SMITHFIELD FOODS INC (SFD) FY 2013 MD&A
This page reproduces the company's own Item 7 MD&A text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
You should read the following information in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Our fiscal year consists of 52 or 53 weeks and ends on the Sunday nearest April 30. All fiscal years presented in this discussion consisted of 52 weeks. Unless otherwise stated, the amounts presented in the following discussion are based on continuing operations for all fiscal periods included.
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
We are the largest hog producer and pork processor in the world. In the United States, we are also the leader in numerous packaged meats categories with popular brands including Farmland®, Smithfield®, Eckrich®, Armour® and John Morrell®. We are committed to providing good food in a responsible way and maintaining robust animal care, community involvement, employee safety, environmental, and food safety and quality programs.
We produce and market a wide variety of fresh meat and packaged meats products both domestically and internationally. We operate in a cyclical industry and our results are significantly affected by fluctuations in commodity prices for livestock (primarily hogs) and grains. Some of the factors that we believe are critical to the success of our business are our ability to:
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | maintain and expand market share, particularly in packaged meats, |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | develop and maintain strong customer relationships, |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | continually innovate and differentiate our products, |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | manage risk in volatile commodities markets, and |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | maintain our position as a low cost producer of live hogs, fresh pork and packaged meats. |
We conduct our operations through four reportable segments: Pork, Hog Production, International and Corporate, each of which is comprised of a number of subsidiaries, joint ventures and other investments. A fifth reportable segment, the Other segment, contains the results of our former turkey production operations and our previous 49% interest in Butterball, LLC (Butterball), which were sold in December 2010 (fiscal 2011). The Pork segment consists mainly of our three wholly-owned U.S. fresh pork and packaged meats subsidiaries: The Smithfield Packing Company, Inc. (Smithfield Packing), Farmland Foods, Inc. and John Morrell Food Group (John Morrell). The Hog Production segment consists of our hog production operations located in the U.S. The International segment is comprised mainly of our meat processing and distribution operations in Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom, our interests in meat processing operations, mainly in Western Europe and Mexico, our hog production operations located in Poland and Romania and our interests in hog production operations in Mexico. The Corporate segment provides management and administrative services to support our other segments.
Fiscal 2013 Summary
Net income was $183.8 million, or $1.26 per diluted share, in fiscal 2013, compared to net income of $361.3 million, or $2.21 per diluted share, in fiscal 2012. The following summarizes the operating results of each of our reportable segments and other significant items impacting pre-tax income for fiscal 2013 compared to fiscal 2012:
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | Pork segment operating profit increased $7.9 million as improvements in packaged meats profitability were largely offset by lower fresh pork profitability both being driven inversely by lower fresh meat market prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | Hog Production segment operating profit decreased $285.2 million primarily as a result of lower hog prices and higher feed costs. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | International segment operating profit increased $65.4 million. The prior year included certain charges recognized by CFG, of which our share was $38.7 million. Profitability improved significantly in our Eastern European operations. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | Corporate segment results improved by $8.6 million. The prior year included $6.4 million of professional fees related to the potential acquisition of a controlling interest in CFG. In June 2011, we terminated negotiations to purchase the additional interest. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| ▪ | Losses on debt extinguishment were $120.7 million in the current year compared to $12.2 million in the prior year. |
30
Definitive Merger Agreement
As discussed in "Part I—Item 1. Business—Merger Agreement," on May 28, 2013 (fiscal 2014), we entered into the Merger Agreement with Shuanghui International Holdings Limited (Shuanghui). Shuanghui is the majority shareholder of Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development Co., which is China's largest meat processing enterprise and China's largest publicly traded meat products company as measured by market capitalization.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, which has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both companies, Shuanghui will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Smithfield for $34.00 per share in cash. Upon completion of the Merger, all then-outstanding stock-based compensation awards, whether vested or unvested, will be converted into the right to receive cash of $34.00 per share (without interest), less the exercise price of such awards, if any.
The Merger will provide us with the opportunity to expand our offering of products to China through Shuanghui's distribution network. Shuanghui will gain access to high-quality, competitively-priced and safe U.S. products, as well as our best practices and operational expertise. We do not anticipate any changes in how we do business operationally in the U.S. and throughout the world. The Merger would provide our shareholders with significant and immediate cash value for their investment, and would ensure that we continue to execute on our strategic priorities while maintaining our brand excellence, community involvement, and our commitment to environmental stewardship and animal welfare.
The Merger will be financed through a combination of cash provided by Shuanghui, rollover of certain existing Company debt, as well as debt financing which has been committed by Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. and a syndicate of banks. The Merger Agreement does not contain a financing condition.
The closing of the Merger is subject to certain conditions, including, among others, approval by our shareholders, the receipt of approval under applicable U.S. and specified foreign antitrust and anti-competition laws, and if review by CFIUS has concluded, the absence of any action by the President of the United States to block or prevent the consummation of the Merger and other customary closing conditions.
The Merger is expected to close in the second half of calendar 2013.
Debt Refinancing
In August 2012 (fiscal 2013), we issued $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of ten year, 6.625% senior unsecured notes (2022 Notes) at a price equal to 99.5% of their face value. We used the net proceeds to repurchase $694.4 million of outstanding senior notes coming due in May 2013 and July 2014. As a result of these repurchases, we recognized losses on debt extinguishment of $120.7 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. We also extended the maturity date of our $200.0 million Rabobank Term Loan from June 2016 (fiscal 2017) to May 2018 (fiscal 2019). These activities have significantly improved our debt maturity profile, removed the early maturity trigger on our inventory-based revolving credit facility (the Inventory Revolver), and released the encumbrances on our real estate and fixed assets.
Share Repurchase Program
In June 2012 (fiscal 2013), we announced that our board of directors had approved a new share repurchase program authorizing us to buy up to $250.0 million of our common stock over the subsequent 24 months in addition to the $250.0 million authorized during fiscal 2012 (the Share Repurchase Program). In July 2012 (fiscal 2013), our board of directors approved an increase of $100.0 million to the authorized amount under the Share Repurchase Program. Share repurchases may be made on the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. The number of shares repurchased, and the timing of any buybacks, will depend on our corporate cash balances, business and economic conditions, and other factors, including investment opportunities. The program may be discontinued at any time. The Merger Agreement generally prohibits the Company from repurchasing any of its shares prior to the completion of the Merger
Since the inception of the Share Repurchase Program in June 2011 (fiscal 2012) and through April 28, 2013, we have repurchased 28,244,783 shares of our common stock for $575.9 million, including related commissions, at an average price of $20.38 per share. As of April 28, 2013, we had $24.5 million available for future repurchases under the Share Repurchase Program.
31
Strategy for Growth
We are focused on top and bottom line growth and transforming the Company into a more value-added consumer packaged meats company. Our strategy includes growing our base business, further improving our cost structure and targeting branded and value-added acquisitions.
The fundamental tenets of our organic growth plan include:
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Increased capital investment to upgrade facilities with new machinery and equipment to improve our competitive cost structure and achieve least cost and best in class operations. We expect $300 million to $350 million in annual capital expenditures over the next several years to fund this investment in our business. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Continued higher investment in marketing and advertising programs to build brand equity and grow sales. Our plan is to increase our annual marketing and advertising expenditures by double digits for the foreseeable future. Currently, marketing and advertising expense represents approximately 1% of packaged meats sales. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Establish a culture of innovation to build a strong product pipeline to drive packaged meats volume and margins. Our innovation initiative will be focused in five strategic areas: packaging, health and wellness, convenience, taste and pork consumer solutions. These platforms have a strong focus on product differentiation highlighting quality and convenience, better-for-you foods, including lower sodium, lean protein, and natural ingredients, and new taste experiences. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Emphasize our hog production assets as a strategic point of difference. We believe that our vertically integrated platform is a competitive advantage for the Company as it allows us to meet customer specifications. Both domestic and export customers are asking for differentiated products, from gestation pen pork to ractopamine-free meat, and we are uniquely positioned to fill this demand. As of April 28, 2013, our facilities in Clinton, North Carolina and Bladen County, North Carolina were 100% ractopamine-free. Our facility in Milan, Missouri is expected to be 100% ractopamine-free by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2014. |
In addition to our organic growth strategy, we intend to apply a disciplined approach in acquiring branded and value-added companies while maintaining a conservative balance sheet. Our strategy is to target modest-sized companies that can be easily integrated into our existing business. We would expect to finance such acquisitions with a combination of cash generated from our existing businesses and debt.
For example, in May 2013 (fiscal 2014), we acquired a 50% interest in Kansas City Sausage Company, LLC (KCS), for $35.0 million in cash, subject to a customary post-closing adjustment for differences between working capital at closing and an agreed-upon target. KCS is a leading U.S. sausage producer and sow processor. We intend to merge KCS's low-cost, efficient operations and high-quality products with our strong brands and sales and marketing team to continue to grow our packaged meats business.
The venture operates in Des Moines, Iowa and Kansas City, Missouri. In Des Moines, the venture produces premium raw materials for sausage, as well as value-added products, including boneless hams and hides. The Kansas City plant is a modern sausage processing facility and is designed for optimum efficiency to provide retail and foodservice customers with high quality products. With our strong ongoing focus on building our packaged meats business, and with 15% of the U.S. sow population, this joint venture is a logical fit for the Company. It provides a growth platform in two key packaged meats categories — breakfast sausage and dinner sausage — and will allow us to expand our product offerings to our customers. These categories represent over $4.0 billion in retail and foodservice sales annually.
We expect the acquired stake in KCS to be immediately accretive to earnings.
Outlook
The commodity markets affecting our business fluctuate on a daily basis. In this operating environment, it is difficult to forecast industry trends and conditions. The outlook statements that follow must be viewed in this context.
Looking ahead to fiscal 2014, we will continue to execute our strategic growth plan to improve earnings and migrate the Company more towards a value-added consumer packaged meats company. We believe this plan will produce broad-based gains in volume, market share and distribution across our core brands and key product categories. The combination of those gains, an improving product mix toward differentiated, branded and value-added products, as well as loosening export market restrictions in our fresh pork business and higher contributions from our international meat processing business, should provide significant long-term growth potential for Smithfield.
32
Near-term, fresh pork margins continue to be weak, but we expect operating profit on a per head basis to average in the mid-single digits in fiscal 2014. We expect our packaged meats business to continue to post strong results in fiscal 2014 with operating margins averaging in the low to middle part of our newly established normalized range of $.15 to $.20 per pound. Lower raising costs and improved efficiencies and productivity in our Hog Production segment should result in improved operating margins in the mid-single digits on a per head basis for fiscal 2014. In our International segment, we anticipate some weakness in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 before results strengthen later in the year.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Significant Events Affecting Results of Operations
Missouri Litigation
During fiscal 2011, we reached a settlement with one of our insurance carriers regarding the reimbursement of certain past and future defense costs associated with the Missouri Litigation. Related to this matter, we recognized a net benefit of $19.1 million in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Hog Production segment in fiscal 2011.
During fiscal 2012, we engaged in global settlement negotiations and recognized $22.2 million in net charges associated with the expected settlement. The charges were recognized in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Hog Production segment. During fiscal 2013, the parties to the litigation reached an agreement and consummated the global settlement.
CFG Consolidation Plan
In December 2011 (fiscal 2012), the board of CFG approved a multi-year plan to consolidate and streamline its manufacturing operations to improve operating efficiencies and increase utilization (the CFG Consolidation Plan). The CFG Consolidation Plan included the disposal of certain assets, employee redundancy costs and the contribution of CFG's French cooked ham business into a newly formed joint venture. As a result, we recorded our share of CFG's charges totaling $38.7 million in equity in loss (income) of affiliates within the International segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2012.
Fire Insurance Settlement
In July 2009 (fiscal 2010), a fire occurred at the primary manufacturing facility of our subsidiary, Patrick Cudahy, Inc. (Patrick Cudahy), in Cudahy, Wisconsin. The fire damaged a portion of the facility’s production space and required the temporary cessation of operations, but did not consume the entire facility. Shortly after the fire, we resumed production activities in undamaged portions of the plant, including the distribution center, and took steps to address the supply needs for Patrick Cudahy products by shifting production to other Company and third-party facilities.
We maintain comprehensive general liability and property insurance, including business interruption insurance. In December 2010 (fiscal 2011), we reached an agreement with our insurance carriers to settle the claim for a total of $208.0 million, of which $70.0 million had been advanced to us in fiscal 2010. We allocated these proceeds to first recover the book value of the property lost, out-of-pocket expenses incurred and business interruption losses that resulted from the fire. The remaining proceeds were recognized as an involuntary conversion gain of $120.6 million in the Corporate segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. The involuntary conversion gain was classified in a separate line item on the consolidated statement of income. We also recognized $15.8 million of the insurance proceeds in fiscal 2011 in cost of sales in our Pork segment to offset business interruption losses incurred.
Hog Production Cost Savings Initiative
In fiscal 2010, we announced the Cost Savings Initiative. The plan included a number of undertakings designed to improve operating efficiencies and productivity. These consisted of farm reconfigurations and conversions, termination of certain high cost, third party hog grower contracts and breeding stock sourcing contracts, as well as a number of other cost reduction activities. The Cost Savings Initiative was completed in fiscal 2013. We incurred charges related to these activities totaling $3.1 million and $28.0 million in fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2011, respectively. No significant charges were incurred during fiscal 2013. All charges have been recorded in cost of sales in the Hog Production segment.
33
Impairment and Disposal of Long-lived Assets
Portsmouth, Virginia Plant
In November 2011 (fiscal 2012), we announced that we would shift the production of hot dogs and lunchmeat from Smithfield Packing's Portsmouth, Virginia plant to our Kinston, North Carolina plant and permanently close the Portsmouth facility. The Kinston facility will be expanded to handle the additional production and will incorporate state of the art technology and equipment, which is expected to produce significant production efficiencies and cost reductions. The Kinston expansion will require an estimated $85 million in capital expenditures, substantially all of which had been incurred by the end of fiscal 2013. The expansion of the Kinston facility and the closure of the Portsmouth facility are expected to be completed in the first half of fiscal 2014.
As a result of this decision, we performed an impairment analysis of the related assets at the Portsmouth facility in the second quarter of fiscal 2012 and determined that the net cash flows expected to be generated over the anticipated remaining useful life of the plant were sufficient to recover its book value. As such, no impairment existed. However, we revised depreciation estimates to reflect the use of the related assets at the Portsmouth facility over their shortened useful lives. As a result, we recognized accelerated depreciation charges of $4.4 million and $3.3 million in cost of sales during fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, respectively. Also, in connection with this decision, we wrote-down inventory by $0.8 million in cost of sales and accrued $0.6 million for employee severance in selling, general and administrative expenses in the second quarter of fiscal 2012. All of these charges are reflected in the Pork segment.
Hog Farms
Texas
In January 2011 (fiscal 2011), we sold a portion of our Dalhart, Texas hog production assets to a crop farmer for net proceeds of $9.1 million and recognized a loss on the sale of $1.8 million in selling, general and administrative expenses in our Hog Production segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. In April 2011 (fiscal 2011), we completed the sale of the remaining assets of our Dalhart, Texas operation and received net proceeds of $32.5 million. As a result of the sale, we recognized a gain of $13.6 million, after allocating $8.5 million in goodwill to the asset group, in selling, general and administrative expenses in our Hog Production segment in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011.
Oklahoma and Iowa
In January 2011 (fiscal 2011), we completed the sale of certain hog production assets located in Oklahoma and Iowa. As a result of these sales, we received total net proceeds of $70.4 million and recognized gains totaling $6.9 million, after allocating $17.0 million of goodwill to these asset groups. The gains were recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses in our Hog Production segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2011.
Missouri
In the first half of fiscal 2011, we began reducing the hog population on certain hog farms in Missouri in order to comply with an amended consent decree. The amended consent decree allows us to return the farms to full capacity upon the installation of an approved "next generation" technology that would reduce the level of odor produced by the farms. The reduced hog raising capacity at these farms was replaced with third party contract farmers in Iowa. In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, in connection with the anticipated reduction in finishing capacity, we performed an impairment analysis of these hog farms and determined that the book value of the assets was recoverable and thus, no impairment existed.
Based on the favorable hog raising performance experienced with these third party contract farmers and the amount of capital required to install "next generation" technology at our Missouri farms, we made the decision in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 to permanently idle certain of the assets on these farms. Depreciation estimates were revised to reflect the shortened useful lives of the assets. As a result, we recognized accelerated depreciation charges of $8.2 million in fiscal 2012. These charges are reflected in the Hog Production segment.
34
Butterball, LLC (Butterball)
In June 2010 (fiscal 2011), we announced that we had made an offer to purchase our joint venture partner’s 51% ownership interest in Butterball and our partner’s related turkey production assets. In accordance with Butterball’s operating agreement, our partner had to either accept the offer to sell or be required to purchase our 49% interest and our related turkey production assets.
In September 2010 (fiscal 2011), we were notified of our joint venture partner’s decision to purchase our 49% interest in Butterball and our related turkey production assets. In December 2010 (fiscal 2011), we completed the sale of these assets for $167.0 million and recognized a gain of $0.2 million.
Consolidated Results of Operations
The tables presented below compare our results of operations for fiscal years 2013, 2012 and 2011. As used in the tables, "NM" means "not meaningful."
Sales and Cost of Sales
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales | $ | 13,221.1 | $ | 13,094.3 | 1 | % | $ | 13,094.3 | $ | 12,202.7 | 7 | % | ||||||||||
| Cost of sales | 11,901.4 | 11,544.9 | 3 | 11,544.9 | 10,488.6 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||
| Gross profit | $ | 1,319.7 | $ | 1,549.4 | (15 | ) | $ | 1,549.4 | $ | 1,714.1 | (10 | ) | ||||||||||
| Gross profit margin | 10 | % | 12 | % | 12 | % | 14 | % |
The following items explain the significant changes in sales and gross profit:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales in the current year were slightly higher than the prior year as higher volumes across all segments were largely offset by lower domestic fresh meat and hog market prices and the effects of foreign currency translation. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | The decline in gross profit margin was primarily caused by higher hog feed costs and lower pork prices in the U.S. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | The increase in consolidated sales was primarily driven by higher sales prices and volumes in the Pork segment. These increases were attributable to higher market prices for fresh pork, supported by export demand, and an improved sales mix in packaged meats to higher margin core brands. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Gross margin declined from fiscal 2011 levels as a result of significantly higher raw material costs in all segments. Domestic live hog market prices increased approximately 15% to $65 per hundredweight from $57 per hundredweight, and domestic raising costs increased 18% to $64 per hundredweight from $54 per hundredweight as a result of higher feed prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cost of sales in fiscal 2011 included $28.0 million of charges associated with the Cost Savings Initiative compared to $3.1 million in fiscal 2012. Also, cost of sales in fiscal 2012 included $8.2 million and $4.7 million of accelerated depreciation and other charges related to the idling of certain of our Missouri hog farm assets and the planned closure of our Portsmouth, Virginia meat processing plant, respectively. |
35
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (SG&A)
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | $ | 815.4 | $ | 816.9 | — | % | $ | 816.9 | $ | 789.8 | 3 | % |
The following items explain the significant changes in SG&A:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $22.2 million in net charges associated with the Missouri litigation. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $6.4 million in professional fees related to the potential acquisition of a controlling interest in CFG. In June 2011 (fiscal 2012), we terminated negotiations to purchase the additional interest. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Pension and other post-retirement benefit expenses increased $26.4 million. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $22.2 million in net charges associated with the Missouri litigation compared to a $19.1 million net benefit in fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2011 included a net gain of $18.7 million on the sale of hog farms in Texas, Oklahoma and Iowa. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Losses on foreign currency denominated transactions increased $7.0 million. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $6.4 million in professional fees related to the potential acquisition of a controlling interest in CFG. In June 2011 (fiscal 2012), we terminated negotiations to purchase the additional interest. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Variable compensation expense was $29.9 million lower due primarily to lower profitability levels in fiscal 2012. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Expense for pension and other postretirement benefits decreased $19.6 million. |
(Income) Loss from Equity Method Investments
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CFG | $ | (4.8 | ) | $ | 25.0 | 119 | % | $ | 25.0 | $ | (17.0 | ) | (247 | )% | ||||||||
| Mexican joint ventures | (9.3 | ) | (13.4 | ) | (31 | ) | (13.4 | ) | (29.6 | ) | (55 | ) | ||||||||||
| All other equity method investments | (0.9 | ) | (1.7 | ) | (47 | ) | (1.7 | ) | (3.5 | ) | (51 | ) | ||||||||||
| (Income) loss from equity method investments | $ | (15.0 | ) | $ | 9.9 | 252 | $ | 9.9 | $ | (50.1 | ) | (120 | ) |
The following items explain the significant changes in loss (income) from equity method investments:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | CFG's results for fiscal 2012 included $38.7 million of charges related to the CFG Consolidation Plan. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Results from our Mexican joint ventures declined due to higher feed costs, lower hog prices and lower meat sales volumes. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | CFG's results for fiscal 2012 included $38.7 million of charges related to the CFG Consolidation Plan. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Results from our Mexican joint ventures were negatively impacted by higher feed costs and unfavorable changes in foreign exchange rates. |
36
Interest Expense
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest expense | $ | 168.7 | $ | 176.7 | (5 | )% | $ | 176.7 | $ | 245.4 | (28 | )% |
The following items explain the significant changes in loss (income) from equity method investments:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Interest expense decreased due to lower average interest rates resulting from the refinancing of our 10% senior secured notes due July 2014 (2014 Notes) and our 7.75% senior unsecured notes due May 2013 (2013 Notes) as described under "Liquidity and Capital Resources" below. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Interest expense decreased in fiscal 2012 as a result of our Project 100 initiative, under which we redeemed more than $1 billion of debt since the first quarter of fiscal 2011, including $600 million of our 7% senior unsecured notes due August 2011, $260.6 million of our 2014 Notes and $190 million of our 2013 Notes. |
Loss on Debt Extinguishment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Loss on debt extinguishment | $ | 120.7 | $ | 12.2 | 889 | % | $ | 12.2 | $ | 92.5 | (87 | )% |
The following items explain the losses on debt extinguishment for the fiscal years presented:
Fiscal 2013
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We recognized losses of $120.7 million during fiscal 2013 on the repurchase of $589.4 million of our 2014 Notes and $105.0 million of our 2013 Notes. |
Fiscal 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We recognized losses of $11.0 million during fiscal 2012 on the repurchase of $59.7 million of our 2014 Notes. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We recognized a loss on debt extinguishment of $1.2 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 associated with the refinancing of our working capital facilities in June 2011 (fiscal 2012). |
Fiscal 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We recognized losses of $92.5 million during fiscal 2011 on the repurchase of $522.2 million of our 7% senior unsecured notes due August 2011, $200.9 million of our 2014 Notes and $190.0 million of our 2013 Notes. |
Income Tax Expense
| Fiscal Years | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| Income tax expense (in millions) | $ | 46.1 | $ | 172.4 | $ | 236.1 | |||||
| Effective tax rate | 20 | % | 32 | % | 31 | % |
The following items explain the significant changes in the effective tax rate from fiscal 2012 to fiscal 2013:
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Tax credits increased due in part to the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 that retroactively reinstated the Research and Development, Work Opportunity and Welfare to Work tax credits. |
37
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We released $11.1 million in deferred tax asset valuation allowances in the current year, primarily related to the utilization of tax losses in foreign jurisdictions. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | The mix of earnings from foreign operations, which are taxed at lower rates, was higher in the current year. |
Segment Results
The following information reflects the results from each respective segment prior to eliminations of inter-segment sales.
Pork Segment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fresh pork (1) | $ | 4,924.1 | $ | 5,089.4 | (3 | )% | $ | 5,089.4 | $ | 4,542.7 | 12 | % | ||||||||||
| Packaged meats | 6,152.0 | 6,003.6 | 2 | 6,003.6 | 5,721.2 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 11,076.1 | $ | 11,093.0 | — | $ | 11,093.0 | $ | 10,263.9 | 8 | ||||||||||||
| Operating profit: (2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fresh pork (1) | $ | 161.6 | $ | 222.0 | (27 | )% | $ | 222.0 | $ | 406.5 | (45 | )% | ||||||||||
| Packaged meats | 470.0 | 401.7 | 17 | 401.7 | 346.9 | 16 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 631.6 | $ | 623.7 | 1 | $ | 623.7 | $ | 753.4 | (17 | ) | |||||||||||
| Sales volume: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fresh pork | 3 | % | 4 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Packaged meats | 4 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Average unit selling price: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fresh pork | (6 | )% | 8 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Packaged meats | (1 | ) | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total | (4 | ) | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Hogs processed | 3 | % | 1 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average domestic live hog prices (per hundredweight) (3) | $ | 60.86 | $ | 65.05 | (6 | )% | $ | 65.05 | $ | 56.57 | 15 | % |
——————————————
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) | Includes by-products and rendering. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (2) | Fresh pork and packaged meats operating profits represent management's estimated allocation of total Pork segment operating profit. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (3) | Represents the average live hog market price as quoted by the Iowa-Southern Minnesota hog market. |
In addition to information provided in the table above, the following items explain the significant changes in Pork segment sales and operating profit:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Pork segment sales declined slightly as high pork supplies contributed to lower average fresh pork sales prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fresh pork sales volumes increased as a result of higher slaughter levels and hog weights. |
38
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Packaged meats sales volumes increased across all trade channels. Lower average unit selling prices of private label products were largely offset by higher sales prices in our core brands. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fresh pork operating profit decreased to $6 per head from $8 per head due primarily to lower sales prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Packaged meats operating profit increased to $.17 per pound from $.15 per pound, benefitting from lower raw material costs. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit were positively impacted by higher average unit selling prices for both fresh pork and packaged meats driven by strong export demand, an improved mix in packaged meats to more core brand product sales, and strong pricing discipline. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fresh pork volumes increased primarily as a result of stronger export demand. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fresh pork operating profit decreased to $8 per head from a record $15 per head as live hog prices increased significantly more than fresh meat prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Packaged meats operating profit increased to $.15 per pound from $.13 per pound as a result of strong pricing discipline, an improved product mix to more high margin core brands and lower variable compensation and pension related expenses, which more than offset the impact of higher raw material costs. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Operating profit for packaged meats in fiscal 2012 included $4.7 million in charges associated with the anticipated closure of our Portsmouth plant. |
Hog Production Segment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales | $ | 3,135.1 | $ | 3,052.6 | 3 | % | $ | 3,052.6 | $ | 2,705.1 | 13 | % | ||||||||||
| Operating (loss) profit | (119.1 | ) | 166.1 | (172 | ) | 166.1 | 224.4 | (26 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Head sold | 15.97 | 15.77 | 1 | % | 15.77 | 16.43 | (4 | )% | ||||||||||||||
| Average domestic live hog prices (per hundredweight) (1) | $ | 60.86 | $ | 65.05 | (6 | )% | $ | 65.05 | $ | 56.57 | 15 | % | ||||||||||
| Raising costs (per hundredweight) (2) | $ | 67.82 | $ | 63.93 | 6 | % | $ | 63.93 | $ | 54.14 | 18 | % |
——————————————
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) | Represents the average live hog market price as quoted by the Iowa-Southern Minnesota hog market. These prices do not reflect premiums we receive or the impact of hedging on our actual sales price. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (2) | Includes the effects of grain derivative contracts designated in hedging relationships. |
In addition to the information provided in the table above, the following items explain the significant changes in Hog Production segment sales and operating profit:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales increased due to higher volumes, which more than offset the impact of lower market hog prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2013 operating profit was negatively impacted by higher hog supplies, resulting in a 6% decrease in live hog prices, and increased raising costs, primarily as a result of higher priced feed. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2013 operating profit included gains of $91.2 million compared to $58.6 million in fiscal 2012 on derivative contracts that are not reflected in the average live hog prices and raising costs presented in the table above; these are primarily lean hog derivative contracts, and grain derivative contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships for accounting purposes. |
39
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included $22.2 million in net charges associated with the Missouri litigation. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included accelerated depreciation charges of $8.2 million as a result of our decision to permanently idle certain farm assets in Missouri. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit were positively impacted by significantly higher live hog market prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Volume declined due to temporary disruptions from the Cost Savings Initiative and the sale of our Oklahoma hog farms at the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Raising costs increased primarily as a result of higher feed costs. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included $22.2 million in net charges associated with the Missouri litigation compared to a $19.1 million net benefit in fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Operating profit in fiscal 2011 included a net gain of $18.7 million on the sale of hog farms in Oklahoma, Iowa and Texas. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included accelerated depreciation charges of $8.2 million as a result of our decision to permanently idle certain farm assets in Missouri. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included $3.1 million in charges associated with the Cost Savings Initiative compared to $28.0 million in fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included gains of $58.6 million compared to $22.2 million in fiscal 2011 on derivative contracts that are not reflected in the average live hog prices and raising costs presented in the table above; these are primarily lean hog derivative contracts, and grain derivative contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships for accounting purposes. |
40
International Segment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Poland | $ | 1,180.7 | $ | 1,186.3 | — | % | $ | 1,186.3 | $ | 1,096.9 | 8 | % | ||||||||||
| Romania | 252.3 | 245.8 | 3 | 245.8 | 199.1 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||
| United Kingdom | 87.4 | 92.6 | (6 | ) | 92.6 | 101.6 | (9 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Eliminations | (51.9 | ) | (58.0 | ) | (11 | ) | (58.0 | ) | (56.9 | ) | 2 | |||||||||||
| Total | $ | 1,468.5 | $ | 1,466.7 | — | $ | 1,466.7 | $ | 1,340.7 | 9 | ||||||||||||
| Operating profit (loss): | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Poland | $ | 60.3 | $ | 49.7 | 21 | % | $ | 49.7 | $ | 64.0 | (22 | )% | ||||||||||
| Romania | 41.4 | 7.9 | 424 | 7.9 | 9.2 | (14 | ) | |||||||||||||||
| Other (1) | 6.5 | (14.8 | ) | 144 | (14.8 | ) | 42.7 | (135 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 108.2 | $ | 42.8 | 153 | $ | 42.8 | $ | 115.9 | (63 | ) | |||||||||||
| Poland: (2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales volume (pounds) | 11 | % | (4 | )% | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average unit selling price (3) | (4 | ) | 13 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Hogs processed | 19 | (6 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Raising costs (per hundredweight) | 8 | 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Romania: (2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales volume (pounds) | 3 | % | 10 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average unit selling price (3) | 13 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hogs processed | 9 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Raising costs (per hundredweight) | (1 | ) | 11 |
——————————————
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) | Includes the results from our equity method investments in Mexico and our investment in CFG. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (2) | Percentages computed based on local currency amounts. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (3) | Excludes the sale of live hogs. |
In addition to the information provided in the table above, the following items explain the significant changes in International segment sales and operating profit:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fluctuation in foreign exchange rates and their effect on foreign currency translation decreased sales by $116.1 million, or 7.9%. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fluctuation in foreign exchange rates and their effect on foreign currency translation decreased operating profit by $11.5 million. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit benefited from significantly higher volumes in our Polish operations due to a 19% increase in the number of hogs processed. Unit sales prices in our Polish operations increased in several key product categories; however, higher volumes of lower value by-products that resulted from more processed hogs effectively diminished the overall average unit selling price compared to the prior year. |
41
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit in our Romanian operations improved on significantly higher average unit selling prices and sales volumes, which benefitted from the approval to export pork products to European Union member countries beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012. Sales and hog slaughter volumes benefited from an expansion in our hog production operations in the second quarter of fiscal 2012. Operating profit also improved as a result of a $5.4 million reduction in foreign exchange transaction losses and a $3.9 million increase in government farm subsidies received. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included $38.7 million of charges related to the CFG Consolidation Plan. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Equity income from our Mexican joint ventures decreased by $4.1 million due to higher feed costs and unfavorable changes in foreign exchange rates. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit in Poland were positively impacted by higher average unit selling prices primarily due to a shift in product mix to more packaged meats and our ability to pass along higher raw material costs, particularly in the second half of fiscal 2012. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Operating profit in Poland declined primarily as a result of higher raw material costs in our meat processing operations. Improvements in Polish hog production fundamentals partially offset the decline in profit. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Sales and operating profit in our Romania fresh pork operation were positively impacted by our approval to export pork products out of Romania to European Union member countries beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012. As a result, average unit selling prices increased 7%. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Our Romanian fresh pork and hog production operations both saw improvements in operating results. However, these improvements were more than offset by increased losses in our distribution operations and an unfavorable $8.4 million impact from foreign currency exposure. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 operating profit included $38.7 million of charges related to the CFG Consolidation Plan. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Equity income from our Mexican joint ventures decreased $16.2 million, primarily due to higher feed costs and unfavorable changes in foreign exchange rates. |
Other Segment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales | $ | — | $ | — | NM | $ | — | $ | 74.7 | (100 | )% | ||||||||||
| Operating loss | — | — | NM | — | (2.4 | ) | (100 | ) |
The change in sales and operating loss reflects the sale of our turkey operations, including our investment in Butterball, in December 2010 (fiscal 2011).
42
Corporate Segment
| Fiscal Years | Fiscal Years | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | % Change | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Operating (loss) profit | $ | (101.4 | ) | $ | (110.0 | ) | 8 | % | $ | (110.0 | ) | $ | 3.7 | NM |
The following items explain the significant changes in Corporate segment operating profit (loss):
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $6.4 million of professional fees related to the potential acquisition of a controlling interest in CFG. In June 2011, we terminated negotiations to purchase the additional interest. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2011 included a gain of $120.6 million on the final settlement with our insurance carriers of our claim related to the fire that occurred at our Cudahy, Wisconsin facility in fiscal 2010. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included $6.4 million of professional fees related to the potential acquisition of a controlling interest in CFG. In June 2011, we terminated negotiations to purchase the additional interest. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Variable compensation cost declined $9.0 million due to lower consolidated profit levels in fiscal 2012. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Expense for pension and other post-retirement benefits decreased $4.1 million. |
43
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Summary
Our cash requirements consist primarily of the purchase of raw materials used in our hog production and pork processing operations, long-term debt obligations and related interest, lease payments for real estate, machinery, vehicles and other equipment, and expenditures for capital assets, other investments and other general business purposes. Our primary sources of liquidity are cash we receive as payment for the products we produce and sell, as well as our credit facilities.
We believe that our current liquidity position is strong and that our cash flows from operations and availability under our credit facilities will be sufficient to meet our working capital needs and financial obligations for at least the next twelve months. As of April 28, 2013, our liquidity position was $1.6 billion, comprised of $1.3 billion in availability under our credit facilities and $310.6 million in cash and cash equivalents.
In August 2012 (fiscal 2013), we issued $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of ten year, 6.625% senior unsecured notes at a price equal to 99.5% of their face value. We used $804.9 million of the $981.2 million in net proceeds from the debt offering to repurchase the remaining $589.4 million of our 2014 Notes and $105.0 million of our 2013 Notes. As a result of these repurchases, we recognized losses on debt extinguishment of $120.7 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013, including the write-off of related unamortized discounts, premiums, and debt issuance costs. We also extended the maturity date of our $200.0 million Rabobank Term Loan from June 2016 (fiscal 2017) to May 2018 (fiscal 2019). These activities significantly improved our debt maturity profile, removed the early maturity trigger on the Inventory Revolver, and released the encumbrances on our real estate and fixed assets.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, we partially exercised the accordion feature of our Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement and increased the borrowing capacity of the Inventory Revolver from a total of $925.0 million to a total of $1.025 billion. All other terms and conditions of the Inventory Revolver remain unchanged, including the limitation on the actual amount of credit that is available from time to time under the Inventory Revolver as a result of borrowing base valuations of our inventory, accounts receivable and certain cash balances. We also executed a new $200.0 million term loan with a scheduled maturity date of February 4, 2014 (the Bank of America Term Loan). The Bank of America Term Loan bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus 3.25% per annum or, at our election, a base rate plus 2.25% per annum. These two financing activities increased our liquidity and provided capital funding at a lower interest rate, which will assist us in retiring upcoming debt maturities in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.
Sources of Liquidity
We have available a variety of sources of liquidity and capital resources, both internal and external. These sources provide funds required for current operations, acquisitions, integration costs, debt retirement and other capital requirements.
Accounts Receivable and Inventories
The meat processing industry is characterized by high sales volume and rapid turnover of inventories and accounts receivable. Because of the rapid turnover rate, we consider our meat inventories and accounts receivable highly liquid and readily convertible into cash. The Hog Production segment also has rapid turnover of accounts receivable. Although inventory turnover in the Hog Production segment is slower, mature hogs are readily convertible into cash. Borrowings under our credit facilities are used, in part, to finance increases in the levels of inventories and accounts receivable resulting from seasonal and other market-related fluctuations in raw material costs.
Credit Facilities
| April 28, 2013 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility | Capacity | Borrowing Base Adjustment | Outstanding Letters of Credit | Outstanding Borrowings | Amount Available | ||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Inventory Revolver | $ | 1,025.0 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 1,025.0 | |||||||||
| Securitization Facility | 275.0 | — | (82.3 | ) | — | 192.7 | |||||||||||||
| International facilities | 143.1 | — | — | (82.3 | ) | 60.8 | |||||||||||||
| Total credit facilities | $ | 1,443.1 | $ | — | $ | (82.3 | ) | $ | (82.3 | ) | $ | 1,278.5 |
44
Cash Flows
Operating Activities
| Fiscal Years | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| (in millions) | |||||||||||
| Net cash flows from operating activities | $ | 172.7 | $ | 570.1 | $ | 616.4 |
The following items explain the significant changes in cash flows from operating activities over the past three fiscal years:
2013 vs. 2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash paid for grain and other feed ingredients purchased by the Hog Production segment increased approximately $372 million. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash received for the settlement of commodity derivative contracts and for margin requirements decreased $103.4 million in fiscal 2013. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash received from customers decreased primarily as a result of lower domestic selling prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We paid cash to settle the Missouri litigation in fiscal 2013. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Expenditures for advertising increased as part of our strategy to build brand equity and grow sales. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash paid to outside hog suppliers was lower due to a 6% decrease in average domestic live hog market prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Income tax payments decreased $222.0 million as a result of significant tax refunds during the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and lower domestic taxable income. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We contributed $17.7 million to our qualified and non-qualified pension plans in fiscal 2013 compared to $142.8 million in fiscal 2012. |
2012 vs. 2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash paid to outside hog suppliers was higher due to a 15% increase in average live hog market prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Fiscal 2012 included net tax payments of $225.7 million compared to net refunds of $34.8 million in the prior year. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash paid for grain and other feed ingredients purchased by the Hog Production segment increased approximately $262 million. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Variable compensation paid in fiscal 2012 related to the prior year's performance was higher than the corresponding amount paid in fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We contributed $142.8 million to our qualified and non-qualified pension plans in fiscal 2012 compared to $128.5 million in fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash received from customers increased primarily as a result of higher selling prices. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Cash received for the settlement of commodity derivative contracts and for margin requirements increased $82.0 million. |
45
Investing Activities
| Fiscal Years | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||
| (in millions) | ||||||||||||
| Capital expenditures | $ | (278.0 | ) | $ | (290.7 | ) | $ | (176.8 | ) | |||
| Business acquisition, net of cash acquired | (24.0 | ) | — | — | ||||||||
| Dispositions | — | — | 261.5 | |||||||||
| Insurance proceeds | — | — | 120.6 | |||||||||
| Net (expenditures) proceeds from breeding stock transactions | (18.4 | ) | (2.3 | ) | 26.2 | |||||||
| Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment | 16.9 | 6.4 | 22.8 | |||||||||
| Other | (0.2 | ) | — | — | ||||||||
| Net cash flows from investing activities | $ | (303.7 | ) | $ | (286.6 | ) | $ | 254.3 |
The following items explain the significant investing activities for each of the past three fiscal years:
2013
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Capital expenditures included $45.9 million related to our Kinston, North Carolina plant expansion project. The remaining capital expenditures primarily related to plant and hog farm improvement projects, including the replacement of gestation stalls with group pens, which is more fully explained under "Additional Matters Affecting Liquidity" below. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We paid $24.0 million, net of cash acquired, for a 70% interest in American Skin Food Group, LLC. |
2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Capital expenditures included $32.8 million related to our Kinston, North Carolina plant expansion project and $30.9 million related to the Cost Savings Initiative. The remaining capital expenditures primarily related to plant and hog farm improvement projects. |
2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Capital expenditures primarily related to plant and hog farm improvement projects, including approximately $44.0 million related to the Cost Savings Initiative. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Dispositions included proceeds from the sale of our investment in Butterball, LLC and our related turkey production assets and proceeds from the sale of hog operations in Texas, Oklahoma and Iowa. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | The insurance proceeds represent the gain on involuntary conversion of property, plant and equipment due to the Patrick Cudahy fire upon the final settlement of claims with our insurance carriers in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | Proceeds from the sale of property, plant and equipment includes $9.1 million from the sale of farm land in Texas. |
46
Financing Activities
| Fiscal Years | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||
| (in millions) | ||||||||||||
| Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt | $ | 1,219.2 | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||
| Principal payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations | (716.5 | ) | (152.7 | ) | (944.5 | ) | ||||||
| Net borrowings (repayments) on revolving credit facilities and notes payables | 13.9 | (0.3 | ) | 21.6 | ||||||||
| Repurchase of common stock | (386.4 | ) | (189.5 | ) | — | |||||||
| Net proceeds from the issuance of common stock and stock option exercises | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | |||||||||
| Change in cash collateral | — | 23.9 | (23.9 | ) | ||||||||
| Debt issuance costs and other | (17.6 | ) | (11.1 | ) | — | |||||||
| Net cash flows from financing activities | $ | 115.7 | $ | (328.4 | ) | $ | (945.6 | ) |
The following items explain the significant financing activities for each of the past three fiscal years:
2013
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | In August 2012, we issued $1.0 billion of our 2022 Notes at a price equal to 99.5% of their face value. We used $804.9 million of the $981.2 million in net proceeds from the debt offering to repurchase the remaining $589.4 million of our 2014 Notes and $105.0 million of our 2013 Notes. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We repurchased 19,068,079 shares of our common stock for $386.4 million as part of the Share Repurchase Program. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We incurred $18.0 million in transaction fees in connection with the issuance of the 2022 Notes, which are being amortized over their ten-year life. |
2012
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We redeemed the remaining $77.8 million of our 7% senior unsecured notes due August 2011 and repurchased $59.7 million of our 2014 Notes. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We repurchased 9,176,704 shares of our common stock for $189.5 million as part of the Share Repurchase Program. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We received $20.0 million of cash previously held in a deposit account to serve as collateral for overdrafts on certain of our bank accounts and $3.9 million of cash from the counterparty of our interest rate swap contract which expired in August 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We paid $11.0 million of debt issuance costs in connection with the refinancing of the ABL Credit Facility. |
2011
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We repurchased $522.2 million of our 7% senior unsecured notes due August 2011 through open market purchases as well as a tender offer. Also, we repurchased $190.0 million and $200.9 million of our 2013 Notes and our 2014 Notes, respectively, as a result of a tender offer that expired on February 9, 2011. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We repaid $16.2 million in outstanding notes payable and received $40.4 million from draws on credit facilities in the International segment. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We repaid $30.1 million on outstanding loans in the International segment. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| • | We transferred $20.0 million of cash into a deposit account to serve as collateral for overdrafts on certain of our bank accounts in place of letters of credit previously used under our banking agreement and $3.9 million of cash to the counterparty of our interest rate swap contract to serve as collateral and replace letters of credit previously provided under the contract. |
47
Capitalization
| April 28, 2013 | April 29, 2012 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (in millions) | ||||||
| 6.625% senior unsecured notes, due August 2022, including unamortized discounts of $4.7 million | 995.3 | — | ||||
| 10% senior secured notes, due July 2014, including unamortized discounts of $7.0 million | — | 357.4 | ||||
| 10% senior secured notes, due July 2014, including unamortized premiums of $4.4 million | — | 229.4 | ||||
| 7.75% senior unsecured notes, due July 2017 | 500.0 | 500.0 | ||||
| 4% senior unsecured Convertible Notes, due June 2013, including unamortized discounts of $4.1 million and $26.8 million | 395.9 | 373.2 | ||||
| 7.75% senior unsecured notes, due May 2013 | 55.0 | 160.0 | ||||
| Floating rate senior unsecured term loan, due May 2018 | 200.0 | 200.0 | ||||
| Floating rate senior unsecured term loan, due February 2014 | 200.0 | — | ||||
| Various, interest rates from 0.0% to 7.22%, due May 2013 through June 2017 | 132.9 | 117.3 | ||||
| Total debt | 2,479.1 | 1,937.3 | ||||
| Current portion | (675.1 | ) | (62.5 | ) | ||
| Total long-term debt | 1,804.0 | 1,874.8 | ||||
| Total shareholders’ equity | 3,097.0 | 3,387.3 |
Interest Rate Spread
Although we had no borrowings on the Inventory Revolver or the Securitization Facility as of April 28, 2013, the applicable interest rates would have been LIBOR plus 3% and 0.2% plus 1.75%, respectively. Interest rates for both the Inventory Revolver and the Securitization Facility are based on pricing-level grids in the respective agreements and determined by our Funded Debt to EBITDA ratio (as defined in the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement).
Guarantees
As part of our business, we are party to various financial guarantees and other commitments as described below. These arrangements involve elements of performance and credit risk that are not included in the consolidated balance sheet. We could become liable in connection with these obligations depending on the performance of the guaranteed party or the occurrence of future events that we are unable to predict. If we consider it probable that we will become responsible for an obligation, we will record the liability in our consolidated balance sheet.
As of April 28, 2013, we continue to guarantee $10.2 million of leases that were transferred to JBS S.A. in connection with the sale of Smithfield Beef, Inc. Some of these lease guarantees may be released in the near future and others may remain in place until the leases expire through February 2022.
Additional Matters Affecting Liquidity
Capital Projects
We anticipate annual capital expenditures in the range of $300 million to $350 million over the next several years to upgrade facilities with new machinery and equipment in order to improve our competitive cost structure and achieve least cost/best in class operations. These expenditures are expected to be funded with cash flows from operations and/or borrowings under credit facilities.
48
Group Pens
In January 2007 (fiscal 2007), we announced a voluntary, ten-year program to phase out individual gestation stalls at our company-owned sow farms and replace the gestation stalls with group pens. We currently estimate the total cost of our transition to group pens to be approximately $360.0 million, including associated maintenance and repairs. This program represents a significant financial commitment and reflects our desire to be more animal friendly, as well as to address the concerns and needs of our customers. As of the end of calendar year 2012, we had completed conversions to group housing for over 38% of our sows on company-owned farms. We will continue the conversion as planned with the objective of completing conversions for all sows on company-owned farms by the end of 2017.
Definitive Merger Agreement
The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for the Company and Shuanghui. Upon termination of the Merger Agreement under specified customary circumstances, the Company will be required to pay Shuanghui a termination fee. If the Merger Agreement is terminated in connection with the Company entering into an alternative acquisition agreement in respect of a superior proposal or making a change of recommendation, or in certain other customary circumstances, the termination fee payable by the Company to Shuanghui will be $175 million. Under specified circumstances, if the Company enters into a definitive agreement with a Qualified Pre-Existing Bidder with respect to an alternative acquisition proposal on or before June 27, 2013, the amount of the termination fee will instead be reduced to $75 million. The Merger Agreement also provides that Shuanghui will be required to pay the Company a reverse termination fee of $275 million (which is not exclusive in the case of a willful breach by Shuanghui) if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances in connection with a willful breach by Shuanghui, termination primarily caused by the failure to obtain required U.S. or foreign antitrust or other regulatory approvals (other than CFIUS), or termination as a result of the failure by Shuanghui to receive the proceeds of its committed debt financing and consummate the Merger.
Share Repurchase Program
In June 2012 (fiscal 2013), we announced that our board of directors had approved a new share repurchase program authorizing us to buy up to $250.0 million of our common stock over the next 24 months in addition to the $250.0 million authorized during fiscal 2012 (Share Repurchase Program). In July 2012 (fiscal 2013), our board of directors approved an increase of $100.0 million to the authorized amount under the Share Repurchase Program. Share repurchases may be made on the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. The number of shares repurchased, and the timing of any buybacks, depend on corporate cash balances, business and economic conditions, and other factors, including investment opportunities. The program may be discontinued at any time. The Merger Agreement generally prohibits the Company from repurchasing any of its shares prior to the completion of the Merger
Since the inception of the Share Repurchase Program in June 2011 (fiscal 2012) and through April 28, 2013, we have repurchased 28,244,783 shares of our common stock for $575.9 million, including related commissions, at an average price of $20.38 per share. As of April 28, 2013, we had $24.5 million available for future repurchases under the Share Repurchase Program.
Risk Management Activities
We are exposed to market risks primarily from changes in commodity prices, and to a lesser degree, interest rates and foreign exchange rates. To mitigate these risks, we utilize derivative instruments to hedge our exposure to changing prices and rates, as more fully described under “Derivative Financial Instruments” below. Our liquidity position may be positively or negatively affected by changes in the underlying value of our derivative portfolio. When the value of our open derivative contracts decrease, we may be required to post margin deposits with our brokers to cover a portion of the decrease. Conversely, when the value of our open derivative contracts increase, our brokers may be required to deliver margin deposits to us for a portion of the increase. During fiscal 2013, margin deposits posted by us ranged from $(67.9) million to $77.5 million (negative amounts representing margin deposits we received from our brokers). The average daily amount we held on deposit from our brokers during fiscal 2013 was $3.1 million. As of April 28, 2013, the net amount on deposit with our brokers was $71.4 million.
The effects, positive or negative, on liquidity resulting from our risk management activities tend to be mitigated by offsetting changes in cash prices in our core business. For example, in a period of rising grain prices, gains resulting from long grain derivative positions would generally be offset by higher cash prices paid to farmers and other suppliers in spot markets. These offsetting changes do not always occur, however, in the same amounts or in the same period, with lag times of as much as twelve months.
49
Pension Plan Funding
Funding requirements for our pension plans are determined based on the funded status measured at the end of each year. The values of our pension obligation and related assets may fluctuate significantly, which may in turn lead to a larger underfunded status in our pension plans and a higher funding requirement. We contributed $17.7 million to our qualified pension plans in fiscal 2013. Our expected minimum funding requirement in fiscal 2014 is $51.6 million.
Missouri Litigation
During the second quarter of fiscal 2013, the parties to certain nuisance litigation in Missouri reached an agreement and consummated a global settlement that resolved substantially all of the litigation. The global settlement was not materially different than the accrual we maintained for the settled litigation and, therefore, did not materially affect our profits or losses in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. Payments made by us under the global settlement and payments we received from the insurance carriers are included in our cash flows from operations for fiscal 2013.
Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
The following table provides information about our contractual obligations and commercial commitments as of April 28, 2013.
| Payments Due By Period | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 1 Year | 1-3 Years | 3-5 Years | 5 Years | |||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Long-term debt | $ | 2,479.1 | $ | 675.1 | $ | 111.1 | $ | 522.5 | $ | 1,170.4 | |||||||||
| Interest | 871.8 | 134.2 | 230.7 | 208.1 | 298.8 | ||||||||||||||
| Capital lease obligations, including interest | 26.6 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 21.9 | ||||||||||||||
| Operating leases | 166.6 | 41.9 | 54.8 | 32.4 | 37.5 | ||||||||||||||
| Capital expenditure commitments | 53.9 | 53.9 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
| Purchase obligations: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Hog procurement (1) | 6,191.3 | 1,449.0 | 2,115.9 | 1,658.9 | 967.5 | ||||||||||||||
| Contract hog growers (2) | 1,044.0 | 380.0 | 291.6 | 181.9 | 190.5 | ||||||||||||||
| Grain procurement (3) | 480.3 | 480.3 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
| Other (4) | 290.5 | 15.4 | 26.2 | 27.8 | 221.1 | ||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 11,604.1 | $ | 3,230.8 | $ | 2,832.5 | $ | 2,633.1 | $ | 2,907.7 |
——————————————
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) | Through the Pork and International segments, we have purchase agreements with certain hog producers. Some of these arrangements obligate us to purchase all of the hogs produced by these producers. Other arrangements obligate us to purchase a fixed amount of hogs. Due to the uncertainty of the number of hogs that we are obligated to purchase and the uncertainty of market prices at the time of hog purchases, we have estimated our obligations under these arrangements. Future payments were estimated using current live hog market prices, available futures contract prices and internal projections adjusted for historical quality premiums. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (2) | Through the Hog Production segment, we use independent farmers and their facilities to raise hogs produced from our breeding stock. Under multi-year contracts, the farmers provide the initial facility investment, labor and front line management in exchange for a performance-based service fee payable upon delivery. We are obligated to pay this service fee for all hogs delivered. We have estimated our obligation based on expected hogs delivered from these farmers. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (3) | Includes fixed price forward grain purchase contracts totaling $192.9 million. Also includes unpriced forward grain purchase contracts which, if valued as of April 28, 2013 market prices, would be $287.4 million. These forward grain contracts are accounted for as normal purchases. As a result, they are not recorded in the balance sheet. |
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (4) | Includes guaranteed royalty payments totaling $250.0 million to Nathan's Famous Inc. (Nathan's) over an 18 year contractual term commencing in March 2014 (fiscal 2014). In December 2012 (fiscal 2013), John Morrell signed an agreement with Nathan's to become Nathan's exclusive licensee to manufacture and sell branded hot dog, sausage and corn beef products in the retail market. Under the terms of the agreement, guaranteed minimum royalty payments are $10.0 million for the first year and increase at a compounded average annual rate of 3.2% over the contract term. |
50
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have a material current effect, or that are reasonably likely to have a material future effect, on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.
DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
We are exposed to market risks primarily from changes in commodity prices, as well as interest rates and foreign exchange rates. To mitigate these risks, we utilize derivative instruments to hedge our exposure to changing prices and rates.
Derivative instruments are recorded in the balance sheet as either assets or liabilities at fair value. For derivatives that qualify and have been designated as cash flow or fair value hedges for accounting purposes, changes in fair value have no net impact on earnings, to the extent the derivative is considered perfectly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows attributable to the risk being hedged, until the hedged item is recognized in earnings (commonly referred to as the “hedge accounting” method). For derivatives that do not qualify or are not designated as hedging instruments for accounting purposes, changes in fair value are recorded in current period earnings (commonly referred to as the “mark-to-market” method). Under this guidance, we may elect either method of accounting for our derivative portfolio, assuming all the necessary requirements are met. We have in the past availed ourselves of either acceptable method and expect to do so in the future. We believe all of our derivative instruments represent economic hedges against changes in prices and rates, regardless of their designation for accounting purposes.
When available, we use quoted market prices to determine the fair value of our derivative instruments. This may include exchange prices, quotes obtained from brokers, or independent valuations from external sources, such as banks. In some cases where market prices are not available, we make use of observable market based inputs to calculate fair value.
The size and mix of our derivative portfolio varies from time to time based upon our analysis of current and future market conditions. The following table presents the fair values of our open derivative financial instruments in the consolidated balance sheets (1).
| April 28, 2013 | April 29, 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (in millions) | |||||||
| Grains | $ | (78.0 | ) | $ | 33.8 | ||
| Livestock | 14.7 | 23.1 | |||||
| Energy | 2.5 | (12.2 | ) | ||||
| Foreign currency | 0.4 | 3.6 |
——————————————
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) | Negative amounts represent net liabilities |
Sensitivity Analysis
The following table presents the sensitivity of the fair value of our open derivative contracts to a hypothetical 10% change in market prices or foreign exchange rates, as of April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012.
| April 28, 2013 | April 29, 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (in millions) | |||||||
| Grains | $ | 38.1 | $ | 49.4 | |||
| Livestock | 12.7 | 18.0 | |||||
| Energy | 5.4 | 3.3 | |||||
| Foreign currency | 5.0 | 11.9 |
51
Commodities Risk
Our meat processing and hog production operations use various raw materials, mainly corn, lean hogs, live cattle, pork bellies, soybeans and wheat, which are actively traded on commodity exchanges. We hedge these commodities when we determine conditions are appropriate to mitigate the inherent price risks. While this hedging may limit our ability to participate in gains from favorable commodity fluctuations, it also tends to reduce the risk of loss from adverse changes in raw material prices. Commodities underlying our derivative instruments are subject to significant price fluctuations. Any requirement to mark-to-market the positions that have not been designated or do not qualify for hedge accounting could result in volatility in our results of operations. We attempt to closely match the hedging instrument terms with the hedged item’s terms. Gains and losses resulting from our commodity derivative contracts are recorded in cost of sales except for lean hog contracts that are designated in cash flow hedging relationships, which are recorded in sales, and are offset by increases and decreases in cash prices in our core business (with such increases and decreases reflected in the same income statement line items). For example, in a period of rising grain prices, gains resulting from long grain derivative positions would generally be offset by higher cash prices paid to farmers and other suppliers in spot markets. However, under the “mark-to-market” method described above, these offsetting changes do not always occur in the same period, with lag times of as much as twelve months.
Interest Rate and Foreign Currency Exchange Risk
We periodically enter into interest rate swaps to hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates on certain financial instruments and to manage the overall mix of fixed rate and floating rate debt instruments. We also periodically enter into foreign exchange forward contracts to hedge exposure to changes in foreign currency rates on foreign denominated assets and liabilities as well as forecasted transactions denominated in foreign currencies.
The following tables present the effects on our consolidated financial statements from our derivative instruments and related hedged items:
| Cash Flow Hedges | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) on Derivative (Effective Portion) | Gain (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss into Earnings (Effective Portion) | Gain (Loss) Recognized in Earnings on Derivative (Ineffective Portion) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commodity contracts: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grain contracts | $ | 39.1 | $ | 5.5 | $ | 232.9 | $ | 108.4 | $ | 75.1 | $ | 80.7 | $ | — | $ | (0.2 | ) | $ | 1.9 | ||||||||||||||||
| Lean hog contracts | 13.6 | 102.8 | (82.8 | ) | 54.9 | 32.3 | (44.5 | ) | 0.4 | (0.5 | ) | (1.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest rate contracts | — | — | (1.2 | ) | — | (2.4 | ) | (7.0 | ) | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Foreign exchange contracts | 0.4 | (2.5 | ) | (4.1 | ) | 2.1 | (4.1 | ) | (2.6 | ) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 53.1 | $ | 105.8 | $ | 144.8 | $ | 165.4 | $ | 100.9 | $ | 26.6 | $ | 0.4 | $ | (0.7 | ) | $ | 0.9 |
| Fair Value Hedges | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in Earnings on Derivative | Gain (Loss) Recognized in Earnings on Related Hedged Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | (in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commodity contracts | $ | (12.8 | ) | $ | 21.9 | $ | (4.2 | ) | $ | 5.0 | $ | (16.7 | ) | $ | 5.4 |
| Mark-to-Market Method | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal Years | |||||||||||
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| (in millions) | |||||||||||
| Commodity contracts | $ | 42.6 | $ | 6.4 | $ | 63.4 | |||||
| Foreign exchange contracts | 3.7 | 7.7 | (9.0 | ) | |||||||
| Total | $ | 46.3 | $ | 14.1 | $ | 54.4 |
52
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These estimates and assumptions are based on our experience and our understanding of the current facts and circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The following is a summary of certain accounting policies and estimates we consider critical. Our accounting policies are more fully discussed in Note 1 in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results Differ From Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Contingent liabilities | ||
| We are subject to lawsuits, investigations and other claims related to the operation of our farms, labor, livestock procurement, securities, environmental, product, taxing authorities and other matters, and are required to assess the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes to these matters, as well as potential ranges of probable losses and fees. A determination of the amount of reserves and disclosures required, if any, for these contingencies are made after considerable analysis of each individual issue. We accrue for contingent liabilities when an assessment of the risk of loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. We disclose contingent liabilities when the risk of loss is reasonably possible or probable. | Our contingent liabilities contain uncertainties because the eventual outcome will result from future events, and determination of current reserves requires estimates and judgments related to future changes in facts and circumstances, differing interpretations of the law and assessments of the amount of damages or fees, and the effectiveness of strategies or other factors beyond our control. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to establish our contingent liabilities during the past three fiscal years. We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood there will be a material change in the estimates or assumptions used to calculate our contingent liabilities. |
53
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results Differ From Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Marketing and advertising costs | ||
| We incur advertising, customer incentive and consumer incentive costs to promote products through marketing programs. These programs include cooperative advertising, volume discounts, in-store display incentives, coupons and other programs. Advertising costs are charged in the period incurred except for certain production costs, which are expensed upon the first airing of the advertisement. We accrue customer and consumer incentive costs based on the estimated performance, historical utilization and redemption of each program. Except for certain amounts related to cooperative advertising arrangements, cash consideration given to customers is considered a reduction in the price of our products, thus recorded as a reduction to sales. The remainder of marketing and advertising costs is recorded as a selling, general and administrative expense. | Recognition of the costs related to these programs contains uncertainties due to judgment required in estimating the potential performance and redemption of each program.These estimates are based on many factors, including experience of similar promotional programs. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to establish our marketing accruals during the past three fiscal years. We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood there will be a material change in the estimates or assumptions used to calculate our marketing accruals. However, if actual results are not consistent with our estimates or assumptions, we may be exposed to gains or losses that could be material. |
54
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Impairment Considerations of Equity Method Investments | ||
| Each quarter, we review the carrying value of our investments and consider whether indicators of impairment exist. Examples of impairment indicators include a history or expectation of future operating losses and declines in a quoted share price, among other factors. If an impairment indicator exists, we must evaluate the fair value of our investment to determine if a loss in value, which is other than temporary, has occurred. If we consider any such decline to be other than temporary (based on various factors, including historical financial results, product development activities and the overall health of the affiliate’s industry), then a write-down of the investment to its estimated fair value would be recorded. | In assessing the fair value of an investment, we consider a variety of information, including, when available, independent third party valuation reports, which incorporate generally accepted valuation techniques, and quoted market prices for our investment adjusted for any influence premium that should be applied to the market price based on our ability to exert significant influence over the operational and strategic decisions of the company. We also consider the history of our investment's cash flows, expectations about future cash flows and market multiples for comparable businesses. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to evaluate impairment of equity method investments during the last three years. As of April 28, 2013, the carrying value of our investment in CFG exceeded the quoted market price on the Bolsa de Madrid Exchange (Madrid Exchange), indicating a possible impairment of our investment. However, CFG's share price is just one of several factors we consider in evaluating the fair value of our investment in CFG. Based on our evaluation, we concluded the fair value of our investment in CFG as of April 28, 2013, exceeded its carrying amount. However, our estimate of fair value has declined over the last 24 months, significantly eroding the gap between fair value and carrying value. The fair value decline is primarily attributable to persistent recessionary conditions in Western Europe, which have dampened CFG's current operating performance. In addition, rising interest rates associated with European sovereign debt crises have forced discount rates higher, diminishing the values calculated using our discounted cash flow techniques. Finally, CFG's share price on the Madrid Exchange has declined and, notwithstanding our reservations about the Madrid Exchange price, we nonetheless utilize it as a component of our valuation work and believe such declines must be considered as part of our fair value estimate. |
55
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| While we do not believe our investment is impaired as of April 28, 2013, the confluence of these and other factors has decreased our estimate of CFG's fair value and increased the risk of impairment. If the trends contributing to our lower estimate of CFG's fair value continue, the investment would become impaired. Specifically, if the most sensitive factors affecting our fair value calculations (i.e., estimates of future cash flows, interest rates and share price) continue to deteriorate, it is reasonably possible that our estimate of fair value could fall below carrying value. If that occurs, and we determine that the decline is other than temporary, we would record a charge to income for the difference between the estimate of fair value and the carrying amount of our investment. | ||
| Accrued self insurance | ||
| We are self insured for certain losses related to health and welfare, workers’ compensation, auto liability and general liability claims. We use an independent third-party actuary to assist in the determination of certain of our self-insurance liabilities. We and the actuary consider a number of factors when estimating our self-insurance liability, including claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and other actuarial assumptions. We periodically review our estimates and assumptions with our third-party actuary to assist us in determining the adequacy of our self-insurance liability. | Our self-insurance liabilities contain uncertainties due to assumptions required and judgment used. Costs to settle our obligations, including legal and healthcare costs, could increase or decrease causing estimates of our self-insurance liabilities to change. Incident rates, including frequency and severity, could increase or decrease causing estimates in our self-insurance liabilities to change. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to establish our self-insurance liabilities during the past three fiscal years. We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood there will be a material change in the estimates or assumptions used to calculate our self-insurance liabilities. However, if actual results are not consistent with our estimates or assumptions, we may be exposed to gains or losses that could be material. A 10% increase in the estimates as of April 28, 2013, would result in an increase in the amount we recorded for our insurance liabilities of approximately $9.9 million. |
56
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Impairment of long-lived assets | ||
| Long-lived assets are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. Examples include a current expectation that a long-lived asset will be disposed of significantly before the end of its previously estimated useful life, a significant adverse change in the extent or manner in which we use a long-lived asset or a change in its physical condition. When evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, we compare the carrying value of the asset to the asset’s estimated undiscounted future cash flows. Impairment is recorded if the estimated future cash flows are less than the carrying value of the asset. The impairment is the excess of the carrying value over the fair value of the long-lived asset. We recorded impairment charges related to long-lived assets of $4.2 million, $2.9 and $9.2 million in fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. | Our impairment analysis contains uncertainties due to judgment in assumptions and estimates surrounding undiscounted future cash flows of the long-lived asset, including forecasting useful lives of assets and selecting the discount rate that reflects the risk inherent in future cash flows. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to evaluate the impairment of long-lived assets during the last three years. We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood there will be a material change in the estimates or assumptions used to calculate impairments of long- lived assets. However, if actual results are not consistent with our estimates and assumptions used to calculate estimated future cash flows, we may be exposed to future impairment losses that could be material. |
57
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Impairment of goodwill and other non-amortized intangible assets | ||
| Goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets are tested for impairment annually in the fourth quarter, or sooner if impairment indicators arise. In the evaluation of goodwill for impairment, we may perform a qualitative assessment to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If it is not, no further analysis is required. If it is, a prescribed two-step goodwill impairment test is performed to identify potential goodwill impairment and measure the amount of goodwill impairment loss to be recognized for that reporting unit, if any. The first step in the two-step impairment test is to identify if a potential impairment exists by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is not considered to have a potential impairment and the second step of the impairment test is not necessary. However, if the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step is performed to determine if goodwill is impaired and to measure the amount of impairment loss to recognize, if any. The second step compares the implied fair value of goodwill with the carrying amount of goodwill. If the implied fair value of goodwill exceeds the carrying amount, goodwill is not considered impaired. However, if the carrying amount of goodwill exceeds the implied fair value, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. | We estimate the fair value of our reporting units by applying valuation multiples and/or estimating future discounted cash flows. The selection of multiples and cash flows is dependent upon assumptions regarding future levels of operating performance as well as business trends and prospects, and industry, market and economic conditions. A discounted cash flow analysis requires us to make various judgmental assumptions about sales, operating margins, growth rates and discount rates. When estimating future discounted cash flows, we consider the assumptions that hypothetical marketplace participants would use in estimating future cash flows. In addition, where applicable, an appropriate discount rate is used, based on our cost of capital or location-specific economic factors. The fair values of trademarks have been calculated using a royalty rate method. Assumptions about royalty rates are based on the rates at which similar brands and trademarks are licensed in the marketplace. Our impairment analysis contains uncertainties due to uncontrollable events that could positively or negatively impact the anticipated future economic and operating conditions. | We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology used to evaluate impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets during the last three years. As of April 28, 2013, we had $782.4 million of goodwill and $345.7 million of other non-amortized intangible assets. Our goodwill is included in the following segments: • $231.8 million – Pork • $130.6 million – International • $420.0 million – Hog Production As a result of the first step of our 2013 goodwill impairment analysis, the fair value of each reporting unit exceeded its carrying value. Therefore, the second step was not necessary. A hypothetical 10% decrease in the estimated fair value of our reporting units would not result in an impairment. Our fiscal 2013 other non-amortized intangible asset impairment analysis did not result in an impairment charge. A hypothetical 10% decrease in the estimated fair value of our intangible assets would not result in a material impairment. |
58
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill recognized in a business combination (i.e., the fair value of the reporting unit is allocated to all the assets and liabilities, including any unrecognized intangible assets, as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination and the fair value of the reporting unit was the purchase price paid to acquire the reporting unit). For our other non-amortized intangible assets, if the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. We have elected to make the first day of the fourth quarter the annual impairment assessment date for goodwill and other intangible assets. However, we could be required to evaluate the recoverability of goodwill and other intangible assets prior to the required annual assessment if we experience disruptions to the business, unexpected significant declines in operating results, divestiture of a significant component of the business or a decline in market capitalization. |
59
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Income taxes | ||
| We estimate total income tax expense based on statutory tax rates and tax planning opportunities available to us in various jurisdictions in which we earn income. Federal income taxes include an estimate for taxes on earnings of foreign subsidiaries expected to be remitted to the United States and be taxable, but not for earnings considered indefinitely invested in the foreign subsidiary. Deferred income taxes are recognized for the future tax effects of temporary differences between financial and income tax reporting using tax rates in effect for the years in which the differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are recorded when it is likely a tax benefit will not be realized for a deferred tax asset. We record unrecognized tax benefit liabilities for known or anticipated tax issues based on our analysis of whether, and the extent to which, additional taxes will be due. This analysis is performed in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance. | Changes in tax laws and rates could affect recorded deferred tax assets and liabilities in the future. Changes in projected future earnings could affect the recorded valuation allowances in the future. Our calculations related to income taxes contain uncertainties due to judgment used to calculate tax liabilities in the application of complex tax regulations across the tax jurisdictions where we operate. Our analysis of unrecognized tax benefits contain uncertainties based on judgment used to apply the more likely than not recognition and measurement thresholds. | We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood there will be a material change in the tax related balances or valuation allowances. However, due to the complexity of some of these uncertainties, the ultimate resolution may result in a payment that is materially different from the current estimate of the tax liabilities. To the extent we prevail in matters for which liabilities have been established, or are required to pay amounts in excess of our recorded liabilities, our effective tax rate in a given financial statement period could be materially affected. An unfavorable tax settlement may require use of our cash and result in an increase in our effective tax rate in the period of resolution. A favorable tax settlement could be recognized as a reduction in our effective tax rate in the period of resolution. |
60
| Description | Judgments and Uncertainties | Effect if Actual Results DifferFrom Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Pension Accounting | ||
| We provide the majority of our U.S. employees with pension benefits. We account for our pension plans in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance, which requires us to recognize the funded status of our pension plans in our consolidated balance sheets and to recognize, as a component of other comprehensive income (loss), the gains or losses and prior service costs or credits that arise during the period, but are not recognized in net periodic benefit cost. We use an independent third-party actuary to assist in the determination of our pension obligation and related costs. We generally contribute the minimum amount required under government regulations to our qualified pension plans. We funded $17.7 million, $142.8 million and $95.1 million to our qualified pension plans during fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. We expect to fund at least $51.6 million in fiscal 2014. | The measurement of our pension obligation and costs is dependent on a variety of assumptions regarding future events. The key assumptions we use include discount rates, salary growth, retirement ages/mortality rates and the expected return on plan assets. These assumptions may have an effect on the amount and timing of future contributions. The discount rate assumption is based on investment yields available at year-end on corporate bonds rated AA and above with a maturity to match our expected benefit payment stream. The salary growth assumption reflects our long-term actual experience, the near-term outlook and assumed inflation. Retirement rates are based primarily on actual plan experience. Mortality rates are based on mandated mortality tables, which have flexibility to consider industry specific groups, such as blue collar or white collar. The expected return on plan assets reflects asset allocations, investment strategy and historical returns of the asset categories. The effects of actual results differing from these assumptions are accumulated and amortized over future periods and, therefore, generally affect our recognized expense in such future periods. The following weighted average assumptions were used to determine our benefit obligation and net benefit cost for fiscal 2013: • 4.75% – Discount rate to determine net benefit cost • 4.45% – Discount rate to determine pension benefit obligation • 7.75% – Expected return on plan assets • 4.00% – Salary growth | If actual results are not consistent with our estimates or assumptions, we may be exposed to gains or losses that could be material. For example, the discount rate used to measure our projected benefit obligation decreased from 4.75% as of April 29, 2012 to 4.45% as of April 28, 2013, which is the primary cause for a $115.5 million decline in funded status and an expected increase in net pension cost of $11.9 million in fiscal 2014. An additional 0.50% decrease in the discount rate used to measure our projected benefit obligation would have further reduced the funded status by $136.8 million as of April 28, 2013, and would have resulted in an additional $16.8 million in net pension cost for fiscal 2013. A 0.50% decrease in expected return on plan assets would have resulted in an additional $5.5 million in net pension cost for fiscal 2013. In addition to higher net pension cost, a significant decrease in the funded status of our pension plans caused by either a devaluation of plan assets or a decline in the discount rate would result in higher pension funding requirements. |
| Derivatives Accounting | ||
| See “Derivative Financial Instruments” above for a discussion of our derivative accounting policy. |
61
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 1 in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for information about recently issued accounting standards not yet adopted by us, including their potential effects on our financial statements.
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This report contains “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The forward-looking statements include statements concerning our outlook for the future, as well as other statements of beliefs, future plans and strategies or anticipated events, and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Our forward-looking information and statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the statements. These risks and uncertainties include the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the Merger Agreement, the failure to receive, on a timely basis or otherwise, the required approvals by the Company's shareholders or government or regulatory agencies with regard to the merger, the failure of one or more conditions to the closing of the Merger Agreement to be satisfied, the failure of Shuanghui to obtain the necessary financing in connection with the Merger Agreement, the amount of costs, fees, expenses and charges related to the Merger Agreement or the merger, risks arising from the merger's diversion of management's attention from our ongoing business operations, risks that our stock price may decline significantly if the merger is not completed, the ability of the Company to retain and hire key personnel and maintain relationships with customers, suppliers and other business partners pending the consummation of the proposed merger, the availability and prices of live hogs, feed ingredients (including corn), raw materials, fuel and supplies, food safety, livestock disease, live hog production costs, product pricing, the competitive environment and related market conditions, risks associated with our indebtedness, including cost increases due to rising interest rates or changes in debt ratings or outlook, hedging risk, adverse weather conditions, operating efficiencies, changes in foreign currency exchange rates, access to capital, the cost of compliance with and changes to regulations and laws, including changes in accounting standards, tax laws, environmental laws, agricultural laws and occupational, health and safety laws, adverse results from litigation, actions of domestic and foreign governments, labor relations issues, credit exposure to large customers, the ability to make effective acquisitions and successfully integrate newly acquired businesses into existing operations and other risks and uncertainties described under “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because actual results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the statements. Any forward-looking statement that we make speaks only as of the date of such statement, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Comparisons of results for current and any prior periods are not intended to express any future trends or indications of future performance, unless expressed as such, and should only be viewed as historical data.