reed report final final draft for regional

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Student Research This report is published for educational purposes only by

Students competing in the CFA Institute Research Challenge. Company: Reed’s Inc.

1

Source: FactSet , Yahoo Finance

Source: FactSet

Key Financial Ratios

2012 2013E 2014E

P/S 2.15 3.04 2.65

D/E 1.48 2.04 2.36

ROE -12.8% -7.3% 11.0%

ROA -3.8% -1.8% 2.4%

EPS $-0.05 $0.00 $0.04

Source FactSet, Team Estimate

Valuation DCF P/S

Estimated Price

$8.46 $8.19

Weights 50% 50%

Target Price

$8.33

Source: Team Estimate

Market Data

Price

Jan 28 2014 $7.19

52 Wk Range $3.80 - $8.98

Avg. Daily Volume (3

Month) 84,727

Beta 0.93

Shares Outstanding

12.88 M

Shares Out -

Diluted 13.5 M

Market Cap $92.6 M

O wnership %

Insiders 33.4%

Institutional 7.81%

RECOMMENDATION: HOLD

Exchange NYSE MKT Price (1/28/14) $7.19

Ticker Symbol REED 2014 Year-End Target

Price $8.33

Sector Consumer Non-

Durables Upside Potential 15.86%

Industry Beverage: Non-

Alcoholic

Highlights We issue a HO LD recommendation for Reed’s, Inc. (REED) with a 2014 year-end target price of $8.33. This offers potential upside of 15.86% from the January 28th closing price of $7.19.

REED shows signs of high growth with new distribution deals and increased demand for its products, but detrimental risk factors and weak margins have dampened the outlook on this up-and-coming firm in the beverage industry.

High Growth Already Priced In? Changes in the tastes and preferences of the U.S. population towards healthier foods and beverages should drive sales growth in REED’s market segment. Because of this, we estimate high growth in the REED product lines, particularly in kombucha. REED is well positioned to

capture kombucha growth with its competitive advantages over most other current producers. Although we predict high growth for REED, our recommendation is HO LD because our model suggests much of the firm’s growth is already being accounted for by its current market price.

Financial Position Although we expect increases in sales and improvement in gross and net margins over time,

poor liquidity ratios create additional short term issues for the company. The Current Ratio was at 1.32 in 2012, but the Quick Ratio was only 0.50 because much of the Current Assets were tied up in inventory. Over the past 5 years, the average Quick Ratio has only been 1/3 of its peers. REED is more highly levered than its peers and will require debt financing to expand

operations. In 2012, the D/E ratio was 1.48 vs. 5 -year peer average of 0.69.

Key Risks REED has several risks that may impede its future profitability.

The recent resignation of CFO Jim Linesch gives us serious concerns about the stability of management. We believe that there is potential for high growth in

REED’s target market, but the firm will require a strong management team to effectively guide the company through its high growth phase and transition towards profitability.

REED has struggled with production shortfalls and if these continue they may

significantly limit the growth potential of the firm.

Concerns regarding corporate governance lead us to believe that the Board of

Directors is not adequately reviewing and advising executive management.

CFA Institute Research Challenge 31 January 2014

2

Figure 1: REED Revenue Breakdown

Source: REED Financial Statements

Figure 2: REED Product Growth

Projected Annual Growth

Rates for REED Products

Core Brand Sodas 15%-20%

Kombucha 50-100%

Private Labels 35-40%

Source: Company Guidance

Figure 3: U.S. Beverage Market Volume

Source: Marketline

Business Description Reed’s, Inc. (REED) is an American beverage company that develops, produces, and sells top

selling beverages in the natural premium beverage category. They offer 24 types of all natural non-alcoholic soft drinks and seven product lines that include Reed’s Ginger Brews, Virgil’s Root Beer and Cream Sodas, Dr. Better and Real Cola, Culture Club Kombucha, China Colas, Reed’s Ginger Chews, Reed’s Ginger Ice Creams and Sonoma Sparkler Sparkling Juices.

REED also operates a growing private label business. REED products are sold in more than 14,000 gourmet and natural food stores, grocery stores,

supermarket chains and specialty stores throughout the United States, and to a lesser degree, in Canada and Europe. Distribution channels for REED are national natural foods distributors and an increasing number of regional mainstream direct store delivery (DSD) distribut ors. Its customer base is served by about 10,500 natural and mainstream supermarkets. New product

developments such as kombucha, expansion in distribution channels, and trade and consumer promotions are expected to fuel future sales growth.

Core Natural Premium Sodas REED has been #1 in sales for natural soda since 1992. Their Ginger Brews and Virgil’s Sodas currently make up 80% of sales, while Culture Club Kombucha and private labels each account for 10%. The company’s non-alcoholic ginger sodas are brewed using fresh ginger, spices and fruits in a unique brewing process that sets REED apart from other commercial soft

drink brands. Each 12 ounce bottle contains between 8 and 26 grams of fresh ginger. They use pure cane sugar as a sweetener, and color the drinks naturally from herbs, fruits, spices, roots and juices. REED does not use injection based carbonation or preservatives in their ginger

beverages. Company guidance estimates its core soda brands will grow at 15-20% in 2014.

Kombucha REED entered the kombucha market in fall 2012 with its Culture Club Kombucha line. Their

existing national distribution and experience in natural beverages has given REED a competitive advantage in this segment. The Culture Club Kombucha line was introduced into 800 new retailers throughout the U.S. and into select Whole Foods Markets in 2012. In Culture Club Kombucha’s first year, 200,000 cases were sold, penetrating 50% of natural food stores.

Although REED is currently #2 in kombucha sales nationally, GT’s Synergy Drinks controls most of the kombucha market share. As of 2013, REED accounts for only $5 million in sales in this $300 million category. The company plans on capturing more market share in this

segment with its flavor innovations, signature branding, and new distribution deals. Company guidance suggests a growth rate of 50-100% for its kombucha products in 2014.

Private Label Products REED started producing private label product s in 2009. REED has seen increases in sales within this segment with sales of $200,000 in 2009 growing to $5.2 million in 2012. They now have 10 private label customers as opposed to four in 2012. Outlook for REED’s private label

segment looks optimistic as revenues in the first half of 2013 increased by 50% compared to 2012. Company guidance suggests a growth rate of 35-40% for its private label products in 2014.

Current Strategies:

Stimulate consumer demand and awareness for existing brands and products through promotions and advertising – REED will continue to aggressively promote and advertise its Culture Club Kombucha and core brands through non-traditional and alternative channels to attain high sales growth.

Increase direct sales relationships and expand market – Products are distributed

through natural and specialty food stores, mainstream markets and warehouse clubs. In August 2013, REED announced a distribution agreement with Kroger

Supermarkets, one of the largest grocery chains, to carry four flavors of kombucha in nearly 1000 locations. REED continues to expand its sales channels with recently reached agreements with Haggen Food & Pharmacy and Ingles Markets, Inc., to distribute kombucha throughout Washington, Oregon, and the Southeast

United States.

Expand their national distribution networks by adding regional direct store delivery (DSD) accounts – Recent expansions of REED DSD network has resulted in a 50% increase in sales from this channel in 2012. REED has continued to add DSD accounts in North America; its most recent agreement was reached in early 2014 with Manhattan Beer Distributors to distribute eight Culture Club Kombucha

flavors in metropolitan New York.

79%

10%

10% 1%

REED' S INC.

P RO DUCT

LINES - 2 0 1 3

REED Core Brands

Culture Club Kombucha

Private Labels

Other

-4. 0%

-3. 0%

-2. 0%

-1. 0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

28,000.0

28,500.0

29,000.0

29,500.0

30,000.0

30,500.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% C

HA

NG

E

GA

LLO

NS

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS)

YEAR

U.S. Liquid Refreshment Beverage

Market: Volume and growth

Ga llons ( in mi llions) % cha ng e


3

Figure 4: U.S. CSD Consumption

Source: Beverage Marketing Corp.

Figure 5: Volume Change by Segment

Source: Beverage Marketing Corp.

Figure 6: 2011 Packaged Beverage Sales

Source: Nielsen

Industry Overview & Competitive Positioning Beverage Industry - Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSD) on the Decline Coca-Cola (KO), PepsiCo (PEP), and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (DPS) represent 87% of the CSD market. These leading producers have invested heavily in advertising to drive brand loyalty and have purchased several minor market players. The beverage industry is considered a consumer staple, and historically the demand for products has been relatively inelastic.

Although the beverage industry grew by 1% to 29.8 billion gallons sold in 2012, the carbonated beverages segment declined by 1.8% during the same period. According to BevNET magazine, CSD’s are expected to fall below 50% of the market for volume in 2017

and 50% of the market in revenue in 2018. This can be attributed to natural and healthier alternatives that have steadily gained market penetration in recent years. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, the alternative beverage category of the market was estimated to be approximately $34.4 billion in 2012, an 8.3% increase from 2011. Alternative

beverages include energy drinks, bottled water, juices, sports drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffee teas. Additionally, beverages containing probiotics are gaining recognition due to perceived health benefits. Increases in public awareness of sugar induced issues such as obesity and diabetes is expected to drive down carbonated beverage consumption further.

Functional Beverage Resilience While the carbonated beverage sector is starting to decline, the functional sector is experiencing high growth. According to IBISWorld, over the next five years the beverage

industry will see many state and local governments attempt to limit the sales of CSD’s due to growing health concerns. Health conscious consumers have been willing to spend on higher priced healthy options due to endorsements from medical experts on the importance of proper

nutrition. Even though there is a declining trend in sales for CSD consumption, the functional beverage markets may hold an insulated position.

Strong Growth Opportunities in Kombucha Kombucha signals the arrival of a new generation of functional beverages, utilizing ingredients with active constituents-carbs, caffeine, antioxidants, alcohol, various natural acids and beneficial yeasts and bacteria. Kombucha is the fastest growing segment in the $609 million functional juice and beverage category. Of that segment, REED ranks second in

Kombucha with its current $5 million in sales in a $300 million category. Kombucha is gaining shelf spaces in healthy food stores and natural gourmet food stores. According to BevNET, Kombucha sales are expected to reach $500 million by 2015. High sales growth is beginning to attract the attention of the large players in the beverage industry.

O verview of Competitors Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (DPS) is the third largest soda business in the U.S. and Canada. IBISWorld reports that DPS accounts for a 14.8% market share in beverages.

According to Nielsen’s 2012 retails sales, they make up 39.8% market share in flavored CSDs. The company continues to build and enhance their leading brands while developing premium value teas and juices. Currently, they hold the top ginger ale beverage and their Snapple brand

leads in ready-to-drink tea. Monster Beverage Corporation has $1.9 billion sales in energy drinks, $110.2 million in non-carbonated beverages, and $31 million in carbonated beverages. Their direct store

delivery segment generates 95% of 2012 revenues, up from 90% in 2008. They also have an agreement with Coca-Cola to distribute their products in 70 countries. Monster will continue to add new flavors and improve their products that compete in the

functional beverage category. Their Hansen’s Brand Sodas have been the leading natural soda brand on the West Coast for over 30 years and currently have 6.9% market share in the functional drinks category. Like REED, Hansen’s sodas are sweetened with cane sugar, contains no preservatives, caffeine or artificial flavorings. They also offer organic natural

sodas under their Blue Sky Products Brands. PepsiCo, Inc. is the #2 carbonated soft drink maker with a 41.7% market share in the

functional drinks category and 30.3% market share as the largest non-alcoholic drink producer. They have plans to expand in healthy and premium priced products as well as products for aging consumer demographics. Pepsi operates in the natural soda segment through its subsidiaries, SOBE and IZZE. SoBe started producing functional drinks in 1997, releasing

products that contained exotic herbs, vitamins and minerals. IZZE was acquired in 2006 and its products mix carbonated spring water with 100% fruit juices. These beverages are primarily sold in the US, Canada, Caribbean and the South Pacific.

The Coca-Cola Company is the #1 nonalcoholic beverage company, as well as one of the world's most recognizable brands. Coca Cola owns 16 “billion dollar brands”, including four of the top five soft drinks: Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta, and Sprite. Other top brands include Minute Maid, PowerAde, and Vitaminwater. With the world's largest beverage distribution

system, the Coca-Cola Company reaches more than 200 countries. Coca-Cola operates in the natural beverage market through its subsidiary Odwalla. Odwalla, Inc. offers natural juices, juice drinks, fruit smoothies, garden organics, protein drinks, soy-based drinks, nutrition bars,

smoothie refreshers, and superfoods.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Gal

lons

Years

U.S. Per Capita Consumption of CSDs

-10.0%

-5. 0%

0.0%

5.0%

10. 0%

15. 0%

20. 0%

% c

han

ge

fro

m 2

01

1-2

01

2

Segments

U.S. Liquid Refreshment Beverage

Market: Change in volume by segment

Energy drinks Ready-to-drink coffee

Bottled water Ready-to-drink tea

Sports drinks Value-added water

Carbonated soft drinks Fruit beverages

43.9%

14.5% 13.3%

10.8%

9.5% 5.9%

2.1%

% D O L L A R S A L E S P A C K A G E D B E V E R A G E S

( 2 0 1 1 )

Carbonated drinks

Alternatives (energy drinks, etc.)

Bottled water

Juice drinks

Sports drinks

Iced tea (ready- to-drink)

Other


4

Figure 7: U.S. Functional Beverage

Forecast

Source: Marketline

Figure 8: U.S Functional Market Share

Source: Marketline

Figure 9: Team Criteria

Recommendation Criteria Price

Range

Jan. 28, 2014 Price $7.19

20% Upside Price

Above $8.63

BUY

10% Downside to 20% Upside

Price

$6.47-$8.63

HO LD

10% Downside

Price Below

$6.47 SELL

Source: Team Estimates

Figure 10: 2014E Target Price


Valuation DCF P/S

Estimated

Price $8.46 $8.19

Weights 50% 50%

Target

Price $8.33

Jones Soda Co. markets and sells brightly colored sodas with wacky names and flavors. The soda maker’s beverages are sold in the US (75% of sales) and Canada where they are

distributed through a network of more than 185 independent distributors. Outside the US they have distributors in the UK, Ireland and Australia. Sales have gone down 57% since 2007 to $17.4 million in 2011. The company has not recorded a profit in the last five years.

GT’s Synergy Drinks is the industry leader of Kombucha drinks. In 2009, Americans bought more than a million bottles of GT’s Kombucha. Established in 1995, they have distribution channels all across 50 states. In 2008, their Kombucha drinks realized $66.1 million in sales.

Investment Summary Conflicting Signals We issue a HO LD recommendation for Reeds, Inc. with a 2014 year-end target price of $8.33.

This offers potential upside of 15.86% from January 28th closing price of $7.19. REED shows signs of high growth with its new distribution deals and increased demand for its products, but high levels of risk and weak margins weigh the firm down. Between January 2012 and December 2013, we saw REED take huge strides as it closed deal after deal with distribution

companies throughout the US and Canada along with entering the kombucha market. With these newly added opportunities for growth, REED stock price soared by 611.71% during this t ime period. We believe that much of REED’s expected growth is already priced in and that there is not much room for additional gain.

Valuation methods Our target price was estimated by assigning both our DCF valuation and relative valuation

models a 50/50 weighting. We realize that for relative valuation, price to sales is limited to only looking into a company’s revenues. However, we accounted for this by applying a discount for REED poor net margin, among other factors. For this reason, we could not find a reason to apply more weighting to one valuation method over the other.

Strong O utlook for Product Line With consumers becoming increasingly cognizant of their well-being, demand for more healthy foods and beverages has gone up. REED being the top seller of premium natural sodas

has positioned itself well to capitalize on this growth. On top of that, REED explores another growing market in functional beverages with his Culture Club Kombucha line. Since adding it in 2012, REED has already seen moderate success with its growth expected to exceed 50% in 2014.

Financial Position Weak gross, operating, and net margins compared to the beverage industry average have resulted in negative earnings since REED went public in 2006. While we expect margins to

improve, we do not currently see a mechanism to allow REED to operate at gross margins similar to its large competitors. REED has relatively high levels of debt and must take on more debt to expand. We expect it to be several years before REED generates enough cash flow to

pay down debt and move towards a long term sustainable capital structure. Our model suggests that the average D/E ratio for next 10 years to be 2.30. This is more than three times the peer group average 5-year D/E ratio of 0.69.

Investment Risks REED is a high growth company that currently does not have any earnings, and therefore has many serious risks to future profitability. Given the high growth niche segment that REED operates in, it is difficult to estimate several key growth factors that drive the stock price.

REED also has several operational and strategic risks, such as recent production shortages and a sudden change in executive management that may deter the firm’s future growth. These risks are further discussed in the Investment Risks section.

Acquisition Premium While we view REED as a likely candidate for acquisition and that an acquisition premium may cause the price of REED to meet our BUY criteria, we do not believe that just the

possibility of a future acquisition is enough to change our investment recommendation.

Criteria We assign a BUY rating to a stock that exhibits a 20% or greater potential upside. While BUY

ratings may typically be issued to a stock with 15% upside, we believe that small cap stocks are inherently more volatile and therefore require a higher return before issuing a buy. We assign a HOLD recommendation to a stock with less than 20% potential upside to a 10% potential downside. We assign a sell rating to a stock with potential downside greater than

10%.


5

Figure 11: Sales Growth Forecast

Source: FactSet, Team Estimate

Figure 12: Gross Margin Forecast

Source; FactSet, Team Estimate

Figure 13: Financing Terms

REED Financing

Rate

Line of Credit Prime + 3.75%

Term Loan Prime +

11.6%

Term Loan shall not be below 14.85%

Source: REED Financial Statements

Valuation In order to arrive at a year-end 2014 target price for REED we used two valuation models;

Discounted Cash Flows through a Free Cash Flow to Equity Model and Relative Valuation using Price/Sales Multiples.

Free Cash Flow to Equity Model We evaluated REED using a 3-stage Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. A Free Cash Flow to

Equity (FCFE) model was chosen because we expect REED to have a period of high growth and transition from being an unprofitable company to a profitable one. FCFE is a useful model for high growth companies as long as the capital structure does not drastically change over the forecasted period. Company guidance has suggested that the capital structure of REED should

remain similar to current conditions for the near future, although new expansion would be financed by debt. We estimated free cash flows by forecasting the determinants of net income, CAPEX, and working capital. Determinants of Net Income include revenue growth, margin improvement, and expected interest payments based upon our estimated debt levels. Given

these estimates we forecast the year-end target price for REED at $8.46 per share. Given a January 28, 2014 closing price of $7.19, this price would imply 18% potential upside (See Appendix 5).

Sales Forecast Sales revenues were forecasted using a 3-stage growth model. In the first stage, REED sales growth was estimated at 25% for the next 5 years. 25% growth was derived from a

combination of the FactSet future year estimated growth rates and REED historic growth. We believe this number to be reasonable given the growth rate of natural products within the beverage industry and REED’s strong competitive advantages in the natural foods segment. This growth is supported by our expected growth for the kombucha product over the next 10

years and REED’s position in this market. For years 2019-2022 our model assumes that the growth rate will decline by 5% each year. As REED revenues grow, the growth rate will naturally decline as market share in the natural foods segment matures. For years 2023 and on we used 3% as an average long-term growth rate to reflect historical long-term real growth in

the US economy.

Depreciation We assume that REED will continue to depreciate its assets similar to its rates in 2012 and

2011. In these years, depreciation was 22% and 19% of fixed assets, respectively. In our forecasted period depreciation ranges from 18-19% of fixed assets.

Gross Margin Historically, REED gross margin has been much lower than its competitors. With the large beverage companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper Snapple and Monster each having a gross margin of over 50%, it makes REED historical gross margin average of 23.2% look

small in comparison. Due to REED’s size and premium nature of its products, we do not see it being realistic for REED to reach margins of this level. However, REED has been able to improve that figure to 32% in its most recent earnings report due to increasing production efficiency and decreasing transportation costs. We expect to see gross margin steadily increase

to 38% by 2023 driven by expected sales growth on REED branded products.

Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) Expense Growth Currently, SG&A expenses have held constant at 30% of sales during the years ending in 2011

and 2012. SG&A expenses had increased to 31.5% of sales through the first three quarters of 2013, but much of this increase is related to additional trade show and advertising expenditure due to a new product rollout. Company guidance has suggested that advertising will remain at

similar levels for the near future, unless an extraordinary opportunity arises. Large companies in the industry, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi typically have SG&A to sales ratios of 36-38%. This cost can be attributed to the higher level of advertising that mainstream manufacturers engage in. Monster, a comparable company in the energy drink submarket, operates at 25%

SG&A to sales. We believe holding SG&A to sales at 30% is a reasonable estimate for REED.

Interest Expenses REED currently pays 7% on its $4.5 million dollar short term revolving line of credit and

14.85% on its long term debt. Both of these rates are floating. We assume additional debt financing will be available at 14.85%. REED also has interest expenses resulting from its capital leases of property and equipment. REED uses a rate of 9.9% to account for its interest expense for its capital leases.

Tax Advantage Due to previous losses, REED may be able to realize a carried loss of $5.3 million against

projected earnings in 2014-2016. Our model assumes that this will result in no taxes due in 2014-2016.

Cost of Equity Cost of Equity was estimated at 7.65% by using CAPM model. For risk free rate, US 10 year Treasury bond rate of 3.04% from year end 2013 was used. Market risk premium of 4.96% was used from Damodaran’s 2014 market premium forecast. Beta of .93 was used from

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Sales Growth

Actual Forecast

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

Gross Margin

Actual Forecast


6

Figure 14: P/S REED vs. Peers

Source: FactSet

Figure 15: REED vs. Peer Key Numbers

Reed vs. Peer Group

2008-2011

Reed Peers

Net Margin -13% 14%

Payout Ratio 0% 33.50%

D/E 1.08 0.66

Beta 0.93 0.79

Source: FactSet

Figure 16: Effects of CFO Resignation

REED P/S discount after CFO announcement

Price (1/27/2014) $6.82

# Shares (million) 13.5

Market Cap (1/27/2014) $92.07

2013E Sales (million) 37.75

Implied P/S 2.44

2013E Peers P/S multiple 3.24

Implied Discount 25%

Source: FactSet, Team Estimates

Figure 17: P/S Discount

P/S Discount Sensitivity

Analysis Applied Discount

2014E Price

Potential Upside

40% $6.55 -8.8%

35% $7.10 -1.2%

30% $7.65 6.3%

25% $8.19 13.9%

20% $8.74 21.5%

15% $9.28 29.1%

10% $9.83 36.7%


FactSet estimate. A regression analysis was attempted to estimate beta against the S&P 500 (^GSPC), but the results were not considered useful as our regression coefficient of

determination was 1.1%. We consider Damodaran and FactSet to be reliable sources for these estimates.

Dividend Policy Company guidance suggests that REED will not pay any dividend on common stock for the foreseeable future. Our model assumes that no dividend will be paid in forecasted period.

Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) During the one-on-one meeting that we had with REED management, it was suggested that the company will finance new expansion by issuing debt as opposed to diluting shareholders. We believe that the forecasted future debt levels of REED are reasonable given its high growth, and as the company becomes profitable it will be able to pay down debt.

Balance Sheet For our model we have assumed that all assets and short-term liabilit ies will remain a constant

percentage of sales.

Multiples Valuation This model seeks to arrive at a valuation by comparing how similar companies are p riced in the market.

Peer Group Selection It is imperative to select a set of similar firms in order to obtain a more precise market -based valuation. However, REED is a very unique company in which it encompasses a small niche

within the beverage industry. This makes it difficult to find companies that strongly resemble REED. Companies that we did find to be similar to REED were either private, subsidiaries of larger companies, or too small for analyst coverage. We declined to use these companies due to the difficulty in obtaining forward projections. For this reason, we chose its peer group to be

its biggest competitors within the beverage industry. This list includes Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper-Snapple, Pepsi, and Monster.

What Multiples to Use? Due to REED being a company that has historically had negative earnings with a small book value, both its earnings multiples and book value multiples are unreliable. We felt it most appropriate to use the Price to Sales multiple given how the company resembles a start-up along with its historical poor earnings. The advantages of using this method include that it is

much less volatile than earnings multiples and harder to manipulate through accounting methods. However, we are aware that this multiple has its limitations as it does not account for a company’s debt levels or cost structures and plan to account for these factors in our valuation.

Price to Sales Multiple Historically, REED has been trading at a discount to its peers. Between the years of 2008 to

2011, the average P/S discount was 72.22%. There were several reasons for this:

Significantly smaller net margin due to negative profits (-13.0% avg. vs. 14.0%

avg.)

Non-existent payout ratio as REED did not pay out dividends (0% avg. vs. 33.5%

avg.)

Higher total debt to equity ratio (1.08 avg. vs. 0.66 avg.)

Greater amounts of systematic risk (0.93 vs. 0.79)

From 2012 onward, REED has been trading at a much smaller discount to its peers with an average discount of 15%. We believe that this is due to the following reasons:

Improving net margins (from -25.0% in 2008 to -1.7% in 2012)

Higher expected growth due to new distribution agreements, a new private label

partnership with one of the largest supermarket chains in the country, and the addition of kombucha to its product line

Although REED’s average D/E Ratio grew to 1.6 during this time period, we feel that the improvements in net margin and expected growth more than made up for this factor to justify a 15% discount.

For our year end projection, we forecast REED to sustain its high level of growth due to an increasing demand for kombucha and natural sodas. Also, we expect net margin to continue to improve as revenues grow. Based off these factors, we decided to apply a 15% discount to

year end 2014, similar to the average of the discounts in 2012 and 2013. However on January 21, 2014, it was announced that REED CFO of 5 years, Jim Linesch, was leaving the company. Given that the CFO had just bought over $200,000 worth of shares 19 days prior to this announcement, we can assume that this decision was very abrupt. This poses a red flag as

there appears to be serious management problems within REED. We feel that this added risk warrants an additional 10% discount. This estimation of 10% was derived from using the following calculations:

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

E

Price to Sales

Reed's, Inc. Peers


7

Figure 18: Weighting Sensitivity

Sensitivity of Weighting on

Target Price DCF

Weight Relative Weight

Target Price

20% 80% $ 8.24

30% 70% $ 8.27

40% 60% $ 8.30

50% 50% $ 8.33

60% 40% $ 8.35

70% 30% $ 8.38

80% 20% $ 8.41


Figure 19: Implications of Acquisition

Acquisition Premium

Premium Price Potential

Upside

0% $8.33 15.86%

5% $8.75 21.65%

10% $9.16 27.44%

15% $9.58 33.23%

20% $10.00 39.03%

25% $10.41 44.82%

30% $10.83 50.61%


Figure 20: Net Income Forecast


Taking REED market cap by end of January 27, 2014

Divide it by our 2013E sales forecast to get to an implied current P/S ratio for REED

Found the discount of this P/S in comparison to the 2013E average peer group P/S ratio

The resulting discount of REED was 25%, 10% more than its average discount to its peers for the past 2 years. Since there was a large price change after the announcement of resignation, we believe that the

market was applying this added discount based upon similar concerns about management. We also believe that continuing to use this 25% multiple discount for 2014 is appropriate. This would give us a 2014 year-end target price of $8.19. This implies potential upside of 13.9%

relative to January 28th, 2014 close price of $7.19 (See Appendix 6).

Weight of Models We obtained a final one year target price by taking a weighted average of our DCF and

relative valuations. We utilized equal weights for both our DCF and P/S model. We believe that both of our models are rigorous and appropriately consider the major factors in valuation of REED. We performed a sensitivity analysis to determine how the weighting of our models would change our target price and discovered that any changes in weighting would not result

in a change of investment recommendation based upon our stated criteria. While it was difficult to find a strong comparable group for REED, we feel we have correctly applied an appropriate discount relative our chosen group. Combining our forecasts gives us a 2014 year-end target price of $8.33. Given a January 28 price of $7.19 this represents 15.9% potential

upside (See Appendix 7).

Additional Upside - Acquisition Premium Historical acquisition premiums in the beverage industry have been known to range from 25%-30% above market price per share. In 2001, Odwalla, an American food product company that sells fruit juice, was acquired by The Coca-Cola Company for $18 million. The company was purchased at a premium of 28.9%. More recently Jim Beam was purchased for

$16 billion by a Japanese company, Suntory Holdings Ltd. The company paid a 25% premium. Other acquisitions in the beverage industry include SoBe and Izze sparkling juices, all of which were acquired under the PepsiCo brand. Izze was purchased at an estimated price of $75 million and SoBe was acquired around $370 million for a 90 percent stake, about 12

times its EBITDA. With a market size of $92.6 million, REED’s relatively small size also makes the company a great acquisition target. Competitors such as the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo have the

resources and ability to purchase a small-cap company. As ownership is concentrated amongst a few large shareholders, it is easier to gain majority approval and consensus in voting decisions.

REED has developed a strong brand identity in the functional beverage and kombucha segment. This can lead to high growth potential in a fairly new and developing market. Industry leaders in the beverage market looking to differentiate into functional drinks would

value the acquisition of REED to their business. As a small-cap company, REED may also not have the resources that many of the large competitors may have. Unlocking value in REED through expanded distribution networks, marketing, and additional capital could also provide grounds for the company to be acquired. Possible synergies would give large competitors

incentive to acquire as well. Given this information, we believe REED is an attractive acquisition target, and could potentially have 15-30% additional upside from an acquisition premium. However, there are

also several risks that may impede an acquisition or result in a lower premium. These risks are further discussed in our Investment Risks section.

Financial Analysis

Future Earnings While REED has reported negative net income in the past, it has been consistently improving

these figures over the last 6 years. Between 2007 and 2012, REED went from net income of -$5.58 million to -$0.57 million. We expect earnings to increase as revenues rise because REED closely resembles a start-up company in its high growth stage. Due to a higher demand of natural sodas and kombucha, we do not anticipate sales growth slowing down in the near

future. This will boost net income with 2014 expecting to be REED’s first year of positive earnings. Given our sales growth and margin forecasts we estimate that REED will grow from a current net margin of 0% to 1.93% in 2018, with earnings of $2.27 million.

Sales Growth REED sales growth has been consistently over 15% for the time periods 2007 to 2012, which is well above the industry average of 1% for beverage companies. However, sales in 2009 had

declined due to the effects of the U.S. recession. We believe these growth trends will continue at a high level because of favorable market trends for REED product lines, their position as a

-10

-5

0

5

10

Net Income In Millions

Actual Forecast


8

Figure 21: REED Gross Margin Forecast

Gross Margin

2012 2013E Terminal

REED 30% 31.5% 38%

Peer Group 5-Year Avg. 56.09%


Figure 22: REED Liquidity Ratios

Source: FactSet

market leader in the natural sodas market, and their established national distribution network. This is reflected in the forecasted growth rates for years 2013-2018. We expect that REED’s

growth in sales can be heavily attributed to their position in the kombucha market segment, the fastest growing product in functional beverages.

Improving Gross Margin We believe the relatively low gross margin is the most important factor limiting REED’s earning power. In 2012 REED gross margin was 30.47%, which was well below the average of large beverage manufacturers. However, gross margin has increased from 15% in 2007 to 30% in 2012, and we expect this trend to continue. REED uses promotional allowances as a

direct reduction in sales. Due to new product rollouts, higher allowances have lowered gross margin. There has been a history in kombucha production inefficiencies that hindered gross margin. Third quarter 2013 results show a gross margin of 32%, leading us to believe that these inefficiencies have been corrected. REED has invested heavily in expanding production

capacity in its west coast plant. Capital expenditures totaled $507,000 in 2012 and $447,000 through the first nine months of 2013. These enhancements should decrease transportation costs because they reduce shipments from the east coast co-packing facility.

Increases in branded product sales will improve gross margins in the forecasted period due to higher margins on branded as opposed to private label offerings. Their Culture Club Kombucha is expected to have the highest sales growth, and should improve branded sales.

Beverage industry peers Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple and Monster have a gross margin of over 50%. This may not be realistic for REED given its size and premium nature of its products. Company executives suggested in the 2013 third quarter conference call that they

would like to see gross margin being closer to 40%. We have forecasted a steady trend towards an estimate of 38% in the terminal stage of our valuation model. This estimate allows for realistic and attainable increases of 0.5% per year from 2014 to 2023 (See Appendix 16).

Efficiency Ratios REED has a 5-year average Total Asset Turnover Ratio of 1.79 compared to peer group average of 0.92. This implies REED is managing its assets efficiently compared to the large

beverage manufacturers. REED also has a higher Receivables Turnover and lower Payables Turnover compared to peer average. This demonstrates REED collects its receivables quicker and it takes longer to pay its suppliers than its peers.

Balance Sheet & Financing REED 3 year average Debt/Equity Ratio was 0.46 prior to 2009. D/E Ratio increased to 0.93 in 2009 and has continued to increase in the following years reaching a forecasted high of 2.47 in 2015E. The high ratio is due in part to the fact that REED sold and concurrently entered into

a long-term lease agreement of its two buildings and brewery equipment in 2009. The capital lease has the effect of increasing operating income while also increasing interest expense. The building and equipment were sold at $3,056,000 but were recorded as a long-term financing obligation. At the end of 2013, we estimated the remaining balance of that obligation to be

$2,784,000. The company is expected to decrease that balance at the rate of 9.9% annually and this has been taken into account in the balance sheet under long-term financing (see Appendix 11).

As of third quarter 2013, REED has long term debt consisting of a $525,000 term loan at 11.6% plus prime. Interest shall not be below 14.85% per terms of the loan.

REED has maintained a Current Ratio over 1, with it being 1.32 in year ending 2012. The forecasted Current Ratio remains above 1.32 (See Appendix 4). However, due to REED having more than 60% of its Current Assets in inventories, its Quick Ratio is 0.5 in 2012, which we project to remain relatively constant through the forecasted period.

DuPont Analysis DuPont analysis was employed to examine how the return on equity was affected by the company’s operating efficiency, asset efficiency, and financial leverage. Due to operating

losses from 2006 to 2012, the return on equity (ROE) has been negative. However we expect in subsequent years, there will be gradual improvement. In 2007, the return on equity was -76.67%, and by 2012, the ROE was drastically reduced to -12.78%. Through examination of the company's operating efficiency, profit margins have increased 40.76%, from -42.51% in

2007 to -1.75% in 2012. The Total Asset Turnover has also increased from 1.29 to 2.17 over the periods of 2007 to 2012, showing improvement in the company’s utilization of its resources. However REED capital structure shows that its financial leverage is increasing as

the equity multiplier rises from 1.39 in 2007 to 3.37 in 2012. This implies an increase in debt to finance the company's operations over the years. The projections for 2013 continue to show signs of optimism for the firm. By 2014, projected profit margins and ROE are expected to be positive with profit margins reaching 1.05% and return on equity increasing to 11.02%. The

DuPont analysis suggests that the profit margins are the most important driver for the firm’s return on equity. Thus we believe REED is showing positive signs of growth that are expected to continue into the future (See Appendix 15.)

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.00

Dec

'06

Dec

'07

Dec

'08

Dec

'09

Dec

'10

Dec

'11

Dec

'12

Ratio Analysis

Current Ratio Quick Ratio

Cash Ratio


9

Figure 23: Forecasted Ratios

2013 Forecasted Ratios Affecting

Liquidity & Solvency

REED 2013E

5 Year Peer

Average

Current Ratio

1.33 2.07

Quick Ratio

0.5 1.69

D/E Ratio 2.04 0.69

Source: FactSet, Team Estimates Figure 24: CFO Resignation on Stock

Price

Impact from Loss of Key

Management Executive

REED S&P 500

Jan. 21st O pen price

$8.32 $1,841

Jan. 27th

Close price $6.82 $1,781

Percentage Change

-18.03% -3.23%

Source: FactSet

Investment Risks O perational Risk: Production Shortfall

REED may not be able to produce at a level to support high sales growth. REED had issues with production shortages in 2012 and early 2013, and this led to CEO Chris Reed taking over plant management at the west coast facility. Continued issues from production shortages due to equipment error or inefficiencies in production process may harm sales growth and gross

margin. O perational Risk: Increase in Supply Prices

Costs in tangible goods sold were 63% of sales in 2012 and 2011. Cost of tangible goods sold includes raw materials, packaging, co-packing and repacking fees, inbound freight charges and certain internal transfers. Increases in these costs could lower gross margin and impact the current and future profitability of REED. However, we would expect that such increases may

happen across the industry and affect REED competitors as well. Given its relatively small size, future supply price increases may affect REED more than its competitors, resulting in a lower gross margin.

O perational Risk: Lack of Working Capital REED Current Ratio has trended downwards going from 2.41 in 2007 to 1.44 and 1.33 in 2011 and 2012 respectively. Their Current Ratio also trails the 5-year peer group average, 1.33 to 2.07. REED Quick Ratio has trended downwards over time, going from 0.96 in 2007 to 0.43

and 0.50 in 2011 and 2012 respectively. Their Quick Ratio also trails the 5-year peer group average, .50 to 1.69. These ratios signal it may have some challenges paying bills over time. REED currently has a D/E Ratio of 2.04, compared to peer group five year average of .69, and

company guidance has suggested that new funding would come from new debt rather than equity financing. Lack of working capital may negatively affect REED’s ability to borrow. If revenue from product sales is inadequate, the firm may also have insufficient working capit al to continue operations. In the long run, poor liquidity can result in the firm managing business

instead of growing it . REED is also susceptible to changes in interest rates because of the floating rate on its current and long term debt. Given the historical low interest rates that have prevailed during the last

few years, if interest rates go up, REED would have to incur higher interest expenses in order to service its debt. O perational Risk: Loss of Key Management Executive

On January 21, 2014, REED announced that its CFO of 5 years, James Linesch, would be leaving the company at the end of the month and that the firm was seeking a replacement. It was not publicly stated as to what the reason was for his leaving, but with him gone it does leave a hole within management. Linesch has held several CFO positions with small publicly

traded companies such as AdStar, Inc. (ADST), DynTek, Inc. (DYNE) and CompuMed, Inc. (CMPD). When he was appointed as the chief financial officer for REED, he brought with him valuable management experience in emerging public companies. Along with his normal duties

of managing the company’s finances, Linesch was responsible for improving REED’s line of credit and cutting legal costs by at least 50%. CEO Chris Reed had even stated that Linesch had contributed to the “inspiration and technical ‘macgyvering’ that gave us the Reed’s Culture Club Kombucha.” Since he was brought on board, REED has seen a rise in stock price

by almost 500%. When the announcement came out that Linesch was stepping down from his position REED’s stock plummeted. Within the span of 5 trading days, the price had dropped 18% vs. 3.0%

decline in the S&P 500. The fact that Linesch had bought over $200,000 of REED stock 19 days prior to the announcement suggests that this decision was very abrupt. Also, the fact that REED does not have a replacement already set in place further justifies our assumption. It comes into question as to what had caused the sudden departure as there was no explanation

given as to why Linesch left. The uncertainty that this event creates adds additional risk to the company. With REED in a crucial period of high growth, it is vital to find an experienced replacement.

Competition Risk: Major Competitors Enter Market If the natural beverage industry continues its growth, there will be a large incentive for the major beverage manufacturers Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper-Snapple, and Monster to enter the

market. While we see REED as an ideal acquisition target for a larger firm, it is also possible for one of REED’s competitors to be acquired instead. Major firms may also start to operate their own premium natural lines. This could materially impact revenue and profitability, as they would be competing against a powerful firm with more established distribution channels.

Strategic Risk: New Product Failure REED’s fastest growing product is expected to be its Culture Club Kombucha line. Expected growth of this line is 50%-100%, compared to 15-20% for REED core brands (according to

company guidance). If Kombucha sales falter, overall sales growth may be dampened.


10

Valuation Risk: Long Term Growth Rates REED intrinsic value was calculated by using a long-term growth rate of 3%, which was set to

model typical long term U.S. Economic Growth. This growth factor can have significant impact on the valuation of REED, both in when the terminal value is calculated and with what long-term growth rate is used. A range of long term growth rates were modeled using sensitivity analysis to determine the effect on our one year target price (See Appendix 10).

Valuation Risk: Intermediate Term Growth REED intermediate-term sales growth rates (IGR) were estimated by utilizing analyst consensus, recent performance, and expected growth in market and market share. We utilized

an annualized growth rate of 25% over the next five years, which we believe to be the best estimate given current production and market conditions. If these estimates are overly optimistic it would have a huge impact on REED valuation, as REED requires high growth and growth in margins to become profitable. Given the difficulty in predicting the growth

pattern of a new niche product in kombucha, these growth numbers may be understated and therefore undervalue the company. A range of IGR were modeled using sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of different growth rates on our 2014 year-end target price (See

Appendix 8). Valuation Risk: Changes in Cost of Capital REED is a relatively young company with high growth and a high D/E Ratio. Due t o these

factors, REED currently has a high cost of capital compared to the beverage industry. We have assumed that this number will not drastically change over time. If there are changes in capital structure, inherent business risk, market risk premium, or risk free rate, cost of capital will change, and therefore our estimate of valuation may change substantially. Sensitivity analysis

was performed to view the effects of different long term cost of capital rates on the one year target price (See Appendix 9). Valuation Risk: Acquisition Risk

While visiting REED headquarters, Chris Reed discussed an expected exit strategy in the next 4 to 5 years, and hoped to receive an offer valuing the company at $200 million. With the 2013 year end market cap being $102.22 million, this is a 95.66% premium. The possibility that

Chris Reed could turn away potentially good acquisition deals based on his unreasonable expectations could lead to a risk for investors. Also with Chris being the age of 56, the decision to sell the company could be greatly influenced by his desire to retire. As both Chris and his wife are on the board of directors, they have a very strong influence on what price the

company could be purchased at. Due to Chris Reed’s possible personal motives, this could lead to a much smaller acquisition premium than shareholders would hope for.

Issues Regarding Corporate Governance Insider stake ownership at REED represents 33.4% of the company’s float, making it greatly influenced by a few insiders. The Chairman of the board is CEO Chris Reed. His wife Judy Reed, Mark Harris, Daniel S.J. Muffoletto, and Michael Fischman also serve on the board of REED. Given the makeup of the board, we have concerns to how the board could objectively

review management decisions. It appears that both Daniel Muffoletto and Michael Fischman have no shares in the company, and both are paid very lit tle to serve on the board. Fischman is paid only $750 to serve on the board and in 2012 attended less than 75% of the meetings. Total lack of ownership and the minimal payments to directors for fulfilling their duties leads

us to the assumption that they serve on the board as a possible favor to Chris Reed. This does not provide sufficient motivation for the directors to adequately review and advise management.

These current corporate governance standards also make it difficult to attract investment from institutional investors. Right now, REED has an institutional ownership of 6%, which significantly trails the industry average of 46%. The lack of corporate governance gives

shareholders limited power in REED management decisions. This has led to a recent shareholder proxy initiative to change the board nomination process that ultimately failed due to insider opposition. A proposal to limit proxy review of executive compensation to 3 years from every year also passed with insider support. When shareholders have the ability to

scrutinize a company’s corporate governance practices, they can help to identify areas of improvement. However this only happens if the board and management promote shareholders engagement and actively consider the interests of the shareholders they serve. It is important that the board and management listen to what their shareholders have to say and adjust their

governance practices when warranted. Thus far the REED board has made no attempt to address these concerns over their corporate governance practices.


11

Appendix 1: Pro Forma Balance Sheet (All figures in Millions)

Balance Sheet 2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

Assets

Cash & ST Investments 1.08 0.71 1.16 1.46 1.82 2.28 2.85 3.56 4.45 5.34 6.15 6.76 7.10 7.31

Short-Term Receivables 1.30 1.63 1.96 2.47 3.08 3.85 4.82 6.02 7.52 9.03 10.38 11.42 11.99 12.35

Inventories 4.56 6.10 5.79 7.28 9.10 11.38 14.23 17.78 22.23 26.67 30.68 33.74 35.43 36.49

Other Current Assets 0.22 0.29 0.41 0.52 0.64 0.81 1.01 1.26 1.57 1.89 2.17 2.39 2.51 2.58

Total Current Assets 7.16 8.73 9.32 11.7 14.7 18.3 22.9 28.6 35.8 42.9 49.4 54.3 57.0 58.7

Net Property, Plant & Equipment 3.65 3.51 3.42 4.15 5.19 6.49 8.11 10.14 12.67 15.21 17.49 19.24 20.20 20.80

Intangible Assets 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

Other Assets 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Total Assets 11.89 13.36 13.82 16.96 20.93 25.89 32.09 39.84 49.53 59.22 67.94 74.63 78.31 80.63

Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity 2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

ST Debt & Curr. Portion LT Debt 2.20 3.37 3.36 4.17 5.11 6.27 7.76 9.69 12.02 14.30 16.35 17.93 18.79 19.32

Accounts Payable 2.91 2.42 3.37 4.24 5.30 6.62 8.28 10.35 12.94 15.53 17.85 19.64 20.62 21.24

Other Current Liabilities 0.21 0.28 0.31 0.39 0.49 0.61 0.76 0.95 1.19 1.43 1.64 1.81 1.90 1.95

Total Current Liabilities 5.32 6.07 7.04 8.80 10.90 13.51 16.80 20.99 26.15 31.25 35.85 39.37 41.30 42.52

Term Loan 0.40 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525

Long Term Financing Obligation-Net

2.208 2.164 2.083 1.980 1.853 1.674 1.477 1.349 1.248 1.156 1.081 1.015

Capital Lease equipment

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

Additional Financing 1.32 2.81 4.40 5.94 8.24 10.79 12.22 11.87 9.08 3.32 4.49

Long-Term Debt 2.41 2.98 2.71 4.10 5.52 7.00 8.42 10.53 12.89 14.19 13.74 10.86 5.03 6.13

Total Liabilities 7.73 9.05 9.75 12.90 16.42 20.51 25.22 31.52 39.03 45.44 49.59 50.23 46.33 48.65

Preferred Stock (Carrying Value) 1.32 1.27 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56

Retained Earnings (18.88) (19.89) (20.46) (20.46) (19.95) (19.00) (17.43) (15.90) (13.63) (10.26) (5.58) 0.59 8.29 8.29

Capital Surplus 21.70 22.92 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00

Common Equity 2.82 3.03 3.54 3.54 4.05 5.00 6.57 8.10 10.37 13.74 18.42 24.59 32.29 32.29

Total Shareholders' Equity 4.38 4.14 4.31 4.10 4.61 5.56 7.13 8.66 10.93 14.30 18.98 25.15 32.85 32.85

Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity 11.87 13.35 13.85 16.96 20.93 25.89 32.09 39.84 49.53 59.22 67.94 74.63 78.31 80.63

Source: Team Estimates, FactSet


12

Appendix 2: Pro Forma Income Statement

INCOME STATEMENT 2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

Sales/Revenue 20.38 25.01 30.01 37.75 47.19 58.98 73.73 92.16 115.20 138.24 158.98 174.87 183.62 189.13

Sales Growth (%) 34% 23% 20% 26% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 3%

COGS excluding D&A 15.43 16.96 20.13 25.06 30.41 37.71 46.79 58.04 72.04 85.71 97.80 106.73 111.18 113.60

D & A Expense 0.62 0.65 0.74 0.81 0.98 1.21 1.51 1.87 2.32 2.76 3.15 3.44 3.58 3.66

Gross Income 4.34 7.41 9.14 11.88 15.79 20.05 25.44 32.26 40.84 49.77 58.03 64.70 68.86 71.87

Gross Margin (%) 21.3% 29.6% 30.5% 31.5% 33.5% 34.0% 34.5% 35.0% 35.5% 36.0% 36.5% 37.0% 37.5% 38.0%

SG&A Expense 5.06 7.66 9.01 11.32 14.16 17.69 22.12 27.65 34.56 41.47 47.69 52.46 55.09 56.74

EBIT (Operating Income) (0.72) (0.25) 0.14 0.56 1.64 2.36 3.32 4.61 6.28 8.29 10.33 12.24 13.77 15.13

EBIT Margin (%) -3.6% -1.0% 0.5% 1.5% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0%

EBITDA (0.11) 0.40 0.87 1.36 2.62 3.57 4.82 6.48 8.60 11.05 13.48 15.68 17.35 18.79

Interest on Credit Line 0.21 0.26 0.33 0.41 0.52 0.65 0.81 0.97 1.11 1.22 1.29 1.32

Interest on New LT debt

0.00 0.00 0.40 0.63 0.84 1.17 1.54 1.74 1.67 1.24 0.36 0.54

interest on Term Loan

0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

Interest on Capital Leases 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20

Interest Expense 0.59 0.69 0.66 0.66 1.13 1.41 1.75 2.29 2.84 3.18 3.24 2.90 2.07 2.27

EBT (1.31) (0.94) (0.52) (0.10) 0.51 0.95 1.57 2.32 3.44 5.11 7.09 9.34 11.70 12.86

Tax Expense 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.17) (0.32) (0.53) (0.79) (1.17) (1.74) (2.41) (3.18) (3.99) (4.40)

Offset from Carried Loss

0.17 0.32 0.53

Average Tax Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.1% 34.2%

Consolidated Net Income (1.31) (0.94) (0.52) (0.10) 0.51 0.95 1.57 1.53 2.27 3.38 4.68 6.17 7.70 8.46

Net Margin (%) -6.4% -3.8% -1.8% -0.3% 1.1% 1.6% 2.1% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% 3.5% 4.2% 4.5%

Preferred Dividends 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Net Income Available To Common

Equity (1.38) (1.01) (0.57) (0.05) 0.47 0.90 1.53 1.49 2.22 3.33 4.64 6.12 7.66 8.41

Retained Earnings (0.05) 0.47 0.90 1.53 1.49 2.22 3.33 4.64 6.12 7.66



13

Appendix 3: Statement of Cash Flows

Statements of Cash Flows 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Net Profit (0.30) 0.50 0.92 1.53 1.50 2.23 3.32 4.62 6.09 7.62 8.37

D&A 0.81 0.98 1.21 1.51 1.87 2.32 2.76 3.15 3.44 3.58 3.66

Changes Receivables (0.51) (0.62) (0.77) (0.96) (1.20) (1.50) (1.50) (1.35) (1.04) (0.57) (0.36)

Changes Inventories (1.49) (1.82) (2.28) (2.85) (3.56) (4.45) (4.45) (4.00) (3.07) (1.69) (1.06)

Changes Other Current Assets (0.11) (0.13) (0.16) (0.20) (0.25) (0.31) (0.31) (0.28) (0.22) (0.12) (0.08)

Changes Current Liabilities 1.76 2.10 2.61 3.30 4.19 5.16 5.11 4.60 3.52 1.93 1.21

Changes in NWC (0.35) (0.47) (0.60) (0.71) (0.82) (1.11) (1.16) (1.04) (0.80) (0.45) (0.29)

Cash Flows From Operations 0.16 1.01 1.53 2.32 2.54 3.44 4.93 6.73 8.73 10.75 11.75

CAPEX -1.54 -2.02 -2.51 -3.13 -3.90 -4.85 -5.29 -5.43 -5.19 -4.54 -4.26

Cash Flows From Investments -1.54 -2.02 -2.51 -3.13 -3.90 -4.85 -5.29 -5.43 -5.19 -4.54 -4.26

Net Debt 1.40 1.42 1.48 1.42 2.11 2.35 1.30 -0.45 -2.88 -5.83 1.10

Dividends Paid 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Cash Flows From Financing 1.35 1.37 1.44 1.37 2.07 2.31 1.26 -0.50 -2.93 -5.87 1.06

Net Change in Cash (0.02) 0.36 0.46 0.57 0.71 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.61 0.34 8.54

Beginning Cash

1.46 1.82 2.28 2.85 3.56 4.45 5.34 6.15 6.76 7.10

End Cash 1.46 1.82 2.28 2.85 3.56 4.45 5.34 6.15 6.76 7.10



14

Appendix 4: Key Financial Ratios

Key Financial Ratios 2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

Liquidity Ratios

Current Ratio (x) 1.35 1.44 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38

Quick Ratio (x) 0.49 0.43 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

Cash Ratio (x) 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Efficiency Ratios

Tota l Asset Turnover (x) 1.71 1.87 2.17 2.23 2.25 2.28 2.30 2.31 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.35

Fixed Asset Turnover (x) 5.58 7.13 8.77 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09 9.09

NWC Turnover (x) 11.07 9.40 13.16 12.90 12.56 12.25 12.09 12.07 11.96 11.83 11.75 11.70 11.68 11.66

Receivables Turnover (x) 18.78 17.07 16.72 17.06 17.01 17.01 17.01 17.01 17.01 16.70 16.38 16.04 15.68 15.54

Days i f Sales Outstanding (days) 19.44 21.38 21.83 21.40 21.46 21.46 21.46 21.46 21.46 21.85 22.29 22.76 23.27 23.49

Inventory Turnover (x) 4.31 3.30 3.51 3.96 3.83 3.80 3.77 3.74 3.72 3.62 3.52 3.42 3.32 3.26

Days of Inventory On Hand (days) 84.65 110.49 104.01 92.24 95.28 96.04 96.77 97.52 98.20 100.87 103.68 106.71 110.00 111.94

Payables Turnover (x) 8.20 7.18 7.10 7.19 6.96 6.91 6.86 6.81 6.77 6.53 6.29 6.04 5.78 5.65

Number of Days of Payables (days) 44.49 50.80 51.41 50.75 52.41 52.81 53.19 53.58 53.93 55.90 58.04 60.43 63.10 64.57

Cash Conversion Cycle (days) 59.59 81.06 74.43 62.88 64.32 64.69 65.04 65.40 65.72 66.83 67.92 69.04 70.18 70.87

Profitability Ratios

Gross Profit Margin (%) 21.28% 29.60% 30.47% 31.47% 33.47% 34.00% 34.50% 35.00% 35.45% 36.00% 36.50% 37.00% 37.50% 38.00%

EBIT Margin (%) -3.55% -1.00% 0.45% 1.47% 3.47% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% 5.45% 6.00% 6.50% 7.00% 7.50% 8.00%

EBITDA Margin (%) -0.53% 1.61% 2.91% 3.61% 5.55% 6.06% 6.54% 7.03% 7.46% 8.00% 8.48% 8.97% 9.45% 9.93%

Net Profi t Margin (%) -6.43% -3.76% -1.75% -0.79% 1.05% 1.56% 2.08% 1.62% 1.93% 2.40% 2.91% 3.48% 4.15% 4.43%

ROA (%) -11.02% -7.04% -3.79% -1.76% 2.37% 3.55% 4.77% 3.76% 4.49% 5.61% 6.80% 8.16% 9.73% 10.39%

ROE (%) -31.64% -21.9% -12.8% -7.34% 11.02% 17.08% 22.31% 18.00% 21.20% 24.12% 25.17% 24.96% 23.83% 26.19%

SG&A/Sale (%) 24.83% 30.60% 30.02% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00%

Solvency Ratios

Debt Ratio (%) 38.77% 47.53% 43.89% 48.79% 50.81% 51.27% 50.42% 50.75% 50.28% 48.11% 44.29% 38.57% 30.41% 31.57%

Debt to Equity Ratio (x) 1.11 1.48 1.48 2.04 2.36 2.47 2.36 2.43 2.37 2.07 1.64 1.18 0.74 0.80

Equity Multiplier (x) 2.87 3.11 3.37 4.18 4.64 4.81 4.67 4.79 4.72 4.30 3.70 3.06 2.45 2.52

Long term Debt Ratio (%) 20.27% 22.31% 19.57% 24.20% 26.38% 27.04% 26.24% 26.44% 26.01% 23.96% 20.22% 14.55% 6.42% 7.60%

Interest Coverage Ratio (x) -1.24 -0.36 0.21 0.65 1.43 1.64 1.86 1.97 2.16 2.55 3.10 4.07 6.25 6.30



15

Appendix 5: DCF Valuation

FREE CASH FLOW EQUITY 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

NET INCOME -0.05 0.50 0.92 1.53 1.50 2.23 3.32 4.62 6.09 7.62 8.37

P Dividend 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Net Capex 0.73 1.04 1.30 1.62 2.03 2.53 2.53 2.28 1.75 0.96 0.61

Changes In NWC -0.35 -0.47 -0.60 -0.71 -0.82 -1.11 -1.16 -1.04 -0.80 -0.45 -0.29

Net Debt 0.08 2.63 1.41 1.34 2.03 2.27 1.21 -0.56 -3.00 -5.96 1.10

Debt Ratio 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.72 0.66 0.58 0.59

FCFE -0.45 0.06 0.39 0.88 0.71 1.22 2.22 3.49 5.05 6.93 7.96

Terminal Value

176.38

Total FCFE -0.18 0.33 0.73 1.29 1.20 1.88 2.96 4.24 5.74 183.75 Equity Value 106.42 114.24

Number of shares 13.50 13.50

Share Price $7.88 $8.46

Model Returns

2014 Price 8.46

Jan 28 2014 Price 7.19

Potential Upside 18%

Net CAPEX = CAPEX - Depreciation

Net Debt = New Debt Issued – Debt Paid

Source: Team Estimates, FactSet, Damodaran Market Risk Premiums

CAPM

Risk Free 3.04% 10 Year Treasury Note 12/31/2013

Market Premium 4.96% 2014 Estimate

Beta 0.93 FactSet Estimate

Cost of Equity 7.65%


16

Appendix 6: Multiples Valuation

Price/Sales 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 E

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 0.72x 1.31x 1.51x 1.48x 1.56x 1.66x 1.63x

Monster Beverage Corporation 3.16x 3.18x 3.73x 5.05x 4.69x 5.41x 5.10x

PepsiCo, Inc. 2.03x 2.22x 1.82x 1.59x 1.65x 1.95x 1.91x

The Coca-Cola Company 3.31x 4.27x 4.37x 3.48x 3.46x 3.94x 3.86x

Average 2.31x 2.74x 2.86x 2.90x 2.84x 3.24x 3.12x

Reed's, Inc. 0.64x 0.87x 1.00x 0.48x 2.15x 3.04x Discount 72.26% 68.28% 64.84% 83.49% 24.29% 6.33% Discount Average 72.22% 15.31%

Price/Sales 2014E

P/S Peers Median 3.12

Applied discount 25%

Target P/S 2.34

Sales (millions) $47.19

# of shares outstanding (millions) 13.5

Price from P/S $8.19

Additional Explanations

For 2013, our multiples were based off of year end 2013 market cap divided by the sum of YTD Q3 revenues and Q4 revenues of 2012. We did this because 2013 Q4 earnings reports have not come out yet for REED or its peers. However, we do not anticipate that this will be an issue as we assume that the multiples will not change very much after Q4 earnings reports come out.

Appendix 7: Weighting of Valuations

Weighting of DCF and Multiples

Price from Relative Valuation $8.19

Weight of Relative Valuation 50%

Price from DCF $8.46

Weight of DCF 50%

Price per share (end of 2014) $8.33

Price per share (January 28, 2014) $7.19

Potential Upside 15.86%

Source: Team Estimates. FactSet


17

Appendix 8: Intermediate Sales Growth/Cost of Capital Sensitivity Analysis

10% Below Jan 28 Price Above Jan 28 Price 20% Above Jan 28 Price

Cost Of Capital

12.96% 11.97% 10.98% 9.98% 8.99% 8.00% 7.65% 7.26% 6.76% 6.51% 6.02% Intermediate 40% $ 5.89 $ 6.78 $ 7.90 $ 9.36 $ 11.32 $ 14.10 $ 15.36 $ 17.06 $ 19.70 $ 21.30 $ 25.31 Term 30% $ 3.99 $ 4.60 $ 5.36 $ 6.35 $ 7.69 $ 9.58 $ 10.43 $ 11.59 $ 13.38 $ 14.47 $ 17.20 Growth 25% $ 3.23 $ 3.72 $ 4.33 $ 5.14 $ 6.23 $ 7.76 $ 8.46 $ 9.39 $ 10.85 $ 11.74 $ 13.95 (2014-2018) 23% $ 2.95 $ 3.40 $ 3.96 $ 4.70 $ 5.70 $ 7.10 $ 7.74 $ 8.60 $ 9.94 $ 10.75 $ 12.78

22% $ 2.82 $ 3.24 $ 3.79 $ 4.49 $ 5.44 $ 6.79 $ 7.40 $ 8.22 $ 9.50 $ 10.27 $ 12.22

20% $ 2.56 $ 2.95 $ 3.45 $ 4.09 $ 4.96 $ 6.19 $ 6.75 $ 7.50 $ 8.67 $ 9.37 $ 11.15

19% $ 2.44 $ 2.81 $ 3.29 $ 3.90 $ 4.73 $ 5.90 $ 6.43 $ 7.15 $ 8.27 $ 8.94 $ 10.64

18% $ 2.32 $ 2.68 $ 3.13 $ 3.71 $ 4.50 $ 5.62 $ 6.13 $ 6.81 $ 7.88 $ 8.52 $ 10.14

15% $ 1.99 $ 2.30 $ 2.68 $ 3.19 $ 3.87 $ 4.84 $ 5.27 $ 5.87 $ 6.78 $ 7.34 $ 8.74

10% $ 1.50 $ 1.74 $ 2.03 $ 2.42 $ 2.95 $ 3.69 $ 4.03 $ 4.49 $ 5.19 $ 5.62 $ 6.70

5% $ 1.09 $ 1.26 $ 1.49 $ 1.78 $ 2.17 $ 2.73 $ 2.99 $ 3.33 $ 3.86 $ 4.19 $ 5.00

3% $ 0.94 $ 1.10 $ 1.29 $ 1.55 $ 1.90 $ 2.39 $ 2.62 $ 2.92 $ 3.39 $ 3.68 $ 4.40

This chart represents 2014E prices with a range of estimates of Intermediate Term Growth and a range of estimates of for Cost of Capital.



18

Appendix 9: Long-Term Growth Rate/Long-Term Cost of Capital Sensitivity Analysis


Long Term Cost of Capital

12.96% 11.97% 10.98% 9.98% 8.99% 8.00% 7.65% 7.26% 6.76% 6.51% 6.02%

Long 5% $ 5.49 $ 6.10 $ 6.91 $ 8.05 $ 9.74 $ 12.56 $ 14.05 $ 16.30 $ 20.56 $ 23.73 $ 34.72 Term 4.50% $ 5.23 $ 5.76 $ 6.46 $ 7.41 $ 8.78 $ 10.92 $ 11.99 $ 13.54 $ 16.24 $ 18.09 $ 23.61 Growth 4% $ 5.00 $ 5.47 $ 6.07 $ 6.88 $ 8.00 $ 9.68 $ 10.49 $ 11.62 $ 13.49 $ 14.70 $ 18.01 Rate 3.75% $ 4.89 $ 5.33 $ 5.90 $ 6.64 $ 7.67 $ 9.17 $ 9.88 $ 10.86 $ 12.45 $ 13.46 $ 16.14

3.50% $ 4.79 $ 5.21 $ 5.74 $ 6.43 $ 7.37 $ 8.72 $ 9.35 $ 10.21 $ 11.58 $ 12.43 $ 14.64

3.25% $ 4.69 $ 5.09 $ 5.58 $ 6.23 $ 7.09 $ 8.32 $ 8.88 $ 9.64 $ 10.83 $ 11.56 $ 13.41

3% $ 4.60 $ 4.97 $ 5.44 $ 6.04 $ 6.84 $ 7.95 $ 8.46 $ 9.13 $ 10.18 $ 10.81 $ 12.39

2.75% $ 4.51 $ 4.87 $ 5.31 $ 5.87 $ 6.61 $ 7.63 $ 8.08 $ 8.68 $ 9.61 $ 10.16 $ 11.52

2.50% $ 4.43 $ 4.77 $ 5.18 $ 5.71 $ 6.39 $ 7.33 $ 7.74 $ 8.28 $ 9.10 $ 9.59 $ 10.77

2.25% $ 4.35 $ 4.67 $ 5.06 $ 5.56 $ 6.19 $ 7.05 $ 7.43 $ 7.92 $ 8.66 $ 9.09 $ 10.13

2% $ 4.27 $ 4.58 $ 4.95 $ 5.41 $ 6.01 $ 6.80 $ 7.15 $ 7.59 $ 8.26 $ 8.64 $ 9.56

1.50% $ 4.13 $ 4.41 $ 4.74 $ 5.16 $ 5.68 $ 6.36 $ 6.65 $ 7.02 $ 7.57 $ 7.89 $ 8.62

1% $ 4.00 $ 4.26 $ 4.56 $ 4.93 $ 5.39 $ 5.98 $ 6.23 $ 6.55 $ 7.00 $ 7.27 $ 7.86

This chart represents 2014E prices with different estimates for Long Term Growth rates along with different estimates for cos t of capital in the terminal scenario.



19

Appendix 10: Intermediate Term Growth/Long-Term Growth Sensitivity Analysis


Long Term Growth

5% 4.50% 4% 3.75% 3.50% 3.25% 3% 2.75% 2.50% 2.25% 2% 1.50% 1%

40% $ 25.47 $ 21.74 $ 19.04 $ 17.95 $ 16.98 $ 16.13 $ 15.37 $ 14.69 $ 14.07 $ 13.51 $ 13.01 $ 12.11 $ 11.35

Intermediate 30% $ 17.31 $ 14.77 $ 12.93 $ 12.19 $ 11.54 $ 10.96 $ 10.44 $ 9.98 $ 9.56 $ 9.18 $ 8.83 $ 8.22 $ 7.70 Term 25% $ 14.06 $ 11.99 $ 10.49 $ 9.89 $ 9.36 $ 8.88 $ 8.46 $ 8.08 $ 7.74 $ 7.43 $ 7.15 $ 6.65 $ 6.23

Growth 23% $ 12.88 $ 10.99 $ 9.61 $ 9.05 $ 8.56 $ 8.13 $ 7.74 $ 7.40 $ 7.08 $ 6.80 $ 6.54 $ 6.09 $ 5.70 2014-2018 22% $ 12.32 $ 10.50 $ 9.19 $ 8.66 $ 8.19 $ 7.77 $ 7.40 $ 7.07 $ 6.77 $ 6.50 $ 6.25 $ 5.81 $ 5.44

20% $ 11.25 $ 9.59 $ 8.38 $ 7.90 $ 7.47 $ 7.09 $ 6.75 $ 6.45 $ 6.17 $ 5.92 $ 5.70 $ 5.30 $ 4.96

19% $ 10.73 $ 9.15 $ 8.00 $ 7.53 $ 7.12 $ 6.76 $ 6.44 $ 6.15 $ 5.89 $ 5.65 $ 5.43 $ 5.05 $ 4.73

18% $ 10.23 $ 8.72 $ 7.62 $ 7.18 $ 6.79 $ 6.44 $ 6.13 $ 5.86 $ 5.61 $ 5.38 $ 5.17 $ 4.81 $ 4.50

15% $ 8.83 $ 7.52 $ 6.57 $ 6.18 $ 5.85 $ 5.55 $ 5.28 $ 5.04 $ 4.82 $ 4.63 $ 4.45 $ 4.13 $ 3.86

10% $ 6.78 $ 5.77 $ 5.03 $ 4.73 $ 4.47 $ 4.24 $ 4.03 $ 3.85 $ 3.68 $ 3.53 $ 3.39 $ 3.14 $ 2.94

5% $ 5.07 $ 4.30 $ 3.74 $ 3.52 $ 3.32 $ 3.14 $ 2.99 $ 2.85 $ 2.72 $ 2.60 $ 2.50 $ 2.31 $ 2.16

3% $ 4.47 $ 3.79 $ 3.29 $ 3.09 $ 2.91 $ 2.76 $ 2.62 $ 2.49 $ 2.38 $ 2.28 $ 2.19 $ 2.02 $ 1.88

This chart represents 2014E prices for different estimates of long and intermediate term sales growth.



20

Appendix 11: Capital Lease/Term Loan Payment Schedules

Capital Lease Payment Schedule

Term Loan Payment Schedule

Year Year End Balance Payment

Year Balance Payment

2012 2,874,000

2012 575,000

2013 2,784,000 90,000

2013 399,000 176,000

2014 2,673,000 111,000

2014 195,000 204,000

2015 2,539,000 134,000

2015 0 195,000

2016 2,378,000 161,000 2017 2,188,000 190,000 2018 1,971,388 216,612

2019 1,776,221 195,167 2020 1,600,375 175,846 2021 1,441,938 158,437 2022 1,299,186 142,752 2023 1,170,566 128,619



21

Appendix 12: REED Porter Five Forces Analysis

Barriers to Entry: Low-Medium

● Anyone may create new soft drinks as the only limitation is in patented flavors and brands

● Existing firms with large capital expenditures have economies of scale, direct supply and distribution channels set up ● Barriers are low with no consumer switching costs and zero capital requirements ● Prices are competitive and fluctuate slightly depending on location

● Major players have flavor identities giving them more recognition ● Major brands have positioned themselves in the main distribution channels including super markets, gas stations and restaurants ● Licenses, insurances, and FDA approval are required to produce and distribute products and cover potential lawsuits

● Existing firms have cost and performance advantage and are able experience economies of scale ● Bottling, distribution, and storage can be contracted out

Intensity of Rivalry: High

● Costs for warehouse, trucks and labor may be substantial fixed costs

● Exiting the market may result in huge losses due to binding contracts, fixed costs and marketing costs

● Many beverage firms exists and are rolling out innovative products with trendy flavors ● Greater development and use of natural ingredients for health benefits

● Firms are focused on expanding their beverage portfolios

● Natural premium is growing and major firms have significant market share in CSDs, ready-to-drink teas, and energy drinks

● Equipment is firm specific and may be difficult to liquidate

● Customers would not incur high costs from switching from one player to another

● No need for significant customer-producer interaction since purchase products depend on tastes

● Market is a differentiated product oligopoly in promotional pricing and new brands

● Existence of well established distribution channels, relationships with suppliers, retailers, and brand value to customers

● Market shares in the industry are not more-or-less equally distributed among competitors. This is evident because there are three main firms that own approximately 87% of the industry, yet there are over 100 companies in the industry.

Threat of Substitutes: High

● Substitutes do not have performance limitations or high prices

● Substitutes are not priced at a high enough cost where it would affect their use as a mainland product ● Customers would not incur costs in switching to substitutes as switching for a customer would be difference of cents. ● Substitutes such as water, ready-to-drink tea and coffee, sports drinks, and energy drinks exist

● Consumers are brand name loyal as they have consumed certain beverages as long as they can remember ● Players have a wide portfolio of products for consumers to choose from

Bargaining Power of Buyers: High

● Soft drink market is the largest accounting for an annual sales of $60 billion ● Three firms control 89% of the United States soft drink sales

● Average American consumes over 56 gallons of soda a year ● Average soft drink costs under $2 which makes each individual purchase relatively immaterial ● All information such as nutrition facts and ingredients are listed on the label

● Manufacturing own soft drink is inconvenient considering how inexpensive the product is ● Customers are highly sensitive to the price of soft drinks and are willing to change brands if one becomes more costly ● Major players have developed significant brand loyalty

● Firms provide incentives to customers such as contests and admission discounts to theme parks enticing customers to choose a specific brand

Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Low

● Inputs used to create products may by unique and extremely differentiated such as in formula, color, and flavor ● Product innovation is needed to satisfy consumer’s need for a variety of taste

● Firms can switch between suppliers very quickly and easily ● Suppliers to the industry are bottling equipment manufacturers and secondary packaging suppliers ● Surplus of suppliers exists that can provide same products ● Firms have power to select suppliers that do the best job at the best price

● Soft drink companies own a portion of their own supply companies enabling easy access to enter the supplier for the soft drink industry

● Suppliers main revenue come from delivering soft drink beverages and equipment for the firms directly to customers

● Soft drink main ingredients include carbonated water, spices, roots to name a few ● Suppliers are not concentrated or differentiated


22

Porter's Five Forces Analysis Rating

Barriers to Entry: Low-Medium 2

Intensity of Rivalry: High 5

Threat of Substitutes: High 5

Bargaining Power of Buyers: High 5

Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Low 1

Final Rating: 3.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

Barriers to Entry: Low-

Medium

Intensity of Rivalry: High

Threat of Substitutes: HighBargaining Power of

Buyers: High

Bargaining Power of

Suppliers: Low

Porter's Five Forces Analysis

Scale Rating

High 5

Medium-High 4

Medium 3

Low-Medium 2

Low 1


23

Appendix 13: Industry Five Forces Analysis

012345

Buyer Power

Supplier Power

SubstituteNew Entrants

Degree of Rivalry

Force Driving Competition in the Functional Drinks Market in the U.S., 2011

012345

Backwards integration

Buyer independence

Buyer size

Financial muscle

Low Cost switchingOligosony threat

Price sensitivity

Product dispensability

Tendy to switch

Drivers of Buyer Power in the Functional Drinks Market in the U.S., 2011

012345

Differentiated input

Forward integration

No substitute inputs

Oligopoly threatPlayer dispensability

Player independence

Supplier size

Switching costs

Drivers of Supplier Power in the Functional Drinks Market in the U.S., 2011


24


012345

Undifferentiated…

Weak brands

Distribution accessible

Little IP involved

Little regulationLow fixed costs

Low cost switching

Market Growth

Scale unimportant

Suppliers acessbile

Factors Influencing the Likelihood of New Entrants in the Functional Drinks Market

in the U.S., 2011

0

1

2

3

4

5Zero sum game

Competitor size

Easy to expand

Hard to exit

Lack of diversity

Low cost switchingLow fixed costs

Number of players

Similarity of players

Storage costs

Undifferentiatedproduct

Drivers of Degree of Rivalry in the Functional Drinks Market in the U.S., 2011

012345

Low cost switching

Beneficial alternativeCheap alternative

Factors Influencing the Threat of Substitutes in the Functional Drinks

Market in the U.S., 2011


25

APPENDIX 14: Price to Sales Multiple vs. Peer Group

Source: FactSet

0.00x

1.00x

2.00x

3.00x

4.00x

5.00x

6.00x

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 E

Competitor: Price to Sales Multiplier

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. Monster Beverage Corporation PepsiCo, Inc.

The Coca-Cola Company Reed's, Inc. Average


26

APPENDIX 15: DuPont Analysis

Source: FactSet, Team Estimate

DuPont Analysis 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E

Equity Multiplier 1.39 2.30 2.28 2.87 3.11 3.37 4.18 4.64 4.81 4.67 4.79 4.72 4.30 3.70 3.06 2.45 2.52

Profit Margin -42.5% -25.0% -16.9% -6.4% -3.8% -1.7% -0.8% 1.1% 1.6% 2.1% 1.6% 1.9% 2.4% 2.9% 3.5% 4.1% 4.4%

TAT 1.29 1.68 1.52 1.71 1.87 2.17 2.23 2.25 2.28 2.30 2.31 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.35

RO A -55.0% -41.9% -25.6% -11.0% -7.0% -3.8% -1.8% 2.4% 3.6% 4.8% 3.8% 4.5% 5.6% 6.8% 8.2% 9.7% 10.4%

RO E -76.7% -96.3% -58.6% -31.6% -21.9% -12.8% -7.3% 11.0% 17.1% 22.3% 18.0% 21.2% 24.1% 25.2% 25.0% 23.8% 26.2%


27

DuPont Analysis Cont.


Return On Equity

-7.3% 11.0% 17.1%

22.3% 18.0% 21.2%

24.1% 25.2% 25.0%

23.8% 26.2%

Return On Assets

-1.8% 2.4% 3.6%

7.8% 3.8% 4.5%

5.6% 6.8% 8.2%

9.7% 10.4%

Profit Margin

-0.8% 1.1% 1.6%

2.1% 1.6% 1.9%

2.4% 2.9% 3.5%

4.1% 4.4%

Asset Turnover

2.23 2.25 2.28

2.30 2.31 2.33

2.33 2.34 2.34

2.34 2.35

Equity Multiplier

4.8 4.64 4.81

4.67 4.79 4.72

4.30 3.70 3.06

2.45 2.52

Legend (Years)

'13 '14 '15

'16 '17 '18

'19 '20 '21 '22 '23


28

APPENDIX 16: Margin & Sales Forecasts

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

An

nu

al S

ale

s G

row

th

Sales Growth

Actual

Forecast

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Gro

ss M

arg

in

Gross Margin

Actual

Forecast


29


-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

Op

era

tin

g M

arg

in

Operating Margin

Actual

Forecast

-50.0%

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

Net

Ma

rgin

Net Margin

Actual

Forecast

reed report final final draft for regional

Economy & Finance