

SymbolLast Price% Chg
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.